STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

halleybird · Hermes

Senate approves immigration bill

relrel · Marc Jacobs

i think im pretty happy with the way this turned out. i say think because i haven't really read enough of the bill and what it all means. but there are a couple of key pieces that im cool with. for instance...the part about sheltering the aid organizations from prosecution is awesome.

this is something that we've talked and talked about in my classes, documented and undocumented immigrants and what happens to them in the health care system. i think this bill will make it easier/less scary for undocumented workers to get healthcare just because the bill seems to make it not as "im gonna get you and kick you out of my country" type of atmosphere. the bill seems to be finally recognizing the huge amount of work that immigrants, again undocumented and documented, do for this country. honestly, without immigrants...this country would more than likely come to a crashing halt. no fruits or veggies, no taxi cabs, no cleaners of any sort, no dishwashers...all very stereotypical immigrant jobs but all completely necessary as well.

Aurora · Marc Jacobs

I dunno. This is a tough issue. I guess my only thing is why can't the illegal immigrants do it the right way? Do they have to sneak in illegally? I know the process is long but still. So many other people apply and wait and come when they are allowed to come that it is kind of a slap in the face to them to let all these illegals in and let them apply for citizenship without having to go back first.

-- Edited by Aurora at 22:03, 2006-03-27

relrel · Marc Jacobs

Aurora wrote:

I dunno. This is a tough issue. I guess my only thing is why can't immigrants do it the right way? Do they have to sneak in illegally? I know the process is long but still. So many other people apply and wait and come when they are allowed to come that it is kind of a slap in the face to them to let all these illegals in and let them apply for citizenship without having to go back first.

this is sorta where i get stuck too. i guess ill never know what its like to live in a country where there just aren't oppurtunities open to me so i can't understand it. i do know that talking to certain organizations that actually getting a visa to come here is way freaking tough in some countries. that basically you need to cross your fingers and pray to high freaking heaven that the person stamping your papers is in a good mood. i do get what you're saying about the slap in the face though. i mean...is this only gonna make undocumented immigrants want to come here even more?

and besides all that junk, did the bill even mention anything about asylum seekers? this is where i have such huge problems with immigration requirement type stuff. it's so hard to get in to the united states on a legal visa...and then you are gonna stress out some poor persecuted person and make it just as hard to "get in"? i don't know. immigration stuff confuses me.

blink · Coach

I don't have a strong opinion on this because when I look at both sides I just can't visualize how it will get better, but I do think immigration reform is needed badly.

One thing though, I don't like the tired old statement (Bush said it also) that they take "jobs Americans don't want." I say BS, if those formerly "blue collar" jobs paid decent wages where someone could actually get benefits and say, afford a home and a family, Americans would SO take those jobs back from immigrants. Obviously it's really complicated, but I believe that the blame lies with businesses, not with the immigrants just trying to survive and find a better life for their families. I think it's also sad that big business has become so dependent on the low cost of immigrant labor, even with legal immigrants....so at least the businesses should, in my opinion, be punished for employing illegals. I don't know enough to come up with the answers to this, it is definitely continuing to hurt lower and middle class American workers.

Aurora · Marc Jacobs

lorelei wrote:

One thing though, I don't like the tired old statement (Bush said it also) that they take "jobs Americans don't want."

I understand your thinking but I don't completely agree. There are decent paying jobs out there but some Americans out there (all colors) just won't go work because its easier to sit back and collect welfare or unemployment. I had to watch a dateline show at a middle school of at risk students back in January and this was the attitude of most of the people interviewed on dateline (why they were showing this to these kids I don't know but that is another story for another day). They would rather sit back and collect welfare or do something like sling drugs/prostitute themselves out instead of working a minimum wage job and moving their way up into a better position.

