Illegal Immigration and Illegal Hiring
Illegal immigration is a crime. It should be a crime that is punished and rectified, preferably with deportation. It should be difficult to get in this nation illegal, for security reasons. It should be easy to get in legally for legitimate purposes, for ethical reasons.
America is a nation of immigrants. Immigration has been a strength of America since we became a nation, and should continue to be a strength.
I take this to heart:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I'm not one who recommends we do away with immigration, or reduce it to a trickle, but please, please come here legally!
Illegal immigration isn't good for us. And it's not good for those who choose to attempt it.
Look here. It's a harrowing story of death, dismemberment and abuse and yet to try this is considered heroic!
A lone child embarks on a terrible journey through a landscape of monsters and villains. His goal is noble, almost chivalric -- he travels through hardship and dangers to find his mother, lost in the far mysteries of the north. To add another layer to the story, it contains a vehicle right out of a fairy tale: a Fury-haunted freight train known as El Tren de la Muerte -- the Train of Death.
This isn't heroic; it's foolhardy. A mother who leaves her children to seek out a better life for herself, and in turn, eventually, for them isn't to be commended, she's to be scorned! You do not abandon your children for financial gain! I don't care how poor you are, that's not a commendable occupation! Then to have your child follow you traversing all these dangers and breaking countless laws all alone? This is somehow commendable, somehow something to be encouraged?
Then, the article continues, explaining that it's all about the money. As if, that's somehow reason enough to justify these barbaric practices.
Why does the problem continue? Follow the money. Everybody wins -- except the abandoned children. Who can blame them for trying to save themselves the only way they've been shown?
--emphasis added
I'm sorry, but no. Everybody does not win. American citizens don't win. Legal immigrants don't win. Illegal immigrants don't win. Childless mothers don't win. Motherless children don't win. The only ones who win from these life-and-death gambles are the businesses who illegally hire undocumented workers on the cheap. Sure, it's about money, but it's not a win-win situation.
If these women and their children want to come to this country, then fine. I have NO problem with that whatsoever. Just do it legally. Come here as a family. Prosper. Grow. Learn English. Live amongst us and help us grow. We'll nurture you. You'll nurture us. We'll all prosper. However, you've got to do so legally, or else all bets are off and as far as I'm concerned you're a criminal and deserve deportation. It is not our responsibility to distinguish between those who just want a better life, and these guys:
In the madness of the harsher border, drug lords and gangsters rule the day. Any border patrol agent will tell you that criminal elements are on the rise -- as are violence and the terrible toll of deaths due to heat, cold, misadventure and homicide.
--emphasis added
You choose the life of a criminal, then you become a criminal and no amount of protesting should change that. The laws in America need to be changed. But, amnesty for those "heroes" who've chosen to break our laws isn't the way to go. Make coming here legally easier. Then prosecute anyone who comes here illegally very quickly and get them out of our country. Prosecute those businesses who choose to hire illegal immigrants and close them down. Secure our borders. Secure our nation. And give every legal resident a fair chance to prosper.
Thank you, David Schantz, for asking a provocative question.
by Mark @ 1:33 PM
19
comments
19 Comments:
Hi Stephanie!
I had a comment about your comment on R_V, but I don't have an account, so I will post here.
First, in regards to your immigration post.
I think you're at least partially right, with your morality being the most sound of your argument. But I think you're missing a bit of the mindset of these people. I'm not going to try to explain a paradigm which you do not share (such as living with hunger or oppression), but perhaps a way to look at this is to start with the act - a person coming to this country, and then work backwards - "why would they do this illegally?".
I'm sure it's not a far stretch for you, but I just thought I'd mention this, because you seem to be a rational person, and perhaps you needed to re-calibrate.
In a spirited post on R-V's website referencing spirituality, you said:
"Zach,
i don't think you're insane to believe that, but i would think you were insane if you tried to get others to follow along with you.
I don't proselytize (try to convert people to my religion), but I don't see those who do as being insane either. You're either using insanity in a non-technical manner to smear religion, or you're so highly prejudiced against religion that you cannot honestly assess someone's mental soundness if they choose to participate in a relgion. Either way, it reflects poorly on you, not on religion."
