By Hector Villagra
When Juan Pablo Guerrero Diaz left El Salvador to come to the U.S., his daughter was still in diapers. Now she is 14, and this year, after fleeing for her life, she was reunited with her parents in Los Angeles.
For the girl, the perilous journey north promised greater safety than life in El Salvador, a country with one of the highest homicide rates in the Western Hemisphere. Gang members repeatedly threatened her, and they attacked her and her sister.
A growing number of children are traveling thousands of miles and braving hunger, dehydration, robbery, extortion, sexual abuse, kidnapping and murder to reach the United States. As many as 80,000 minors traveling alone are expected to seek refuge this year, and the number could reach 130,000 by 2015.
Once here, however, those children often face a new risk: U.S. immigration courts. Unlike criminal defendants, immigrants are not entitled to court-appointed attorneys, no matter their age or lack of resources. In fact, immigrant children, some as young as 2, 3 or 4, must stand alone against government lawyers. They theoretically can testify, present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and file supporting documents. But when a child is without a lawyer, the deportation hearing becomes a one-sided argument about why deportation is justified.
On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California and the national ACLU, along with a coalition of immigrant rights groups, filed a federal lawsuit in Washington state to ensure that Guerrero Diaz’s daughter and other immigrant children receive a fair hearing. Some have lived here since they were babies but also lack the resources to hire an attorney.
The Obama administration has responded to the current crisis by promising to provide additional resources at the border. The president is seeking to hire more immigration judges to fast-track the deportation of children. The administration also initially expressed interest in amending current federal law to allow Central American children to be screened by Border Patrol agents, who could turn them away immediately without ever going before a judge. Obama’s actions indicate that he questions whether any of these children have valid claims to stay in the U.S. He could not be more wrong, if that is the case.
Though many of the president’s critics are speculating about why these children are coming, few admit the obvious: Thousands of these children are refugees, having fled their homes and risked a harrowing journey because of extreme crime, violence and poverty in their home countries. For the most part, the children are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, countries plagued by ruthless street gangs and drug traffickers.
Indeed, according to a 2013 report by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Honduras has the world’s highest murder rate, El Salvador ranks fourth and Guatemala fifth. As Leslie Velez, an official with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, has concluded, many of these children and young adults “aren’t coming here for economic opportunity. They are fleeing for their lives.”
For these and other reasons, many of the children are potentially eligible for relief from deportation; they may have valid asylum claims or qualify for special visas for children who are abandoned or are victims of human trafficking. A recent report from Velez’s agency estimates that about 60% of the children might be eligible for some form of humanitarian protection. Likewise, a 2012 report from the nonpartisan Vera Institute of Justice identified 40% of immigrant children as eligible for some protection under U.S. immigration law.
Guerrero Diaz believes his daughter has such a claim. He is a truck driver who has temporary protected status in the U.S. but cannot afford an attorney for her. They have sought pro bono help, but legal aid services are overwhelmed with requests. She needs to get her court proceedings moved from Texas, where she was detained by the Border Patrol in January, to L.A., but doesn’t know how to make this simple request.
Now she is due in court in September, in Texas. She has no attorney, and will face possible deportation unless we prevail in our lawsuit. If we as a nation truly believe in the concept of fairness, we must summon the will and expend the resources needed to provide appointed counsel for her and for all the unaccompanied children facing such proceedings. Fairness demands that we protect against the possibility of deporting children who would otherwise qualify to remain in the U.S.
“How we as a nation treat these refugee children fleeing for their lives will speak volumes about what we truly value.”
The appointment of counsel is the only way to ensure that children with potentially valid claims can present the necessary arguments and proof. Given the complexities of immigration law and the language and cultural barriers immigrants face, it should surprise no one that attorneys matter in immigration proceedings. A 2012 study of New York immigration courts showed that immigrants who proceed without representation are five times more likely to lose their cases than those who have counsel.
How we as a nation treat these refugee children fleeing for their lives will speak volumes about what we truly value. More than compassion or pity, what these kids need is for Congress and the president to exhibit the characteristic that unites us as Americans: a fundamental sense of fairness and due process.
Hector Villagra is executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.
Thank you for the article David.
I was attempting to provide all that I have, which is anecdotal information from working with immigrants to this country in ERs both in Fresno and outside Tucson, from outreach to migrant workers in health fairs and clinics in the Central Valley, and from my medical outreach to Honduras a couple of years ago. From these admittedly fleeting experiences, I know that many attempting to reach the United States are refugees and are indeed fleeing for their lives whether what is pursuing them are gangs, or militias, or simply poverty beyond the ability of most of us to comprehend.
Unless you have seen a mother preparing supper for a family of 5 in a saucepan that I might choose to melt butter in, you may not understand how conditions could be “intolerable” and still have people remaining behind as one poster asked me.
For anyone who does not believe that these families are truly desperate, please stop and consider what it would take for you to consider that it was better to send your 14 year old daughter alone on a journey of this magnitude with all the known dangers of the road than for her to remain where she was ? For me, this is the definition of desperation, and I would be hard pressed to explain how this does not meet the definition of a refuge.
It is absolutely clear to me that each of these children is deserving of a full hearing with legal representation. Anything less is a shameful mockery of the belief that we hold supposedly hold dear in this country of due process.
Why are these people having children that they cannot afford to take care of?
I don’t do this; do you? Does any responsible person do this?
Why not subsidize Planned Parenthood programs with plenty of free birth control for these countries?
Why should USA citizens be responsible for their children? A culture of responsibility respects the individual as one who makes their own choices; the converse culture results in a kind of patronization where these people are treated like animals, victims of the environment, with no choice as to whether or not they have sex or children.
Thank you for the article David.
I was attempting to provide all that I have, which is anecdotal information from working with immigrants to this country in ERs both in Fresno and outside Tucson, from outreach to migrant workers in health fairs and clinics in the Central Valley, and from my medical outreach to Honduras a couple of years ago. From these admittedly fleeting experiences, I know that many attempting to reach the United States are refugees and are indeed fleeing for their lives whether what is pursuing them are gangs, or militias, or simply poverty beyond the ability of most of us to comprehend.
Unless you have seen a mother preparing supper for a family of 5 in a saucepan that I might choose to melt butter in, you may not understand how conditions could be “intolerable” and still have people remaining behind as one poster asked me.
For anyone who does not believe that these families are truly desperate, please stop and consider what it would take for you to consider that it was better to send your 14 year old daughter alone on a journey of this magnitude with all the known dangers of the road than for her to remain where she was ? For me, this is the definition of desperation, and I would be hard pressed to explain how this does not meet the definition of a refuge.
It is absolutely clear to me that each of these children is deserving of a full hearing with legal representation. Anything less is a shameful mockery of the belief that we hold supposedly hold dear in this country of due process.
Why are these people having children that they cannot afford to take care of?
I don’t do this; do you? Does any responsible person do this?
Why not subsidize Planned Parenthood programs with plenty of free birth control for these countries?
Why should USA citizens be responsible for their children? A culture of responsibility respects the individual as one who makes their own choices; the converse culture results in a kind of patronization where these people are treated like animals, victims of the environment, with no choice as to whether or not they have sex or children.
One young woman at the Nogales Detention Center paid a small fortune to a coyote. She got separated from her group of refugees on her journey, and was repeatedly gang raped. She was under 18 years of age. We need to offer support and compassion to these children.
One young woman at the Nogales Detention Center paid a small fortune to a coyote. She got separated from her group of refugees on her journey, and was repeatedly gang raped. She was under 18 years of age. We need to offer support and compassion to these children.
The conditions in those three countries are deplorable. I am just not sure that encouraging the children of those countries (with the possibility of being able to stay here) to take the long and dangerous trip is a good plan. I also don’t think that the US has the resources to take in that many people since ALL people in those countries fear violence daily. A better plan long term might be to help those countries establish an actual economy (not based on the drug trade), and an education system that kids actually attend instead of going to work so that their families don’t starve to death.
I guess no one should have “encouraged” the refugees of WWII to get out of Hitler’s wy, either. Not our problem, right?
Sam
I completely agree that “encouraging children to take such a long and dangerous trip” is not a good plan.
However, they are here. So the issue is actually twofold.
1) How do we deal with those who have arrived ?
2) How do we help the nationals of their countries to build a society that will be both safe and self sustaining ?
I feel that we must deal with both issues concomitantly, not sequentially.
It is a hard task, but I believe that our country is equal to it if only we had the will to do so. I believe this because we did it in the past after World War II. The help of the United States was critical in rebuilding both European countries and Japan. There is precedent. We could do it again if we were willing to put human needs above personal wealth as we did then.
The conditions in those three countries are deplorable. I am just not sure that encouraging the children of those countries (with the possibility of being able to stay here) to take the long and dangerous trip is a good plan. I also don’t think that the US has the resources to take in that many people since ALL people in those countries fear violence daily. A better plan long term might be to help those countries establish an actual economy (not based on the drug trade), and an education system that kids actually attend instead of going to work so that their families don’t starve to death.
I guess no one should have “encouraged” the refugees of WWII to get out of Hitler’s wy, either. Not our problem, right?
Sam
I completely agree that “encouraging children to take such a long and dangerous trip” is not a good plan.
However, they are here. So the issue is actually twofold.
1) How do we deal with those who have arrived ?
2) How do we help the nationals of their countries to build a society that will be both safe and self sustaining ?
I feel that we must deal with both issues concomitantly, not sequentially.
It is a hard task, but I believe that our country is equal to it if only we had the will to do so. I believe this because we did it in the past after World War II. The help of the United States was critical in rebuilding both European countries and Japan. There is precedent. We could do it again if we were willing to put human needs above personal wealth as we did then.
“It is absolutely clear to me that each of these children is deserving of a full hearing with legal representation. Anything less is a shameful mockery of the belief that we hold supposedly hold dear in this country of due process.”
So are you saying that for every Tom, Dick, Jose or Hennrietta that poke their face across our borders we as a country and its taxpayers have to pony up tens of thousands of dollars in a giant payoff to lawyers in order to appease our bleeding heart liberals?
B.P., that is so awesome that you are 100% Native American Indian. What tribe?
DD, Last time I checked we were not trying to expand settlements in the Midwest, nor do we need soldiers to fight off the Mexican army. Times have changed since most of our ancestors came here. And even back then there was an actual immigration process to ensure those who came could support themselves.
And there is now, too. It’s overwhelmed. It needs more judges and lawyers to clear out the backlog. That costs money. That’s the way it works.
There’s a legal way to come here and we shouldn’t be paying billion and billions of dollars to try and placate people who try to come here “illegally”.
So when they get here, what’s your solution? No due process for any of them?
The system is overwhelmed because we allow people that are here illegally to have jobs and provide them services. If you take that away you will not need the judges.
It’s illegal to hire illegal immigrants. It’s illegal to fail to verify employees’ legal status.
Allow? How about dont have the resources to prevent?
“It’s illegal to hire illegal immigrants. It’s illegal to fail to verify employees’ legal status.”
Please, our DOJ no longer enforces those laws. Everyone knows that.
We have the resources for Obama’s liberal (failed) Policies … $7 Trillion worth!
Yes Sam, we no longer can afford letting anyone come here that wants and pay tens of thousands of dollars on each illegal that penetrates our borders.
So, your solution? Have the border patrol agents make these decisions about deportation, right there at the border? All of them go back, regardless of their individual situations?
BP
“So are you saying that for every Tom, Dick, Jose or Hennrietta that poke their face across our borders we as a country and its taxpayers have to pony up tens of thousands of dollars in a giant payoff to lawyers in order to appease our bleeding heart liberals?”
No, I would express it this way. If a person arrives at our borders claiming refugee status, we need a mechanism for fully assessing that claim. I am sure that you are aware that I am not in favor of our legal adversarial system and believe that this could be accomplished at much less cost by arbitrators well versed in immigration law rather than pitting the government against the individual in a legal battle as we do now.
“It is absolutely clear to me that each of these children is deserving of a full hearing with legal representation. Anything less is a shameful mockery of the belief that we hold supposedly hold dear in this country of due process.”
So are you saying that for every Tom, Dick, Jose or Hennrietta that poke their face across our borders we as a country and its taxpayers have to pony up tens of thousands of dollars in a giant payoff to lawyers in order to appease our bleeding heart liberals?
B.P., that is so awesome that you are 100% Native American Indian. What tribe?
DD, Last time I checked we were not trying to expand settlements in the Midwest, nor do we need soldiers to fight off the Mexican army. Times have changed since most of our ancestors came here. And even back then there was an actual immigration process to ensure those who came could support themselves.
And there is now, too. It’s overwhelmed. It needs more judges and lawyers to clear out the backlog. That costs money. That’s the way it works.
There’s a legal way to come here and we shouldn’t be paying billion and billions of dollars to try and placate people who try to come here “illegally”.
So when they get here, what’s your solution? No due process for any of them?
The system is overwhelmed because we allow people that are here illegally to have jobs and provide them services. If you take that away you will not need the judges.
It’s illegal to hire illegal immigrants. It’s illegal to fail to verify employees’ legal status.
Allow? How about dont have the resources to prevent?
“It’s illegal to hire illegal immigrants. It’s illegal to fail to verify employees’ legal status.”
Please, our DOJ no longer enforces those laws. Everyone knows that.
We have the resources for Obama’s liberal (failed) Policies … $7 Trillion worth!
Yes Sam, we no longer can afford letting anyone come here that wants and pay tens of thousands of dollars on each illegal that penetrates our borders.
So, your solution? Have the border patrol agents make these decisions about deportation, right there at the border? All of them go back, regardless of their individual situations?
BP
“So are you saying that for every Tom, Dick, Jose or Hennrietta that poke their face across our borders we as a country and its taxpayers have to pony up tens of thousands of dollars in a giant payoff to lawyers in order to appease our bleeding heart liberals?”
No, I would express it this way. If a person arrives at our borders claiming refugee status, we need a mechanism for fully assessing that claim. I am sure that you are aware that I am not in favor of our legal adversarial system and believe that this could be accomplished at much less cost by arbitrators well versed in immigration law rather than pitting the government against the individual in a legal battle as we do now.
Sam, Agreed. One of my ancestors escaped the potato famine by going to Nova Scotia first, then posing as a domestic servant with another kind woman. They thought she had a job as a maid, and they let her in.
Sam, Agreed. One of my ancestors escaped the potato famine by going to Nova Scotia first, then posing as a domestic servant with another kind woman. They thought she had a job as a maid, and they let her in.
Many settlers were unhappy with England, so they came to America and bothered the native people that were already here. They later sexually abused some of them and enslaved some of them to build Catholic Missions. They bought parts of Arizona from the Mexicans, for far less than it was worth. Okay, I’m feeling better already.
“They bought parts of Arizona from the Mexicans, for far less than it was worth.”
Yes, the Mexican government made an extremely stupid decision here; not sure how it reflects badly on Americans.
If you own a home in Davis and ask me if I’d like to buy it for $10,000; I will take you up on the offer–not sure how my agreeing to the deal you suggested reflects badly on me; if I was a real-estate agent I would be promoted for succeeding in closing such agreements!
By the way; it wasn’t just parts of Arizona that were acquired from Mexico very cheaply; but parts of several other states (and don’t forget the Louisiana Purchase from France; and the purchase of Alaska from Russia (‘Steward’s Folly’ at the time); both great contracts for USA!)
Maybe it was a decent deal at that time. Russia also sold Alaska for a song, I don’t hear them whining, they are probably embarrassed.
re: sexual abuse of natives–there was plenty of freely agreed sexual congress between european settlers and native americans; for many of the europeans some of the sexual practices of the indians were quite shocking. When indians captured white women and girls in times of war; these females were typically passed along the tribe members and raped repeatedly and otherwise abused; by many tribes treated not only as sexual slaves but forced to do much of the drudge work. By the way; in warfare most of the native american tribes customarily used enemy prisoners as slaves, long before the white man arrived. After a number of years if the slave performed well and didn’t make trouble; they were often granted status as free men/equal tribe members, as often was also the case among white men who owned slaves.
History has few examples of cultural conflicts where one side are the angelic exploited good guys and the other are demonic bad guys; despite what you see in comic books, hollywood movies, childrens stories, and I guess modern ‘multicultural’ cirricula in college.
Many settlers were unhappy with England, so they came to America and bothered the native people that were already here. They later sexually abused some of them and enslaved some of them to build Catholic Missions. They bought parts of Arizona from the Mexicans, for far less than it was worth. Okay, I’m feeling better already.
“They bought parts of Arizona from the Mexicans, for far less than it was worth.”
Yes, the Mexican government made an extremely stupid decision here; not sure how it reflects badly on Americans.
If you own a home in Davis and ask me if I’d like to buy it for $10,000; I will take you up on the offer–not sure how my agreeing to the deal you suggested reflects badly on me; if I was a real-estate agent I would be promoted for succeeding in closing such agreements!
By the way; it wasn’t just parts of Arizona that were acquired from Mexico very cheaply; but parts of several other states (and don’t forget the Louisiana Purchase from France; and the purchase of Alaska from Russia (‘Steward’s Folly’ at the time); both great contracts for USA!)
Maybe it was a decent deal at that time. Russia also sold Alaska for a song, I don’t hear them whining, they are probably embarrassed.
re: sexual abuse of natives–there was plenty of freely agreed sexual congress between european settlers and native americans; for many of the europeans some of the sexual practices of the indians were quite shocking. When indians captured white women and girls in times of war; these females were typically passed along the tribe members and raped repeatedly and otherwise abused; by many tribes treated not only as sexual slaves but forced to do much of the drudge work. By the way; in warfare most of the native american tribes customarily used enemy prisoners as slaves, long before the white man arrived. After a number of years if the slave performed well and didn’t make trouble; they were often granted status as free men/equal tribe members, as often was also the case among white men who owned slaves.
History has few examples of cultural conflicts where one side are the angelic exploited good guys and the other are demonic bad guys; despite what you see in comic books, hollywood movies, childrens stories, and I guess modern ‘multicultural’ cirricula in college.
*Not just settlers from England.*
*Not just settlers from England.*
Do any of you care that Asian immigrants are also flooding the U.S. and many of them are quote unquote illegal? Is it the brown skin that bothers you, when you turn on the television? I welcome the Asians, too, by the way. Because I am partially a descendant of “illegals”.
DD–are you sure that a high percentage of the asian immigrants are coming here illegally?
Would like to see a source with the estimated percentage of those from Asian countries that are coming in illegally. If so, I would say deport them and otherwise deal with them just like the ones from mexico and central america. Same with illegals from Switzerland, Timbuktu, and the little green guys from Mars–detain, process, and ship ’em back where they came from!
Do any of you care that Asian immigrants are also flooding the U.S. and many of them are quote unquote illegal? Is it the brown skin that bothers you, when you turn on the television? I welcome the Asians, too, by the way. Because I am partially a descendant of “illegals”.
DD–are you sure that a high percentage of the asian immigrants are coming here illegally?
Would like to see a source with the estimated percentage of those from Asian countries that are coming in illegally. If so, I would say deport them and otherwise deal with them just like the ones from mexico and central america. Same with illegals from Switzerland, Timbuktu, and the little green guys from Mars–detain, process, and ship ’em back where they came from!
