Illegal Immigration

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Monty]
No, you didn’t say anything snide in that posting. I just find it ridiculous that you’re asserting something that you obviously know is not the case. That does not excuse my comment, though, about snide. For that, I’m sorry.

The bit about the facts though stands.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? I’m assuming that you are refering to my comment about the lack of enforcement due to practical and local considerations. But, I do know that it’s the case that law enforcement officers look the other way regarding immigration status. I’ve seen it. I know both the Mexicans and the cops in this town (it’s kind of small), and both tend to do the practical thing: Take it as it comes. That’s all. That’s all I meant to say in that post.

42

Lack of enforcement =/= legal.

43

[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
I do buy that, because they don’t pay taxes, yet they still use services funded by tax dollars.
[/QUOTE]

Everyone in America pays taxes. If you rent a room, part of your rent goes towards your landlord’s property taxes. You pay them. Not the landlord. You. If you buy anything in a state that has a sales tax, you pay the sales tax. Not the merchant. You. If you get a paycheck, something will be taken out of it for Social Security payroll tax. Not from your employer’s paycheck. Yours. All quite apart from whether you ever file a federal income tax return (or make sufficient income to require a return). All this holds true entirely regardless of whether you are a citizen, a legal immigrant, or an illlegal immigrant.

44

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
We have a fair amount of Mexican immigrants around here. (NC) I have worked with several on construction jobs. From what I gather, most of them cram as many into an apartment as they can to save money. Often these apartments are the cheapest and nastiest around. Migrant workers have it worse. I strongly suspect their cost of living is much below average.
[/QUOTE]

In the UK I worked and lived with what I guess is basically their equivalent of illegal Mexican immigrants, the Poles (although the Poles are all legal). And even there, I knew groups of Polish guys who would literally sleep lined up like sardines on the floor of some run down flat just to keep living expenses down. I’m sure conditions for illegal Mexicans in the US are even worse.

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Well how about this:

With US birthrates declining and baby boomers reaching retirement age, aren’t we going to need an influx of workers from somewhere to keep the economy going?

It seems to me that if we’re going to clamp down on illegal immigration from Mexico, then we need to make legal immigration from Mexico a whole hell of a lot easier.
[/QUOTE]

Why on earth should we do that? Mexicans aren’t the only ones who want to come to this country; they’re just the ones who have the easiest time of it. I’ve said before on these boards, I think we should clamp down hard on illegal immigration from whichever way it’s coming, and increase legal immigration from multiple, diverse countries. That would allow us to get however many immigrants we need for the economy, diversify our population (and thus our ties to the entire world), give life-changing opportunities to millions of deserving people from around the world, and ease assimilation worries (many small immigrant cultural groups will assimilate more quickly than one humongous mono-lingual one).

45

[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
Please tell us of something outside of the energy sector that is state-owned.
[/quote]

The airlines are, electricity is, the telephones were and still have most of a monopoly. Doing some research (1 and 2) it appears that since the late 80s, thousands of companies were actually privatised. Though it also seems that the methods by which the Mexican government did this were targetted more towards reaping maximum profits from the sales rather than trying to set up a competitive economy. So there’s still several large monopolies, and several of the banks that were privatised (and crashed) were just brought back in the fold.

The first link above mentions it (“50-year extendible trust”) but doesn’t go into much detail. Essentially it’s a method for the government to swoop up an extra $5000 for any foreigners who move to anywhere within driving range of the beach. All the sites (real estate firms) I can find on it say that it’s the same as full ownership, but my parents and other foreigners seem to feel a bit less secure in that (I would need to ask my parents.)

46

Lease-hold land is not unheard of in the United States. It is quite common in Hawaii, and the cabin my husband and his sisters own is on a leasehold. The land is owned by Georgia Power Co - we have a 99 year lease with an option to renew for another 99.

47

Does anyone have an answer to** Bill Door’s ** question? (post 20) I think this would make a big difference in the argument.

48

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
And for once, can we please not hear that BS about how illegals take work that Americans won’t do? There are plenty of citizens who’ll do construction and agricultural work, they just can’t afford to compete with illegals who’ll work for one half or one third of what an American needs to meet basic living expenses.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, it’s all BS. Yup. It’s all BS. Cases like this happen because Americans would be just so happy to work in circumstance such as this, if they would just pay a little more. Link

From the same article, it shows how business is run.