I had to smile at this, because you threw a cheap shot, but probably illustrates one of Stephanie's "hot buttons". The use of the word "insanity" was probably not an optimal choice, but you knew what he was talking about. I'm not surprised to see you as a woman of Faith. However, it is interesting that you are harsh on those who are not. I think Zach is prejudiced against religion, in the same way that he is prejudiced against murder. "Prejudice" and "religion" are nearly equal in meaning these days, and I think it unfair for you to harshly assess Zach's "religion".
You then proceeded down a long winding road of logic:
"As far as war and murder:...[religion vs. shoes as a reason to murder someone]... Or are you simply against religion and looking for a reason to get rid of it?"
And what's so bad about this? Makes as much sense as just about any other suggestion these days. Ok, maybe it's weak, but it's valid. If religious battles causes murder, then there's an argument against having it.
I've considered seriously the advantages of just giving everyone in Jerusalem fair warning and then just leveling the whole city -- just to get rid of the buildings.
Of course I know it wouldn't solve a whole lot, people would still find some other piece of real estate to kill each other over.
Maybe we could make it a moving target, transferring sacrosanct religious objects to various decrepit parts of the globe in 4 year intervals. We could make it into a macabre Olympic event... bringing catharsis and social upheaval to places in decline anyway, like Mexico City or New Orleans.
David,
Hello! And welcome!
:-)
To correct one misconception here presented... You don't need an account to join in the discussion on R_V's site. Unless you don't have an e-mail account, which you can get several places for free. (Joining Blogger is also free, but I understand the reluctance to join just to converse on blogs.) At Yahoo! you can join for the games or the news, and you'll be provided with an e-mail account you can use for this purpose without even having to use the e-mail account itself.
As far as immigration...
"I'm not going to try to explain a paradigm which you do not share (such as living with hunger or oppression)..."
I've lived with hunger. I've cried for hours, waiting for my husband to bring home his check so I could buy food for my wailing child. I also know that the America-syle poverty I continue to enjoy to this day is nothing compared to the poverty in Mexico or Africa, or other less prosperous nations.
I've lived in American-style poverty for over eight years, and flourished despite those who would put us down. The American government can be very good about helping its own people. And when it fails, faith-based charities are often well-prepared to step in. There's work to do in America, as some would surely tell you, but we're a lot better off than others. I know this and am grateful for it everyday of my life, whether or not I'm always very good about showing it.
In all this time, I've never once had to break the law to provide for my family. Nor would I choose to do so when they are other means. And, believe it or not, they are ways for Mexicans and others to manage without breaking the laws of this nation, or their own nation.
It may not have come out very clearly in my post, but I do sympathize dearly with those who feel they have to leave everything they've known to come to America illegally just to make enough to eat. However, neither their poverty nor my sympathy justifies them breaking the law...often many laws.
In short (um...well...okay, not so short), I do understand why they do this. I understand why we as a nation let them (which is for VERY different reasons). I understand why Mexico and other nations encourage their poor and impoverished to take these risks. But, that does not make it right. Nor is it the only or best way to solve this problem.
I'll put it to you this way, though it's another topic entirely: I agree a woman who's being abused by her husband needs to get out of the situation and that this can be very difficult, but no matter how much sympathy I feel for her, I cannot in good conscience justify her killing her husband in order to get out of the situation. I sympathize with those who feel they are in an impossible situation, but the situation isn't truly impossible and feeling that it is does not justify breaking the law.
Let's try this again (I wrote up a comment, but it didn't post)...
:-(
More for David...
"I had to smile at this, because you threw a cheap shot, but probably illustrates one of Stephanie's "hot buttons"."
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
:-)
However, I don't see equating religion with insanity as a poor choice of words. Whether Zach is such a person or not, there are plenty of believe who believe exactly that: religion is insane. If he doesn't wish to be associated with such people, then he shouldn't use their talking points. And yes, this is a hot botton issue for me. Prejudice of this scope is wrong and I will butt heads with anyone who yaps it at me. (Much like I'll butt head with white supremists...until my husband tells me to stop.)