According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees)… By end–2013,, 51.2. million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violation. 50% of these were under the age of 18. This number does not include the 10’s of millions of economic refugees
The author is apparently demanding that everyone who walks across the Rio Grande be appointed a tax payer funded attorney. The reality is that this attorney will then drag out the proceedings for as long as possible so as to milk the system for as many billable hours as possible. The illegal alien will during this time get some sort of temporary permission to reside in the country pending outcome of their hearing, and of course will then get taxpayer funded housing, food, education and healthcare while awaiting disposition of their case which will in all likelihood take several years. Once the deportation hearing finally rolls around a few years down the road they will simply not show up as 90% of the current illegals do. Should they actually be ordered deported, during this interval they can also with little effort get a black market green card for $50-150 and be good to go for gainful employment and a wonderful life here in paradise.
That’s why you would want someone on salary, rather than billable hours. Akin to a public defender. You could also use something like the UCD Immigration Law Center which uses law students.
The problem is: you are dealing with children, some of whom probably legitimately qualify for asylum and refugee status.
Per the Dept of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the term refugee means……………..
(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or
(B) in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 207(e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
I do not think too many children would fit this definition.
The reality is that the world is full of poor, countries where basic education, healthcare, housing, public safety, and employment are not readily available for large portions of the populace, and public officials who might be able to help are too neck-deep in corruption to be bothered with any of this. Just because you happened to come from one of these countries does not mean you should have the right to be accepted with opens arms in another country of your choosing. Life is not fair. Bad things happen to innocent people.
Thanks WesC.
Of course, based on evidence, our current President would just ignore the law and draw his own definition.
Your last point is the point to drive home.
Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty, that’s less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty.
And according to the bleeding heart people in our exclusive, high cost, little hamlet, we should be able to take care of everyone that wants to come here for a better life.
Never mind that there is a scant chance that any of them would end up here.
The problem with many people owning a left-leaning political orientation is that they never learned to operate a calculator… and they preach from high atop a pedestal far away from those poor and unsophisticated people they are obsessed with saving.
WesC
“that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
I disagree with you and believe that many of these children would meet this definition. The problem is that ours are just that, our opinions. We would not know without an examination of each individual case. So your argument is not actually against evaluation, but merely against our means of legally adjudication. I agree.
What we should have is an efficient, non adversarial means of determining for each individual whether or not they do indeed meet the criteria of refugee. If they do, they get sanctuary. If they don’t, they are repatriated. This is not beyond our resources, just beyond our current system which of course could be changed.
Wes–good points.
Tia–I would raise the bar for criteria defining refugee, there is currently a big push by our elected ‘representatives’ to lower the bar & thus enable the flood.
Tia, what do you think about the USA setting up programs to help those countries where the refugees are coming from; rather than having these refugees foisted on the USA taxpayer; when the majority of USA citizens are not in favor of this immigration flood?
tribeUSA
1) The criteria of serious threat to life seems pretty good to me. What would you consider a more appropriate bar for criteria for refugee ?
2) I absolutely believe that we should be working with the governments from which the refugees are coming in order to help them create a more stable environment. However, I believe that this needs to be done concurrently with providing due process to those who have already arrived.
And perhaps the majority of USA citizens might see things differently if they understood it as a humanitarian crises instead of a “flood”. This flood is composed of real human beings.
I think that the majority of Americans have no idea of the reality that these people are fleeing. I only have had a glimpse because of my profession and travels and that glimpse has been enough to convince me that many, many of these children are in terrible danger in their country of origin. All that I am advocating for with regard to those that have arrived is due process and a fair assessment of their individual case in their plea for consideration as refugees. Our country has promised that in the case of refugees and we our obliged to keep our promises or devalue ourselves as a nation.
According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees)… By end–2013,, 51.2. million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violation. 50% of these were under the age of 18. This number does not include the 10’s of millions of economic refugees
The author is apparently demanding that everyone who walks across the Rio Grande be appointed a tax payer funded attorney. The reality is that this attorney will then drag out the proceedings for as long as possible so as to milk the system for as many billable hours as possible. The illegal alien will during this time get some sort of temporary permission to reside in the country pending outcome of their hearing, and of course will then get taxpayer funded housing, food, education and healthcare while awaiting disposition of their case which will in all likelihood take several years. Once the deportation hearing finally rolls around a few years down the road they will simply not show up as 90% of the current illegals do. Should they actually be ordered deported, during this interval they can also with little effort get a black market green card for $50-150 and be good to go for gainful employment and a wonderful life here in paradise.
That’s why you would want someone on salary, rather than billable hours. Akin to a public defender. You could also use something like the UCD Immigration Law Center which uses law students.
The problem is: you are dealing with children, some of whom probably legitimately qualify for asylum and refugee status.
Per the Dept of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the term refugee means……………..
(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or
(B) in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 207(e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
I do not think too many children would fit this definition.
The reality is that the world is full of poor, countries where basic education, healthcare, housing, public safety, and employment are not readily available for large portions of the populace, and public officials who might be able to help are too neck-deep in corruption to be bothered with any of this. Just because you happened to come from one of these countries does not mean you should have the right to be accepted with opens arms in another country of your choosing. Life is not fair. Bad things happen to innocent people.
Thanks WesC.
Of course, based on evidence, our current President would just ignore the law and draw his own definition.
Your last point is the point to drive home.
Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty, that’s less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty.
And according to the bleeding heart people in our exclusive, high cost, little hamlet, we should be able to take care of everyone that wants to come here for a better life.
Never mind that there is a scant chance that any of them would end up here.
The problem with many people owning a left-leaning political orientation is that they never learned to operate a calculator… and they preach from high atop a pedestal far away from those poor and unsophisticated people they are obsessed with saving.
WesC
“that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
I disagree with you and believe that many of these children would meet this definition. The problem is that ours are just that, our opinions. We would not know without an examination of each individual case. So your argument is not actually against evaluation, but merely against our means of legally adjudication. I agree.
What we should have is an efficient, non adversarial means of determining for each individual whether or not they do indeed meet the criteria of refugee. If they do, they get sanctuary. If they don’t, they are repatriated. This is not beyond our resources, just beyond our current system which of course could be changed.
Wes–good points.
Tia–I would raise the bar for criteria defining refugee, there is currently a big push by our elected ‘representatives’ to lower the bar & thus enable the flood.
Tia, what do you think about the USA setting up programs to help those countries where the refugees are coming from; rather than having these refugees foisted on the USA taxpayer; when the majority of USA citizens are not in favor of this immigration flood?
tribeUSA
1) The criteria of serious threat to life seems pretty good to me. What would you consider a more appropriate bar for criteria for refugee ?
2) I absolutely believe that we should be working with the governments from which the refugees are coming in order to help them create a more stable environment. However, I believe that this needs to be done concurrently with providing due process to those who have already arrived.
And perhaps the majority of USA citizens might see things differently if they understood it as a humanitarian crises instead of a “flood”. This flood is composed of real human beings.
I think that the majority of Americans have no idea of the reality that these people are fleeing. I only have had a glimpse because of my profession and travels and that glimpse has been enough to convince me that many, many of these children are in terrible danger in their country of origin. All that I am advocating for with regard to those that have arrived is due process and a fair assessment of their individual case in their plea for consideration as refugees. Our country has promised that in the case of refugees and we our obliged to keep our promises or devalue ourselves as a nation.
If someone knocked on your front door would you be obligated to take them in, feed them and supply them with legal council to see if they get to stay in your house or not?
Still waiting for your solution to the current problem.
A country isnt private property
BP – just ignore these idiotic challenges. There are 150 million poor people that want to come here. Just turn it around on Don and David to demand them to explain how they decide who should come and who should not come and how we are to pay for the process to vet them all with the level of legal nuance they demand, and how we are going to pay for the ones we allow to stay.
They got nothing. Nothing at all.
How about we close the border and tell Mexico that we are going to send them a bill for all expenses for processing any illegals that cross?
The United States and Mexico need to work together to hold and process these people as quickly as possible. We need dozens of new judges to expedite the hearings. Some will get asylum, some might be accorded refugee status. Some might be legally united with a family member currently in the United States, if that family member has a legal basis for being here. The reality is that those in this last category are likely to end up staying here.
But the vast majority will probably not have a valid basis for remaining here, and will need to be repatriated legally to their countries of origin. If you believe in treating people decently, that means that the United States and Mexico will need to, somehow, escort them back safely. Unless you think we should just take them to the border and say ‘see ya later’. Because you will, very likely, see them later if you do that. They’ll just re-enter.
Our processes cost money. Putting troops on the border won’t solve the current problem. Troops can’t arrest people. All your troops can do is augment the Border Patrol, adding manpower. But it’s untrained manpower. Boots on the ground don’t solve either problem quickly, and certainly don’t solve the present situation of thousands of refugees being held awaiting hearings.
So,
we have a system for that. We have definitions of refugee and standards for asylum, and we deport people who don’t meet the criteria. This administration has deported lots of people. The “level of legal nuance that I demand” is simply that we follow the rule of law in our treatment of these folks, and that doesn’t require a high-priced immigration attorney. I’m not proposing that “150 million poor people” be given residency. I will say that we need a pragmatic solution to the 10 – 12 million people who are presently working here illegally, and we need a quick answer to the problem that has developed over the last several months along the border of young illegal migrants.
What I don’t understand is how you can be so pissed off all the time, and then claim that conservatives are reasonable and liberals are emotional. You’re the most angry person that posts on the Vanguard, and your proposals reflect that.
I am pissed when I read so many half-baked arguments to support the absurd.
I am pissed when people demonstrate selfishness while putting forth a façade of charity and caring.
I am pissed at so much obvious hypocrisy and sanctimonious preaching.
I am pissed when people support an ends-justifies-the-means approach only because it props up their ideology at the expense of so much else. And I am pissed when they claim to deserve a label of objectivity and rational fatalities when their arguments never complete a full fact-pattern. And when challenged about it they either wilt into emotional tantrums, or just come back with personal attacks like “you are pissed off all the time.”
And trust me that I am not pissed off much of the time except for these issues. There is nothing in life that bothers me enough to lose my cool except when I clearly see those leading and with power doing all the wrong things.
I am pissed that we have a President and Senate that consistently lies and benefits from a complicit media/press and ignores the law and protocol to push an agenda that is not supported by the majority.
I am pissed that conservatives and the GOP cannot leverage the gross incompetence demonstrated on a daily basis from the once proud party of the working class, and now a party of mess.
I am pissed that this is going on at a national level when the majority of states are well into reforms that the federal government is hostile to and doing everything possible to undermine them.
But mostly I am pissed because what the American left is doing to this county. They are taking down to third-world status for reasons that I think even they don’t fully comprehend.
You should understand where this comes from Don. It is the minority response to overwhelming damaging oppression by the majority.
Getting back to the point of this article, you absolutely know, but probably won’t admit it because of your Messiah syndrome, that this President caused the problem. It is his consistent MO. Throw a tantrum when he does not get is way, and then do things to cause pain and chaos so his complicit media will come forth to leverage the crisis for his ideological power.
Thanks to folks like you, it always seems to work out for him.
Next time you state that conservatives act from reason, while liberals act from emotion, I’ll just copy and paste this whole piece of nonsense right back at you.
You could have just stopped with
I really wonder sometimes about your level of self-awareness. We were actually having a discussion about the related topics of the current immigrant/refugee crisis and the overall issue of immigration. We have some reasonable disagreements about the best ways to proceed on both of those issues, but we probably have areas of agreement as well. Yet you went on this long rant encompassing ideology, Obama, and characterizing those who disagree with you as selfish, sanctimonious hypocrites, etc. It seems very difficult for you to have a reasoned discussion on the Vanguard without doing this sort of thing: pulling in national political issues, and demonizing people you disagree with. In effect, you can’t discuss without being insulting.
That isn’t conducive to reasoned discussion. It is an ongoing problem here. I urge you to discuss issues, and be less pissed about the fact that others don’t share your views or your values.
And, frankly I get a tad pissed when you wave off my comments as overly sensitive and passive aggressive.
Don: Next time you state that conservatives act from reason, while liberals act from emotion, I’ll just copy and paste this whole piece of nonsense right back at you.
Me: And when challenged about it they either wilt into emotional tantrums, or just come back with personal attacks like “you are pissed off all the time.”
So there you have it. Just like I said.
Again Don, how are you suggesting we pay for this $500,000 per illegal immigrant.
What are we going to do with the existing American displaced and damaged by the swell of poor and uneducated illegal immigrants.
You see, you want everyone to see you as so high a mighty in your rational arguments and objectivity, but then when the tough gets going, Don just goes silent about those inconvenient facts.
Similar to your demand that we preserve land around Davis and the fact that you live on acres of farmland.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Don’t know the complete answer, but I sure have an opinion about what others should do.
I would gladly debate this on the facts. The fact that the Obama administration has a gag order on the federal employee border guards. The fact that nobody can get into the detention centers to do a true inventory of the people here. The fact that there are reports of a high percentage of criminals, and a lot of people with serious decease. The fact that this appears to be a coordinated effort by these countries to send these people here, and there is reason to believe that the Obama administration worked with these governments to help cause this “crisis” as a political stunt to take attention away from the IRS scandal and other problems… and provide that fertile “border state Tea Party people are racists” media template that works so well to get Democrats elected.
But aside from all that, I would simply debate the fact that we cannot afford to pay for the processing nor certainly adding more poor and uneducated people to our welfare rolls.
They have to be processed somehow. The administration has asked for more funds to do this in as expeditious a manner as possible. I assume you would support that request if you want to deal with the backlog of thousands of people being held in detention facilities, since the majority of them will likely be sent home. It will cost less if Congress passes the funding request sooner and gets more judges and clerks processing things.
I’ve answered all of your questions and replied to you on the topic of this thread, so far as I know. I haven’t gone silent. Is there something I’ve missed? I don’t plan to engage on conspiracy theories or generic anti-Obama commentary.
I live on a working farm. We bought it as a farm, and we plan to keep it as a farm. If I were proposing to subdivide it into housing, you could perhaps accuse me of hypocrisy. But the farm I own is always going to be a farm. We selected our site and the zoning in a manner that will conserve that site for farming basically forever. So although you keep taking this cheap shot, it has no validity.
And, frankly I get a tad pissed when you wave off my comments as overly sensitive and passive aggressive
Come on D.D. Really? Go back and read what I wrote and why. You were directly and personally attacking another poster with much more vitriol than me. And your arguments did not add up, hence my suggestion.
Frankly
“But mostly I am pissed because what the American left is doing to this county. They are taking down to third-world status for reasons that I think even they don’t fully comprehend.”
Here I think may be the heart of a disagreement that you and I have had many times with regard to many different issues. I believe that you are sincere in your fear that “leftist” policies will result in the US becoming a “third world country”. I have no such fear. I believe that we could easily live with a slightly lower standard of living, one which would still leave us far ahead of most materially and provide much more to those who are in need than we do. This is the course that I would recommend.
Don–I do agree that your arguments are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, they are also quite predictable–it is the type of response that our government ‘representatives’ are counting on in the current immigration fiasco, which was predictable and entirely preventable.
There is plenty of documented evidence that the current wave of children was anticipated by government agencies; by early fall 2013 if not earlier. Rather than ramp up border security and have emergency diplomatic meetings between the relevant countries to alleviate the situation before it became a crisis; the acts of the administration and government agencies were designed more to enable it and deal with it after the fact.
This comes after decades of time where the majority of USA citizens have supported better border control and less immigration (legal and illegal); with our ‘representatives’ taking measures to ensure just the opposite.
So emotionally I take the side of Frankly, as do a pretty substantial proportion of Americans–I’m pissed off about this, and see that it is time that the USA takes a stand against this; if that means deporting some illegals unfairly, so be it. Send a clear message that illegal immigration will not be tolerated, and that the USA policies have shifted to that of enforcement of our laws that call for controlled borders.
And by the way Mr. moderator. You were the one that took this to a personal level. If you are going to be the moderator, I suggest you check that sort of behavior at the door.
Frankly:
Frankly:
Try half the world.
BP
“If someone knocked on your front door would you be obligated to take them in, feed them and supply them with legal council to see if they get to stay in your house or not?”
Yes, if I had agreed to if they met specific criteria and could prove that they met my specifications. If they were a child, I would consider myself obligated to investigate their claim fairly.
If someone knocked on your front door would you be obligated to take them in, feed them and supply them with legal council to see if they get to stay in your house or not?
Still waiting for your solution to the current problem.
A country isnt private property
BP – just ignore these idiotic challenges. There are 150 million poor people that want to come here. Just turn it around on Don and David to demand them to explain how they decide who should come and who should not come and how we are to pay for the process to vet them all with the level of legal nuance they demand, and how we are going to pay for the ones we allow to stay.
They got nothing. Nothing at all.
How about we close the border and tell Mexico that we are going to send them a bill for all expenses for processing any illegals that cross?
The United States and Mexico need to work together to hold and process these people as quickly as possible. We need dozens of new judges to expedite the hearings. Some will get asylum, some might be accorded refugee status. Some might be legally united with a family member currently in the United States, if that family member has a legal basis for being here. The reality is that those in this last category are likely to end up staying here.
But the vast majority will probably not have a valid basis for remaining here, and will need to be repatriated legally to their countries of origin. If you believe in treating people decently, that means that the United States and Mexico will need to, somehow, escort them back safely. Unless you think we should just take them to the border and say ‘see ya later’. Because you will, very likely, see them later if you do that. They’ll just re-enter.
Our processes cost money. Putting troops on the border won’t solve the current problem. Troops can’t arrest people. All your troops can do is augment the Border Patrol, adding manpower. But it’s untrained manpower. Boots on the ground don’t solve either problem quickly, and certainly don’t solve the present situation of thousands of refugees being held awaiting hearings.
So,
we have a system for that. We have definitions of refugee and standards for asylum, and we deport people who don’t meet the criteria. This administration has deported lots of people. The “level of legal nuance that I demand” is simply that we follow the rule of law in our treatment of these folks, and that doesn’t require a high-priced immigration attorney. I’m not proposing that “150 million poor people” be given residency. I will say that we need a pragmatic solution to the 10 – 12 million people who are presently working here illegally, and we need a quick answer to the problem that has developed over the last several months along the border of young illegal migrants.
What I don’t understand is how you can be so pissed off all the time, and then claim that conservatives are reasonable and liberals are emotional. You’re the most angry person that posts on the Vanguard, and your proposals reflect that.
I am pissed when I read so many half-baked arguments to support the absurd.
I am pissed when people demonstrate selfishness while putting forth a façade of charity and caring.
I am pissed at so much obvious hypocrisy and sanctimonious preaching.
I am pissed when people support an ends-justifies-the-means approach only because it props up their ideology at the expense of so much else. And I am pissed when they claim to deserve a label of objectivity and rational fatalities when their arguments never complete a full fact-pattern. And when challenged about it they either wilt into emotional tantrums, or just come back with personal attacks like “you are pissed off all the time.”
And trust me that I am not pissed off much of the time except for these issues. There is nothing in life that bothers me enough to lose my cool except when I clearly see those leading and with power doing all the wrong things.
I am pissed that we have a President and Senate that consistently lies and benefits from a complicit media/press and ignores the law and protocol to push an agenda that is not supported by the majority.
I am pissed that conservatives and the GOP cannot leverage the gross incompetence demonstrated on a daily basis from the once proud party of the working class, and now a party of mess.
I am pissed that this is going on at a national level when the majority of states are well into reforms that the federal government is hostile to and doing everything possible to undermine them.
