Probably because, like me, they have no idea that NAFTA and CAFTA have actually caused any particular devastation among poor U.S. citizens and have pushed Latin Americans into the U.S.

I’m not saying that to defend either act - I’m saying that I actually know very little about either and can’t relate them to any effects on any of the economies in the Americas.

actually, the majority of immigrants come here legally and then let their papers expire. I am very good friends with people (who i don’t want to identify in any way), who have kept their papers legal, but have been almost completely bankrupted, and have been pretty much in one court or another for almost seven years. And these people haven’t been targeted by the government or even challenged by the government in any way. That’s just how difficult this system is to negotiate. you have to be *at least* middle class to be able to afford that kind of legal process, and even then, if you miss one appointment (which can be changed at any time for any reason by the government), you’re *very* lucky that in and of itself isn’t used as a reason to deny or end your whole bid for citizenship.

Now, if there are classes of people in Mexico who are persecuted because they are of a particular race or ethnic background or religion to the point that they are beaten, killed, etc., then I’d like to hear it.

I must say that I do agree with the spirit of your comment. Mexico could, in fact, be a great country if it wasn’t for the outrageous corruption there, a corruption that’s enforced with brutality.

more to the point, Mexico would be a great country if the U.S. would get it’s nose out of Mexico’s business. NAFTA has devastated Mexico in a way that’s hard to even describe and the “war on drugs” has been used by both the Mexican and U.S. government as a way to control popular indigenous and union resistance against the government and NAFTA.

It’s really the ultimate irony that U.S. citizens are lecturing Mexicans about “staying home” or “protesting” their government, when it’s U.S. citizens that have continuously allowed their government to meddle and intervene into Mexican politics (take a look at what role the Bush administration had in implementing the latest president into office–similarly, take a look at the millions of protesters that came out to protest the elections) and legislate violence against the millions of people that *regularly* protest and organize against the violence.

Did you know that the house just voted to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement? Given the devastation NAFTA and CAFTA have had on poor U.S. citizens (and the effect it has had on pushing Latin Americans into the U.S.) I have to wonder, where are all the protests here in the U.S.? Where are the millions out marching and protesting and shutting down the government? What excuse do any of us have? Is 50% of our population below the poverty line/living in rural areas (ala Peru, Mexico, Colombia, etc)? Do most of our population live in mountainous areas and not have access to radio/the internet/newspapers etc? What’s our excuse?

Hm. You may have a point there. But again, people who come to the U.S. seeking asylum have to make themselves known to the authorities and be willing to comply with our laws, including our immigration laws. That doesn’t seem to be the hallmark of your average illegal alien. The question would be, then, which among the illegal aliens flooding across our border would actually qualify for asylum under our laws.

Remember that our asylum laws don’t recognize economic refugees. “I can’t get a job in my home country” is not an acceptable justification for the granting of asylum in the U.S. I don’t know the exact wording, but IIRC the people involved have to show that they would be subject to persecution or in danger if they returned to their homeland on the basis of their race, religion, etc. The correct response to “My government is corrupt, taxes the crap out of us and depresses the economy for anyone who’s not someone’s friend” (besides saying “Shit, so do the State of Illinois, Cook County and the City of Chicago.”) is “Go back home, then, and do what you have to do to fix it.”

Now, if there are classes of people in Mexico who are persecuted because they are of a particular race or ethnic background or religion to the point that they are beaten, killed, etc., then I’d like to hear it.

I must say that I do agree with the spirit of your comment. Mexico could, in fact, be a great country if it wasn’t for the outrageous corruption there, a corruption that’s enforced with brutality.

As usual, I’m too far behind to ever catch up with all the posts I wished to blog on. It’s for exciting reasons, however: I’m giving a presentation summarizing my summer research before the Carleton community — defined in this case as my immediate …

I have not been to either city in - wow - seven years. I remember there being a vast amount of animosity between the american black community and Haitians and Jamacians in New York. In addition, there was strong animosity outside of San Francisco proper against illegal Chinese immigrants. And if you think it is easy for an illegal Chinese immigrant to get into this county you should go to the garment district in New York. At least when you cross the Mexican or Canadian border you can run away. When you are shackled and shuffled from container to fenced in room, then sold into slavery it is a little more difficult to run. I do not know what the issue is regarding Central American immigrants who came illegally.

I think things would be fixed if we declare Mexico and other Central American Countries oppressive states that inflict human rights abuses on their citizens so great that they see no better alternative than to flee the country. As such, all of them should be given Assylum until their countries come into line. That would be embarrassing for the countries, but may wake them up to the horrid conditions they have allowed their countries become.

Can’t speak for New York, but as to San Francisco, your post is utter, xenophobic bullshit. (”Pillaging our natural resources”? Yes, all those awful Mexicans stealth-mining platinum.)

The SF area has plenty of tension about illegal immigrants from Central America, and it’s not difficult at all for people to immigrate here from China.

I find the comparisons to bank robbery and rape to be ridiculous and prejudicial.