I know this isn't true of all parts of the country but back home places like mcdonald's and burger king are offering $5000 signing bonus and triple minimum wage to get people to work there (this is south louisiana) and companies are paying upwards of $18/hour to paint businesses and perform other rebuilding work and people just won't go because they like collecting the free money and living in a hotel instead of the new FEMA homes that are set up all over the state including near the jobs. The illegals are the only ones that are going and are willing to do the work.

honey · Gucci

Aurora wrote:

I dunno. This is a tough issue. I guess my only thing is why can't the illegal immigrants do it the right way? Do they have to sneak in illegally? I know the process is long but still. So many other people apply and wait and come when they are allowed to come that it is kind of a slap in the face to them to let all these illegals in and let them apply for citizenship without having to go back first. -- Edited by Aurora at 22:03, 2006-03-27

so the first thing i thought when i read the article was damn, this totally means more work for me...good thing i'm quitting soon.

aurora -- n/s if this will totally answer your question but here is some insight. essentially it's virtually impossible to be abroad and apply for legal status in this country. the two major ways to emigrate legally are via employment and marriage, and essentially both of these require that you be in the country first. asylum is an option, but it's really hard. again you pretty much have to already be here and gone through unspeakable hardship to be eligible.

i don't really deal much with marriage cases. but my experience with employment based immigration is that most people who go that route came here for school, and then found a job that was willing to sponsor them. this pretty much excludes a large portion of the people who would "benefit" (from the purely idealistic sense of emigrating to seek a better life for yourself) from immigration b/c you're only eligible for financial aid if you're a citizen, or a permanent resident (again meaning you're already here and applying). so you pretty much have to come from a well-to-do family or be phenomenal, in the most literal sense, to simply eligible to go to school in the states. (interestingly enough this is something i kind of agree with, and if they really want to reform the immigration process they should take a hard look at this aspect of it.)

finding a job that will sponsor you is more difficult than it appears. outside of the lengthy time committment the company has to make, the fees are astronomical. most people in school get h visas (temporary visas for specialty occupations) and the fee you pay to the government is around $3k every time you apply. h's are good for 6 years max, so it's at least a $6k committment on the part of the company. while this is not really a problem for large international companies, if you want to come here and be an architect or work in some other profession that's more localized it's really difficult to find an employer willing to do this for you.

the other thing that often gets overlooked is the fact that we have quotas, which is highly prejudicial. each year only a certain number of people from each country can get a green card. long story short, even if you go through all the legal procedures get a temp. work visa and then apply for a green card for the most part you're still s.o.l. the quotas for people from china, india, the philippines, and mexico are *always* backed up at least a couple of years. right now the quota for people from everywhere else is backed up to may 2001. which means that you can't get a greencard unless your case this was filed almost 5 years ago. the worst part is that this is just for people who have degrees, or at the very least work in professions where a degree is required. it gets even worse if you're just a john doe who came here without a plan, and just wanted a better life.

while i can't give exact numbers, i would guess that a large portion of the people who are here illegally, actually entered legally. a lot of what i see at work is people who came here on a visitor visa, and just overstay, making their current status that of someone who is illegal, but it's not like they snuck in. (well in so many words).

additionally, when they say amnesty, it's not like a free pass. the tricky thing with being illegal is that even if you find a legal way to go through the system, what often happens is that you're required to exit the u.s. and re-enter. consulates issue visas, and visas to come to the u.s. are issued by our consulates in foreign countries. the problem is that if you've overstayed your initial visa you're subject to a 10 year bar. so there's no real incentive to go through the legal channels b/c even if you do. you still have to leave and then wait 10 years to be eligible for a visa again.

the gov. granted amnesty in 2001, and essentially what it meant was that you weren't subject to the re-entry bar. they'll probably do the same thing again, which means that all the current illegal immigrants will still need to find a legal way to get a green card, they just won't have to exit & re-enter.

sorry for the lengthy post, but i just wanted to provide some context.

-- Edited by honey at 23:28, 2006-03-27

Aurora · Marc Jacobs

Thanks for the insight Honey. I guess the process is long and hard and there are so many aspects you don't know about unless you are an immigrant or work with them like you. My college had a large international population that came from all over and they did offer aid and helped them find jobs who would sponsor them so I never thought that maybe they weren't the best people to look at in the perspective of who immigration benefits and who it doesn't and how to do it properly.

ayo · Coach

Yup exactly what honey said (very well put)

It's difficult and while I don't agree with illegal immigration I can certainly understand and empathize. I've heard so many stories of people back home that have Master's and Phd's and can not find a job. The system here is easy, if you work hard you can make something of yourself. People recognize that and flock here as a result.

DC Shopper · Dooney & Bourke

quote from honey: aurora -- n/s if this will totally answer your question but here is some insight. essentially it's virtually impossible to be abroad and apply for legal status in this country. the two major ways to emigrate legally are via employment and marriage, and essentially both of these require that you be in the country first.