But mostly I am pissed because what the American left is doing to this county. They are taking down to third-world status for reasons that I think even they don’t fully comprehend.
You should understand where this comes from Don. It is the minority response to overwhelming damaging oppression by the majority.
Getting back to the point of this article, you absolutely know, but probably won’t admit it because of your Messiah syndrome, that this President caused the problem. It is his consistent MO. Throw a tantrum when he does not get is way, and then do things to cause pain and chaos so his complicit media will come forth to leverage the crisis for his ideological power.
Thanks to folks like you, it always seems to work out for him.
Next time you state that conservatives act from reason, while liberals act from emotion, I’ll just copy and paste this whole piece of nonsense right back at you.
You could have just stopped with
I really wonder sometimes about your level of self-awareness. We were actually having a discussion about the related topics of the current immigrant/refugee crisis and the overall issue of immigration. We have some reasonable disagreements about the best ways to proceed on both of those issues, but we probably have areas of agreement as well. Yet you went on this long rant encompassing ideology, Obama, and characterizing those who disagree with you as selfish, sanctimonious hypocrites, etc. It seems very difficult for you to have a reasoned discussion on the Vanguard without doing this sort of thing: pulling in national political issues, and demonizing people you disagree with. In effect, you can’t discuss without being insulting.
That isn’t conducive to reasoned discussion. It is an ongoing problem here. I urge you to discuss issues, and be less pissed about the fact that others don’t share your views or your values.
And, frankly I get a tad pissed when you wave off my comments as overly sensitive and passive aggressive.
Don: Next time you state that conservatives act from reason, while liberals act from emotion, I’ll just copy and paste this whole piece of nonsense right back at you.
Me: And when challenged about it they either wilt into emotional tantrums, or just come back with personal attacks like “you are pissed off all the time.”
So there you have it. Just like I said.
Again Don, how are you suggesting we pay for this $500,000 per illegal immigrant.
What are we going to do with the existing American displaced and damaged by the swell of poor and uneducated illegal immigrants.
You see, you want everyone to see you as so high a mighty in your rational arguments and objectivity, but then when the tough gets going, Don just goes silent about those inconvenient facts.
Similar to your demand that we preserve land around Davis and the fact that you live on acres of farmland.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Don’t know the complete answer, but I sure have an opinion about what others should do.
I would gladly debate this on the facts. The fact that the Obama administration has a gag order on the federal employee border guards. The fact that nobody can get into the detention centers to do a true inventory of the people here. The fact that there are reports of a high percentage of criminals, and a lot of people with serious decease. The fact that this appears to be a coordinated effort by these countries to send these people here, and there is reason to believe that the Obama administration worked with these governments to help cause this “crisis” as a political stunt to take attention away from the IRS scandal and other problems… and provide that fertile “border state Tea Party people are racists” media template that works so well to get Democrats elected.
But aside from all that, I would simply debate the fact that we cannot afford to pay for the processing nor certainly adding more poor and uneducated people to our welfare rolls.
They have to be processed somehow. The administration has asked for more funds to do this in as expeditious a manner as possible. I assume you would support that request if you want to deal with the backlog of thousands of people being held in detention facilities, since the majority of them will likely be sent home. It will cost less if Congress passes the funding request sooner and gets more judges and clerks processing things.
I’ve answered all of your questions and replied to you on the topic of this thread, so far as I know. I haven’t gone silent. Is there something I’ve missed? I don’t plan to engage on conspiracy theories or generic anti-Obama commentary.
I live on a working farm. We bought it as a farm, and we plan to keep it as a farm. If I were proposing to subdivide it into housing, you could perhaps accuse me of hypocrisy. But the farm I own is always going to be a farm. We selected our site and the zoning in a manner that will conserve that site for farming basically forever. So although you keep taking this cheap shot, it has no validity.
And, frankly I get a tad pissed when you wave off my comments as overly sensitive and passive aggressive
Come on D.D. Really? Go back and read what I wrote and why. You were directly and personally attacking another poster with much more vitriol than me. And your arguments did not add up, hence my suggestion.
Frankly
“But mostly I am pissed because what the American left is doing to this county. They are taking down to third-world status for reasons that I think even they don’t fully comprehend.”
Here I think may be the heart of a disagreement that you and I have had many times with regard to many different issues. I believe that you are sincere in your fear that “leftist” policies will result in the US becoming a “third world country”. I have no such fear. I believe that we could easily live with a slightly lower standard of living, one which would still leave us far ahead of most materially and provide much more to those who are in need than we do. This is the course that I would recommend.
Don–I do agree that your arguments are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, they are also quite predictable–it is the type of response that our government ‘representatives’ are counting on in the current immigration fiasco, which was predictable and entirely preventable.
There is plenty of documented evidence that the current wave of children was anticipated by government agencies; by early fall 2013 if not earlier. Rather than ramp up border security and have emergency diplomatic meetings between the relevant countries to alleviate the situation before it became a crisis; the acts of the administration and government agencies were designed more to enable it and deal with it after the fact.
This comes after decades of time where the majority of USA citizens have supported better border control and less immigration (legal and illegal); with our ‘representatives’ taking measures to ensure just the opposite.
So emotionally I take the side of Frankly, as do a pretty substantial proportion of Americans–I’m pissed off about this, and see that it is time that the USA takes a stand against this; if that means deporting some illegals unfairly, so be it. Send a clear message that illegal immigration will not be tolerated, and that the USA policies have shifted to that of enforcement of our laws that call for controlled borders.
And by the way Mr. moderator. You were the one that took this to a personal level. If you are going to be the moderator, I suggest you check that sort of behavior at the door.
Frankly:
Frankly:
Try half the world.
BP
“If someone knocked on your front door would you be obligated to take them in, feed them and supply them with legal council to see if they get to stay in your house or not?”
Yes, if I had agreed to if they met specific criteria and could prove that they met my specifications. If they were a child, I would consider myself obligated to investigate their claim fairly.
Close the damn border. Stop giving pink slips to the soldiers that risk their lives so that America can be free and safe from invasions, and put them on the border to take out the drug traffickers and the human traffickers. Require ALL people that want to immigrate here to go through the legal immigration channels. Increase those channels if necessary, stop this insanity that allows this ongoing flood of so many poor and uneducated people.
Bleeding hearts are killing this country. And it is so hypocritical because most of them live in gated and exclusive neighborhoods and demand that the southern border states house all of these people. So many existing Americans are out of work. Government at all levels is running tremendous deficits. Our entitlement spending is out of control and already far from sustainable.
The flood of so many poor and uneducated immigrants hurts the most vulnerable Americans. It is not fair and it is not right to keep allowing this flood in light of this clear damage being caused.
There is something fundamentally broken with humanity. When conditions are not adequate to sustain a population, all other animals stop reproducing until conditions again improve. What we have today is way too high population in areas that cannot sustain themselves, and it causes them to seek other areas that can. That is fine, but at some point those other areas also cannot sustain themselves. That is where we find ourselves today. That is where we have been for the last decade at least. The cupboard is bare.
People so compelled to save the world need to find a way to fund it without damaging and destroying this great country. Because, otherwise, they become the enemies of this great country as a result of the damage they cause the people of this country.
Liberal progressives, independents and libertarians have been united and beside themselves demanding that the US stop trying to interject in foreign affairs in an attempt to make the world a better place. They demand that we mind our own business. That being the case, then it also applies to this argument that we justify lawlessness in our own country as a way to interject into the affairs of these other countries. If it is none of our business, it is none of our business.
One last point, by allowing the flood of invaders we reduce the pressure on their homelands to improve things. When people are so oppressed, they eventually rise up. But when bleeding hearts allow so many to escape, then the bad guys have an easier time violating and terrorizing those that remain.
Frankly wrote: “When conditions are not adequate to sustain a population, all other animals stop reproducing until conditions again improve. ”
It’s not that they voluntarily stop reproducing, but rather that they run out of resources causing a major population collapse. In human terms this would indicate that we will eventually run out of critical resources such as food, clean water, clean air, land, or energy. This is probably what will eventually happen to human population if we as a species keep adding around 100 million humans to the planet every year.
As economic conditions improve and people get better educated, birth rates fall. Unless there are artificial impediments to access to birth control.
Don wrote: “As economic conditions improve and people get better educated, birth rates fall. Unless there are artificial impediments to access to birth control.”
I agree Don. Unfortunately, economic conditions are not improving in many parts of the world and people are not getting better educated. As far as impediments to family planning, the Catholic church would seem to be a major impediment in much of Latin America including Central America where this latest wave of illegals is coming from.
Topcat
“It’s not that they voluntarily stop reproducing, but rather that they run out of resources causing a major population collapse. In human terms this would indicate that we will eventually run out of critical resources such as food, clean water, clean air, land, or energy. This is probably what will eventually happen to human population if we as a species keep adding around 100 million humans to the planet every year.”
I know that this is a commonly held belief. But it does not hold up in the real world. I will give the example of Honduras since that was where I was on a medical outreach trip three years ago. The government in Honduras had awakened to the need for lessening their birth rate. There solution was to provide economic orphanages ( one of which I visited) for the children already born who could not be supported by their parents and free contraception to the mothers. During my one week trip there I saw between 35-45 women daily and only encountered two or three who I did not feel were using contraception appropriate to their situation. I knew it was true since part of my exam was to confirm the presence of their IUDs. My point is that faced with insufficient resources but given education and free access to contraception, most of the women ( at least in this predominantly Catholic country) were using highly effective contraception by choice.
We could greatly impact the number of unintended pregnancies in this country as well if, instead of throwing roadblocks in front of women attempting to use contraceptives responsibly, we made it free or at least cheap and readily available.
Frankly was correct when he stated that oral contraceptives should be over the counter. He would have been even more correct if he had added that IUDs and Nexplanon ( the rod that goes in the upper arm) should also be over the counter and the only additional charge should be for the providers time needed to place it, typically 15 minutes.
Good work Tia, and encouraging news that these countries are awakening to the fact they need to manage their population, in order to reduce future misery and have some hope for the future; at least their grandchildrens generation might have a better chance to lift themselves out of poverty.
Frankly
“but at some point those other areas also cannot sustain themselves. That is where we find ourselves today. That is where we have been for the last decade at least. The cupboard is bare.”
The cupboard may look bare to you. But the fact that this country is the richest in the world proves the falsity of that statement. What is true is that we cannot help others and continue to live our ostentatiously wealthy lives.
Could we still live comfortably and still help these children…..of course we could. We simply don’t want to because we find any decrease in our standard of living unacceptable.
I believe that we would be a far greater country if we adhered to our principles about the value of human life as firmly as we adhere to our desire for an ever higher standard of material wealth.
This country is far from the richest in the world, and it is in decline in its economic standings.
This country is the third most populated country. Compare it to other highly populated countries and get back to me.
The cupboard is bar… just look at the federal and state and local budget deficits.
You can I might be able to live comfortably, but then you and I cannot afford the bill for all of the people you are compelled to save. It will take the American middle class. The same American middle class that has been hammered and has lost significant purchasing power.
Is you goal to push the US into third world status so that misery loves company?
Frankly
“Is you goal to push the US into third world status so that misery loves company?”
No, that is not my goal. However, since you have already decided that I am a leftist, and that this is what all “leftists” must necessarily want according to your world view then nothing that I could post would change your predetermined view of what “I must believe”.
Frankly
I will grant you one error in my post. I should have said that the USA is amongst the richest nations in the world. The rest, I will stand by.
Frankly–glad to see you on this forum presenting the flip side to the debate; I’m with you in most of your arguments (and I’m pissed off too, at our government that considers itself more responsible for taking care of illegal immigrants than being responsible for representing and protecting the citizens by whom they were elected to office).
Close the damn border. Stop giving pink slips to the soldiers that risk their lives so that America can be free and safe from invasions, and put them on the border to take out the drug traffickers and the human traffickers. Require ALL people that want to immigrate here to go through the legal immigration channels. Increase those channels if necessary, stop this insanity that allows this ongoing flood of so many poor and uneducated people.
Bleeding hearts are killing this country. And it is so hypocritical because most of them live in gated and exclusive neighborhoods and demand that the southern border states house all of these people. So many existing Americans are out of work. Government at all levels is running tremendous deficits. Our entitlement spending is out of control and already far from sustainable.
The flood of so many poor and uneducated immigrants hurts the most vulnerable Americans. It is not fair and it is not right to keep allowing this flood in light of this clear damage being caused.
There is something fundamentally broken with humanity. When conditions are not adequate to sustain a population, all other animals stop reproducing until conditions again improve. What we have today is way too high population in areas that cannot sustain themselves, and it causes them to seek other areas that can. That is fine, but at some point those other areas also cannot sustain themselves. That is where we find ourselves today. That is where we have been for the last decade at least. The cupboard is bare.
People so compelled to save the world need to find a way to fund it without damaging and destroying this great country. Because, otherwise, they become the enemies of this great country as a result of the damage they cause the people of this country.
Liberal progressives, independents and libertarians have been united and beside themselves demanding that the US stop trying to interject in foreign affairs in an attempt to make the world a better place. They demand that we mind our own business. That being the case, then it also applies to this argument that we justify lawlessness in our own country as a way to interject into the affairs of these other countries. If it is none of our business, it is none of our business.
One last point, by allowing the flood of invaders we reduce the pressure on their homelands to improve things. When people are so oppressed, they eventually rise up. But when bleeding hearts allow so many to escape, then the bad guys have an easier time violating and terrorizing those that remain.
Frankly wrote: “When conditions are not adequate to sustain a population, all other animals stop reproducing until conditions again improve. ”
It’s not that they voluntarily stop reproducing, but rather that they run out of resources causing a major population collapse. In human terms this would indicate that we will eventually run out of critical resources such as food, clean water, clean air, land, or energy. This is probably what will eventually happen to human population if we as a species keep adding around 100 million humans to the planet every year.
As economic conditions improve and people get better educated, birth rates fall. Unless there are artificial impediments to access to birth control.
Don wrote: “As economic conditions improve and people get better educated, birth rates fall. Unless there are artificial impediments to access to birth control.”
I agree Don. Unfortunately, economic conditions are not improving in many parts of the world and people are not getting better educated. As far as impediments to family planning, the Catholic church would seem to be a major impediment in much of Latin America including Central America where this latest wave of illegals is coming from.
Topcat
“It’s not that they voluntarily stop reproducing, but rather that they run out of resources causing a major population collapse. In human terms this would indicate that we will eventually run out of critical resources such as food, clean water, clean air, land, or energy. This is probably what will eventually happen to human population if we as a species keep adding around 100 million humans to the planet every year.”
I know that this is a commonly held belief. But it does not hold up in the real world. I will give the example of Honduras since that was where I was on a medical outreach trip three years ago. The government in Honduras had awakened to the need for lessening their birth rate. There solution was to provide economic orphanages ( one of which I visited) for the children already born who could not be supported by their parents and free contraception to the mothers. During my one week trip there I saw between 35-45 women daily and only encountered two or three who I did not feel were using contraception appropriate to their situation. I knew it was true since part of my exam was to confirm the presence of their IUDs. My point is that faced with insufficient resources but given education and free access to contraception, most of the women ( at least in this predominantly Catholic country) were using highly effective contraception by choice.
We could greatly impact the number of unintended pregnancies in this country as well if, instead of throwing roadblocks in front of women attempting to use contraceptives responsibly, we made it free or at least cheap and readily available.
Frankly was correct when he stated that oral contraceptives should be over the counter. He would have been even more correct if he had added that IUDs and Nexplanon ( the rod that goes in the upper arm) should also be over the counter and the only additional charge should be for the providers time needed to place it, typically 15 minutes.
Good work Tia, and encouraging news that these countries are awakening to the fact they need to manage their population, in order to reduce future misery and have some hope for the future; at least their grandchildrens generation might have a better chance to lift themselves out of poverty.
Frankly
“but at some point those other areas also cannot sustain themselves. That is where we find ourselves today. That is where we have been for the last decade at least. The cupboard is bare.”
The cupboard may look bare to you. But the fact that this country is the richest in the world proves the falsity of that statement. What is true is that we cannot help others and continue to live our ostentatiously wealthy lives.
Could we still live comfortably and still help these children…..of course we could. We simply don’t want to because we find any decrease in our standard of living unacceptable.
I believe that we would be a far greater country if we adhered to our principles about the value of human life as firmly as we adhere to our desire for an ever higher standard of material wealth.
This country is far from the richest in the world, and it is in decline in its economic standings.
This country is the third most populated country. Compare it to other highly populated countries and get back to me.
The cupboard is bar… just look at the federal and state and local budget deficits.
You can I might be able to live comfortably, but then you and I cannot afford the bill for all of the people you are compelled to save. It will take the American middle class. The same American middle class that has been hammered and has lost significant purchasing power.
Is you goal to push the US into third world status so that misery loves company?
Frankly
“Is you goal to push the US into third world status so that misery loves company?”
No, that is not my goal. However, since you have already decided that I am a leftist, and that this is what all “leftists” must necessarily want according to your world view then nothing that I could post would change your predetermined view of what “I must believe”.
Frankly
I will grant you one error in my post. I should have said that the USA is amongst the richest nations in the world. The rest, I will stand by.
Frankly–glad to see you on this forum presenting the flip side to the debate; I’m with you in most of your arguments (and I’m pissed off too, at our government that considers itself more responsible for taking care of illegal immigrants than being responsible for representing and protecting the citizens by whom they were elected to office).
Where do a lot of these people end up living… and also those Americans that are displaced by the collapse in economic opportunity caused by an over-supply of low-skilled immigrant job takers?
http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/focus.htm
How might the average bleeding heart Davisite, that cannot bring themselves to vote to develop any of those precious brown fields around us, respond to one of these built up in our sanctuary city?
Or maybe we should call it our “Sanctimonious City”.
There are tons of opportunities. Displaced restaurant workers may decide to make high end edibles in their kitchen and sell them to dispensraies. There is some wonderful infused high end olive oil available through the Green Cross. Maybe some UCD graduates can perfect that, using the olives around campus. Like the high end snooty wine industry. In New York Cit, they are not allowing joints. So some UCD students could perfect a wonderful vaporizer nd tht could be a new industry for the displaced student who annot find a job in Davis.
Graduate students could also make really high quality hemp fabric for the rich ladies in Davis. The possibilities for new industries are endless.
Frankly
This is a totally false analogy that you are drawing between the border of the United States which you want to wall off and the City of Davis which has no wall around it.
The only “wall” around Davis is highly porous and is economically maintained. A poor person can live in Davis. They simply have to be willing to accept a far lower standard of living than they might find in another community. I know this to be true because when I first arrived in Davis the quoted vacancy rate for rentals was 2%. I could not find any apartment that I could afford to rent on my own, so I did the obvious and shared with other broke students. When I got my first real paying job, we still could not afford to buy in Davis ( at least not a home that would have been acceptable to us). So we did the obvious, we bought a starter home in another community and worked our way up. This is not impossible to do today. My kids are using similar strategies. True, my UCD grad daughter cannot afford to buy in Davis. This is not tragic. She is living and sharing in Sacramento. Is this not traditionally how people have “climbed the ladder”, as you are fond of portraying it ?
But there is something fundamentally different about building an physical border and using armed guards to keep people out. Or don’t you agree ? If not, how do you see these as the same ?