"And what's so bad about this?"
There are just too many ways to answer that question. 1) Religious beliefs or lack thereof should NOT be anybody's choice but the choice of the person who's beliefs they are. Nobody has any right to choose for me that I can or cannot believe or practice religion. 2) You want to avoid war, right? I can tell you one way to unite people of different religions is to tell them they can't have religion, and they will ALL forcefully tell you otherwise. And I WILL participate. As an American, one of the reasons I value my Second Amendment rights is to protect the rights of the First Amendment. (Just so you understand that it is not merely about religion, I'll state clearly that if you try to take away my right to free speech, you'll get the same reaction.) 3) Eliminating ANYTHING on the basis of prejudice is a bad idea. Yours, and Zach's, prejudice against religion does NOT give you the right to decide for others whether religion has value. I could continue, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.
"If religious battles causes murder, then there's an argument against having it."
Then you'll just have to get rid of humanity. It's not religion that causes war; religion's just the convenient excuse of the day. Human beings are the ones who fight and kill each other and they do this whether or not they hold to any particular religious beliefs, or to none at all. If you think secular nations don't have war, murder and abuse, then you haven't been paying attention to Europe. Currently there's a series of deadly protests in France, and it has nothing to do with Islam this time.
People fight and kill each other. It's despicable. But, it's also human nature. Eliminating religion will not eliminate war. Nor will it reduce it in any dramatic fashion. Religion is just an excuse and there are plenty of other excuses to use for those who wish to participate in war.
"I've considered seriously the advantages of just giving everyone in Jerusalem fair warning and then just leveling the whole city -- just to get rid of the buildings."
Honestly, I've considered the same thing. IMO, the only thing holy about Jerusalem is all the human blood spilt on that land. However, this wouldn't solve the problem in the least. Religion, again, is the excuse for the war and fighting in that area of the world, not the reason.
The Middle East has a LOT of people competing for a very finite set of resources. There's not enough food, wealth or land for everybody. Religion is used as a determination of who one is willing to share with, nothing more and nothing less. Does it work to rile people up? Sure. However, one of the reasons Israel is so hated in the Middle East isn't because they're Jews (though, admittedly, most people there do not understand this), it's because they're successful and get a lot more wealth shared with them from outside the region than anyone else. They have more food, better choice of housing, clothing, ect. Compared to the poverty most Muslims face, the Jews success is a slap in the face. The fact that the Jews are successful because they're Jews (not because of the will of God, but because Americans, for instance, are more generous with them) makes the Muslims understandably angry.
This is a matter of prejudice, again with dire results. Americans as a whole are and have been prejudice AGAINST Muslims and in favor of Jews for a long, long time. Because of that, we're very generous with the Jews and very stingy with the Muslims. This has created a very violatile situation. Religion is, again, an excuse, not the cause. If you used Hebrew and Arab, instead of Jew and Muslim, you'd get the same results and the same wars.
I'd support making it a felony to give any kind of aid to an illegal alien (see my answer to the Question Of The Week at my site). If someone wants to enter the United States legally and become a productive United States citizen I'd like to be among the first to shake their hand and welcome them to their new home.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
David Schantz,
I agree. Aiding and abetting a criminal is/should be a crime. The difficulty for me with accepting the GOP's approach is the lack of increased penalties for the businesses. IF they want to really hit this problem (versus use it as a stump speech "issue" that never really gets addressed), then they have to hit the businesses too. That's a necessary ingredient in solving the problem.
A policeman I once knew told me, upon debating with me whether or not the young black man in the back seat of his police cruiser screaming, "I'm innocent man! I aint never seen that stuff before in my life!", said, "If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and smells like a duck... then... it's a duck."
Contrary to what you might negatively think about that, my point is that you are being WAAAY too highbrow about your argument.
That is to say...You are, of course, totally right in your argument. Religion doesn't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Drugs don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.
But somewhere along the line, the cop's gotta say, I aint gonna stand around and watch people do drugs. I'm gonna arrest somebody.