Just want to clarify this - there are certain qualifications you have to meet to get an immigrant visa, but if you are qualified, it's not impossible at all. There are actually several different kinds of immigrant visas, including through marriage to a US citizen, and through employment (of many different kinds, not just at big companies), but there are also fiance visas, adopted child visas, or immigration through a spouse, mother, father, or child who is a US citizen, (or even a family member who is a legal permanent resident) - as well as through a brother or sister who is a legal permanent resident or citizen. none of these visas require that you have previous travel to the US. And the bar for re applying for a visa when you've overstayed on a tourist visa is actually 3 years if you overstayed by a year or less, 10 years if you overstayed longer than a year. Which i think is fair, given that they should know better than to stay longer than permitted in a foreign country.

on a different note, my personal opinion on the current immigration debate (not that anyone asked, but just for the sake of expressing an opinion): I can understand both sides of the immigration debate but I do think it's unfair to legalize the illegal immigrants already in the US. I don't really think that is an unfair bar, either. us citizenship is a very valuable commodity these days and there are people who have been waiting for years to get their turn to even interview for a visa. i do have more sympathy for refugees/asylum seekers, but there is some of abuse of that system as well. actually there is quite a bit of abuse of the whole system, i think. the laws on the books are very flawed.

it's a tough debate because we are a nation of immigrants, many quite recent, and most of us sympathize with people who are trying to make better lives for themselves. at the same time, it doesn't make sense to have a completely open border where people see the incentive of crossing illegally because a) they won't get caught b) they don't have to "wait their turn" for a visa and c) hey, one day they might get automatic citizenship. and not to sound like a hyper-paranoid defense hawk, but there are serious security issues here that are very real.

anyway, that's my 2 cents - i know many may disagree, and that is fine

edited several times for length and clarity

-- Edited by DC Shopper at 08:23, 2006-04-12

-- Edited by DC Shopper at 08:30, 2006-04-12

honey · Gucci

DC Shopper wrote:

quote from honey: aurora -- n/s if this will totally answer your question but here is some insight. essentially it's virtually impossible to be abroad and apply for legal status in this country. the two major ways to emigrate legally are via employment and marriage, and essentially both of these require that you be in the country first. Just want to clarify this - there are certain qualifications you have to meet to get an immigrant visa, but if you are qualified, it's not impossible at all. There are actually several different kinds of immigrant visas, including through marriage to a US citizen, and through employment (of many different kinds, not just at big companies), but there are also fiance visas, adopted child visas, or immigration through a spouse, mother, father, or child who is a US citizen, (or even a family member who is a legal permanent resident) - as well as through a brother or sister who is a legal permanent resident or citizen. none of these visas require that you have previous travel to the US. And the bar for re applying for a visa when you've overstayed on a tourist visa is actually 3 years if you overstayed by a year or less, 10 years if you overstayed longer than a year. Which i think is fair, given that they should know better than to stay longer than permitted in a foreign country.

impossible is relative :) yes, no visas require previous travel to the us. however for the most part, a majority of the people who begin the permanent residency process were already in the country legally or illegally. i can't speak for all areas of immigration, but with employment based (which is my focus) it is rather rare to start a case for someone who is abroad. most of the people we work with were already in the us (usually for school) and if they weren't they are usually intercompany transferees. so this idea that you can just be hanging out in france, decide you want to become a american citizen, and then make it hapen, is not really an accurate depiction of the process.

as far as family based petitions go...yes, you can petition for a relative if you are a citizen, but again the process takes a really, really long time. as of may, the earliest quota for family based immigration 03/01/02 for the spouses & children of people who are not from china, the philippines, or mexico. this means that you have to have filed your case prior to this date to be eligible. the latest quota (i'm going to exclude people from china, mexico, & the philippines b/c the backlog is crazy) is 01/01/95 which is for the brothers/sisters, etc. of adult citizens.

i'm not going to argue about fair/unfair, but it's not nearly as simple as people like to make it seem. yes there are a number of immigrant visas available, but getting one is not easy -- not that you should come here illegally, but when we look at the issue of illegal immigration the backlog is an important part of the picture that often gets overlooked.

and again i just want to say if the gov. grants amnesty you will still have to wait your turn, and you won't get automatic citizenship. it didn't happen last time, and given the intense scrutiny concerning this issue right now, it most certainly won't happen this time. all amnesty means is that you won't have to exit and re-enter the country.