Nope. Not really Tia. You can establish social, economic, legal, environmental, regulatory… etc., etc., etc…. barriers that are at least as effective, if not more effective than hard barriers at keeping people out.
Just check the statistics. What percentage of poorer, darker-skinned, non English speaking people actually live in Davis.
Your barriers are working very well… better than the walls we have between Mexico and the US.
And what… now you are supporting the climb the ladder principle? When did you change your mind? And since you have changed your mind, don’t you agree that we should help people climb the ladder to be able to aspire to live in a great city like Davis just like Latin American poor people aspire to live in a great country like the USA?
Or should we just be giving out free money to people like your daughter so she could afford to live here if she wants to?
Frankly
I have never denied that we have a “ladder of opportunity” in this country. That would be nonsensical since I myself have climbed it.
What I have said many times and will stand by is that our society today is structured so as to keep many, many people off even the bottom rung. I do not believe that this is the fault of the government as your claim. Nor do I believe that it is solely the fault of those who would prefer to move their wealth out of the country in order to avoid paying even obviously fair taxes and who clearly see that there is more money to be made by exploiting cheaper labor abroad. I believe that there is a complex interactions between the greed of those at the financial top of the economic ladder and our current political system that have driven the economic disparity that we see today. However, I do not believe that even our “hammered” middle class could not tone down their lifestyle a little and still be quite comfortable and in no threat at all of having their living standard reduced to “third world”.
I do believe however, that this would take a major revision of our economic policies which sadly I am well aware will not happen in my lifetime.
As for handing out “free money”, when have I ever suggested that I support this ? Now you are just making things up. What I have said is that I believe that every one who makes a positive contribution to our society should receive a compensation that allows them to live above the poverty level. That would include my daughter if she met the contribution standard and would not if she chose not to.
Okay. There is still some incongruity in the last paragraph since I’m sure you would not like taking away benefits from people that are not working even thought they can. In that respect it is free money. Just look at the swelling numbers on disability payments from the government. Are people more easily disabled compared to 20, 30 and 40 years ago? I don’t think so. They just have more access to free money.
But good job at explaining your position in the first paragraph. I can address many of your points with facts, but at least I understand that perspective.
I think though, you and others might want to consider the economic slippery slope. Look at all the countries around the world struggling to have a healthy middle class. There are not really that many that have succeeded. And countries like Argentina are examples of how impossible it is to climb back out when the socialist agenda takes down the middle class.
I now what you want, but I think you don’t understand the damaging long-term economic consequences of continuing to take more and more from those that have to distribute to those that don’t.
Where do a lot of these people end up living… and also those Americans that are displaced by the collapse in economic opportunity caused by an over-supply of low-skilled immigrant job takers?
http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/focus.htm
How might the average bleeding heart Davisite, that cannot bring themselves to vote to develop any of those precious brown fields around us, respond to one of these built up in our sanctuary city?
Or maybe we should call it our “Sanctimonious City”.
There are tons of opportunities. Displaced restaurant workers may decide to make high end edibles in their kitchen and sell them to dispensraies. There is some wonderful infused high end olive oil available through the Green Cross. Maybe some UCD graduates can perfect that, using the olives around campus. Like the high end snooty wine industry. In New York Cit, they are not allowing joints. So some UCD students could perfect a wonderful vaporizer nd tht could be a new industry for the displaced student who annot find a job in Davis.
Graduate students could also make really high quality hemp fabric for the rich ladies in Davis. The possibilities for new industries are endless.
Frankly
This is a totally false analogy that you are drawing between the border of the United States which you want to wall off and the City of Davis which has no wall around it.
The only “wall” around Davis is highly porous and is economically maintained. A poor person can live in Davis. They simply have to be willing to accept a far lower standard of living than they might find in another community. I know this to be true because when I first arrived in Davis the quoted vacancy rate for rentals was 2%. I could not find any apartment that I could afford to rent on my own, so I did the obvious and shared with other broke students. When I got my first real paying job, we still could not afford to buy in Davis ( at least not a home that would have been acceptable to us). So we did the obvious, we bought a starter home in another community and worked our way up. This is not impossible to do today. My kids are using similar strategies. True, my UCD grad daughter cannot afford to buy in Davis. This is not tragic. She is living and sharing in Sacramento. Is this not traditionally how people have “climbed the ladder”, as you are fond of portraying it ?
But there is something fundamentally different about building an physical border and using armed guards to keep people out. Or don’t you agree ? If not, how do you see these as the same ?
Nope. Not really Tia. You can establish social, economic, legal, environmental, regulatory… etc., etc., etc…. barriers that are at least as effective, if not more effective than hard barriers at keeping people out.
Just check the statistics. What percentage of poorer, darker-skinned, non English speaking people actually live in Davis.
Your barriers are working very well… better than the walls we have between Mexico and the US.
And what… now you are supporting the climb the ladder principle? When did you change your mind? And since you have changed your mind, don’t you agree that we should help people climb the ladder to be able to aspire to live in a great city like Davis just like Latin American poor people aspire to live in a great country like the USA?
Or should we just be giving out free money to people like your daughter so she could afford to live here if she wants to?
Frankly
I have never denied that we have a “ladder of opportunity” in this country. That would be nonsensical since I myself have climbed it.
What I have said many times and will stand by is that our society today is structured so as to keep many, many people off even the bottom rung. I do not believe that this is the fault of the government as your claim. Nor do I believe that it is solely the fault of those who would prefer to move their wealth out of the country in order to avoid paying even obviously fair taxes and who clearly see that there is more money to be made by exploiting cheaper labor abroad. I believe that there is a complex interactions between the greed of those at the financial top of the economic ladder and our current political system that have driven the economic disparity that we see today. However, I do not believe that even our “hammered” middle class could not tone down their lifestyle a little and still be quite comfortable and in no threat at all of having their living standard reduced to “third world”.
I do believe however, that this would take a major revision of our economic policies which sadly I am well aware will not happen in my lifetime.
As for handing out “free money”, when have I ever suggested that I support this ? Now you are just making things up. What I have said is that I believe that every one who makes a positive contribution to our society should receive a compensation that allows them to live above the poverty level. That would include my daughter if she met the contribution standard and would not if she chose not to.
Okay. There is still some incongruity in the last paragraph since I’m sure you would not like taking away benefits from people that are not working even thought they can. In that respect it is free money. Just look at the swelling numbers on disability payments from the government. Are people more easily disabled compared to 20, 30 and 40 years ago? I don’t think so. They just have more access to free money.
But good job at explaining your position in the first paragraph. I can address many of your points with facts, but at least I understand that perspective.
I think though, you and others might want to consider the economic slippery slope. Look at all the countries around the world struggling to have a healthy middle class. There are not really that many that have succeeded. And countries like Argentina are examples of how impossible it is to climb back out when the socialist agenda takes down the middle class.
I now what you want, but I think you don’t understand the damaging long-term economic consequences of continuing to take more and more from those that have to distribute to those that don’t.
A good question would be, “where is the rest of the ‘civilized world’?”, in helping to accept bona fide refugees, and/or helping to defray the costs? Where is the United Nations, and/or international courts?
…your daughter…
Why not keep people’s kids out of this debate.
A good question would be, “where is the rest of the ‘civilized world’?”, in helping to accept bona fide refugees, and/or helping to defray the costs? Where is the United Nations, and/or international courts?
…your daughter…
Why not keep people’s kids out of this debate.
Some quick math indicates that Davis’ share of 100,000 refugees could be met by twenty families willing to take on refugee into their home. If the community came up with $12,000 to offset costs to those families, we could support those 20 refugees for forty years for less cost than building (much less maintaining) a 50 meter pool.
Am NOT ADVOCATING this, but I think it goes to economic impact on a country with 317 million people.
hpierce: Some quick math indicates that Davis’ share of 100,000 refugees could be met by twenty families willing to take on refugee into their home. If the community came up with $12,000 to offset costs to those families, we could support those 20 refugees for forty years for less cost than building (much less maintaining) a 50 meter pool.
I actually think that there would be many many families in Davis and beyond that would be willing to adopt kids and refugees. One issue that I think impacts, at least partially, the current immigration situation is that international adoptions from many countries, and Guatamala in particular, have been curtailed in recent years.
But the problem is to get the immigration laws aligned to allow this.
My wife is an immigrant from Latin America who came to this country with her two kids who didn’t speak a word of English. I married her and adopted her two kids. But at one point we were about thirty days away from her and her kids being in this country “illegally”, and I would have had to leave this country just to live with them as a family. There isn’t any logic to immigration law, and I think it’s is worse than tax law to navigate.
Immigrants are not entitled to legal counsel with respect to immigration law in the U.S., unlike the situation with criminal law.
Including North and West Davis. Also include these two neighborhoods for new Section 8 / public housing, and new social services.
Hpierce, you are not factoring the cost of public services. An illegal immigrant costs the country over half a million dollars over their lifetime.
Frankly: Hpierce, you are not factoring the cost of public services. An illegal immigrant costs the country over half a million dollars over their lifetime.
I have a problem with comments like this. As I mentioned above, my wife and her kids were days away from being “illegal”. Given that, for me, “illegal” is a rather arbitrary label. I refuse to think that she and my kids are a net burden to society, however that’s the line of thinking you are attached to.
wdf1: you can’t honestly take a single exception and fashion it into a general argument and then demand that argument has credibility. The credibility is in the numbers. And the average illegal immigrant – who is generally poor and uneducated – costs the US over $500,000 over their lifetime.
So let’s say 50% of these 100,000 people that have flooded here get to stay for one reason or another. That is $25 billion dollars. That’s right. We are going to spend $25 billion dollars on 50,000 “refugees”.
And lets not forget to add in the other 20 million illegal immigrants that are already here. Let’s say only 5 million of those stay stuck in the bottom of our socio-economic levels (it would be more than that, but I am being conservative for your benefit). That is $2.5 trillion.
But you are the exception if your wife and kids are not on public assistance.
From the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/use-public-assistance-benefits-citizens-non-citizen-immigrants-united
We are a bilingual family, as you might deduce. We are reasonably connected to the Spanish-speaking immigrant community in Davis, including plenty of lower-income immigrants from Mexico and Central America. What you cite as statistics, facts, and generalizations don’t comport with what I see.
There are plenty of immigrant families in the area with mixed legal and illegal status, and I don’t see much see much logic to it.
On the cost of “illegal” immigrants. Somehow the arguments from the other side just conveniently leave off that distinction. And that is unfortunate because those on the right of politics are in support of legal immigration.
Here is the most complete and comprehensive immigration cost-benefit analysis currently available.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
Put another way, if amnesty were enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would subsequently receive $898,000 in government benefits over the course of a lifetime and pay $306,000 in taxes over the same period. The average lifetime fiscal deficit (benefit received minus taxes paid) would be around $592,000 for each adult amnesty recipient.
Having read through that study, I see they are making one major claim. That those 11 – 12 million who are illegally here would, if granted residence and legal status, join the millions of Americans of low income and low education who — over the course of their lifetimes — cost the government more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
The question is of what utility is this argument? If you want to reduce that impact, you would have to remove those millions of people who are working here and send them home. That is not practical or, in some cases, desirable. It would have unintended consequences.
The alternative is to just leave them illegal, thereby gaining the benefits of their labor with lower cost of public services. And the reality is that there are major interest groups, such as agribusiness and the hospitality industry, that would probably be perfectly happy with that. Ie, that no immigration reform would be, in their view, better than a deport-them immigration policy.
The immigration bill that is presently before Congress addresses various goals: retain a labor supply, treat people fairly, enforce the laws, close and enforce the border. It’s a rather delicate balance of a bunch of competing interests. All of that requires money. No matter what we do, it’s going to cost money.
“…you want everyone to see you as so high a mighty in your rational arguments and objectivity, but then when the tough gets going, Don just goes silent about those inconvenient facts.”
Or, maybe Don S. is busy trying to make a living and can’t answer every one of your rants immediately.
Frankly: you can’t honestly take a single exception and fashion it into a general argument and then demand that argument has credibility. The credibility is in the numbers. And the average illegal immigrant – who is generally poor and uneducated – costs the US over $500,000 over their lifetime.
I have a window that you don’t have. I know a number of the very people you’re talking about who are our “neighbors” right here in Davis and Yolo County. I can and have talked to them. If I were to talk further about specific cases, I think you’d go on and on classifying them as “exceptions,” just like my wife and kids. This definition of who is illegal and who isn’t and why seems as ridiculous as defining how well our education system is doing based on using standardized test scores in English and math.
You define them as a burden on society because maybe they won’t pay as much in taxes during their lifetime to cover the cost of all the social programs that they might be entitled to. But these immigrants also allow you to have more personal spending money because you don’t have to pay for as much in agricultural produce at the supermarket, maybe cheaper lawn care, custodial services, in restaurant costs, for your hotel, maybe childcare, maybe your auto repair, house-cleaning for some.
Legal first generation immigrants, I find, don’t typically take advantage of all the programs that they’re entitled to because they don’t know enough English to figure out all the nuances of the information. Imagine trying to figure out how to file your state and federal income taxes with all the instructions in Spanish. Even if your Spanish might be better than average for a second language speaker, you still wouldn’t be sure what you were reading.
hpierce
I think that this is a fantastic idea and I would be an advocate for it.
I personally would be happy to donate if someone with organizational skills were able to set up a program to provide support for these children.
wdf1
I am greatly encouraged by your approach which I think might be the best option for some of the very youngest of these children. However, at least some of these are from families where the ultimate goal is family reunification. Part of the problem in any adoption system is that children may get either intentionally ( as in adoption for profit) or unintentionally “triaged” into adoption when all their parent was trying to do was to get them to safety where they could join relatives already here with the ultimate goal of getting the entire family together in a safe location.
Adoption is a very complex issue. I am so glad that it has worked out so well for you and your family.
Tucson Social Services Catholic Relief fund is taking donations and Oro Valley Democrats bring supplies to these needy children weekly.
D.D.
Do you know what kinds of supplies and aid the Oro Valley Democrats are providing or do you have a direct link to their organizational site ?
I am still leery of CA law enforcement bothering my family personally, or else I’d gladly give you my P.O. Box. But I’ll tell you the Democrtas of Oro Valley need children’s blankets so the kids at the Nogales Detention Center do not have to use aluminum blankets in their cages. YES, that’s right. They sleep in metal CAGES.
D.D.
That’s ok, I looked up their site and will be in touch with them directly.
Also, I can’t find the relevant post, but I feel that since it was me that brought up the example of my daughter, it is fair game for other posters to comment on my post. I have gotten my ( now 25 and 22 year olds) permission to use their stories as examples and so I have no problem with this.
Another way of looking at it is divide the $3.7 billion by the 330 million residents of the U.S. and you come up with $11 per person to fund the current illegal immigration border problem. Now multiply that $11 by the 65,000 Davis residents and you get $715,000. That’s $715,000 that our community could sure use right now when we have a crumbling infrastructure. Instead it’s going to be pissed away on lawyers and such to fund illegals crossing our borders.
Some quick math indicates that Davis’ share of 100,000 refugees could be met by twenty families willing to take on refugee into their home. If the community came up with $12,000 to offset costs to those families, we could support those 20 refugees for forty years for less cost than building (much less maintaining) a 50 meter pool.
Am NOT ADVOCATING this, but I think it goes to economic impact on a country with 317 million people.
hpierce: Some quick math indicates that Davis’ share of 100,000 refugees could be met by twenty families willing to take on refugee into their home. If the community came up with $12,000 to offset costs to those families, we could support those 20 refugees for forty years for less cost than building (much less maintaining) a 50 meter pool.
I actually think that there would be many many families in Davis and beyond that would be willing to adopt kids and refugees. One issue that I think impacts, at least partially, the current immigration situation is that international adoptions from many countries, and Guatamala in particular, have been curtailed in recent years.
But the problem is to get the immigration laws aligned to allow this.
My wife is an immigrant from Latin America who came to this country with her two kids who didn’t speak a word of English. I married her and adopted her two kids. But at one point we were about thirty days away from her and her kids being in this country “illegally”, and I would have had to leave this country just to live with them as a family. There isn’t any logic to immigration law, and I think it’s is worse than tax law to navigate.
Immigrants are not entitled to legal counsel with respect to immigration law in the U.S., unlike the situation with criminal law.
Including North and West Davis. Also include these two neighborhoods for new Section 8 / public housing, and new social services.
Hpierce, you are not factoring the cost of public services. An illegal immigrant costs the country over half a million dollars over their lifetime.
Frankly: Hpierce, you are not factoring the cost of public services. An illegal immigrant costs the country over half a million dollars over their lifetime.
I have a problem with comments like this. As I mentioned above, my wife and her kids were days away from being “illegal”. Given that, for me, “illegal” is a rather arbitrary label. I refuse to think that she and my kids are a net burden to society, however that’s the line of thinking you are attached to.
wdf1: you can’t honestly take a single exception and fashion it into a general argument and then demand that argument has credibility. The credibility is in the numbers. And the average illegal immigrant – who is generally poor and uneducated – costs the US over $500,000 over their lifetime.
So let’s say 50% of these 100,000 people that have flooded here get to stay for one reason or another. That is $25 billion dollars. That’s right. We are going to spend $25 billion dollars on 50,000 “refugees”.
And lets not forget to add in the other 20 million illegal immigrants that are already here. Let’s say only 5 million of those stay stuck in the bottom of our socio-economic levels (it would be more than that, but I am being conservative for your benefit). That is $2.5 trillion.
But you are the exception if your wife and kids are not on public assistance.
From the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/use-public-assistance-benefits-citizens-non-citizen-immigrants-united
We are a bilingual family, as you might deduce. We are reasonably connected to the Spanish-speaking immigrant community in Davis, including plenty of lower-income immigrants from Mexico and Central America. What you cite as statistics, facts, and generalizations don’t comport with what I see.
There are plenty of immigrant families in the area with mixed legal and illegal status, and I don’t see much see much logic to it.
On the cost of “illegal” immigrants. Somehow the arguments from the other side just conveniently leave off that distinction. And that is unfortunate because those on the right of politics are in support of legal immigration.
Here is the most complete and comprehensive immigration cost-benefit analysis currently available.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
Put another way, if amnesty were enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would subsequently receive $898,000 in government benefits over the course of a lifetime and pay $306,000 in taxes over the same period. The average lifetime fiscal deficit (benefit received minus taxes paid) would be around $592,000 for each adult amnesty recipient.
Having read through that study, I see they are making one major claim. That those 11 – 12 million who are illegally here would, if granted residence and legal status, join the millions of Americans of low income and low education who — over the course of their lifetimes — cost the government more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
The question is of what utility is this argument? If you want to reduce that impact, you would have to remove those millions of people who are working here and send them home. That is not practical or, in some cases, desirable. It would have unintended consequences.
The alternative is to just leave them illegal, thereby gaining the benefits of their labor with lower cost of public services. And the reality is that there are major interest groups, such as agribusiness and the hospitality industry, that would probably be perfectly happy with that. Ie, that no immigration reform would be, in their view, better than a deport-them immigration policy.
The immigration bill that is presently before Congress addresses various goals: retain a labor supply, treat people fairly, enforce the laws, close and enforce the border. It’s a rather delicate balance of a bunch of competing interests. All of that requires money. No matter what we do, it’s going to cost money.
“…you want everyone to see you as so high a mighty in your rational arguments and objectivity, but then when the tough gets going, Don just goes silent about those inconvenient facts.”
