|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by Leslie Radford
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 3:18 AM
leslie@radiojustice.net
Dolores Huerta welcomes the Caravan for Migrants to Los Angeles, on its way to demanding humane immigration policies in Sacramento, Washington, and points in between.
for_the_children.jpg, image/jpeg, 427x480
LOS ANGELES, February 3, 2006--Mother Cabrini, the patron saint of
immigrants, was in the house tonight when 120 people gathered in front of La
Placita Church on Olvera Street to commemorate the death of Guillermo MartÃnez
RodrÃguez and the 4000, or perhaps as many as 10,000, people who have died
trying to circumvent the U.S. border wall since its construction in 1994.
Prior to 1994, only a dozen or so people were killed annually by the heat or
cold of the desert, or by the U.S. Border Patrol.
The Caravan for Migrants was organized by Enrique Morones of Border Angels
and San Diego's gente unida to bring national focus to the deaths and to stop
anti-immigrant legislation. The caravanners were escorted to the church
through the foggy twilight chill by Danza Cuauhtémoc. Speakers lined up at a
small lectern next to the candles for the souls of the dead outside the
church. After a greeting by local hosts La Placita Justicia para
Immigrantes and a song and prayer by the parish priest, Dolores Huerta,
legendary co-founder and vice-president emeritus of the United Farm Workers, set
the tone with an impassioned plea insisting that immigrants not be blamed for
U.S. social ills and international economic policy.
She was followed by Morones, who proclaimed, "It's wonderful the way the
community has welcomed us, from Dolores Huerta to the jornaleros.
The community has received us with open arms. We will defeat 4437 and the
racism in this country." HR 4437 is the onerous anti-immigrant bill
soon to be considered by the U.S. Senate that would punish anyone, including as
many as 1.5 million children, entering or staying in the U.S. without proper
documentation and anyone who assists them with lodging, food, transportation, or
employment with up to five years in prison. HR 4437 would add 700 more
miles of lethal wall along the 2000 mile border.
Speakers from other groups, including the Southern California Human Rights
Commission and Mexica Movement followed. Following their comments, one
observer remarked, "Mexica Movement is harsh, but they keep us grounded in
our history." The next speaker commented that the community was
coming together to stop HR 4437. He added, "Do it for the
children."
Supporters on both sides of
the border met the caravan yesterday in Calexico. At a cemetery outside San Ysidro, which is the final resting
place for 400 unknown border crossers, the group was joined by Agustin MartÃnez,
brother of the deceased Tijuana resident, who planted the first of 4000 crosses
the group will place across the country as it travels to Washington, D.C.
Earlier today, in Riverside, 350 students rallied in their support.
On the night of December 30, MartÃnez became the last known border victim of
2005. MartÃnez was shot twice in the back by hollow point bullets at a
distance of less than twenty feet, near the San Ysidro port of entry. The
Border Patrol has claimed that MartÃnez threw a rock at an agent when the agent
fired, but MartÃnez' brother, who was with him, asserts that no rocks were
thrown. MartÃnez, twenty, was the father of two young children. The
Border Patrol, the San Diego Police, the U.S. State Department and the
Department of Homeland Security, and the federal Attorney General’s office in
Mexico are investigating. MartÃnez' family had announced their intent to
file a civil suit for $20M against the U.S. government. The Coalición de
Derechos Humanos/Alianza IndÃgena Sin Fronteras reports
that the U.S. Border Patrol has shot alleged rock-throwing migrants at least six
prior times since 1996.
One caravanner commented,
"No human being deserves to die try to ensure his economic
survival." Another put it in broader terms: "We have, since
Operation Gatekeeper, over 10,000 people dead. We don't want more deaths,
no Wall of Shame. We don't want any vigilantes anywhere."
Saturday morning, the caravan will depart for Fresno. From there it will head
to San Francisco, and on Monday the travelers plan a day of lobbying in
Sacramento. From there, they will head to Tucson, Arizona, and then
caravanners to memorialize border deaths in El Paso and in San Antonio, with a
special ceremony at the Alamo. The next stops will be Victoria, where 19
migrants died in a semi-trailer truck, Houston, and the JFK Memorial in Dallas.
Other scheduled stops include Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Atlanta with
a special message for CNN'S Lou Dobbs. After passing through North Carolina, the
March for Migrants will end its journey in Washington, DC demanding legislators
vote "No" to HR4437 and the recent wave of right-wing anti-migrant
legislation. Meetings are planned with Senators McCain and Kennedy, as
well as other key legislators, including members of the Hispanic caucus.
Following a planning meeting after the public event, Huerta was asked what
message she wanted to send to Los Angeles Indymedia readers. She answered,
"The personal stories of immigrants have to be told--taking care of the
elderly, the sick, and children, working in the kitchens and the field.
The antagonism from corporate media is terrible. Tell them it's important
to have a legalization program for the people who are here."
Mother Cabrini would have been pleased.