So what happens is that big businesses use subcontractors. The big businesses can then get the tax deductions. They use these small businesses who skirt or break the law and then the large corporations can act shocked if someone were to catch illegal immigrant. Some posters act shocked if that an individual out “break the law” but the orange industry is built around this.

49

[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
Sure, it’s all BS. Yup. It’s all BS. Cases like this happen because Americans would be just so happy to work in circumstance such as this, if they would just pay a little more. Link

From the same article, it shows how business is run.

So what happens is that big businesses use subcontractors. The big businesses can then get the tax deductions. They use these small businesses who skirt or break the law and then the large corporations can act shocked if someone were to catch illegal immigrant. Some posters act shocked if that an individual out “break the law” but the orange industry is built around this.
[/QUOTE]

My expereinces and cites working with braceros and migrant farm workers would indicate those are rare and unusual cases, not “business as usual”. Please give a cite showing such practices (forced labor) occcur in a large % of the orange industry.

50

[QUOTE=DMC]
A “hint” of racism? There’s a lot more than a “hint” on the part of some on the anti-immigration side.
[/QUOTE]

But it’s really hard to get them to say so in non-euphemistic terms. (Their favorite euphemism for “race” is “culture.”)

51

[QUOTE=nmbnmbnm]
According to the INS in 2003 (yes it’s a few years old, but I don’t think it would be that much different today:

[/QUOTE]

Come to think of it, how does the INS know how many illegals there are in the country, let alone how they break down by national origin? After all, they’re, well, illegals. There are no records of their entry, they try to keep their heads down, and they’re reluctant to cooperate with census takers.

52

[QUOTE=DMC]
My response was to the statement made by nmbnmbnm, which I (correctly, it turns out) interpreted as saying that the anti-immigration movement focusing on Mexicans is not borne out of racism. I merely stated that in many cases it is indeed so, as we’ve shown many times before.

Feel free to attempt to keep it out of the thread, but as long as it gets reintroduced, I’ll be back to counter it.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it is (much). I know many dudes who are extremely anti-immigration, and they are anti-everyone, not just Mexicans. True, they are Xenophobic, yes, but not racist (much). Xenophobic is not quite the same thing as racist.

It’s just that there’s far more Mexicans and they tend to not blend in. Here in San Jose where you get a lot of Vietnamese immigrants (who also here tend not to blend in) you hear the exact same things about them.

53

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I don’t think it is (much). I know many dudes who are extremely anti-immigration, and they are anti-everyone, not just Mexicans. True, they are Xenophobic, yes, but not racist (much). Xenophobic is not quite the same thing as racist.
[/QUOTE]

Although “xenophobic” and “racist” ought to have different meanings, the problem is that “race” is a very elusive concept. Is a Mexican who can trace most of his ancestors back to Spain of a different race to an American who can trace most of his ancestors back to Italy? Not really, but it’s still common to talk about the American’s dislike of the Mexcan as “racism”. And that “racism” is a mixture of cultural prejudices and of disliking people who “look different” (whatever that means: Japanese and Chinese each find the others look different, but we Europeans think they look the same).

54

For example on WIKI

“FAIR’s policy rhetoric and analysis have often been claimed by critics to be nativist, inflammatory, and partisan.”

Nativist being defined as “In politics, Nativism is the fear that certain new immigrants will inject alien political, economic or cultural values and behaviors that threaten the prevailing norms and values. It usually involves restrictions on immigrants and sometimes includes policies that favor the interests of established inhabitants (i.e. “natives”) over those of immigrants. The term has most often been used in the United States, but the concept is also relevant in other countries, especially ones which have experienced intensive immigration and associated rapid societal change.”

So, if you prefer nativist, to Xenophobic then fine. But in order for the groups to be racist, they have to be anti races, not anti all immigrants no matter their race, creed, color or ethicity. I don’t doubt that many racists are also nativists, but I’d like a cite with a major USA anti-immigration group that says “Ok, come on in- if you’re white. But stay out if you’re brown, black or yellow.”

FAIR, which is likely the most widely known anti-immigration group, seems to be scrupulous in it’s opposition to immigration, especially illegal immigration. It’s section on suggestion for stopping illegal immigration has suggestions that work equally on both borders, not just our Southern one.