Or, maybe Don S. is busy trying to make a living and can’t answer every one of your rants immediately.
Frankly: you can’t honestly take a single exception and fashion it into a general argument and then demand that argument has credibility. The credibility is in the numbers. And the average illegal immigrant – who is generally poor and uneducated – costs the US over $500,000 over their lifetime.
I have a window that you don’t have. I know a number of the very people you’re talking about who are our “neighbors” right here in Davis and Yolo County. I can and have talked to them. If I were to talk further about specific cases, I think you’d go on and on classifying them as “exceptions,” just like my wife and kids. This definition of who is illegal and who isn’t and why seems as ridiculous as defining how well our education system is doing based on using standardized test scores in English and math.
You define them as a burden on society because maybe they won’t pay as much in taxes during their lifetime to cover the cost of all the social programs that they might be entitled to. But these immigrants also allow you to have more personal spending money because you don’t have to pay for as much in agricultural produce at the supermarket, maybe cheaper lawn care, custodial services, in restaurant costs, for your hotel, maybe childcare, maybe your auto repair, house-cleaning for some.
Legal first generation immigrants, I find, don’t typically take advantage of all the programs that they’re entitled to because they don’t know enough English to figure out all the nuances of the information. Imagine trying to figure out how to file your state and federal income taxes with all the instructions in Spanish. Even if your Spanish might be better than average for a second language speaker, you still wouldn’t be sure what you were reading.
hpierce
I think that this is a fantastic idea and I would be an advocate for it.
I personally would be happy to donate if someone with organizational skills were able to set up a program to provide support for these children.
wdf1
I am greatly encouraged by your approach which I think might be the best option for some of the very youngest of these children. However, at least some of these are from families where the ultimate goal is family reunification. Part of the problem in any adoption system is that children may get either intentionally ( as in adoption for profit) or unintentionally “triaged” into adoption when all their parent was trying to do was to get them to safety where they could join relatives already here with the ultimate goal of getting the entire family together in a safe location.
Adoption is a very complex issue. I am so glad that it has worked out so well for you and your family.
Tucson Social Services Catholic Relief fund is taking donations and Oro Valley Democrats bring supplies to these needy children weekly.
D.D.
Do you know what kinds of supplies and aid the Oro Valley Democrats are providing or do you have a direct link to their organizational site ?
I am still leery of CA law enforcement bothering my family personally, or else I’d gladly give you my P.O. Box. But I’ll tell you the Democrtas of Oro Valley need children’s blankets so the kids at the Nogales Detention Center do not have to use aluminum blankets in their cages. YES, that’s right. They sleep in metal CAGES.
D.D.
That’s ok, I looked up their site and will be in touch with them directly.
Also, I can’t find the relevant post, but I feel that since it was me that brought up the example of my daughter, it is fair game for other posters to comment on my post. I have gotten my ( now 25 and 22 year olds) permission to use their stories as examples and so I have no problem with this.
Another way of looking at it is divide the $3.7 billion by the 330 million residents of the U.S. and you come up with $11 per person to fund the current illegal immigration border problem. Now multiply that $11 by the 65,000 Davis residents and you get $715,000. That’s $715,000 that our community could sure use right now when we have a crumbling infrastructure. Instead it’s going to be pissed away on lawyers and such to fund illegals crossing our borders.
Poverty is a worldwide problem. Actually, on the world stage, Mexico is middle of the road, or better.
Mexico, Guatemala, and Nicaragua have signed a “safe passage agreement” to allow some of these individuals to cross to America this past week (look it up); they want us to have their costs, they don’t want them. Use Google. Few have reported this critical event.
This appears to be a coordinated effort; see above. Tens of thousands of children don’t hop on trains to get to a country over 1,000 miles away because they heard a rumor from a little bird. Obama’s policies haven’t helped.
Authorities and politicos won’t allow us in to really see who are in these detention centers; many look to be young men, older teenagers, and some look like gang members.
The poverty is worse in Africa, and in other portions of the world.
Jesse Jackson finally woke up, and said if we can give $3.7 Billion dollars to illegal immigrants, we can help the Black Community.
Illegal immigration devastates the Black Community, with a current unemployment rate of 11%; young Black men is some cities have an unemployment rate of approximately 50%.
A lot of liberal butter ($$$$) will be spread around with these new arrivals … lawyers, immigration lawyers, ACLA types, La Raza, and a whole host of lefties will feast on these Tens of Billions (See the solar situation.) Pork Barrel 301 here.
Obama played pool and rank beer, but didn’t go to the border. Now he’ll go to Martha’s Vineyard for a week while Rome burns 5 different ways. Why doesn’t he give this $3.7 Billion to VA hospitals… citizens who fought in wars to protect our lives and families?
The $3.7 Billion only includes money for 40 new lawyers; why not 400, or 1,000?
Upwards of 95% of these illegal immigrants from south of our border don’t show up for their immigration hearing. More law breaking.
Some of these individuals are eligible to be immediately deported; they should.
Call our the National Guard, even Alinsky-ite Obama said he is open to the idea. Start with 5,000 troops, immediately. This is Obama’s Katrina.
Coyotes should serve severe and harsh penalties for their trade; upwards of 50% of the young girls brought across the border are subject to vile acts. A new immigrant at a local taqueria showed me a little “humorous” wind-up doll of a half-man, half-coyote, conducting a sex act on a young girl. This is vile and should not be supported!!
This is not a policy or compassion, this is madness. Our southern border is also an open sieve for over 50% of our illegal drugs which are brought into this country.
Trueblue, You could also mention the downward pressure on lower income wages that is created by so much illegal immigration. I’m surprised that we never hear complaints from the “Raise the minimum wage” crowd about the immigrants who are willing to work for minimum wage or even less where they are paid “under the table.”
Agreed.
The Democrats want the votes and defacto power for 50+ years; big business wants cheap labor; and the GOP is worried about being called racists.
Meanwhile, the middle and lower classes get hammered.
When the Vietnamese boat people came here, the Fathers could work, and sometimes Mom, too. There appear to be few “fathers” here, a lot of wayward youth, and a lot of people who will go on welfare of various sorts, and work off the books.
TBD
“There appear to be few “fathers” here, a lot of wayward youth, and a lot of people who will go on welfare of various sorts, and work off the books.”
That may be how it appears to you. That is certainly not how it has appeared to me through the years of taking care of many of these folks as patients. I guess our perspectives vary according to how we have or have not interacted with these individuals. I have met many, many fathers here trying to earn extra money to support their families. I have met many youth that you might think of as “wayward” but whom I see as attempting to raise money to send to their parents and siblings back home. I don’t know that actual proportion that end up accepting some kind of aid, but then I suspect you don’t either.
Have you met many drug dealers, Sanchos, gang bangers or wanna be gang bangers? Yes, I’ve met many hard working individuals, and I’ve also met dozens of Sanchos … a whole new slice on Mexican-American or illegal immigrant life. Huge social costs there, a brother to the old “Papa was a rolling stone”.
Topcat
The view from at least this side of the “left” is not that we should be punishing those who are willing to work ( they are just trying to survive). Who we should be targeting are the employers who are willing to look the other way at the time for verification of right to work in order to pay less.
In many years of both living and working in agricultural areas dependent upon seasonal field labor, I have never seen trucks or vans going to the poor black , Asian, or white neighborhoods recruiting young men to drive them to the fields to work. This is one typical way of getting laborers whose country of origin is south of the border. So exactly who is responsible for this pattern of employment. I would lay it squarely on the employers.
And whose wages are being depressed. I never saw any groups other than the Hispanic day laborers out waiting for the employers trucks ( either for field work or for construction).
I am sure that if they had been willing to work for the going price, they would have been there. Again, it was the employer desire to pay less driving this exchange.
Poverty is a worldwide problem. Actually, on the world stage, Mexico is middle of the road, or better.
Mexico, Guatemala, and Nicaragua have signed a “safe passage agreement” to allow some of these individuals to cross to America this past week (look it up); they want us to have their costs, they don’t want them. Use Google. Few have reported this critical event.
This appears to be a coordinated effort; see above. Tens of thousands of children don’t hop on trains to get to a country over 1,000 miles away because they heard a rumor from a little bird. Obama’s policies haven’t helped.
Authorities and politicos won’t allow us in to really see who are in these detention centers; many look to be young men, older teenagers, and some look like gang members.
The poverty is worse in Africa, and in other portions of the world.
Jesse Jackson finally woke up, and said if we can give $3.7 Billion dollars to illegal immigrants, we can help the Black Community.
Illegal immigration devastates the Black Community, with a current unemployment rate of 11%; young Black men is some cities have an unemployment rate of approximately 50%.
A lot of liberal butter ($$$$) will be spread around with these new arrivals … lawyers, immigration lawyers, ACLA types, La Raza, and a whole host of lefties will feast on these Tens of Billions (See the solar situation.) Pork Barrel 301 here.
Obama played pool and rank beer, but didn’t go to the border. Now he’ll go to Martha’s Vineyard for a week while Rome burns 5 different ways. Why doesn’t he give this $3.7 Billion to VA hospitals… citizens who fought in wars to protect our lives and families?
The $3.7 Billion only includes money for 40 new lawyers; why not 400, or 1,000?
Upwards of 95% of these illegal immigrants from south of our border don’t show up for their immigration hearing. More law breaking.
Some of these individuals are eligible to be immediately deported; they should.
Call our the National Guard, even Alinsky-ite Obama said he is open to the idea. Start with 5,000 troops, immediately. This is Obama’s Katrina.
Coyotes should serve severe and harsh penalties for their trade; upwards of 50% of the young girls brought across the border are subject to vile acts. A new immigrant at a local taqueria showed me a little “humorous” wind-up doll of a half-man, half-coyote, conducting a sex act on a young girl. This is vile and should not be supported!!
This is not a policy or compassion, this is madness. Our southern border is also an open sieve for over 50% of our illegal drugs which are brought into this country.
Trueblue, You could also mention the downward pressure on lower income wages that is created by so much illegal immigration. I’m surprised that we never hear complaints from the “Raise the minimum wage” crowd about the immigrants who are willing to work for minimum wage or even less where they are paid “under the table.”
Agreed.
The Democrats want the votes and defacto power for 50+ years; big business wants cheap labor; and the GOP is worried about being called racists.
Meanwhile, the middle and lower classes get hammered.
When the Vietnamese boat people came here, the Fathers could work, and sometimes Mom, too. There appear to be few “fathers” here, a lot of wayward youth, and a lot of people who will go on welfare of various sorts, and work off the books.
TBD
“There appear to be few “fathers” here, a lot of wayward youth, and a lot of people who will go on welfare of various sorts, and work off the books.”
That may be how it appears to you. That is certainly not how it has appeared to me through the years of taking care of many of these folks as patients. I guess our perspectives vary according to how we have or have not interacted with these individuals. I have met many, many fathers here trying to earn extra money to support their families. I have met many youth that you might think of as “wayward” but whom I see as attempting to raise money to send to their parents and siblings back home. I don’t know that actual proportion that end up accepting some kind of aid, but then I suspect you don’t either.
Have you met many drug dealers, Sanchos, gang bangers or wanna be gang bangers? Yes, I’ve met many hard working individuals, and I’ve also met dozens of Sanchos … a whole new slice on Mexican-American or illegal immigrant life. Huge social costs there, a brother to the old “Papa was a rolling stone”.
Topcat
The view from at least this side of the “left” is not that we should be punishing those who are willing to work ( they are just trying to survive). Who we should be targeting are the employers who are willing to look the other way at the time for verification of right to work in order to pay less.
In many years of both living and working in agricultural areas dependent upon seasonal field labor, I have never seen trucks or vans going to the poor black , Asian, or white neighborhoods recruiting young men to drive them to the fields to work. This is one typical way of getting laborers whose country of origin is south of the border. So exactly who is responsible for this pattern of employment. I would lay it squarely on the employers.
And whose wages are being depressed. I never saw any groups other than the Hispanic day laborers out waiting for the employers trucks ( either for field work or for construction).
I am sure that if they had been willing to work for the going price, they would have been there. Again, it was the employer desire to pay less driving this exchange.
Now that cannabis is legal in CA, maybe less will be snuck across the border. A few years ago, a young man I know was given the option to work at a legal farm in the Humboldt are, rather than go to jail for cultivatng. Kinda liked that solution.
D.D.
“a young man I know was given the option to work at a legal farm in the Humboldt are, rather than go to jail for cultivating”
If we could implement these kinds of programs widely as well as those emphasizing restorative justice as opposed to punitive for appropriate non violent crimes, we would go along way towards helping those who have made poor choices reach that first rung of Frankly’s ladder.
Now that cannabis is legal in CA, maybe less will be snuck across the border. A few years ago, a young man I know was given the option to work at a legal farm in the Humboldt are, rather than go to jail for cultivatng. Kinda liked that solution.
D.D.
“a young man I know was given the option to work at a legal farm in the Humboldt are, rather than go to jail for cultivating”
If we could implement these kinds of programs widely as well as those emphasizing restorative justice as opposed to punitive for appropriate non violent crimes, we would go along way towards helping those who have made poor choices reach that first rung of Frankly’s ladder.
Interesting perspective from an immigration judge interviewed on the News Hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzWHXBmsv_k
Interesting perspective from an immigration judge interviewed on the News Hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzWHXBmsv_k
Here is a very good analysis of why immigration reform died and has died.
hy immigration reform died in Congress
Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014).
Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) But now, no reasonable person can say that immigration’s death — in 2013 and 2014 — is anyone’s fault but House Republicans. Still, we also understand why they killed it: They saw no short-term benefit. Yes, the long-term politics (for 2016 and 2020) cry out for Republicans to remove immigration as an issue. But doing so would be so painful in the process (just see Eric Cantor’s primary defeat). All of that said, the longer Republicans wait on passing immigration reform, the longer the wounds with Latino voters will take to heal. We’ll simply quote from that RNC after-election autopsy report from March 2013: “[W]e must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”
Looking at this a little deeper than the “denigrate GOP for being racist” template of the Democrats and left media, it is clear to see that Obama and Democrats share responsibility. They have set up the most polarizing political climate every in the history of the US. The politicians in the White House and Senate are despised by almost 50% of the country that they are grinding their GOP representatives to shreds. See Eric Cantor for that explanation.
This is the Saul Alinky and Chicago thug politics divide and conquer approach at work. Obama and the Dems have completely adopted the dog-eared play book.
And the left lap-dogs are either too ignorant or too partisan themselves to see the cause and effect.
When you don’t like and don’t trust the other side, negotiation is not the game.
And so the Democrats have put into office the most untrustworthy, the most partisan, the most divisive politicians ever to stain our sacred institutions. And the media has behaved like completely left-biased lapdogs… in fact, the media has in effect merged with the Democrat party in Washington.
So what is happening is that the states are all turning more red… electing more reform-minded conservatives.
And this is where we are headed. A new civil war. And that civil war will be directly the responsibility of those that supported and protected the actions of the Obama administration and the Harry Reid Senate and the Nancy Pelosi House.
Half the country hates these politicians with a passion never seen before. And they are furious at the media and the lack of accountability for all the lying and all the harm and all the mistakes caused.
And so these GOP congress people listen to their constituents and they have to take the hard line or end up like Eric Cantor.
And so the left has two choices.
One – they can start behaving like honest and moral adults given the privilege of political power, respecting the ideas of their political opponents even as they disagree… and compromising. Then things can get done.
Two – they can try to gain more power as a super majority.
But the problem with #2 is the state level politics. And also, we have seen a Democrat majority at work before in the first two Obama years, and it led to the extreme partisanship we see today.
The immigration debate is not a debate about immigrants per se… it is a debate about American politics. And there is a large issue of money at the center… as there is with most political debates in this country and other countries.
It seems to me that Republicans / conservatives are poor communicators and strategists.
There are many Latinos who have conservative values. Hard work, family, religion … all seemingly 2nd tier issues for modern Democrats. There is also a strong ethic in starting new businesses.
On the flip side, the challenge is tough when someone is offering Free Candy. You’d think a well-spoken conservative could articulate the risk. I sure as hell could, but you need to spend time in their community, hear the stories, and be able to grasp ideas and stories that connect to their lives. Talking about the Tea Party, deficits, Obamacare, isn’t enough. You need to be able to communicate and articulate with stories that make sense.
Conservatives could also pinpoint subgroups that don’t buy into the victim mentality or groupthink that mainstream groups have bought hook, line, and sinker. Could the GOP carve out a niche with Ethiopian voters, who are largely Christian and rock solid? How about Nigerian Americans? How about young Internet entrepreneurs, who could potentially be paying a 10% or 13% state tax in California, along with onorous regulations?
I thought a Bobby Jindahl might help, but he does come off as weak / as a poor speaker. Time will tell. It will be interesting to see what Ted Cruz does. I think Rubio and the former VP pick both shot themselves in the foot.
TBD: It seems to me that Republicans / conservatives are poor communicators and strategists.
There are many Latinos who have conservative values. Hard work, family, religion … all seemingly 2nd tier issues for modern Democrats. There is also a strong ethic in starting new businesses.
It’s because Republicans/conservatives right now have a very poor narrative on the value of community, and there is a certain bad stereotyping of immigrants. Your comments have embraced some of those issues.
You pick out some immigrant groups as “model”, presumably Ethiopians and Nigerians. Typically when you identify a “model” group of immigrants, those are actually a little more affluent and educated and had the means to immigrate from overseas. In their native countries, you could also identify more poorly educated Ethiopians and Nigerians with more modest means (economically poorer), who would exhibit all the characteristics that you would cite as being undesirable in some immigrants.
I think you might assume in your reference to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio that if they were to get out there and gain more prominence, that other Latino groups would follow them. I haven’t heard Cruz speak Spanish, but I have heard Rubio, and his Spanish is very strong. He would be able to communicate more directly to more recent generations of Latinos who would likely still retain a significant amount of Spanish speaking ability. But assuming beyond that that Rubio or Cruz would connect with Mexican Americans, or Dominicans, or Central Americans the same way that they might with other Cuban Americans is erroneous.
It’s like living in China and having Chinese assume that all English speakers are alike — Australians, Brits, Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders. There might be some shared perspectives, but there are key differences. If an immigrant Australian politician in China came to visit an American ex-pat community and said, in English, “vote for me! I’m one of you!” I don’t think that would resonate too well.
Conservatives/Republican policy and narrative these days tend to be unfriendly to efforts recent immigrants to form communities. That usually comes out by disparaging the fact that they don’t speak English, or that they will gather in ghettos and ethnic neighborhoods, and possibly that they won’t assimilate “American” values. And, related to that, they (conservatives/Republicans) may not recognize barriers to assimilating into American society. For example, it maybe difficult to get information in Spanish about the public schools or about social services. You might respond, “well, dammit! Then they should learn English! This is America!” First generation immigrants will typically remain dominant in their native language. Their kids will more rapidly assimilate English and American culture.
Providing information in Spanish, especially in a grade school setting, is to help the first generation parents understand better how to help their kids in the U.S. When those parents can understand what’s going on in school and how it all works, their kids will be more successful and will assimilate more successfully.
Immigrants can have a strong sense of gratitude for the opportunity to live in the U.S. If you could imagine what it would take to get you to emigrate from the U.S. to another country, what you would be giving up here vs. the obstacles you would encounter in a new country, emigrating is not an easy choice. In many ways, because of gratitude and motivation for a better life (after all that’s why they immigrated), immigrants to the U.S. can have a stronger work ethic than do natural born Americans. But all those positive qualities get overlooked when all you focus on is gang-banging and tattoos.