I find the comparison Radfem made between illegally crossing the border to wearing tight skirts and too much makeup to be ridiculous and prejudicial. At least bank robbery, rape and illegal border crossing are all crimes.

Robert says:

I personally fear that illegal immigration is going to choke off support for legal immigration.

Me too. But if it does, the proponents of amnesty and other such things for illegal aliens will have only themselves to blame, since they are the ones who have advanced the rhetoric conflating the two. My guess is that the intent was to envelop the sympathy for legal immigrants over illegal aliens. But the attitudes may instead flow the other way. They may reap a crop they didn’t intend to plant. At least, I hope they didn’t intend to plant it.

And I agree that xenophobia applies to more people than just Latina/os. That doesn’t mean that anti-Latina bigotry is never a factor, however. I disagree with your take on what folks object to in New York (which I’ve both lived in and visited many times).

I think you meant entering the country illegally is a crime and overstaying your visa is not a crime. I am sure you know that a misdemeanor is a crime - Title 18 of the U.S. Code does not have a distinction between misdemeanor and felony. Everything listed in the criminal code or anything that has authorized criminal penalties is a crime.

If I am a victim of a crime in Canada, just like anyone else in the world, I can contact the Canadian Mounted Police and report the crime - from my home in California. Likewise, if someone is mugged in the United States they can report the crime from anywhere in the world. If they are asked for a contact number and address they can give their permanant address. Just like I would if I were mugged in Victoria.

On another note - if people think that the outcry is a latino thing they should take a trip to San Francisco or New York where the complaints are regarding Chinese and Haitians. Or to Chicago where there is an outcry about Russians and Balkans who are over running the city. The only difference is that it is much more difficult to get here from China, Haiti and the Baltic states. Because of this difficulty the desire to pillage our natural and manmade resources is less and than the desire to actually be a part of the American dream. The good thing is that it is not really pillageing if the populace freely gives it away as we are to Mexico, China and the American Billionaire class.

1) Entering the country illegally is not a crime; it’s a misdemeanor. Furthermore, merely being an unauthorized resident is not a crime or a misdemeanor.

I find the comparisons to bank robbery and rape to be ridiculous and prejudicial. A more reasonable comparison would be to smoking a joint of pot.

Suppose underage drinking is illegal. (Hey, it is!) Would it be a good idea for the cops to prosecute anyone under the age of 18 who reports that they got raped while drinking? Or might that actually not do a thing to reduce underage drinking, while making some rape victims feel that they couldn’t go to police?

Unless you hate underage drinkers more than you hape rapists, it makes sense to not prosecute underage rape victims for being drunk while raped.

What makes the issue especially acute for unauthorized migrants is that for many, their status will never change within this country. The underaged drinker will some day be over age 21. If I’m mugged while I’m stoned, maybe I’ll hesitate to go to the cops, but there will at least be some occasional moments in my life when I’m not stoned.

An unauthorized migrant who is mugged or raped or whatevered in the US cannot go to the police, ever, without fear of being arrested and deported, except in a few cities where legal protections for such situations exist.

This near-complete exclusion from normal legal protections against being a crime victim creates a degree of punishment which is entirely inappropriate for having committed the misdemeanor of unauthorized migration. That’s unjust.

(This is one reason con artists often target migrants in paticular for scams; they know that migrants, especially unauthorized migrants, will hesitate to go to the cops.)

One of the ways we are supposed to fix the problem is the U Visa (which was *finally* implemented), allowing crime victims to gain legal residency if they agree to participate in prosecuting the evildoer.

This is especially important given that the victim here is a child.

O.K. So, fix the problem, then. But the fix is to make sure that you have some reasonable basis for looking into someone’s citizenship status and to make sure that the information you get is accurate, not to ignore the whole thing altogether. The fix is to deal with cops who beat people up.

The United States of America is built on immigration, and it will always be a destination of hope for millions the world over. God bless it and them.

Historically and present, the United States of American though built on immigration(and slavery) hasn’t been as rosy when it comes to immigrants documented or not coming into the country who are not White.

I’m working with some folks on a situation involving a disabled Latino man who was threatened by some sheriff deputies with deportation even though he’s not an undocumented immigrant. What’s his crime? He walked home after drinking some beers and a police officer came upon him and beat him. Then took him to jail. The judge took one look at him several days later and let him go. Over a week later, still badly bruised.

So the sheriff deputies here like their counterparts in L.A. County see a male disabled Latino and decide he’s not a citizen based on looks. If he’s Latino, he’s undocumented. If he’s Latino and disabled and has problems with communication, he’s not an English speaker when many Latinos speak Spanish and many don’t.

Perhaps they were just doing it as a form of harassment to intimidate him into silence over the beating.

And to anyone who would compare undocumented immigrants to those who cook meth or have meth labs, don’t know what to say about that.

In the process of establishing that identity, it will become reasonable to query the victim as to their current residence, citizenship, means of support, etc.

Not in my view. Or more accurately: Not unless you need to.

On what basis do you judge that reasonable? If I accuse you of beating me, what relevance does my “residence, citizenship, means of support, etc.” have to the question “Did Robert beat Sailorman?”