Right or wrong, 2nd Amendment or not, I still say Zach has a point. Yeah, okay, blah blah blah religious free speech. But you get people in a room talking about autism issues, and not a lot of AK-47's are going to be broken out and blood subsequently spilled. However, with religion, it's a different story.
I don't know about Zach, but I know full well that you can't erase "religion" from humanity. But dangit, there's a strong correlation between religion and people hacking each other to bits. So sorry if you want to go for a high-falutin' definition of religious freedom, but if I take the dang slingshot outta Dennis the Menace's hands, there's gonna be a lot less broken windows.
-----------
Anti-Muslim sentiment really pisses me off, because it's so flavor-of-the-month typical-ugly-American behavior. You're right, the argument and the hatred is the same, it's just that the names have changed. Ignorant dolts screaming at the top of their lungs that the Islamic Problem (which is somehow fluidically substituted for the concept of Terrorism) is such a horrific threat, just chaps my ass.
These people ought to pick up a freakin history book, and give Fox News a rest.
But I digress....
You bring up an interesting point which I think is at the heart of the matter: Zach (and I) suggested eliminating religion. You protested the suggestion on the grounds that it goes against your fundamental rights. Then you suggested that the way to get everyone to unite is to threaten to take away the concept of religion.
You've summarized the eventual answer to this whole thing.
When the dolts (a certain cop is included in this category) come to realize that it's not about Islam, or terrorists, or Jews or Arabs or drugs that are the threat, but it's the threat of eliminating your ability to have a belief, that is the real issue, then the problem will start to resolve itself (MAN that sentence was way too long).
Likewise, God help us if anyone actually comes to have the ability to ACTUALLY threaten the way we believe. Because, just as you have suggested, Armageddon will be the result.
It'll be really interesting to see what the Brave New World has in store for us.
please insert "was really innocent,"
in between
my life!"
and
said, "
thank you....
I understand your argument, David, though we obviously disagree. However, I'll make this challenge:
Give me ONE instance where the war was caused SOLELY by religion, iyo, and if I cannot find another serious factor, I'll concede the argument, while retaining my disagreement, on that score.
However, don't use Ireland/England because the Catholic/Protestant war was about oppression much more than religion. Don't use the Crusades, because that again was about empire building and seeking wealth more than religion (not to mention that the religious leaders were also the leaders of the government, and whenever religion controls politics you get a "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" kind of deal going on). And don't use the contemporary war with Islamofacism, because there's so much retched politics going on there it isn't even funny. Other than, pick whatever you choose, since those are the biggies I can think to exclude right off the bat.
If you cannot think of even ONE instance where religion was the main factor, please consider conceding my point that while religion may be used to sway the masses, it's not the underlying reason why wars start.
"Anti-Muslim sentiment really pisses me off..."
Well, we agree about that at least!
:-)
"...a certain cop is included in this category..."
And that! That cop obviously had issues and should not be wearing a badge to uphold the law.
"...but it's the threat of eliminating your ability to have a belief..."
While that's certainly a factor (on the behalf of the few Islamofascists who honestly want to control the world), a lot of the resentment and fear is a "How DARE you attack the US" kind of thing. It's gone beyond that, of course, but that is how it started.
"It'll be really interesting to see what the Brave New World has in store for us."
It's going to be a bumpy ride...
:-)
BTW, thank you for returning to continue the discussion!
:-)
Good post, Steph. And good discussion, as usual.
I've been working on a post about illegal immigration as well, since the protests in Dallas have had my blood boiling for a couple days now. You raise some very good issues (again, not unusual for you) particularly about those who abandon their families to come work here. I haven't seen anything in the public discourse about this part of the issue, so I'll prolly be linking back here to you today.
Sorry to digress so much from your original topic...
But to continue our chat...
So your argument is that the reason why windows are broken is not because Denace has a slingshot, but because he was a kid who needed more attentive parents and had an ADD disorder needing medication. And the reason why windows stopped getting broken was not because the show went off the air, but because America was tired of a boring series, and there was an advent of more exciting shows with the coming of color TV, etc. etc. etc.
Whatever....
As the Chicken and the Egg become clear in this issue, I think you, I, and Zach are converging on the same point.