Meanwhile, liberal groups ran ads on Spanish-language radio convincing a hard-working Father to sign up for food stamps. In this radio ad, the Latino Farther said “I work hard, I can feed my own children.” The ad went on to convince this man that he would still qualify for food stamps, and he should sign up.
This controversial ad was eventually pulled, but it shows how the Left likes to lull people into welfare programs even when they don’t need them!
If Cruz speaks Spanish, that might help, but I think Rubio hurt himself by coming out for Amnesty.
I believe pretty strongly one of the first steps is sealing the border. We could have temporary work visas, but the danger is that the Progressives will then dangle Amnesty as a way to secure their vote for the next 70 years. Start with sealing the border, bring in the National Guard, build the 700-mile fence, and help the people who are truly escaping warfare.
Many people in Russia, the Ukraine, Romania, Poland, and Albania also are very poor, and have an excellent work ethic. They just didn’t hit the lottery by being born in a country contiguous to the US and her open border.
TBD: If Cruz speaks Spanish, that might help, but I think Rubio hurt himself by coming out for Amnesty.
I believe pretty strongly one of the first steps is sealing the border. We could have temporary work visas, but the danger is that the Progressives will then dangle Amnesty as a way to secure their vote for the next 70 years.
So what do you want to do with the X million “illegal” immigrants who are here now, many of whom are as assimilated as your own family members? Deport them all?
You know, you can go right now and make a citizen’s arrest of Jose Antonio Vargas and ask that he be deported.
If you go to East LA, the Canal District of Marin, San Jose, The Mission, many are not so assimilated.
Step 1 is to stop the flow, which is an enormous job by itself, that, and stop silly moves like Obama giving backdoor Amnesty to youngsters, which simply attracts more illegal activity.
Here is a very good analysis of why immigration reform died and has died.
hy immigration reform died in Congress
Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014).
Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) But now, no reasonable person can say that immigration’s death — in 2013 and 2014 — is anyone’s fault but House Republicans. Still, we also understand why they killed it: They saw no short-term benefit. Yes, the long-term politics (for 2016 and 2020) cry out for Republicans to remove immigration as an issue. But doing so would be so painful in the process (just see Eric Cantor’s primary defeat). All of that said, the longer Republicans wait on passing immigration reform, the longer the wounds with Latino voters will take to heal. We’ll simply quote from that RNC after-election autopsy report from March 2013: “[W]e must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”
Looking at this a little deeper than the “denigrate GOP for being racist” template of the Democrats and left media, it is clear to see that Obama and Democrats share responsibility. They have set up the most polarizing political climate every in the history of the US. The politicians in the White House and Senate are despised by almost 50% of the country that they are grinding their GOP representatives to shreds. See Eric Cantor for that explanation.
This is the Saul Alinky and Chicago thug politics divide and conquer approach at work. Obama and the Dems have completely adopted the dog-eared play book.
And the left lap-dogs are either too ignorant or too partisan themselves to see the cause and effect.
When you don’t like and don’t trust the other side, negotiation is not the game.
And so the Democrats have put into office the most untrustworthy, the most partisan, the most divisive politicians ever to stain our sacred institutions. And the media has behaved like completely left-biased lapdogs… in fact, the media has in effect merged with the Democrat party in Washington.
So what is happening is that the states are all turning more red… electing more reform-minded conservatives.
And this is where we are headed. A new civil war. And that civil war will be directly the responsibility of those that supported and protected the actions of the Obama administration and the Harry Reid Senate and the Nancy Pelosi House.
Half the country hates these politicians with a passion never seen before. And they are furious at the media and the lack of accountability for all the lying and all the harm and all the mistakes caused.
And so these GOP congress people listen to their constituents and they have to take the hard line or end up like Eric Cantor.
And so the left has two choices.
One – they can start behaving like honest and moral adults given the privilege of political power, respecting the ideas of their political opponents even as they disagree… and compromising. Then things can get done.
Two – they can try to gain more power as a super majority.
But the problem with #2 is the state level politics. And also, we have seen a Democrat majority at work before in the first two Obama years, and it led to the extreme partisanship we see today.
The immigration debate is not a debate about immigrants per se… it is a debate about American politics. And there is a large issue of money at the center… as there is with most political debates in this country and other countries.
It seems to me that Republicans / conservatives are poor communicators and strategists.
There are many Latinos who have conservative values. Hard work, family, religion … all seemingly 2nd tier issues for modern Democrats. There is also a strong ethic in starting new businesses.
On the flip side, the challenge is tough when someone is offering Free Candy. You’d think a well-spoken conservative could articulate the risk. I sure as hell could, but you need to spend time in their community, hear the stories, and be able to grasp ideas and stories that connect to their lives. Talking about the Tea Party, deficits, Obamacare, isn’t enough. You need to be able to communicate and articulate with stories that make sense.
Conservatives could also pinpoint subgroups that don’t buy into the victim mentality or groupthink that mainstream groups have bought hook, line, and sinker. Could the GOP carve out a niche with Ethiopian voters, who are largely Christian and rock solid? How about Nigerian Americans? How about young Internet entrepreneurs, who could potentially be paying a 10% or 13% state tax in California, along with onorous regulations?
I thought a Bobby Jindahl might help, but he does come off as weak / as a poor speaker. Time will tell. It will be interesting to see what Ted Cruz does. I think Rubio and the former VP pick both shot themselves in the foot.
TBD: It seems to me that Republicans / conservatives are poor communicators and strategists.
There are many Latinos who have conservative values. Hard work, family, religion … all seemingly 2nd tier issues for modern Democrats. There is also a strong ethic in starting new businesses.
It’s because Republicans/conservatives right now have a very poor narrative on the value of community, and there is a certain bad stereotyping of immigrants. Your comments have embraced some of those issues.
You pick out some immigrant groups as “model”, presumably Ethiopians and Nigerians. Typically when you identify a “model” group of immigrants, those are actually a little more affluent and educated and had the means to immigrate from overseas. In their native countries, you could also identify more poorly educated Ethiopians and Nigerians with more modest means (economically poorer), who would exhibit all the characteristics that you would cite as being undesirable in some immigrants.
I think you might assume in your reference to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio that if they were to get out there and gain more prominence, that other Latino groups would follow them. I haven’t heard Cruz speak Spanish, but I have heard Rubio, and his Spanish is very strong. He would be able to communicate more directly to more recent generations of Latinos who would likely still retain a significant amount of Spanish speaking ability. But assuming beyond that that Rubio or Cruz would connect with Mexican Americans, or Dominicans, or Central Americans the same way that they might with other Cuban Americans is erroneous.
It’s like living in China and having Chinese assume that all English speakers are alike — Australians, Brits, Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders. There might be some shared perspectives, but there are key differences. If an immigrant Australian politician in China came to visit an American ex-pat community and said, in English, “vote for me! I’m one of you!” I don’t think that would resonate too well.
Conservatives/Republican policy and narrative these days tend to be unfriendly to efforts recent immigrants to form communities. That usually comes out by disparaging the fact that they don’t speak English, or that they will gather in ghettos and ethnic neighborhoods, and possibly that they won’t assimilate “American” values. And, related to that, they (conservatives/Republicans) may not recognize barriers to assimilating into American society. For example, it maybe difficult to get information in Spanish about the public schools or about social services. You might respond, “well, dammit! Then they should learn English! This is America!” First generation immigrants will typically remain dominant in their native language. Their kids will more rapidly assimilate English and American culture.
Providing information in Spanish, especially in a grade school setting, is to help the first generation parents understand better how to help their kids in the U.S. When those parents can understand what’s going on in school and how it all works, their kids will be more successful and will assimilate more successfully.
Immigrants can have a strong sense of gratitude for the opportunity to live in the U.S. If you could imagine what it would take to get you to emigrate from the U.S. to another country, what you would be giving up here vs. the obstacles you would encounter in a new country, emigrating is not an easy choice. In many ways, because of gratitude and motivation for a better life (after all that’s why they immigrated), immigrants to the U.S. can have a stronger work ethic than do natural born Americans. But all those positive qualities get overlooked when all you focus on is gang-banging and tattoos.
Meanwhile, liberal groups ran ads on Spanish-language radio convincing a hard-working Father to sign up for food stamps. In this radio ad, the Latino Farther said “I work hard, I can feed my own children.” The ad went on to convince this man that he would still qualify for food stamps, and he should sign up.
This controversial ad was eventually pulled, but it shows how the Left likes to lull people into welfare programs even when they don’t need them!
If Cruz speaks Spanish, that might help, but I think Rubio hurt himself by coming out for Amnesty.
I believe pretty strongly one of the first steps is sealing the border. We could have temporary work visas, but the danger is that the Progressives will then dangle Amnesty as a way to secure their vote for the next 70 years. Start with sealing the border, bring in the National Guard, build the 700-mile fence, and help the people who are truly escaping warfare.
Many people in Russia, the Ukraine, Romania, Poland, and Albania also are very poor, and have an excellent work ethic. They just didn’t hit the lottery by being born in a country contiguous to the US and her open border.
TBD: If Cruz speaks Spanish, that might help, but I think Rubio hurt himself by coming out for Amnesty.
I believe pretty strongly one of the first steps is sealing the border. We could have temporary work visas, but the danger is that the Progressives will then dangle Amnesty as a way to secure their vote for the next 70 years.
So what do you want to do with the X million “illegal” immigrants who are here now, many of whom are as assimilated as your own family members? Deport them all?
You know, you can go right now and make a citizen’s arrest of Jose Antonio Vargas and ask that he be deported.
If you go to East LA, the Canal District of Marin, San Jose, The Mission, many are not so assimilated.
Step 1 is to stop the flow, which is an enormous job by itself, that, and stop silly moves like Obama giving backdoor Amnesty to youngsters, which simply attracts more illegal activity.
The Democrats of Oro Valley have stated:
900 immigrant refugee children are being held in cages in the Nogales detention center, sleeping on concrete floors on thin pads with only an emergency foil “blanket” as their bedding. DOV is collecting the following supplies at our July 14 meeting:
sweaters or sweatshirts for children and adults
socks for children
blankets for children
toothbrushes and toothpaste
clean stuffed animals
http://www.demsov.org/
Maybe we taxpayers should all payup and put them all in a Marriot or a Holiday Inn.
http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-immigration-now-i-get-it-061118699.html
Why not a military base near the southern border, or a tent city like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona?
D.D.
That’s a bit short notice. Is there a regular distribution center. I didn’t realize that it would be tomorrow.
Hello Tia, I’ll get info tomorrow and provide it on this comment page, thank you for your interest.
Tia, I should have that info later on tonight. Thanks again.
The Democrats of Oro Valley have stated:
900 immigrant refugee children are being held in cages in the Nogales detention center, sleeping on concrete floors on thin pads with only an emergency foil “blanket” as their bedding. DOV is collecting the following supplies at our July 14 meeting:
sweaters or sweatshirts for children and adults
socks for children
blankets for children
toothbrushes and toothpaste
clean stuffed animals
http://www.demsov.org/
Maybe we taxpayers should all payup and put them all in a Marriot or a Holiday Inn.
http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-immigration-now-i-get-it-061118699.html
Why not a military base near the southern border, or a tent city like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona?
D.D.
That’s a bit short notice. Is there a regular distribution center. I didn’t realize that it would be tomorrow.
Hello Tia, I’ll get info tomorrow and provide it on this comment page, thank you for your interest.
Tia, I should have that info later on tonight. Thanks again.
hpierce: Some quick math indicates that Davis’ share of 100,000 refugees could be met by twenty families willing to take on refugee into their home. If the community came up with $12,000 to offset costs to those families, we could support those 20 refugees for forty years for less cost than building (much less maintaining) a 50 meter pool.
I think your estimate of $12,00 will fall a little short of even putting a dent in the costs. $12,000 will not even put a small dent in the costs. For example the 2014 Calpers insurance premiums for a single person enrolled in Kaiseer is $661/month. For your 20 illegals this health insurance only cost is $158,640/year.
Fuzzy Democrat math that has led to $7 Trillion in new debt with Barack Millhouse Obama.
hpierce: Some quick math indicates that Davis’ share of 100,000 refugees could be met by twenty families willing to take on refugee into their home. If the community came up with $12,000 to offset costs to those families, we could support those 20 refugees for forty years for less cost than building (much less maintaining) a 50 meter pool.
I think your estimate of $12,00 will fall a little short of even putting a dent in the costs. $12,000 will not even put a small dent in the costs. For example the 2014 Calpers insurance premiums for a single person enrolled in Kaiseer is $661/month. For your 20 illegals this health insurance only cost is $158,640/year.
Fuzzy Democrat math that has led to $7 Trillion in new debt with Barack Millhouse Obama.
Frankly
“I now what you want, but I think you don’t understand the damaging long-term economic consequences of continuing to take more and more from those that have to distribute to those that don’t.”
And I don’t think that you understand that continuing to take more and more from those that have it to distribute to those that don’ts not what I am proposing. I do not see this as you are portraying, namely and endless descending spiral. That is not what I want, and not what I believe would happen. I believe that a very modest re-distribution of wealth in which say the very richest of us controlled 1 billion dollars in assets, still far more than anyone would ever need to have a wonderful lifestyle would be sufficient to get things going. Once we redefined what it means to be successful away from the amount of material goods one can accumulate, to what it means to be a contributing human being, I believe that we could stop “redistributing” because people would gain their satisfaction primarily from their activities and less from their material wealth. This is the world that I can envision, not the deprivational hell that you seem to fear.
I don’t want any more wars, and I’d like to see solutions to 30-40 million illegal immigrants here that has no end in sight.
The Vietnamese boat people, Somali’s, Hmong, and others are different scenarios. This has been going on since the early 1979s … and the same people / liberals / progressives bellyache about the wages for the working man / woman.
You’re the one shafting their livelihood!! Wake up!!
I’d like to see how these do gooders would feel if we imported millions of lawyers and doctors and academics who would drop their wages in half … they’d squeal like stuck pigs. This is pure hypocrisy.
TBD–good points about labor–indeed, the erosion of living standards that has hit the poor, lower middle class, and middle middle class has not yet significantly affected the financial well-being of the upper middle class (for numerous reasons I don’t have time to detail here). The fortunes of the upper middle class will begin to decline in the next decade or so (the fortunes of recent law school grads have already begun to be affected); as there will be a declining base of middle class who can afford the services of doctors, lawyers, etc. at current prices. Never fear though, those lawyers and doctors who service the wealthy will still be able to retain an upper middle class living standard. When this starts to happen in earnest; then you will hear the howling!
Meanwhile, the concentration of a higher and higher percentage of national wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people (the 0.01% and oligarchs) continues at a similar pace under the Obama presidency as it did under the Bush presidency; they are on schedule in securing a higher and higher proportion of national wealth (working out rather well for them); as we continue on to a time-tested proven-to-work (for the wealthy) socioeconomic model like that of Mexico, Brazil, etc.
tribe USA wrote;
> The fortunes of the upper middle class will begin to decline in the
> next decade or so (the fortunes of recent law school grads have
> already begun to be affected);
I was just looking at a SF real estate ladies web page and was surprised to see that both of her lawyer (and member of the bar) kids (Yale Undergrad and Harvard Law and UCLA Undergrad and USC Law) had left the legal world and were “working for mommy” selling real estate. Things are not good for any young people that do not have “connections” to get a good job…
I know several top notch lawyers, from top-10 schools, with 20 years experience who want out. They are both women and seem to find attracting / finding new clients as distasteful, or they don’t understand how to do so effectively. It does seem ironic because now is the time they could be making some serious money, but they seem tired of the grind.
Do we have another bubble?
Instead of Franny Mae and Freddie Mac, now its another federal program helping to fund home mortgages for 3% down (instead of 0% down). Stock market through the roof, but I don’t see the vast new jobs or housing tracts.
Obama’s policies have shot gas back up over $4 a gallon, sapping money from the economy, and his energy prices will take another hit to the economy. Obamacare will continue it’s upwards march, with more “issues” and price hikes.
California would be in a recession if it were’t for the Silicon Valley, which has both VC money and tech start ups.
This has been the slowest recovery out of a recession, ever.
TBD
Apparently you have chosen to ignore my posts where I have pointed out that I feel that doctors are vastly overpaid and that this has been due to our professions artificially limiting the number or slots in both medical school and residency. We like to pretend that we have a “free market”. We do not. We have a market that is manipulated by those with wealth and power so as to maintain our relative advantage. I would welcome opening our system so as to have many, many more doctors. So much for your “squealing” argument.
Tia wrote:
> Apparently you have chosen to ignore my posts where I have pointed
> out that I feel that doctors are vastly overpaid and that this has been
> due to our professions
There is a big difference between “pointing out” and “doing” something.
Over 4th of July weekend I fixed a leaking drain for a family friend and as we were pulling away they put a $100 check under my wiper.
I felt this was a “vast overpayment” for my work so I gave the check back (and told them to buy me a beer next time we were out since the PVC part was only about $5).
When people “really” feel that they are overpaid or not taxed enough they give back the money or pay more in taxes.
I’m wondering if Tia will let us know how much (if any) of her pay that she gives back to her employer…
Your friends were generous, and you were gracious. Good for both of you. A plumber would at least charge that… I don’t know how long the job took.
It is interesting how generous Progressives can be with other people’s money.
I have a relative who has done quite well, he and his wife have made wise decisions, and lived frugally even when both were at work in their post-grad school careers. They ate in their breakfast nook at an outdoor table for almost a year. Surely they could afford the most expensive table imaginable, but they prioritized savings first, and refused to use credit. They had a lunch budget that would make most blush with embarrassment, but they had a plan. Today with their children through school, they donate to several churches and other charitable organizations. I’m sure that they also paid full freight with both of their kids as they are in the so-called “one percent”. They have also helped out several relatives in need, including one who is rebuilding her life after extremely poor life choices to the tune of five figures.
It’s easier to give back when you are face to face with the person.
Tia, good to hear.
Do places like UCD also fight adding new medical schools because it might chip away at their prestige, money, or power?
Do places like UCD not want to add 500 more slots for GPs because it is not prestigious?
I also recall from my undergrad days an intelligent young man, very well meaning and earnest, who wanted to be a doctor. He entered into the “pre med” class system taking all of the pre-reqs, and was simply ground up by “the curve” and the large number of “red hots”. Maybe he had a 3.1 or 3.3 GPA. He felt his med school chances slipping away. It seemed to wrong; he was devastated. He took a quarter off, transferred to a private school, and was back to being a top student. I think a lot of it is our UC hyper-competitive atmosphere. Maybe he took his GPA too seriously, but my hunch was that he would be a very good doctor, a good GP, though maybe not a brain surgeon or cutting edge researcher. I think we lose thousands of students this way that would make perfectly excellent doctors in most any other country on the face of the earth. Am I right, or wrong?
Please do comment. I have always had a very strong feeling on this matter, but don’t know if I have communicated it well.
Frankly
“I now what you want, but I think you don’t understand the damaging long-term economic consequences of continuing to take more and more from those that have to distribute to those that don’t.”