-- Edited by honey at 10:35, 2006-04-12

valenciana · Dooney & Bourke

honey - i am trying to understand all of this immigration stuff myself, and your posts are amazingly insightful and helpful - so thanks! i have a couple questions maybe you can clarify...this backlog you're talking about (where people have to have filed prior to 95/2000/01 etc.) is due to the quotas, right? it's not because the people processing stuff are just slow. so what are these quotas based on? does it vary from country to country? and asylum seekers are included in the quotas, yes?

(i'm not expressing an opinion here, cause i don't really have one, or at least not a fully informed one anyway.)

honey · Gucci

valenciana wrote:

honey - i am trying to understand all of this immigration stuff myself, and your posts are amazingly insightful and helpful - so thanks! i have a couple questions maybe you can clarify...this backlog you're talking about (where people have to have filed prior to 95/2000/01 etc.) is due to the quotas, right? it's not because the people processing stuff are just slow. so what are these quotas based on? does it vary from country to country? and asylum seekers are included in the quotas, yes? (i'm not expressing an opinion here, cause i don't really have one, or at least not a fully informed one anyway.)

this backlog you're talking about (where people have to have filed prior to 95/2000/01 etc.) is due to the quotas, right? it's not because the people processing stuff are just slow

yes to both parts. the people who process the applications are *incredibly* slow. a lot of it is standard gov bs. again i can speak best on the part that i handle, which is employment based. when you submit a temporary work visa, it's usually a thick application that involves a lot of information on the company and the person they wish to employ. specifically you have to prove that the person is eligible for the specific category (i.e. they are a legitimate transferee, possess a bachelor's degree or higher, have invested a substantial amount in the company) so there is a lot of information that the gov. has to sort through b/f they make a decision.

the same is true for permanent residency applications based on employment. essentially you have to prove that there are no eligible us workers for the position, and the main way to do this is to test the market by advertising. another huge hurdle is the wage issue. the dept. of labor (dol) has this thing called the prevailing wage which is supposed to be a way of ensuring that companies aren't exploiting foreign workers, but for awhile the salaries were extraordinarily high. (for example, i make what an average paralegal in nyc would make excluding overtime, but the prevailing wage for someone in my position is a bood $10K higher)

employment based green cards are done in two steps. in the first step you submit everything to the department of labor (job description, advertising, & results of advertising) who makes the first decision. and then to ins (uscis) who actually issues the green card. prior to march 2005 everything was sent to the state dept. of labor, then the us dept. of labor (dol) who made the final certification at the first level. after you got an approval you then went to ins (now uscis) to get the green card. the length of time it took depended on the state you were in. for obvs reasons the volume is higher in new york, new jersey, california so it took longer in these states than it did in say montana. in ny & nj it averaged around 3-4 years for the state dol to review the app before sending it on to the us dol which took another 18 months or so b/f sending it to uscis, which took another 2 years or so to issue a green card. and the whole time the person is essentially wedded to the job that sponsored them, so if he/she left they would have to start this whole process again.

in march 2005 the gov. switched to an electronic system and eliminated the part of the process were the state dol reviewed everything, so now cases just go directly to the us dol. for awhile cases were moving through the quite quickly, average turn around was about 2 months, but it has gotten slower since then. and i'm not even going to go into all the computer glitches.however this created a back up at the ins level (where green cards are issued).

so what are these quotas based on? does it vary from country to country? and asylum seekers are included in the quotas, yes?

each year a set number of people are allowed to become permanent residents (i don't know the exact number, but i will ask about it). this quota is then further divided into categories for each country. there are four different categories china, mexico, india, the philippines, and everyone else. i'm assuming that it's based on the fact the we have "too many" immigrants from the specifically named countries. for employment based immigration it is further divided based on your education level. there are separate categories for people of extraordinary ability -- like if your a noble prize winner or in a priority occuapation. i'm not 100% sure on the definition of this but i know there are exceptions for certain things like nurses since we have a shortage of them, EB2 which is like ordinary doctors (like not published), lawyers, or anyone who has a master's degree or higher, EB3 which is a bachelor's or its equivalent, other workers (nannies), and some other categories that i don't really deal with that much, but can find out exact definitions if you're interested.

