Huh, about the US' employment problem

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

madmallard wrote: Nor do I know a large mass of illegal immigrants. But I don't have to know them to know they are, by correct definition, criminals.

I'll just take one bit out of that. I think you missed my point. And, if you look at my post, I said, I agree, they are criminals. Let me say it again. They are criminals. Now, look at what you wrote. You come about one inch from saying "and that's all I need to know about them". I believe taken as a whole, your argument says exactly that.

Of course you do, it spares you the challenge of intellectually meeting the whole of what I actually did put down.

(and yet still you don't seem to realise that you are in fact doing what you are accusing me of. By claiming you know what was in my heart, or what was the next inch of what I was going to say, and claiming it to be an extreme piece of rhetoric with no actual basis in fact, you yourself are in fact stripping any humanity out of the differing POV that you are accusing me of recursively.)

I mean look at this:

Braking a law does not make one devoid of rights or humanity. That's all I'm saying.

At no point have I gave any indication of this sentiment, yet at least FOUR times you try to assert directly or passively that I have.

Why?

Why do you feel the need to run to this sensationalism, when there is none?

Well, to be fair, I read over your posts. Yup, you're right. I did assign things to you that you never said. I assumed. And you know what happens when we assume, don't you?*

I stand by my posts otherwise. As I tried to show in later posts, the issue is not as black and white as the "illegal is just illegal" rhetoric suggests. So I also stand by my belief that the constant repetition of that kind of talk is, more often than not, purely divisive. But I'm sorry if I unfairly characterized your views.

You're a smart guy and I do enjoy talking about this stuff with you. And as a good debate partner, you don't let me get away with anything. Good on you for that.

Take care,

Ed

*If you don't, check out this video at 6:00 in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NENJK8d-p8

I am not unconvincable, as hard as I push debates. ;p I can be convinced.

Its actually not all that hard once we set down the correct terms.

I typically run into a problem with that because the opposing view simply doesn't care about any view I might hold. In their view, Its simply not important, trivial, immaterial, or irrelevant.

Thats a horrible place to start from if you're honestly trying to reach an understanding. ;p

To further confirm some of your sentiment, yes Rosa Parks was a criminal of her time. And yes, the founding fathers were treasonous. We don't overlook these things for expediency because they put in perspective the actions and choices they made. If we don't underscore the fact that they were comitting treason, or that Rosa Parks was breaking the law, it diminishes the weight of consequences they were facing.

I'm not trying to have a debate on if the laws are good in the first place. Only that we are supposed to start from the rule of law. Laws can be changed, the ethic of Rule of Law cannot be. People in this debate specifically are trying to throw out the relevance of the rule of law to suit their needs emotionally, politcally, or whatever in order to castrate the opposing view into obscurity.

I see you're not entrenched in that mind, you just passionately overlooked my stuff. ;p

Okay, off to a better second start. Sorry for the flounder.

Let's take a look at the laws. As I said on the last page, I'm in over my head here, and part of my point is that they're difficult to understand. But beginning at the beginning.

What law did they break? I believe the legal term is Unlawful Entry, which is a misdemeanor. But, thing is, unless you catch them crossing the boarder, you can't charge them with Unlawful Entry. (The don't charge them when they do catch them at the boarder, but that's another issue). Why? You can't prove how they got here. They could have gotten a Visa for a vacation. They could have had a temporary work Visa. Many people do. Those Visas may have expired and they may now be here illegally, or their paperwork may have been lost.

So what are they? They're here, and they are... wait for it... undocumented.

There's a second act, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Not sure what your point is, fast_eddie_72, but Unlawful Entry is a misdemeanor and, if repeated, becomes punishable as a felony.

Additionally, anyone who carries a false document has committed document fraud (a felony). Most illegal aliens carry several. A fake passport with a fake name, a fake green card and a Social Security card would be 3 felony counts. Making false claims of citizenship is a felony offense. Frequently aliens just check the box that says "citizen". Improper representation on a Federal I-9 eligibilty form would be perjury.