And I don’t think that you understand that continuing to take more and more from those that have it to distribute to those that don’ts not what I am proposing. I do not see this as you are portraying, namely and endless descending spiral. That is not what I want, and not what I believe would happen. I believe that a very modest re-distribution of wealth in which say the very richest of us controlled 1 billion dollars in assets, still far more than anyone would ever need to have a wonderful lifestyle would be sufficient to get things going. Once we redefined what it means to be successful away from the amount of material goods one can accumulate, to what it means to be a contributing human being, I believe that we could stop “redistributing” because people would gain their satisfaction primarily from their activities and less from their material wealth. This is the world that I can envision, not the deprivational hell that you seem to fear.
I don’t want any more wars, and I’d like to see solutions to 30-40 million illegal immigrants here that has no end in sight.
The Vietnamese boat people, Somali’s, Hmong, and others are different scenarios. This has been going on since the early 1979s … and the same people / liberals / progressives bellyache about the wages for the working man / woman.
You’re the one shafting their livelihood!! Wake up!!
I’d like to see how these do gooders would feel if we imported millions of lawyers and doctors and academics who would drop their wages in half … they’d squeal like stuck pigs. This is pure hypocrisy.
TBD–good points about labor–indeed, the erosion of living standards that has hit the poor, lower middle class, and middle middle class has not yet significantly affected the financial well-being of the upper middle class (for numerous reasons I don’t have time to detail here). The fortunes of the upper middle class will begin to decline in the next decade or so (the fortunes of recent law school grads have already begun to be affected); as there will be a declining base of middle class who can afford the services of doctors, lawyers, etc. at current prices. Never fear though, those lawyers and doctors who service the wealthy will still be able to retain an upper middle class living standard. When this starts to happen in earnest; then you will hear the howling!
Meanwhile, the concentration of a higher and higher percentage of national wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people (the 0.01% and oligarchs) continues at a similar pace under the Obama presidency as it did under the Bush presidency; they are on schedule in securing a higher and higher proportion of national wealth (working out rather well for them); as we continue on to a time-tested proven-to-work (for the wealthy) socioeconomic model like that of Mexico, Brazil, etc.
tribe USA wrote;
> The fortunes of the upper middle class will begin to decline in the
> next decade or so (the fortunes of recent law school grads have
> already begun to be affected);
I was just looking at a SF real estate ladies web page and was surprised to see that both of her lawyer (and member of the bar) kids (Yale Undergrad and Harvard Law and UCLA Undergrad and USC Law) had left the legal world and were “working for mommy” selling real estate. Things are not good for any young people that do not have “connections” to get a good job…
I know several top notch lawyers, from top-10 schools, with 20 years experience who want out. They are both women and seem to find attracting / finding new clients as distasteful, or they don’t understand how to do so effectively. It does seem ironic because now is the time they could be making some serious money, but they seem tired of the grind.
Do we have another bubble?
Instead of Franny Mae and Freddie Mac, now its another federal program helping to fund home mortgages for 3% down (instead of 0% down). Stock market through the roof, but I don’t see the vast new jobs or housing tracts.
Obama’s policies have shot gas back up over $4 a gallon, sapping money from the economy, and his energy prices will take another hit to the economy. Obamacare will continue it’s upwards march, with more “issues” and price hikes.
California would be in a recession if it were’t for the Silicon Valley, which has both VC money and tech start ups.
This has been the slowest recovery out of a recession, ever.
TBD
Apparently you have chosen to ignore my posts where I have pointed out that I feel that doctors are vastly overpaid and that this has been due to our professions artificially limiting the number or slots in both medical school and residency. We like to pretend that we have a “free market”. We do not. We have a market that is manipulated by those with wealth and power so as to maintain our relative advantage. I would welcome opening our system so as to have many, many more doctors. So much for your “squealing” argument.
Tia wrote:
> Apparently you have chosen to ignore my posts where I have pointed
> out that I feel that doctors are vastly overpaid and that this has been
> due to our professions
There is a big difference between “pointing out” and “doing” something.
Over 4th of July weekend I fixed a leaking drain for a family friend and as we were pulling away they put a $100 check under my wiper.
I felt this was a “vast overpayment” for my work so I gave the check back (and told them to buy me a beer next time we were out since the PVC part was only about $5).
When people “really” feel that they are overpaid or not taxed enough they give back the money or pay more in taxes.
I’m wondering if Tia will let us know how much (if any) of her pay that she gives back to her employer…
Your friends were generous, and you were gracious. Good for both of you. A plumber would at least charge that… I don’t know how long the job took.
It is interesting how generous Progressives can be with other people’s money.
I have a relative who has done quite well, he and his wife have made wise decisions, and lived frugally even when both were at work in their post-grad school careers. They ate in their breakfast nook at an outdoor table for almost a year. Surely they could afford the most expensive table imaginable, but they prioritized savings first, and refused to use credit. They had a lunch budget that would make most blush with embarrassment, but they had a plan. Today with their children through school, they donate to several churches and other charitable organizations. I’m sure that they also paid full freight with both of their kids as they are in the so-called “one percent”. They have also helped out several relatives in need, including one who is rebuilding her life after extremely poor life choices to the tune of five figures.
It’s easier to give back when you are face to face with the person.
Tia, good to hear.
Do places like UCD also fight adding new medical schools because it might chip away at their prestige, money, or power?
Do places like UCD not want to add 500 more slots for GPs because it is not prestigious?
I also recall from my undergrad days an intelligent young man, very well meaning and earnest, who wanted to be a doctor. He entered into the “pre med” class system taking all of the pre-reqs, and was simply ground up by “the curve” and the large number of “red hots”. Maybe he had a 3.1 or 3.3 GPA. He felt his med school chances slipping away. It seemed to wrong; he was devastated. He took a quarter off, transferred to a private school, and was back to being a top student. I think a lot of it is our UC hyper-competitive atmosphere. Maybe he took his GPA too seriously, but my hunch was that he would be a very good doctor, a good GP, though maybe not a brain surgeon or cutting edge researcher. I think we lose thousands of students this way that would make perfectly excellent doctors in most any other country on the face of the earth. Am I right, or wrong?
Please do comment. I have always had a very strong feeling on this matter, but don’t know if I have communicated it well.
Frankly
“since I’m sure you would not like taking away benefits from people that are not working even thought they can.”
That would totally depend on why they are not working. Are they not working because they are truly disabled ?
Then I would continue to provide them with enough to maintain them at above poverty level.
But I would prefer that we look at this differently. If the person can no longer work outside the home at their usual job, perhaps they could contribute in some other way, such as tutoring in a subject related to their previous job. That is a positive contribution which I would reward hour for hour with compensation enough to keep them out of poverty. Lilkewise, maybe they could help others by taking them to doctors appointments or providing companionship for the elderly. All of these would, in my preferred system be contributions worthy of compensation. We define “work” so narrowly that we as a society force people into disability who could actually be making a fine contribution and therefore not accepting “free money” but rather money for positive contribution to the society if not to a currently defined industry.
We have some agreement on this. A big problem though is that government does a terrible job of setting compensation levels. And because people value different things, some would demand certain jobs paid more or less, and others would disagree.
You see every system is flawed with respect to allocating fairness and allocating resources. There is always going to be some that have more and some that have less and many complaining about how the system is unfair.
But a system of democratic capitalism does the best job. Yes there are still problems with fairness and allocation of resources, but less so than for any other system. The reason is simply because of the freedom to choose. You can choose to accept what is offered, you can suggest a different price based on your perception of value, and the seller/provider can chose to agree or not. You can both walk away if you cannot agree on a fair price for the value you think you provide.
Value is determined simply by what someone will pay.
Your frustration is that you think there is greater value in some work than it receives in compensation.
But again, there are endless conflicts for this. There is no utopia achievable where we legislate fairness to any greater extent than it is netted out in a democratic capitalist system like ours.
What if my employees all demand to be paid more because they are sure their value exceed what they are being paid. How do you resolve that? The only way to resolve it is to look at the job market for equivalent skills and a market rate. You can explain it then… it is not arbitrary. And if someone wants to make more money, then they can learn new skills for jobs that have greater value in the market.
Doctors make more than nurses.
Architects make more that draftsmen.
Lawyers make more than paralegals.
In the private sector the wages for skills are largely predictable and understood and people can come and go to climb up as high as their motivation and capacity to learn and perform.
If you try a socialist are Marxist utopia approach to try and calculate value on something other than market, you will cause a screwed up mess. You will sub-optimize orders of magnitude lower than can be done in a democratic capitalist system.
Sometimes we are looking for utopia and fail to see the one we already exist in. 90% of the world things the US is utopia. Yet progressives are never happy are they? It is in their nature to miss the flowers and focus on the dirt.
“In the private sector the wages for skills are largely predictable and understood and people can come and go to climb up as high as their motivation and capacity to learn and perform.”
Not necessarily.
Tia wrote: “If the person can no longer work outside the home at their usual job, perhaps they could contribute in some other way, such as tutoring in a subject related to their previous job. That is a positive contribution which I would reward hour for hour with compensation enough to keep them out of poverty. Lilkewise, maybe they could help others by taking them to doctors appointments or providing companionship for the elderly.”
From my personal experience with a partially disabled family member who I’ll call “Mary”, I can tell you that this is not the way human beings behave. Mary had a job until she had a mental breakdown and was hospitalized. She was stabilized and put on medication which got her symptoms under control. It took two years and the involvement of attorneys to get her qualified for disability which she now gets.
Mary is fully capable of doing some productive work. She takes care of herself and does her own shopping, pays her bills, and keeps a clean apartment. Despite her capabilities she refuses to even consider doing productive work. I’ve tried to get her to do babysitting, dog walking, or other tasks that she is fully capable of, but she refuses. It seems that now that she has that monthly disability check coming in she has lost all motivation and incentive to even consider working.
I have been around many partially disabled people and I know that some of them are willing to work and some are very good workers. I have also seen a lot more that are like Mary and lack motivation to contribute to society. Personally, I would like to see the disability system revised to provide incentives for partially disabled people to do some sort of productive work, but I know that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that such a thing will happen politically.
Great points.
I tried to help a young man who had repeatedly left jobs, was in the service, was diagnosed with partial PTSD (he says he doesn’t have it, but he likes the money), and has had trouble keeping a job. He had the GI Bill, was in school, but screwed that up twice. Got his GF knocked up, she already had 2 kids, and now he is on the welfare rolls even though he is young and healthy. So the 3 kids have a poor role model. Ironically, or not, he will prioritize smoking or debating how marijuana is harmless, though he had trouble getting to work every day on time… there was always an excuse once a week why he was late. Some kind of mild social disorder. Very talented at mechanical tasks, but has taken no initiative to get training, or starting a business.
I’ve known several people who were on disability who liked to free time and other perks.
Frankly
“since I’m sure you would not like taking away benefits from people that are not working even thought they can.”
That would totally depend on why they are not working. Are they not working because they are truly disabled ?
Then I would continue to provide them with enough to maintain them at above poverty level.
But I would prefer that we look at this differently. If the person can no longer work outside the home at their usual job, perhaps they could contribute in some other way, such as tutoring in a subject related to their previous job. That is a positive contribution which I would reward hour for hour with compensation enough to keep them out of poverty. Lilkewise, maybe they could help others by taking them to doctors appointments or providing companionship for the elderly. All of these would, in my preferred system be contributions worthy of compensation. We define “work” so narrowly that we as a society force people into disability who could actually be making a fine contribution and therefore not accepting “free money” but rather money for positive contribution to the society if not to a currently defined industry.
We have some agreement on this. A big problem though is that government does a terrible job of setting compensation levels. And because people value different things, some would demand certain jobs paid more or less, and others would disagree.
You see every system is flawed with respect to allocating fairness and allocating resources. There is always going to be some that have more and some that have less and many complaining about how the system is unfair.
But a system of democratic capitalism does the best job. Yes there are still problems with fairness and allocation of resources, but less so than for any other system. The reason is simply because of the freedom to choose. You can choose to accept what is offered, you can suggest a different price based on your perception of value, and the seller/provider can chose to agree or not. You can both walk away if you cannot agree on a fair price for the value you think you provide.
Value is determined simply by what someone will pay.
Your frustration is that you think there is greater value in some work than it receives in compensation.
But again, there are endless conflicts for this. There is no utopia achievable where we legislate fairness to any greater extent than it is netted out in a democratic capitalist system like ours.
What if my employees all demand to be paid more because they are sure their value exceed what they are being paid. How do you resolve that? The only way to resolve it is to look at the job market for equivalent skills and a market rate. You can explain it then… it is not arbitrary. And if someone wants to make more money, then they can learn new skills for jobs that have greater value in the market.
Doctors make more than nurses.
Architects make more that draftsmen.
Lawyers make more than paralegals.
In the private sector the wages for skills are largely predictable and understood and people can come and go to climb up as high as their motivation and capacity to learn and perform.
If you try a socialist are Marxist utopia approach to try and calculate value on something other than market, you will cause a screwed up mess. You will sub-optimize orders of magnitude lower than can be done in a democratic capitalist system.
Sometimes we are looking for utopia and fail to see the one we already exist in. 90% of the world things the US is utopia. Yet progressives are never happy are they? It is in their nature to miss the flowers and focus on the dirt.
“In the private sector the wages for skills are largely predictable and understood and people can come and go to climb up as high as their motivation and capacity to learn and perform.”
Not necessarily.
Tia wrote: “If the person can no longer work outside the home at their usual job, perhaps they could contribute in some other way, such as tutoring in a subject related to their previous job. That is a positive contribution which I would reward hour for hour with compensation enough to keep them out of poverty. Lilkewise, maybe they could help others by taking them to doctors appointments or providing companionship for the elderly.”
From my personal experience with a partially disabled family member who I’ll call “Mary”, I can tell you that this is not the way human beings behave. Mary had a job until she had a mental breakdown and was hospitalized. She was stabilized and put on medication which got her symptoms under control. It took two years and the involvement of attorneys to get her qualified for disability which she now gets.
Mary is fully capable of doing some productive work. She takes care of herself and does her own shopping, pays her bills, and keeps a clean apartment. Despite her capabilities she refuses to even consider doing productive work. I’ve tried to get her to do babysitting, dog walking, or other tasks that she is fully capable of, but she refuses. It seems that now that she has that monthly disability check coming in she has lost all motivation and incentive to even consider working.
I have been around many partially disabled people and I know that some of them are willing to work and some are very good workers. I have also seen a lot more that are like Mary and lack motivation to contribute to society. Personally, I would like to see the disability system revised to provide incentives for partially disabled people to do some sort of productive work, but I know that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that such a thing will happen politically.
Great points.
I tried to help a young man who had repeatedly left jobs, was in the service, was diagnosed with partial PTSD (he says he doesn’t have it, but he likes the money), and has had trouble keeping a job. He had the GI Bill, was in school, but screwed that up twice. Got his GF knocked up, she already had 2 kids, and now he is on the welfare rolls even though he is young and healthy. So the 3 kids have a poor role model. Ironically, or not, he will prioritize smoking or debating how marijuana is harmless, though he had trouble getting to work every day on time… there was always an excuse once a week why he was late. Some kind of mild social disorder. Very talented at mechanical tasks, but has taken no initiative to get training, or starting a business.
I’ve known several people who were on disability who liked to free time and other perks.
Tia, do you want this nice fellow to live in your neighborhood?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/ms-13_web_20121011_0001/
Tia, do you want this nice fellow to live in your neighborhood?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/ms-13_web_20121011_0001/
TBD
“Have you met many drug dealers, Sanchos, gang bangers or wanna be gang bangers? Yes, I’ve met many hard working individuals, and I’ve also met dozens of Sanchos … a whole new slice on Mexican-American or illegal immigrant life. Huge social costs there, a brother to the old “Papa was a rolling stone”.”
I don’t understand the reference to a “Sancho”, so I can’t speak to that. However since my work place at the time was an ER part of the time in Fresno, and part of the time just outside Tucson, the answer to the others is “yes”.
However, what you didn’t ask is have I met Caucasian drug dealers, skin heads and those in training and the answer to that would also be yes, just as it would be for blacks and Asians. All comers get seen in an ER. Would you arbitrarily decide that the majority of whites pose an unacceptable threat because you have run into a few skin heads ? Again, all I am asking for is individual assessment case by case to determine refugee status.
What I would say is that if you look at the relative proportion, I,judging from those that I have met, the numbers are strongly in favor of those desperate for the chance to build a better life by working, not by running drugs or selling other human beings. My “n” is very large, in the hundreds if not thousands, over my 30 year career.
I know from the comments here that Frankly fears the US becoming a “third world country”. I know that others fear us “being over run”. I have seen this described as “a flood”. This is the kind of fear mongering and catastrophic thinking that the left is frequently accused of by the very same authors. It is my belief that the United States will be a better, not worse country, if we choose to treat the 80,000 human beings on our border in a manner consistent with our laws and stated principles which place human rights above human material wealth.
Tia, your compassion is laudable. FYI, gang bangers can come in any color. I’ve written several times about “tweakers”, who seem to be largely white in my limited experiences. If we don’t define the problem, we can’t solve it.
FWIW, Sancho is technically “the other man”. Historically, in prison when one guy who get out, say a Hells Angel, he would have his ‘friend’ “take care of his old lady” (sexually) until he got out and could resume his relationship. This was considered a win-win-win in a strange way. (The prisoner knew who was with his GF, versus numerous unknown men.) I’ve had laborers tell me “When you are at work, Sancho is eating your food, watching your TV, and ‘chaca chaca’ with your wife / novia” (hand gestures included). Another laborer told me, “Every Mexican man has two women’s (sic). Take my brother. His wife is gordo (fat), but his girlfriend is flakita (skinny). ahahahahaha” I have heard this story numerous times in various ways. This doesn’t apply to all Latino men, but there do seem to be very real cultural practices and norms. I have had family members cat called in Sacramento, and The Mission in San Francisco, and it has always been from one culture. There may be similar practices in South America, Italy, and elsewhere.
I’ve had one liberal tell me “this is all men”, but I’m sorry, this is not traditional American culture, or the traditional culture of Northern Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Ethiopians or Fiilipinos. (Some Northern Europeans were quite docile.)
The higher out-of-wedlock rates in the Latino culture may hint at this, and the “multi-partner fertility” pattern. (Fancy academic term.) The sexual revolution, decline of religion, decline of marriage, rap music, Bill Clinton (BJs are not sex), and more may have contributed to this all. I’ve sat in barrios at taquerias (a former passion of mine) and heard men speak lovingly to their wife on the phone; and then the next minute speaking to their girlfriend. This is very open and blatant. Sancho can be used as a noun / pronoun, or it’s even as an adjective (“Too much Sancho time”). I am not saying this applies to all Latino men, but it seems substantially more common than in traditional American culture. A friend also says the same thing is quite prevalent in Panama. In Chile Sancho’s name is “Pata Negro” (the Black Foot), but I’m not sure if it is widespread there.
I don’t think all Latinos pose a risk, I say that we should use deliberation and thought. Yes, we should help those truly in need, but what we also have here is a 40-year problem which continues to fester.
It does start to seem like an invasion when it is 30 or 40 million illegal immigrants. There is no doubt we are becoming a Latino nation, and our “diversity” is stagnating in areas. I see no Black carpenters, plumbers, or electricians. I see construction sites that are 100% Latino. We might as well offer Mexico the ability to join the US, at least we gain beaches and oil from that transaction. Unrestrained growth also has environmental impacts, and we’ve seen diseases and illnesses pop up that I thought we beat. We had a TB out break in Sacramento, and there are other unintended consequences to this laziness or largesse.