FAIR sez “there should be no favoritism toward or discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, or creed; that all admissions of immigrants come within a single, stable ceiling which is periodically reviewed on the basis of reasoned, explicit population goals for the United States;”

FAIR also mentions Canadian illegal immigrants, too.

So, sorry- not (much) based upon racism, so much as xenophobia and nativism.

55

Yes, people who want to limit immigration can be motivated by different mixtures of nativism, xenophobia and racism. My point was that “racism” is used by to cover a wider range of prejudices than might be caused by “race”, however that problematic word might be defined.

I suspect that “nativism” is a good word to describe the motivation of many: Americans before all others, and even before the Canadians who look and behave much the same way as Americans do.

But do these people understand that if there were a non-discriminatory immigration process that succeeded in limiting Mexican immigration, there would either be labour shortages in many industries, or a lot more immigration from South America, Asia and Africa? And the Asian and African immigrants would be a lot more conspicuous than the Mexicans are now.

56

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
The airlines are, electricity is, the telephones were and still have most of a monopoly.
[/QUOTE]

The airlines aren’t, electricity is energy and telephone service was privatized in the early nineties. So as you can see your statement “But at heart, the issue is that so much is state-owned.” is nonsense.

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
The first link above mentions it (“50-year extendible trust”) but doesn’t go into much detail. Essentially it’s a method for the government to swoop up an extra $5000 for any foreigners who move to anywhere within driving range of the beach. All the sites (real estate firms) I can find on it say that it’s the same as full ownership, but my parents and other foreigners seem to feel a bit less secure in that (I would need to ask my parents.)
[/QUOTE]

So again your claim that your parents house is owned by the Mexican goverment is also pure nonsense. Do you truthfully know anything correct about Mexico?

57

[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
Lease-hold land is not unheard of in the United States. It is quite common in Hawaii, and the cabin my husband and his sisters own is on a leasehold. The land is owned by Georgia Power Co - we have a 99 year lease with an option to renew for another 99.
[/QUOTE]

The land in Mexico that falls within the restricted zone is probably 99.99% privately owned land, and does not, as SnakesCatLady claims, belong to the Mexican government. I own beachfront property and as a citizen I hold the title outright. I could sell it to you, a non-citizen, but you would need to have it kept in a trust held by an approved bank. The property has never belonged to the Mexican government. The beach itself is federal property and neither foreigners nor citizens can own it.

58

[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
The land in Mexico that falls within the restricted zone is probably 99.99% privately owned land, and does not, as SnakesCatLady claims, belong to the Mexican government. I own beachfront property and as a citizen I hold the title outright. I could sell it to you, a non-citizen, but you would need to have it kept in a trust held by an approved bank. The property has never belonged to the Mexican government. The beach itself is federal property and neither foreigners nor citizens can own it.
[/QUOTE]

Correction. The above post should read “as SageRat claims”. Apologies to SCL.

59

[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
The land in Mexico that falls within the restricted zone is probably 99.99% privately owned land, and does not, as SnakesCatLady claims, belong to the Mexican government. I own beachfront property and as a citizen I hold the title outright. I could sell it to you, a non-citizen, but you would need to have it kept in a trust held by an approved bank. The property has never belonged to the Mexican government. The beach itself is federal property and neither foreigners nor citizens can own it.
[/QUOTE]

  1. Cite that it’s 99% or even close? :dubious:

  2. And the “approved banks” are all Mexican banks are they not?

  3. Never belonged to the Mexican Government? :dubious:

  4. However- can US citizens own land outright in that coastal territory?

  5. Can Mexican citizens own land outright in the USA?

60

[QUOTE=DrDeth]

  1. Cite that it’s 99% or even close? :dubious:

  2. And the “approved banks” are all Mexican banks are they not?

  3. Never belonged to the Mexican Government? :dubious:

  4. However- can US citizens own land outright in that coastal territory?

  5. Can Mexican citizens own land outright in the USA?
    [/QUOTE]

  6. Don’t have a cite. You can Google to your hearts desire and report back.

  7. So? What is your point?

  8. Why dubious? Do you know anything about land tenureship in Mexico?

  9. There is nothing in Mexican law that singles out US citizens.

  10. You tell me. But again, what is your point?

SageRat made an outlandish claim that the Mexican government owned his parents house. That is 100% bullshit. Do you have anything that proves the contrary or are you just being contradictive?