Keep in mind that it becomes a lifestyle of lying and manipulating the system for survival. That makes them repeat, habitual offenders.

Each case is unique.

You can't say it was "only 1 misdemeanor".

SVreX wrote: A fake passport with a fake name, a fake green card and a Social Security card would be 3 felony counts. Making false claims of citizenship is a felony offense.

Killing a border guard would be Murder. Holding up a bank would be robbery. You're just making up crimes. You just convicted "most" illegal aliens of three felonies without even naming an individual. Is that not the dictionary definition of stereotype?

As you correctly say later, each case is unique.

And for the life of me I can't understand how anyone doesn't see what my point is! As was said earlier, "illegal" is accurate. And as I said then, accurate isn't the same thing as appropriate. Madmallard was saying that we aren't being honest with ourselves if we don't call them illegals.

I was showing that "undocumented" is also accurate. And anything more is assuming a crime that you can't prove. Then you went on to assume a bunch more! What is your point? It's okay to call them "illegals" anyway because they probably did some other stuff? You can't say it's anything more than 1 misdemeanor unless you're talking about an individual who has done something else!

Don't get my point- you're demonstrating my point.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

You have spent a great deal of words in this thread which all seem to be saying essentially the same thing- it's not nice to call them illegal. If your point is something significantly different than that then you are correct, it's not getting through.

If that IS in fact your point then you might want to wake up to a very simple fact- THEY ARE ILLEGAL. They are illegal by choice, and it IS possible for them to be legal.

If you'd like to have a discussion about how messed up the system is, fine, no disagreement. If you'd like to talk about how difficult and absurd it is to get legal, no problem. I agree.

But refusing to deal with the simple core fact that they are illegal is sticking your head in the sand. The reason that issue is foundational is that it offends most people to offer services and benefits to non-citizens using tax dollars when citizens aren't getting similar attention.

And no, I am NOT making up crimes. I have never met a single illegal who didn't have more than one forged document. They are here to work, and they HAVE to have them to work. Why wouldn't they? And yes, carrying a false document is a felony.

As far as naming names, that's ridiculous. I could, but I won't. As I have said, I know hundreds.

It is a lifestyle of deceit and illegality. Most of the people I know rise before the sun and return to the house after dark so they won't be seen. They live in fear, because they KNOW they are guilty. They drive on our streets without licenses (or insurance) risking others while they continually look in the rear view mirror worried that the police will stop them.

I am all for helping them. I have paid to assist several become legal. Many are my friends, and I care about them.

But no one can help them if we don't understand what their problem is. The core problem is that they are illegal, which makes them not eligible for many of the basic rights we all enjoy.

My friend Daniel who just became legal after 20 years of hiding is a new man. He did it LEGALLY. It required he go back to Mexico for 7 months while he worked on the paperwork. Now he can move freely and not live in fear anymore. The only reason he didn't do it earlier was that he was lazy and afraid.

Fixing the system to help them have a path toward legal status is a great idea. But pushing it under the rug and pretending we have (or should have) a magic "easy button" to citizenship is foolishness. Suggesting we have no problem and should just be "nice" and call them the right name is worse. They don't care, and neither do I.

It's not OK for someone to come into my yard and take stuff that doesn't belong to them. It would also not be OK for my neighbor to defend the thief because he was hungry or nice or had children. As it currently stands, they are coming into my country and taking jobs, money, and resources while some of my neighbors tell me I should be "nice" to them. Hogwash.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

SVreX wrote: A fake passport with a fake name, a fake green card and a Social Security card would be 3 felony counts. Making false claims of citizenship is a felony offense.