anyway the big issue with the quotas is that the way they are calculated, not with the quotas themselves. mainly the problem is that when we do an application we do it for 1 individual, the person who is being sponsored. however when it gets to uscis you are allowed to include all your dependants. so say there are 10 visas available to people from timbuktu and you do a case for a doctor with a wife & 2 kids. instead of that dr. taking one number from the quota & leaving 9 available, he takes 4 (him & his family) so there are now 5 numbers available. a good percentage of the people who come here come with their families, so it totally screws up the system. and one of the things my firm is lobbying for is to exclude family members from the quota which will significantly reduce the backlog.

i'm n/s about asylum seekers, but my guess is that they too are subject to the quota. i do know that asylum is extremely difficult to obtain. to add a bit of personal information, my family came from a country that was ravaged by a well documented civil war, and the reason we came was to escape. not necessarily b/c we wanted to live in america (though it is nice here). we didn't qualify for asylum, and i don't really know any other family friends who did. additionally when we do asylum cases at work, the ones we work on are for people who have been the victims of extreme attrocities (forced abortions, torture, loss of limbs) and my understanding is that it's not necessarily the firm's choice, but recognition of the fact that only people who fall into this category will actually receive asylum.

for the record i don't actually believe that the gov. should just let any old body in, and recognize that immigration needs to be closely regulated. however i think there are so many other issues that need to be fixed. one of my biggest issues is with student visas. i'm in no way against people coming to the us to study (like a semester abroad) but there should be a basic recognition that most people who complete their education here ultimately end up settling here. also there are a lot of rinky dink schools that are allowed to issue student visas. one of the biggest offenders is the language schools. one of my biggest pet peeves is that a lot of clients use this as an intermediary. like if they get layed off, they enroll in an english language program while they look for a new sponsor. i'm sorry but that's bs. another issue i have is that i don't think you should be able to come here to study any old thing. while the us education system is great, there are lots of places with equally stellar higher education programs, so i think the burden should be on the student to prove that they are either coming for a short time i.e. an exchange program, or coming to learn something that you just can't learn in your native country (and english does not count imho). right after 9/11 there was a huge uproar b/c one of the hi-jackers was issued a student visa, after death, to go to flight school. wtf! the us does not have a monopoly on flight instruction. (end rant)

-- Edited by honey at 21:25, 2006-04-12

halleybird · Hermes

honey, do you mind if I ask what your opinion is on the issue? What do you think should be done? You seem to have a good grasp on both sides, which is why I ask.

honey · Gucci

halleybird wrote:

honey, do you mind if I ask what your opinion is on the issue? What do you think should be done? You seem to have a good grasp on both sides, which is why I ask.

honestly i'm n/s. i admittedly have a bias since i'm an immigrant, but my biggest issue with the debate is that there are two separate concerns, immigration as a drain on the us's resources & immigration as a national security issue. and i think they should be addressed individually.

as far as immigration being a national security issue -- imo this is a harder problem to fix. i don't buy the idea that our biggest threat is from immigrants from certain countries, but i do believe that there should be more regulation. for example i know that in ny & nj in order to get any sort of state issued id or a license you have to show proof that are you legally allowed to be here. i'm n/s if that's a policy across the board but i think it should be. i also think that there are too many loopholes in how people are able to get visas. right now if you're in the us & need a new visa you can go to any foreign country and get one. a lot of people go to canada (to the us consulate in canada) b/c it's easy. i don't think this should be allowed. i think you should have to return to your home country. i won't use the obvs example, but if someone from sweden is a potential terrorist i think the us consulate in sweden is probably better able to do a complete background check & cross reference it with the local authorities than the us consulate in canada. also as much as it pains me to say this i think there should be better data keeping on immigrants. not like big brother or anything. but it's way too easy for people to slip through the cracks. at the very least we should be able to access the last known address for immigrants. right now you're required to register it with the gov. but it's essentially a drop box, and i highly doubt anyone ever follows up. i don't think that we'll ever able to eliminate the threat, but i feel like too much of us policy (in general) is reactionary instead of pro-active.

as far as immigration being a drain on the us's resources, honestly i don't buy it. as far as i know you have to be a citizen or a permanent resident to get welfare, etc. if i'm wrong someone please let me know. if immigrants are getting these things, then it's a problem with state enforcement that needs to be addressed, and not through barring immigration. building on that there are so many other countries that offer better social welfare programs/benefits than the us, and as far as i know they don't seem to have nearly the same level of "problems" that we have. not that these countries don't have conflicts b/t different groups, but as far as i know (and my knowledge is limited) places like canada & sweden don't seem to have nearly as many immigration related issues or the same hoopla that we do.