Absent such relevance, it’s really a gatekeeping mechanism to deny people access. Which might make sense if it made sense… (yes that was intentilnally circular).

So let’s look at whether it makes sense.

What are the benefits of such rules?
The primary effect is to “reduce access to assistance through reductions in reporting” In theory, it would reduce illegal immigration. This would be a secondary effect which would result from making illegal immigration less pleasurable.

We can test that theory to some extent. We might ask “how much of a perceived cost is this?” and also ask “how do other similarly perceived costs affect illegal immigration?”

We would probably find the cost to be fairly difficult to quantify. It would only be in effect if 1) you are illegal; 2) are accused of a crime; 3) which you cannot report anonymously.

That cost is real, to be sure. But it is likely to be perceived as quite minimal, especially in comparison to the other costs of illegal immigration. E.g. many illegal immigrants are willing to risk a lot of money and a chance of physical injury to run across the desert–the money being a near certainty and the injury being far more likely than the chances of needing and not being able to use the cops.

The deterrence of te cops is so distant as to be minimal. In fact, to achieve truly effective deterrence of this type, we’d have to make it “worse” to be here than not to be here. i don’t think that’s realy possible (or a good idea)

OTOH, the COST is very easy to quantify. the people who are being reported are, one supposes, just as likely to be criminal as everyone else who gets reported. We desperately try to enhance reporting across the board, because we realize that the government’s ability to create safety for its citizens is based on its ability to KNOW about things.

lack of reporting is a pretty serious harm. And we’re balancing it against a comparatively non serious deterrence effect. It just doesn’t make sense.

Is it like pot dealers who are afraid to report a burglary?

Well, that’s an interesting example. Are pot dealers afraid to report being raped? probably not: being raped isn’t related to being a pot dealer, and there’s no particular reason the police would decide to investigate you for dealing just because you get raped. Which is a good thing.

Pot dealers are loath to call the cops into their pot farm. And illegal immigrants are probably loath to call INS. But that’s as far as the comparison goes. Pot dealers are also causing MUCH more harm per person than your average illegal immigrant. Hopefuly I don’t need to provide evidence for that.

Incidentally, I also would prefer to strongly limit illegal immigration. I just think that limiting access to the criminal reporting system is a horrendously bad method of doing so.

Never have I been asked about my citizenship when reporting a crime. Never. And I have reported multiple crimes and been involved, as a witness or victim, in more than one prosecution.

Nor have I been asked about my means of support when reporting a crime. Not once. I have, however, been asked my occupation when appearing as a witness at a trial.

I don’t think that what you’re saying is the way that things really work.

If a crime has been committed, then the justice system needs to know the identity of the victim. This is elementary. In the process of establishing that identity, it will become reasonable to query the victim as to their current residence, citizenship, means of support, etc.

If in that process it becomes apparent that the victim has committed any serious crime, is it not standard procedure to book them for that? I don’t understand why there should be an exception for particular categories of individual lawbreakers. Individual exceptions subject to judicial review (”the girl broke into a private home in the course of escaping her rapist, but we are forgetting about the B&E charge”), I can see - categorical exceptions are a problem.

And note that in the case of the girl who broke into the private home, we catch and prosecute her rapist (or ought to) and we see that she gets back to her proper home, and we ignore whatever petty crimes she had to do to get away - but we don’t let her move into the house she broke into. She goes home.

Someone asked me off-line whether I was blaming the victim in my heart. Having searched my heart this afternoon, no - I have every compassion for the victim, who has suffered some terrible injustice. Their violator should be caught and punished.

But at the same time, I believe that those who have immigrated here illegally should, in fact, leave. I would welcome most of them back - as legal immigrants, who respect the law of the country they want to make their home. I support a vigorous legal immigration program for the United States, with large quotas for our southern neighbors who want to be become American citizens.

Sailorman makes the reasonable point that there is great social harm done when illegal immigrants fear and avoid the police. I agree that this is true, on a categorical basis - when any group fears the police, that group is harmed somewhat by their diminished access to law and order. It seems to me that in the case of populations whose reason for fearing the police is that they are currently breaking the law, the way to minimize the social harm is to minimize the size of the population group that is affected.

People who grow pot or cook meth in their basements are reluctant to call the cops if they get burglarized. This is in fact regrettable and I don’t “blame the victim” here, either. But the answer isn’t to instruct the cops to ignore meth labs they find in the course of investigating burglaries.

The United States of America is built on immigration, and it will always be a destination of hope for millions the world over. God bless it and them.

But there is a “legal” now, and that’s the way that immigration to this country has to be. Legal, in accordance with our rules, where we know who is coming here, from where, and why. Friends of legal immigrants - I am one - can argue those rules and fight for their liberalization; that’s what politics are for.

I personally fear that illegal immigration is going to choke off support for legal immigration. And that would be disastrous, for the USA, for the other nations of the world, and for all of the people affected. We need immigration - but on our terms. No country on earth should settle for less control over their destiny than that.

Amp, my apologies for the thread tangent. Having said my piece, I’ll bide my tongue and not derail any further.