Killing a border guard would be Murder. Holding up a bank would be robbery. You're just making up crimes. You just convicted "most" illegal aliens of three felonies without even naming an individual. Is that not the dictionary definition of stereotype? As you correctly say later, each case is unique. And for the life of me I can't understand how anyone doesn't see what my point is! As was said earlier, "illegal" is accurate. And as I said then, accurate isn't the same thing as appropriate. Madmallard was saying that we aren't being honest with ourselves if we don't call them illegals. I was showing that "undocumented" is also accurate. And anything more is assuming a crime that you can't prove. Then you went on to assume a bunch more! What is *your* point? It's okay to call them "illegals" anyway because they probably did some other stuff? You can't say it's anything more than 1 misdemeanor unless you're talking about an individual who has done something else! Don't get my point- you're demonstrating my point.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. It isn't always a bad thing. Any illegal who works is breaking the law above and beyond the crime of entering illegally. If they work under the table it is tax fraud. If they have a bogus SS it is SS fraud. If they don't work and get any kind of welfare it is welfare fraud. Assumptions aren't always bad either. You assert that you can't say there is more than one misdemeanor. This only accurate for a an illegal who does not work, doesn't get welfare, doesn't drive, nor does any number of other things that would be needed to do to survive. Its a much bigger assumption that an illegal isn't breaking any other laws.

SVreX wrote: I have never met a single illegal who didn't have more than one forged document

ThePhranc wrote: Stereotypes exist for a reason. It isn't always a bad thing.

Well, I thank you guys for your candor. You've made my point. At least one of them. What you have said is exactly what I've been saying. We're very quick to stereotype. And it seems we have no problem with that. This country has a lot of history with this and I'd ask you to reflect on that.

It does seem that I've, at least to some degree, communicated the point that curent law is ambigous. And that was really the bigger point. There is an effort to paint the issue as black and white when it is not. Further, that effort intentionally tries to mis-state what our current laws are. Illegal aliens, along with legal aliens, are subject to deportation at any time. But there is no legal requirement for deportation and historically we have not deported people without cause. Simply saying "illegal is illegal" is not a reflection of our current laws or policy.

I have no problem with people wanting to change the law. I really think we need a comprehensive immigration reform. But do not make the mistake that our starting point is deportation of anyone who has entered the country illegally. I'll repeat, that is not our current law or policy. And I have laid out in some detail why that is the case.

Take a minute to look over my posts. If you can honestly tell me that all I have said is "calling them illegal isn't nice" then there is little for us to discuss. I've made an effort to lay out the history and, to the best of my ability, law surrounding illegal immigration. I've given practical examples of the difficulty in persuing a "deport them all" policy and tried to explain what I believe would be a better way forward.

If all you hear is "it's not nice" then I've clearly wasted a lot of time- which is almost certainly the case.

We have talked a lot about correctly identifying the problem. Here it is. Some people want a policy of manditory deportation. That's fine. Persue that through democratic means. But you are mistakenly trying to say that is what our current law demands. Our current law accomodates it, but it is not our current policy.

I hope that clears the issue up a little, but I doubt it. What part of illegal don't I understand? The vague, ill-defined part that on the one hand calls it a crime and on the other hand offers benefit and accomodates - even taxes activity that can not be done legally. The part that says it's illegal but does not clearly define a course of action for people who violate that law.

The immigration situation as it stands is something of a legal mess. Let's all agree to that. And if we can agree to that, we should be able to agree that it's a huge over simplification to simply leave it at "illegal is illegal".

The immigrants ("Immigrant" - implying correctly that they IMMIGRATED to this country) I know from Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Canada refer to them as berkeleying ILLEGALS. Works for me. Whether it's a nice happy name or not, everyone knows who you're talking about.

If it makes you happy, and allows this conversation to move beyond the roadblock you've thrown up, let's henceforth refer to them as "The poor victims who've been deprived of their god-given right to free stuff."

Yes, I've gotten speeding tickets. Speeding is a crime I expect to pay a small fine for. No, I have not illegally entered someone else's country and produced fake documents to make it appear as though I am a citizen. This is a crime I'd expect to be deported for, after of course, I'd served time and payed a hefty fine.