additionally i *think* i like bush's idea of a guest worker program, though i'm not really as well read on his proposals as i'd like to be. imho a lot it boils down to simple economics. in many countries labor is dirt cheap so there is a glut in the market. i know where i'm from it's not unusual to have house servants, drivers, etc. and you don't have to be rich. it's just that there's a surplus of people who are willing to do those jobs.

the same can't be said of america. i know some people don't like the terminology but immigrants do perform a lot of jobs that americans won't/don't do. and in most cases they make more doing those jobs in america than they would in their native land. sorry if i sound elitist, but i'm not going to pick strawberries. i don't want to, and as long as there's someone who's willing to do it, and we pay them fairly for it, then i don't have a problem with having immigrants (or anyone for that matter) do it. it's funny to me b/c it's the same principal behind ordering take-out or dropping clothes off at the laundrymat. but there are no negative social repercussions for saying you don't want to cook & ordering in. imo i feel like it's a situation where going back & forth across the border is so difficult that a lot of people just stay. if we had some sort of program where people could move freely then i think it would be less of a problem.

also i feel like most of the people who are illegal aren't truly a threat to the average american in terms of economic security. again i don't have real empirical evidence to support that claim, but i think in terms of economic security corporate outsourcing is a bigger threat than someone who's picking strawberries in the hot sun. but that issue usually gets swept under the rug.

i think if we want to truly address the problem we need to start with all the beauracracy (sp?) involved in the process. as someone who does corporate immigration, i do have issue with the idea that a lot of the work visas are "temporary" b/c they're not. i don't necessarily know what we should do, but i really don't buy the idea that someone who completes their education here (starting as a college freshmen) is going to return to their home country and make a living. i don't think we should entire close off the avenue, but i think we should revise the way we process these applications.

in the end i feel like a lot of it is ideological in the sense that for me the issue is what we want immigration to be. is it purely about helping people better their lives, or just improving the us's own economic position by only allowing skilled workers. i think there are valid arguments for both sides. but the idealist in me tends to side with the whole making life better bit, so i guess i would be more lax on those immigrants, than people who have a fair shake at life (fair being a relative term) but just want to live in the us. but those are just my thoughts.

-- Edited by honey at 22:53, 2006-04-12

DC Shopper · Dooney & Bourke

re the quota system - every year the us decides on a number of immigrants that will be allowed, total. the reason people from mexico, the phillippines, india and china have to wait extra long is because the demand for visas from those countries far exceeds our capacity to process them. and, if we did not have quotas for each country, people seeking visas from those high demand countries would flood the system and get the majority of the total number of visas available for each year, making it nearly impossible for people from lower demand countries to get one. at least that's my understanding of it.

it's certainly a flawed system. honey you make some really good points.

halleybird · Hermes

honey, thanks. Sometimes I forget that you are an immigrant too!

I have another question for you guys. We have been talking about this issue a lot in my classes.

One of my students brought up a point that caused a major debate in my class, so I am curious about what you think. She said that the entire issue is tinged with racism, and that if the majority of the illegal immigrants were white Canadians, for example, there wouldn't be near as much backlash against them.

I don't think I agree with her (though I guess for some people it is true), but I notice a lot of racism against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, at least in this part of the country. I also wonder how the issue would change if the language barriers and issues were removed.

Any thoughts?

eta: I just want to clarify that I haven't seen any posts here that are remotely racist; I am just throwing the question out generally.

-- Edited by halleybird at 00:15, 2006-04-13

blubirde · Chanel

halleybird wrote:

honey, thanks. Sometimes I forget that you are an immigrant too! I have another question for you guys. We have been talking about this issue a lot in my classes. One of my students brought up a point that caused a major debate in my class, so I am curious about what you think. She said that the entire issue is tinged with racism, and that if the majority of the illegal immigrants were white Canadians, for example, there wouldn't be near as much backlash against them. I don't think I agree with her (though I guess for some people it is true), but I notice a lot of racism against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, at least in this part of the country. I also wonder how the issue would change if the language barriers and issues were removed. Any thoughts? eta: I just want to clarify that I haven't seen any posts here that are remotely racist; I am just throwing the question out generally.-- Edited by halleybird at 00:15, 2006-04-13

I don't want to get blasted or anything for saying this but I agree with the girl in your class. I live in Texas and I've been surrounded by the "illegal immigrant" (I dislike this terminology, so I put it in quotes) issue my entire life. In my experience, the arguments that people make for strengthening immigration laws and enforcement are borderline racist and in some cases, blatantly racist. People don't have to use racist terms for me to know who and what they're talking about.