You argue (and I happen to totally agree with you) that "bad stuff going on in the world today" is not going to be eliminated by following George Bush and the right wing Christian Coalition (to put it as succintly as possible).
However, I think an argument can successfully be made (on behalf of all those "policemen" wielding those fast moving projectile dispensers that have a tendency to stop people who are wielding other projectile dispensers), that a significant part of keeping people from proselytizing/crusading/Islamofasciting is to stop them from breathing.
Brutal, but true.
And while I am 99.9999% positive that Zach is not advocating killing anyone, I think he's suggesting that if you stopped religion (which in most modern charters calls for the advancement of itself), then you'd stop all the pointy projectiles from flying around.
I think what we're up against here is the notion that we see formulas:
1. Lots of windows
2. Lots of freckled kids
3. Parents advocating social activities with "adults only, without those annoying kids"
4. People advocating for slingshot factories to be built as a reason to strengthen the economy.
At the same time, we were kids once, and we realize that nobody listens to the old folks, no matter how wise they are.
I think what pisses me off the most is folks that are not additive to the process. The people who just like to show pictures of broken windows, and shake their head slowly in front of the camera and say, "tsk tsk tsk, look at the horrible kids these days! Let's just kill 'em all!"
It's the people that want to actually feed off the insanity, or the people who believe that the feeding off the insanity is more worthwhile than actually facing and reconciling the issues.
(I do realize that of the one finger I'm pointing, 3 are pointing back to me)
Thank you, R_V, and you know you're always welcome to jump in here any time! (And carrying over some of your readership is an added bonus!)
;-)
One of the things that bothers me about this whole issue is that the proponents of illegal immigration say they're trying to help people who feel their only, or best, option is to illegally come to the US. And yet, they ignore the fact that it's a risky, hazardous way to "improve one's life" and is often at the expense of the family the illegal immigrants belong to.
There are better ways to help those who suffer from extreme poverty in Mexico. Destroying families with the lure of American "gold" isn't the way to do it.
My husband and I send money to a little boy in Mexico (and his family) every month. It is absolutely amazing what a few American dollars can buy for him and his family. Sending $10 for a Christmas present gets him at least two new outfits and a pair of shoes. For $10!
The sad part, though, is that this child lives in a village that is almost completely devoid of male influence, because almost all the men have left to try and find jobs in the cities, and when that doesn't work they try to make their way here. And Mexico does almost nothing to alleviate the dire circumstances of these villages and these people.
Worse yet, part of the Mexican government's neglect is based on racism. Because these villages are often Native American/Spanish mixes, they are scorned and abused by their own government. Yet the "bleeding hearted liberals" care little to nothing about that and say that anyone who doesn't welcome the illegal immigrants are just being mean and spiteful.
...Sorry, I'm ranting now. I'll stop.
:-)
David,
"Sorry to digress so much from your original topic...
But to continue our chat..."
No need to apologize. Just promise me you'll carry it over in the new thread I'm going to post today pertaining to this issue, 'kay?
;-)
Dennis the Menace...
"So your argument is that the reason why windows are broken is not because Denace has a slingshot, but because he was a kid who needed more attentive parents and had an ADD disorder needing medication."
I'd say it's both. However, the correlation to religion is kind of lacking here. The reason people go to war is because they want to fight or feel they have a cause worth fighting for. It takes both sorts, though. Admittedly, people DO fight wars because of their religious beliefs. However, those people are NOT the ones who START the wars. They're just those amongst the masses who feel their cause is just. To STOP a war or wars in general you have to address the reason people START the war, not why the masses fight them.
For instance, the soldiers who are currently fighting in Iraq (their reasons are many, but for the sake of discussion I'm going to simplify them) because they believe in this country, nationalism, are NOT the ones who STARTED the war. NATIONALISM isn't the problem. However, (again, the reasons why the wars in the Middle East were started is complex, and I'm going to simplify them only for the sake of discussion) when you factor in why BUSH started the war(s) and counter those, THEN you could presumably stop or circumvent the wars in question. If you effectively addressed the issue of NATIONAL SECURITY (Bush's supposed reason for going to war) peacefully, then you may have been able to prevent the war(s). If you ALSO effectively addressed the issue of GREED, then you almost certainly would have been able to prevent the war(s). To claim, however, that the wars in question were CAUSED by the fact that the Muslims and/or the Christians want to spread their religion, denies the myriad of other factors that STARTED the war. Muslims and Christians may JOIN the war for religious reasons, but they did NOT start the war for religious reasons.