I would argue we’re not talking about 80,000. We’re talking about 100,000 this year, 200,000 next year, and the existing 30-40 million illegal immigrants. And if we pass Amnesty, add in more illegal immigrants, family reunification, and we’re a Latino nation. Thirty years from now we’ll have liberals complaining about the wealthy Chinese and (East) Indians, they will be the new boogeymen.
TBD
“Have you met many drug dealers, Sanchos, gang bangers or wanna be gang bangers? Yes, I’ve met many hard working individuals, and I’ve also met dozens of Sanchos … a whole new slice on Mexican-American or illegal immigrant life. Huge social costs there, a brother to the old “Papa was a rolling stone”.”
I don’t understand the reference to a “Sancho”, so I can’t speak to that. However since my work place at the time was an ER part of the time in Fresno, and part of the time just outside Tucson, the answer to the others is “yes”.
However, what you didn’t ask is have I met Caucasian drug dealers, skin heads and those in training and the answer to that would also be yes, just as it would be for blacks and Asians. All comers get seen in an ER. Would you arbitrarily decide that the majority of whites pose an unacceptable threat because you have run into a few skin heads ? Again, all I am asking for is individual assessment case by case to determine refugee status.
What I would say is that if you look at the relative proportion, I,judging from those that I have met, the numbers are strongly in favor of those desperate for the chance to build a better life by working, not by running drugs or selling other human beings. My “n” is very large, in the hundreds if not thousands, over my 30 year career.
I know from the comments here that Frankly fears the US becoming a “third world country”. I know that others fear us “being over run”. I have seen this described as “a flood”. This is the kind of fear mongering and catastrophic thinking that the left is frequently accused of by the very same authors. It is my belief that the United States will be a better, not worse country, if we choose to treat the 80,000 human beings on our border in a manner consistent with our laws and stated principles which place human rights above human material wealth.
Tia, your compassion is laudable. FYI, gang bangers can come in any color. I’ve written several times about “tweakers”, who seem to be largely white in my limited experiences. If we don’t define the problem, we can’t solve it.
FWIW, Sancho is technically “the other man”. Historically, in prison when one guy who get out, say a Hells Angel, he would have his ‘friend’ “take care of his old lady” (sexually) until he got out and could resume his relationship. This was considered a win-win-win in a strange way. (The prisoner knew who was with his GF, versus numerous unknown men.) I’ve had laborers tell me “When you are at work, Sancho is eating your food, watching your TV, and ‘chaca chaca’ with your wife / novia” (hand gestures included). Another laborer told me, “Every Mexican man has two women’s (sic). Take my brother. His wife is gordo (fat), but his girlfriend is flakita (skinny). ahahahahaha” I have heard this story numerous times in various ways. This doesn’t apply to all Latino men, but there do seem to be very real cultural practices and norms. I have had family members cat called in Sacramento, and The Mission in San Francisco, and it has always been from one culture. There may be similar practices in South America, Italy, and elsewhere.
I’ve had one liberal tell me “this is all men”, but I’m sorry, this is not traditional American culture, or the traditional culture of Northern Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Ethiopians or Fiilipinos. (Some Northern Europeans were quite docile.)
The higher out-of-wedlock rates in the Latino culture may hint at this, and the “multi-partner fertility” pattern. (Fancy academic term.) The sexual revolution, decline of religion, decline of marriage, rap music, Bill Clinton (BJs are not sex), and more may have contributed to this all. I’ve sat in barrios at taquerias (a former passion of mine) and heard men speak lovingly to their wife on the phone; and then the next minute speaking to their girlfriend. This is very open and blatant. Sancho can be used as a noun / pronoun, or it’s even as an adjective (“Too much Sancho time”). I am not saying this applies to all Latino men, but it seems substantially more common than in traditional American culture. A friend also says the same thing is quite prevalent in Panama. In Chile Sancho’s name is “Pata Negro” (the Black Foot), but I’m not sure if it is widespread there.
I don’t think all Latinos pose a risk, I say that we should use deliberation and thought. Yes, we should help those truly in need, but what we also have here is a 40-year problem which continues to fester.
It does start to seem like an invasion when it is 30 or 40 million illegal immigrants. There is no doubt we are becoming a Latino nation, and our “diversity” is stagnating in areas. I see no Black carpenters, plumbers, or electricians. I see construction sites that are 100% Latino. We might as well offer Mexico the ability to join the US, at least we gain beaches and oil from that transaction. Unrestrained growth also has environmental impacts, and we’ve seen diseases and illnesses pop up that I thought we beat. We had a TB out break in Sacramento, and there are other unintended consequences to this laziness or largesse.
I would argue we’re not talking about 80,000. We’re talking about 100,000 this year, 200,000 next year, and the existing 30-40 million illegal immigrants. And if we pass Amnesty, add in more illegal immigrants, family reunification, and we’re a Latino nation. Thirty years from now we’ll have liberals complaining about the wealthy Chinese and (East) Indians, they will be the new boogeymen.
Tia wrote: “It is my belief that the United States will be a better, not worse country, if we choose to treat the 80,000 human beings on our border in a manner consistent with our laws and stated principles which place human rights above human material wealth.”
My understanding from the news reports is that the illegal underage border crossers are going to be given full legal hearings before judges. From the news reports it sounds like they will be released from detention and allowed to stay in the US for years before any deportations occur. I have also seen on the news that most of them will fail to show up for deportation hearing and will stay in the US as undocumented illegals.
When people around the world see how easy it is to come to the US we may see much more massive floods of illegals crossing the border. Imagine how many people from Africa, Asia and the middle east would just love to come here to escape the poverty, war and miserable living conditions they are in. I think this is what some people fear will happen.
Is this what Obama meant when he said he wanted to “fundamentally transform America”?
Tia wrote: “It is my belief that the United States will be a better, not worse country, if we choose to treat the 80,000 human beings on our border in a manner consistent with our laws and stated principles which place human rights above human material wealth.”
My understanding from the news reports is that the illegal underage border crossers are going to be given full legal hearings before judges. From the news reports it sounds like they will be released from detention and allowed to stay in the US for years before any deportations occur. I have also seen on the news that most of them will fail to show up for deportation hearing and will stay in the US as undocumented illegals.
When people around the world see how easy it is to come to the US we may see much more massive floods of illegals crossing the border. Imagine how many people from Africa, Asia and the middle east would just love to come here to escape the poverty, war and miserable living conditions they are in. I think this is what some people fear will happen.
Is this what Obama meant when he said he wanted to “fundamentally transform America”?
TopCat
I understand the fear. I just do not believe that it is realistic. Don Shor recently posted a list of refugees from various countries that have been taken in over a number of years. Many of these groups numbered in the
50-150,000 range as I recall ( correct me if I am substantially off Don). In none of these cases did “the flood gates open”. In none of these cases were we overwhelmed. I simply disagree with this “slippery slope” fear based argument.
To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one example of the inhabitants of what is now the United States being overrun by “illegal immigrants” and that is when the Native American population was overcome by the immigrants largely from England and western Europe. Now those natives had something to fear. I believe this current argument to be fear based, not rational based on the history, demographics and current relative wealth of our country.
Tia wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one example of the
> inhabitants of what is now the United States being overrun by “illegal
> immigrants” and that is when the Native American population was overcome
> by the immigrants largely from England and western Europe.
To be “illegal” you need to break a “law”.
Correct me if I am wrong but the tribes of North America did not have any written “laws” in the 1700’s prohibiting people from Europe from coming here and farming the land…
This recent situation is on top of 4 decades of illegal immigration which may total 30-40 Million. The official government estimate is 12 million, which they have used for 7 years. Last time we had Amnesty the government was wrong by a factor of 3.5.
TopCat
I understand the fear. I just do not believe that it is realistic. Don Shor recently posted a list of refugees from various countries that have been taken in over a number of years. Many of these groups numbered in the
50-150,000 range as I recall ( correct me if I am substantially off Don). In none of these cases did “the flood gates open”. In none of these cases were we overwhelmed. I simply disagree with this “slippery slope” fear based argument.
To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one example of the inhabitants of what is now the United States being overrun by “illegal immigrants” and that is when the Native American population was overcome by the immigrants largely from England and western Europe. Now those natives had something to fear. I believe this current argument to be fear based, not rational based on the history, demographics and current relative wealth of our country.
Tia wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one example of the
> inhabitants of what is now the United States being overrun by “illegal
> immigrants” and that is when the Native American population was overcome
> by the immigrants largely from England and western Europe.
To be “illegal” you need to break a “law”.
Correct me if I am wrong but the tribes of North America did not have any written “laws” in the 1700’s prohibiting people from Europe from coming here and farming the land…
This recent situation is on top of 4 decades of illegal immigration which may total 30-40 Million. The official government estimate is 12 million, which they have used for 7 years. Last time we had Amnesty the government was wrong by a factor of 3.5.
A smaller website is reporting that several or numerous bodies of young children have been found in the Rio Grand River. This is sickening and shows the consequences of an out-of-control border.
There is a link from the title page of http://www.drudgereport.com. My current PC won’t let me cut and paste the link. Very sad, if true.
what do you think happens if they stay where they are? maybe it’s the consequence of not having a plan to deal with a human rights crisis and turning it into a political football?
Is it possible that these countries are dumping citizens on us they can’t or don’t want to deal with?
They also benefit from Billions of dollars of wire transfers back to their economies.
A smaller website is reporting that several or numerous bodies of young children have been found in the Rio Grand River. This is sickening and shows the consequences of an out-of-control border.
There is a link from the title page of http://www.drudgereport.com. My current PC won’t let me cut and paste the link. Very sad, if true.
what do you think happens if they stay where they are? maybe it’s the consequence of not having a plan to deal with a human rights crisis and turning it into a political football?
Is it possible that these countries are dumping citizens on us they can’t or don’t want to deal with?
They also benefit from Billions of dollars of wire transfers back to their economies.
This latest migration surge is a product of U.S. Policy enacted by both major parties in the 1990s. It really is disingenuous for any of us to cry foul although I do believe returning to the 92% tax rate on people making more than $1,000,000 annually would be the appropriate source of funding to take care of the mess the U.S. Congress and multi-national corporations created. http://bit.ly/1oC1drE
Dave posted a link to an article with a comment from a guy that “gets it”:
“Washington Simultaneously Creates – And Then Pretends To “Fix” – Illegal Immigration – For Profit
This is what I have figured out after working for the US Border Patrol and ICE for 26 years and then studying illegal immigration and Mexico’s drug war for another 9 years in retirement.
Washington’s cronies have the “illegal immigration” markets cornered:
Create trade policies (NAFTA/CAFTA) that favor the bi-national elites
Create illegal immigration that exchanges undocumented labor for foreign remittances
Create border crises that will require billions of US tax dollars in crony “border security” boodle
Create propaganda that hides the true motives of illegal immigration and immigration reform
Talk about the “perro” chasing its tail and making billions in the process”
The top 1% in Mexico and the US keeps the red team and blue team fighting while they ALL make Billions exploiting the poor in different ways…
South of Davis–yes, such underlying motivations are starting to become more apparent to more USA citizens–thank goodness for the internet, the mainstream media oligopoly is beginning to have an interrogative challenge to face (meanwhile the multinationals and other power players behind the scenes are quietly moving for more government/corporate control of the internet; with moves such as that to dismantle internet neutrality starting with pay-for-fast-lanes; and ‘hate’ speech regulations–watch out, a few years from now posting of opposition to government immigration policies might brand you as a ‘hater’ with officially sanctioned removal of your internet posting rights)
It must be frustrating to be a border enforcement agent with an earnest desire to help to uphold the US constitution and enforce border control laws; and see the federal government, at executive, legislative, and even judicial levels hampering and otherwise undermining these functions of the agency; rather than strengthening them according to the will of the majority of USA citizens.
This latest migration surge is a product of U.S. Policy enacted by both major parties in the 1990s. It really is disingenuous for any of us to cry foul although I do believe returning to the 92% tax rate on people making more than $1,000,000 annually would be the appropriate source of funding to take care of the mess the U.S. Congress and multi-national corporations created. http://bit.ly/1oC1drE
Dave posted a link to an article with a comment from a guy that “gets it”:
“Washington Simultaneously Creates – And Then Pretends To “Fix” – Illegal Immigration – For Profit
This is what I have figured out after working for the US Border Patrol and ICE for 26 years and then studying illegal immigration and Mexico’s drug war for another 9 years in retirement.
Washington’s cronies have the “illegal immigration” markets cornered:
Create trade policies (NAFTA/CAFTA) that favor the bi-national elites
Create illegal immigration that exchanges undocumented labor for foreign remittances
Create border crises that will require billions of US tax dollars in crony “border security” boodle
Create propaganda that hides the true motives of illegal immigration and immigration reform
Talk about the “perro” chasing its tail and making billions in the process”
The top 1% in Mexico and the US keeps the red team and blue team fighting while they ALL make Billions exploiting the poor in different ways…
South of Davis–yes, such underlying motivations are starting to become more apparent to more USA citizens–thank goodness for the internet, the mainstream media oligopoly is beginning to have an interrogative challenge to face (meanwhile the multinationals and other power players behind the scenes are quietly moving for more government/corporate control of the internet; with moves such as that to dismantle internet neutrality starting with pay-for-fast-lanes; and ‘hate’ speech regulations–watch out, a few years from now posting of opposition to government immigration policies might brand you as a ‘hater’ with officially sanctioned removal of your internet posting rights)
It must be frustrating to be a border enforcement agent with an earnest desire to help to uphold the US constitution and enforce border control laws; and see the federal government, at executive, legislative, and even judicial levels hampering and otherwise undermining these functions of the agency; rather than strengthening them according to the will of the majority of USA citizens.
http://tucson.com/news/local/border/sexual-assault-a-threat-for-female-border-crossers/article_70e850ad-a7f3-5105-8c1e-67aa86a8b0d8.html
http://tucson.com/news/local/border/sexual-assault-a-threat-for-female-border-crossers/article_70e850ad-a7f3-5105-8c1e-67aa86a8b0d8.html
Today, a bus carrying approximately 20 children refugees from the Nogales Detention Center will take them to a more comfortable place while they are awaiting their due process. They won’t have to sleep in metal cages with aluminum foil blankts, on a concerete floor. They will be housed in Oracle, AZ. A local sheriff called Sheriff Paul is organizing a Murietta-style protest, but this time some of the protesters are bragging that they’ll be an “armed militia”. I don’t understand my fellow Americans. They will try to block the bus. I also don’t understand how a sheriff can lawfully encourage people to block a bus on a public street.
There will be peaceful, unarmed citizens wearing white, who want to welcome the bus. I really want to go today, but I’m kinda afraid. Please pray for a peaceful protest.
Today, a bus carrying approximately 20 children refugees from the Nogales Detention Center will take them to a more comfortable place while they are awaiting their due process. They won’t have to sleep in metal cages with aluminum foil blankts, on a concerete floor. They will be housed in Oracle, AZ. A local sheriff called Sheriff Paul is organizing a Murietta-style protest, but this time some of the protesters are bragging that they’ll be an “armed militia”. I don’t understand my fellow Americans. They will try to block the bus. I also don’t understand how a sheriff can lawfully encourage people to block a bus on a public street.
There will be peaceful, unarmed citizens wearing white, who want to welcome the bus. I really want to go today, but I’m kinda afraid. Please pray for a peaceful protest.
http://blogforarizona.net/arizona-rednecks-plan-murrieta-style-ugly-american-protest-in-oracle-az/
http://blogforarizona.net/arizona-rednecks-plan-murrieta-style-ugly-american-protest-in-oracle-az/
I believe the bus should be re-routed to a safe location.
I don’t believe a busload of innocent orphans should be used as a political sacrificial lamb.
Both sides need to back off. These are innocent children, for God’s sake.
I agree. The children should be treated respectfully and with compassion. And many of the photos I’ve seen show young men, and older teenagers… work Levi’s, work boots, etc.
I believe the bus should be re-routed to a safe location.
I don’t believe a busload of innocent orphans should be used as a political sacrificial lamb.
Both sides need to back off. These are innocent children, for God’s sake.
I agree. The children should be treated respectfully and with compassion. And many of the photos I’ve seen show young men, and older teenagers… work Levi’s, work boots, etc.
Maybe, just maybe, Mother Nature will solve this problem today. (She s a mom, after all.)
The monsoons are pouring rain down in parts of the desert today.
I wish no one ill will, but we do need the water.
Maybe, just maybe, Mother Nature will solve this problem today. (She s a mom, after all.)
The monsoons are pouring rain down in parts of the desert today.
I wish no one ill will, but we do need the water.
Heavy shoes help a trek through the desert cactus, wet washes and rattle snake infested desert. It’s not an easy hike. It’s pretty rough terrain out here. I like to photograph nature & I wear my leather ankle boots when I take pictures of the sunrises and blooming cactus here.
Heavy shoes help a trek through the desert cactus, wet washes and rattle snake infested desert. It’s not an easy hike. It’s pretty rough terrain out here. I like to photograph nature & I wear my leather ankle boots when I take pictures of the sunrises and blooming cactus here.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/z3gi0q/questionable-compassion-for-child-immigrants
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/z3gi0q/questionable-compassion-for-child-immigrants
It used to be that immigrants were attracted to this country for its abundant opportunity for economic gain from the freedom to pursue it with individual self-determination and hard work.
Now it is primarily economic gain from government fee stuff that attracts most people.
Mexico’s economy is doing quite well, but Mexico lacks that generous handouts that American gives its poor and uneducated people.
I heard a stat the other day that 50% of immigrants end up on one form or another of the Government dole.
BP
And you heard this where ?
It used to be that immigrants were attracted to this country for its abundant opportunity for economic gain from the freedom to pursue it with individual self-determination and hard work.
Now it is primarily economic gain from government fee stuff that attracts most people.
Mexico’s economy is doing quite well, but Mexico lacks that generous handouts that American gives its poor and uneducated people.
I heard a stat the other day that 50% of immigrants end up on one form or another of the Government dole.
BP
And you heard this where ?
Frankly
“Now it is primarily economic gain from government free stuff that attracts most people.
Your support for this statement ?
Given my job and volunteer activities I have met many,many people from south of our borders both in their country and ours.
The vast majority are very hard workers who are here seeking safety and work, not “free stuff.” This has been my direct experience. Where are you getting your information
In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for native households. By 2009, that had grown to 57 and 39 percent, respectively. The welfare program use rate for Hispanic immigrant households with children is much higher than that for native households and immigrants generally.
Frankly
“Now it is primarily economic gain from government free stuff that attracts most people.
Your support for this statement ?
Given my job and volunteer activities I have met many,many people from south of our borders both in their country and ours.
The vast majority are very hard workers who are here seeking safety and work, not “free stuff.” This has been my direct experience. Where are you getting your information
In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for native households. By 2009, that had grown to 57 and 39 percent, respectively. The welfare program use rate for Hispanic immigrant households with children is much higher than that for native households and immigrants generally.
Interesting interview on Jon Stewart last night with Sonia Nazario about this issue, specifically pointing out that this resembles more a refugee issue rather than an immigration issue.
Interesting interview on Jon Stewart last night with Sonia Nazario about this issue, specifically pointing out that this resembles more a refugee issue rather than an immigration issue.