I'm really trying to wrap my head around what your argument is here. Are you suggesting that massive amounts of people whom we know nothing about flooding across our southern border is not a problem?

For argument's sake, what city and state do you live in?

EDIT: Posted at the same time. Thanks for some clarification. But seriously, for argument's sake, where do you live? And what would your immigration policy look like?

The only think i have to say-

do you know with 100% certainty where you food comes from?

if not, the odds are very good that you are helping make the situation you are arguing against worse.

If you policy is absolute, then I suggest that your food sources be, too. 100% local. Even if that means paying $5/lb for local chicken. Or $4/lb for local ground meat. And you should ONLY be getting vegtables in season. Or at least only getting things that are imported to the US.

Just sayin.

poopshovel wrote: If it makes you happy, and allows this conversation to move beyond the roadblock you've thrown up, let's henceforth refer to them as "The poor victims who've been deprived of their god-given right to free stuff."

Please show me where I said anything remotely clse to this.

poopshovel wrote: EDIT: Posted at the same time. Thanks for some clarification. But seriously, for argument's sake, where do you live? And what would your immigration policy look like?

Sorry, I should have posted that. Oh. Wait. I did.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: An alternative would be to formalize the relationship that has existed for decades. Allow industry to apply for a number of jobs to be filled with non-citizen workers (they would no longer be “illegal” in this case, so I’m not using that word). These so-called guest workers would do the jobs traditionally done by illegal labor. Typically, these sorts of proposals include some provision for these workers to become citizens, eventually, if they stay out of trouble.

poopshovel wrote: Yes, I've gotten speeding tickets. Speeding is a crime I expect to pay a small fine for. No, I have not illegally entered someone else's country and produced fake documents to make it appear as though I am a citizen. This is a crime I'd expect to be deported for, after of course, I'd served time and payed a hefty fine.

Are we talking about entering the country illegally or are we talking about forged documents? They are not the same thing. I have no problem with a law that stiplates deportation for any illegal immigrant who forges documents. That could be part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.

This gets back to identifying the problem. I talked about the Swift plant here in Colorado. Those people were deported for exactly this reason. Their forged documents. It caused a lot of problems and was delt with appropriately.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: We have talked a lot about correctly identifying the problem. Here it is. Some people want a policy of manditory deportation. That's fine. Persue that through democratic means. But you are mistakenly trying to say that is what our current law demands. Our current law accomodates it, but it is not our current policy.

You have asked me to look over your posts, which I have done. So now I will ask you to look over mine.

You will not find the word "deportation" in anything I've posted. I don't think it, and I haven't said it.

You are making rash assumptions about the motivation of people who disagree with what you are saying. What I am disagreeing with is your incorrect allegations that I have a desire for a policy of mandatory deportation.

I have addressed one and only one subject. Your suggestion that we should not call them "illegal aliens".

Hogwash.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Are we talking about entering the country illegally or are we talking about forged documents? They are not the same thing. I have no problem with a law that stiplates deportation for any illegal immigrant who forges documents. That could be part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.

This is a ridiculous statement.

Do you actually KNOW any illegal aliens? You are exhibiting a gross ignorance of what actually happens.

But if it makes you feel good, OK, I'll agree. Does your law also apply to enforcing existing laws about possessing forged documents? How about perjury on I-9 forms? When do we start deporting folks? You understand that this will mean most illegal aliens get deported, right?

Experts suggest approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment

Center for Immigration Studies article on document fraud

In reply to fast_eddie_72: What part of this nations history as it pertains to stereotyping would you like me to reflect on?

What law exactly is ambiguous?

What exactly isn't black and white about legal and illegal?

Simply saying illegal is illegal exactly is a reflection of current laws.

Our current law is to deport illegals. Just because it isn't enforced doesn't mean its not the law. And we should start with mass deportation. Its been done 3 times before.