So, back to Dennis the Menace... I suspect, in the same vein, if Mr. Wilson (name?) paid attention to Dennis like Dennis wants, THEN the windows wouldn't get broken. Now, if he were MY kid, I'd make the satisfaction of breaking the windows miniscule compared to the punishment he'd receive for damaging someone else's property, but that's just me.
;-)
"You argue (and I happen to totally agree with you) that "bad stuff going on in the world today" is not going to be eliminated by following George Bush and the right wing Christian Coalition (to put it as succintly as possible)."
Okay. That's an interesting, if not totally inaccurate, interpretation of what I've said. Though, I'm guessing you've been paying attention for a lot longer than this thread of discussion to come to that conclusion. (As an aside, I really don't think that Bush is nearly as much the Christian Coalition's lap-dog as some people assume he is (including the Christian Coalition); to me it seems it's more a matter of politics, he says what they want and he gets their votes, then goes his own way anyway while throwwing them a few bones once in a while.)
You are completely correct in assuming I'm not a member in thought, word or deed of the Christian Coalition. I'm a Christian, but a centrist (as per political personality tests) who feels like I am "the way conservatives ought to be." I have absolutely no interest in forcing my religion and/or morality on anyone else, which doesn't mean I don't argue some of the same points for different reasons. For instance, I support the Iraq War, but for different reasons than I believe Bush used as his motivation to start the war(s).
"...that a significant part of keeping people from proselytizing/crusading/Islamofasciting is to stop them from breathing."
Yes, I can agree that this is a truism. However, I would argue that proselytizing (irregardless of the religion) is different (or should be) than crusading or Islamofasciting. Sharing one's religious beliefs, imo, should not be a problem, but it must be done respectfully and courteously. Obviously, conversion by the sword (or any other forceful means) is entirely different. Also, conversion via aid (we'll give you food if you convert) is equally wrong, imo.
(Since you specifically mentioned Mormons, I suspect you've had a bad experience with LDS missionaries. If that is the case, I would like to inform you that an LDS missionary should NEVER be discourteous or disrespectful as per our rules regarding missionary work. If a missionary is discourteous or disrespectful you can report them; the applicable number should be in your local phone book, otherwise I'd be glad to provide you with a national 800 number. Reporting missionaries who are misbehaving will solve the problem. If you do not want LDS missionaries coming to your door at all, a simple sign in front of your home should suffice, or you can contact the missionaries and ask them not to come (which won't prevent missionaries from other churches from coming, which a sign might). We're a record keeping people and your wishes will be recorded and should be abided by, but alas people are people and what should happen doesn't always happen. But, if you are having problems with LDS missionaries there are ways to address this matter peacefully and amicably and I highly recommend this approach if it bothers you.)
"It's the people that want to actually feed off the insanity, or the people who believe that the feeding off the insanity is more worthwhile than actually facing and reconciling the issues."
That I can agree with you on. Solving problems doesn't come from saying there are problems and the other side is wrong. Solving problems happens when you investigate the problem, discover what exactly is wrong, and work to rectify the situation, often through compromise. While, imo, some people are wholly evil (I'll use Hitler as an example), most people are shades of gray and can actually be reasoned with if you try.
Just think, we've been having what could be a VERY heated discussion, and haven't made a single threat against one another, let alone picked up any projectile weapons. There's still hope!
:-)
My new post is now up.
I linked to this article today, just wanted to let ya know since you don't do trackbacks.
Thank you very much for the link. Someday I will get the chance to figure out the whole trackbacks thing.
:-)
download free full hentai movie download free full hentai movie download free full hentai movie download free full hentai movie
This a good link's !
Posted by Admin
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
Post a Comment
<< Home