Now, all that said, there are intelligent and rational arguments to be made on the immigrant issue. Some good examples are on this thread. However, the majority of people I've heard argue about this issue don't use intelligent and rational arguments. Frankly, if we discussed any segment of society the way we discuss immigrants, we'd be blasted for being bigots.

In Austin there were 10,000 people marching down the street Monday afternoon. I was moved. I saw men with hardhats on, dads with their children on their shoulders, and American flags everywhere. I've never seen anything like that anywhere. People left their construction sites, restaurants, offices, daycares, schools, etc., and all joined together for something that each and every person on the street was touched by personally. I think people should be much more careful with their words and their arguments when they are discussing this issue. I don't like to see such blatant bigotry and biases (is that right?) in normal, everday people.

I also have another perspective. I've done pro bono work for an asylum project here in town. Being a legal immigrant is a much harder thing than many people realize, like honey said. Frankly, if you live in a country where you can't find a job and you have a family to feed, what are you going to do? Fill out paperwork and hope your children don't starve while you're waiting? There are many immigration problems but the first problem is the countries people come from in the first place. As long as we are a beacon of light in such a dark world, what do you expect people to do?

...Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...
- plaque inside the museum at the Statue of Liberty

I'm just sayin'...

P.S. I know I'm incredibly idealistic on this issue but I've seen such extremes in the past few weeks that I've decided this, personally, is the only argument I can get behind.

joy0302 · Kate Spade

blubirde wrote:

As long as we are a beacon of light in such a dark world, what do you expect people to do?

I agree with your comments. I love being from a free country and I think many American citizens take life here for granted. Being from Texas also, I see alot of the stories on the news where the Mexican immigrants risk their lives, and many times give their lives, to try and make a better life for themselves and their families. Many of these people love our country more than some of the natural born Americans because they came from a place that has made them appreciate what this country can do for them.

My husband is of Mexican decent, his father and grandparents were born there. They did do the proper paperwork to come across the border and they have all since became American citizens. I do believe that in the world that we are living in today that the best way to do things is legally. I think that it is sad that these immigrants just want to feed their famlies.It is also sad that the country that they are coming from can't get their government straightened out enough to make that possible. That is the main problem, not that America is making it harder for immigrants to come here, but that their home country has little to offer them.

I am not concerned at all about people taking our jobs. America is made up of immigrants and who am I to say that one culture deserves money to feed their family and one does not. However, the thing that frightens me is that the government needs better control over everyone that is coming into this country. After September 11 you would think that they would try to have a better handle over people coming in from the Mexico and Canada borders. For every 1000 people that cross the border who want to come and do a hard days work you might very well have 2 or 3 potential terrorist who want to kill another 3 or 4 thousand people. I know it might sound very paranoid, but that is the world that we live in today.

blink · Coach

halleybird wrote:

One of my students brought up a point that caused a major debate in my class, so I am curious about what you think. She said that the entire issue is tinged with racism, and that if the majority of the illegal immigrants were white Canadians, for example, there wouldn't be near as much backlash against them. I don't think I agree with her (though I guess for some people it is true), but I notice a lot of racism against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, at least in this part of the country. I also wonder how the issue would change if the language barriers and issues were removed. Any thoughts? eta: I just want to clarify that I haven't seen any posts here that are remotely racist; I am just throwing the question out generally.-- Edited by halleybird at 00:15, 2006-04-13

I know you weren't asking me, and I am sure you already thought of this, but there certainly was racism and anger against different immigrant ethnicities from the turn of the century onward. The Slavs and Irish (just to name a couple) were taking a lot of the factory type jobs, it was a communist Slav actually, I believe who assassinated Pres. McKinley wasn't it? (T. Roosevelt was his VP). There was certainly anger among the whites at the time because these immigrants were taking manual labor and industrial jobs for lower pay. There were certainly language barriers then too. I believe, though, the difference is....that based on their skin color, it was easier for Eastern European immigrants to eventually blend in with Western Euro descendant white Americans. By the time they were into 2nd and 3rd generations, certainly.