If you think the clearly defined parameters of what illegal alien means are vague I see why you have such a hard time getting your point across. The problem is yours not the people who don't understand what the point is you are failing miserably to make. It might help if you started with an intellectually honest argument.

Immigration isn't a legal mess it is a political mess. When you conflate the two you make intellectually dishonest arguments.

The deportation laws clearly says that an inadmissible alien is some one who "Failed to register or falsified documents relating to entry in to the U.S.; " That is every single illegal alien.

And thats the crux. Until we agree that they are all breaking the law by being here without having followed the current rules, then pursuing any policy of change or legislation is meaningless.

Why bother changing the law if both the violator and the enabler have no respect for the idea of rule of law now?

The reason for ignoring this are largely political and economical, but makes it no more acceptable to me regardles of such a reason. Hell, there are cites with ordinances and laws protecting people here illegally.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: If it makes you happy, and allows this conversation to move beyond the roadblock you've thrown up, let's henceforth refer to them as "The poor victims who've been deprived of their god-given right to free stuff."

Please show me where I said anything remotely clse to this.

poopshovel wrote: EDIT: Posted at the same time. Thanks for some clarification. But seriously, for argument's sake, where do you live? And what would your immigration policy look like?

Sorry, I should have posted that. Oh. Wait. I did.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: An alternative would be to formalize the relationship that has existed for decades. Allow industry to apply for a number of jobs to be filled with non-citizen workers (they would no longer be “illegal” in this case, so I’m not using that word). These so-called guest workers would do the jobs traditionally done by illegal labor. Typically, these sorts of proposals include some provision for these workers to become citizens, eventually, if they stay out of trouble.

You did not say this. This, however, is the attitude of EVERY illegal I've known personally, whereas people here legally have the opposite approach, and just want to be free to EARN their money and kick into the pot. I can't blame them for snatching up the hand-outs, they're culturally conditioned to take anything that's not bolted to the ground. They take, and take, and take; popping out more kids for bigger checks, not paying taxes, but filing at the end of the year claiming to have made $9,000 so the rest of us tax-paying morons can give them their "earned income" tax credit.

Again, this is personal experience, and I'd like to know what your personal experiences are where you live. If you'd like to call me prejudice, that's fine. As someone else said, stereotypes exist for a reason, and no, there's really no need for me to sit back and reflect on that or whatever.

Regarding your massive shortage of people to fill job openings at the Swift plant in what I would guess is Greeley CO (all I could find:) According to their website, there are 2 job openings. One for a "Fabrication Maintenance Technician" (Troubleshooting problems with complex equipment is generally not Cholo's strong suit in my experience,) and Waste Water Treatment Operator (my neighbor John does this at a Pilgrim's plant here in Georgia - he's a white boy, so there go's the whole "American's won't do these jobs" argument.)

http://www.jbssa.com/Careers/Opportunities/JBSOpportunities.aspx

Your immigration policy is very similar to our current policy. How's that working out? Regarding deportation, it's simple. I layed it out very clearly a few years ago, including how much it would cost, which was very little; beyond "revenue neutral" in fact, when you figure up the massive resources that illegals suck up from the moment they pop out a new kid (usually about $10k of Medicaid-sponsored hospital bills in the first week. Remember, according to his taxes, Cholo only makes $9k a year.)

I agree with you that the gov't handled that poorly, (deporting swift plant illegals) as they did in our state; cherry-picking the winners and losers in the "Who hires illegals?" game. It's unfair to the business owners to have their plants' workforce decimated while the plant down the street is allowed to thrive due to their lower overhead. I would NOT support going after business owners who hire illegals.

Well, I've had a lot to say, and either haven't explained it well enough or you don't find my comments compelling. Sorry if I derailed the thread. I look like the odd man out (again) so I'll see if I can be smart enough to move along now.

No hard feelings. I certainly don't think any of you are "evil" or anything. We just don't see eye to eye on this one. That's okay.

