I don’t know how you define the term “criminal”, but generally it’s someone who commits a crime. Comming here illegally is a crime. Ergo, people who cross the border illegally are criminals. Parse it how you like, you cannot avoid that fact.
Did you read what I said in the post above that I might even be a “wetback” myself, if I were a poor Mexican. That does not change the fact that it is a crime.
If we were able to completely crack down on illegal immigrants, and the price of apples went up accordingly, I would recognize that as a consequence of securing the border, nothing more and nothing less. You’re not forgetting anything from econ 101. You’re forgetting something from Legal Studies 101-- ie, what constitutes a crime.
Right, I get that. The point is it’s needlessly a crime and it’s one thats perpetuated by our society yet blamed on the most vulnerable members of the system.
“Undocumented” is the term those of us use who aren’t willing to accept the injustice. I’m not willing to blame these workers for their crime any more than I’m willing to be accused of entrapment by every person I speak with in our society.
Greck: Interesting that you would blame the US society for the illegal immigrant problem and not the Mexican society. After all, if they could make a decent living in their own country, they’d be less inclined to sneek into this country. But then it does seem fashionable to blame the US for every ill in the world.
FWIW there are various bills bouncing around Congress right now that would create a modified guest worker program for semi-skilled/unskilled labor. One of the more intriguing ones would have U.S. employers pay part of the worker’s salary into an escrow account, which the worker would only be able to access upon returning to Mexico. I can’t find the darn news article right now, though.
Ah, found something: see pp. 6-7 especially of the AILA Washington Update on the Kolbe-Flake bill (although you may find the rest of the issue interesting reading as well):
Grek: I don’t know. 99% of the Mexican populace somehow manages not to enter this country illegally. Are they literally starving to death in Mexico? I don’t think so. They make a choice to knowingly break a law not to avoid a life/death situation, but simply to better their economic circumstances. I’d say they are responsible for their own actions of breaking the law.
Eva: An interesting idea. The current situation is clearly not working , so something else needs to be tried. I wonder if the escrow accounts could open the door for some underhanded exploitation by unscrulous employers. But as long as the wage scales are dramatically different between the US and Mexico, workers from south of the border will want to work here. Seems odd to be importing labor when the domestic unemployment rate is as high as it is.
John: the problem isn’t simply unemplpoyment per se, it’s a mismatch (sometimes varying along regions) between the skills of U.S. workers and the skills required by open positions.
I’m sure that given the choice between hiring a U.S.-born busboy and an illegal Mexican busboy, most employers would rather hire the legal one. But there simply aren’t a lot of U.S. workers dying to work at these minimum-wage jobs, and sometimes those who do aren’t the ones who employers want to hire (they have hygiene or reliability issues, etc.)
The reason (which I disagree with) is that there have been so many amnesties that many illegal immigrants are the same as legal ones, just waiting to be legalized.
To a certain extent it’s true.
In all cases there is a sense that the person has somehow acquired a responsibilty; one is not simply required to do these actions, but to do them in order to do something else. I’ve never paid child support, cut a lawn that I own, paid a television license fee, or reported offshore income. I haven’t been charged with anything, and I’d be outraged if I were. Obviously not paying child support, not mowing your law, not paying the fee, and not reporting offshore income are not illegal in and of themselves. (Wow! Triple negative!)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Mace *
** I don’t know. 99% of the Mexican populace somehow manages not to enter this country illegally. Are they literally starving to death in Mexico? I don’t think so. They make a choice to knowingly break a law not to avoid a life/death situation, but simply to better their economic circumstances. I’d say they are responsible for their own actions of breaking the law.
QUOTE]
Those are all valid points,
You can choose to see people as criminals and label them as such, or you can choose to think beyond your own view and see them as human beings who are willing to risk their freedom for an opportunity to better their lot.
Both perspectives are true. They are illegally here and they are undocumented.
We have to call them something, It’s best to use the one that is least stereotyping, the one that assumes the least about them.
Well, we’re realy starting to split hairs, but let me split a bit further.
I can certainly agree that calling someone “illegal” is incorrect. The person is not illegal, the act is. And labelling someone a criminal really implies that they live a criminal lifestyle-- ie, committing crimes as part of the way they live.
I’m sure that many people who cross the border illegally end up living a non-criminal lifestyle here. Aside from the point that they are essentialy living in a state of crime be just being here, the key act was crossing the border. If they end up paying taxes on their earnings, then they’re probably not a burden on society.
And I certainly agree that if one must use a label, it should be the one that assumes the least about them. But I don’t think we’re talking about that. If someone attempted to come into this country legally and either screwed up the paperwork. or got lost in the system, then sure-- call them “undocumented immigrants”. But if someone is known to have crossed the border illegally, with no intent to follow the legal immigrationn process I can’t see that calling them an “illegal immigrant” is in anyway stereotyping. I would argue that calling them “undocumented” is an attempt to obscure the facts of the situation.
So, there are any number of categories that immigrants can fall into: Legal, Undocumented, Of Unknown Status, and Illegal. Painting all with a broad brush is wrong. But saying someone falls in one category when it is known that they do not is misleading at best, deliberately dishonest at worst.
"I’m extremely curious as to what the “undocumented alien” legislation is, say, in Mexico."
Here’s an interesting article by an ex-pat US citizen (who also happens to be an attorney and a libertarian): "Moving to Mexico’s a Breeze":
It goes on to explain the formal process for various status categories (paperwork and fees), in addition to some “unwritten” policy and ways to “deal”:
I guess I should’ve elaborated a tad more, annaplurabelle. What I’m curious about is how Mexico’s government considers those who enter their country illegally from the South for the purpose of employment.
I know that if someone comes here illegally, they don’t have documents to prove they came here with the permission of the government. I wouldn’t describe someone’s immigrant status as undocumented if they were in fact documented.
There’s nothing misleading about that. It means what it means.
If you steal something from the store; Are you to be thereafter referred to as “John the theif?” I mean, you wouldn’t want to mislead people. You certainly fall into that category, right?
If I neither returned the stolen goods nor did jail time to make amends, yes. If the illegal immigrants return to their own country, I would not call them illegal immigrants any longer.
Somehow, I don’t think we’re going to ever see eye to eye on this matter, Greck.
If they’re immigrants, and they don’t have documents, they’re undocumented immigrants. I don’t see what the problem is here.
Unlike others, I don’t see the need to constantly harp on someone who came here illegally by labeling their immigrant status as “illegal”. Just because by accident of birth they weren’t born in the United States doesn’t mean we should berate them