Take care,

Ed

In your case, its just an affectation of trying to humanise it TOO much. You're just over anthropomorhising a problem thats much bigger than 1 illegal immigrant just trying to make his way in the world, or 1 guy who let his visa lapse.

I'm GLAD people want to come to the US. It means we get the pick of who we want. Culturally, I couldn't care less where they come from as long as those trying to become citizens renounce it and make USA their first culture.

And if you're not here to be a citizen, fine. Follow the rules and pay taxes.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Well, I've had a lot to say, and either haven't explained it well enough or you don't find my comments compelling. Sorry if I derailed the thread. I look like the odd man out (again) so I'll see if I can be smart enough to move along now. No hard feelings. I certainly don't think any of you are "evil" or anything. We just don't see eye to eye on this one. That's okay. Take care, Ed

So you're saying I win. Joking. I'd genuinely be interested in your personal experiences with (insert whatever it is you want to call the people I'm referring to.) I know that sounds snarky. I don't mean for it to be. If you've "moved on" so be it.

As a compassionate person who's genuinely concerned about the issue, I think this video is worth watchin'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t976q6CeN8Q

You can't fit all the third-world gumballs in one jar, no matter how compassionate you are. "Part 1" of that video is good watchin' too.

poopshovel wrote: So you're saying I win. Joking. I'd genuinely be interested in your personal experiences with (insert whatever it is you want to call the people I'm referring to.) I know that sounds snarky. I don't mean for it to be. If you've "moved on" so be it.

I’ve had some direct interaction related to work that I’d rather not go into in detail for a host of reasons. Mostly because of decisions that have been made (and made well) that I have no business explaining in public. So I’ll leave that – at that. But I do have personal feelings based on that experience.

It seems to me there are words that are accurate and just fine... for a while. Then they take on some other connotation. Many short people no longer like to be called midgets. There’s nothing wrong with the word itself, but it has become a punch line for many of them. Of course the word nigger has a long history used as a descriptive noun, then a pejorative and finally the strange combination of uses it has today. I think “illegal” is headed that way. It started as a descriptive term, used in the phrase “illegal alien”. But you hear it now, more and more, used alone as a noun, i.e. “He’s an illegal”. This shift from adjective to noun seems to me a significant change and one that denotes… well I’ve talked about that already. But just in this thread you can see the difficulty of trying to equate the word "illegal" simply to the act of entering the country illegally. So it clearly means much more. Hanging that word on somone is no longer just a descriptive term.

And, yes. You win.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Before you jump ship, are you saying you know someone who was bothered by the word illegal? Worse?

Because I honestly have never heard of it. That's as a Spanish speaker who converses with Hispanics regularly on the subject. No one has EVER indicated an aversion to it, and most seem to think it perfectly logical. I have heard many people express that other words are quite silly.

SVreX wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Before you jump ship, are you saying you know someone who was bothered by the word illegal? Worse?

Um. YES. Botherd would be an understatement. And much more than one person.

I'll take your word for it if you say you've never heard of such a thing. But there's certainly more than a passing opposition.

http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/immigrantsrights/qt/illegal_undoc.htm

http://newscorpwatch.org/research/201002050030

etc., etc., etc.

None of those articles are my words and I haven't done more than glance at them so I don't know if they represent my views or not. Simply providing some background on the ongoing debate over the use of the word "illegal".

I know people who were born to unmarried women, but I wouldn't call them bastard. The retort "What?! That's what you are!" probably won't get me far.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Well, I've had a lot to say, and either haven't explained it well enough or you don't find my comments compelling. Sorry if I derailed the thread. I look like the odd man out (again) so I'll see if I can be smart enough to move along now. No hard feelings. I certainly don't think any of you are "evil" or anything. We just don't see eye to eye on this one. That's okay. Take care, Ed

I'd like to thank you for being civil. All too often the people who take your side of the argument go off the deep end when challenged.