Report this post as:
by Leslie Radford
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 3:18 AM
leslie@radiojustice.net
migrant_caravan_004.jpg, image/jpeg, 424x640
error
Report this post as:
by Leslie Radford
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 3:18 AM
leslie@radiojustice.net
migrant_caravan_003.jpg, image/jpeg, 480x640
Dolores Huerta
Report this post as:
by Leslie Radford
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 3:18 AM
leslie@radiojustice.net
morones2.jpg, image/jpeg, 392x640
Enrique Morones
Report this post as:
by Leslie Radford
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 3:18 AM
leslie@radiojustice.net
marchamigrante.jpg, image/jpeg, 413x640
error
Report this post as:
by Leslie Radford
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 3:18 AM
leslie@radiojustice.net
migrant_caravan_006.jpg, image/jpeg, 480x640
error
Report this post as:
by THANK U LESLIE
Sunday, Feb. 05, 2006 at 5:28 PM
THANK U LESLIE
Report this post as:
by Quizling
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 7:49 AM
As I asked before, what about these fine folks? http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html Suppression of free speech is a wonderful oxymoron for this bastion of truth and enlightenment....
Report this post as:
by Leslie
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 9:49 AM
Quizling, I don't think anyone answered because the answer is evident. Come to think of it, CC Jammer answered on another thread--crime isn't a race-based activity.
Report this post as:
by canat
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 10:25 AM
...............sure leslie, if you happen to be white.. i.e. mexican then you can NEVER be break the law, right?
Report this post as:
by Jammer CC
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 3:14 PM
Exactly what I said. In the US, violent crime is not solely from any specific race, ethnicity, or culture. There may be social aspects, but there is the issue of personal decision to commit a crime as well.
Like I noted, take a look at the "Perverted Justice" stores on MSNBC and KFI AM 640, along with the Jessica's Law petition. If you've seen the special on TV, you'll see plenty of American citizens who came to a house thinking they were going to do certain things with underaged persons. If you want to look at race, plenty of white guys there. Such crimes aren't restricted to a single race, not even close.
Report this post as:
by Quizling
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 5:16 PM
"The Border" and how people have died, because of the "lack of" or "need for" a wall.
Each person listed on the link I provided died because of and illegal "migrante" or "foriegn national" that was not "under law" to be residing in the United States.
The caravan is in memorial to those "for whatever reasons" had made a conscious effort to cross a perilous path to the "Seven Cities of Gold"
My link, they didn't have a choice.
Report this post as:
by Leslie
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 5:22 PM
"..............sure leslie,
if you happen to be white..
i.e. mexican
then you can NEVER be break the law, right?"
In case there's any doubt, I have never said anything like that. Just canat. What I said above is just the opposite--it says that lawbreaking has no racial or ethnic boundries.
I'm tempted to go off on a diatribe about who gets punished, the severity of the punishment by racial and ethnic origin, the history of laws that define all sorts of groups as law-breakers by the nature of their identification, some background on vigilante and other extra-legal punishment, and so forth, but I be beating a dead horse for most people here. So I'll skip it, and leave anyone reading this with one more reminder:
It was canat who said:
"..............sure leslie,
if you happen to be white..
i.e. mexican
then you can NEVER be break the law, right?"
Not me. I've already said I don't agree with canat on this--it's canat's opinion, not mine. So if you're tempted to argue this one, take on canat.
Report this post as:
by Border Raven
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 5:32 PM
It is time to complete what Operation Gatekeeper started.
BR
Report this post as:
by Leslie
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 6:34 PM
BR, the research has already been done. Here are the facts up through 2001. I don't want to think about the five years since then. Clearly, Operation Gatekeeper is a boondoggle and an atrocity, any way you look at it.
|
|
Deaths |
Strategy | Apprehensions | Human Rights Abuses
Since late 1994, the
California part of the U.S.-Mexico border has been a testing
ground for Operation Gatekeeper, a strategy aimed at blocking
traditional border crossing routes. More than a billion
dollars has been spent on Gatekeeper, but the new strategy
has not prevented illegal entries. It has simply shifted
them to the mountains and deserts east of San Diego. Meanwhile,
migrant deaths have increased by 500%. Nevertheless,
the U.S. Border Patrol extended Gatekeeper into Yuma,
Arizona and has exported the new strategy to other parts
of the Southwest border.
Last year, there
was at least one migrant death a day along the entire
border.(1) The death toll far surpassed 1999's. The Mexican
consulates in San Diego and Calexico, California
reported 140 migrant deaths from January
through December of last year -- 27 more than the
year before. That was the trend border-wide.
According to the Mexican Foreign Relations Office,
491 Mexicans died while crossing the border
illegally, as compared to 356 in 1999. Even
the Border Patrol's own figures for fiscal year
2000 show that, from San Diego to Brownsville, migrant
deaths jumped by 60%.(2) The El Centro sector, which covers California's
Imperial desert, is where most of the deaths are
occurring.(3)
|
|
Photograph: Elsa Medina
|
I.N.S. Commissioner Doris
Meissner was quoted in September of last year as saying
that it would take five more years to assert "a reasonable
level of control" at the 2,000-mile border.(4) If you assume that the same migrant flow will
continue through the same dangerous areas, there will
be at least 2,000 more deaths in the next five years.
A baseline of 500 migrant deaths a year seems a pretty
safe bet. Among other things, U.S. economists predict
a continuing surge in the nation's immigrant labor force,
as a result of a still relatively robust economy and low
unemployment rate.(5)
Deaths:
Border-related deaths
typically happen one at a time and have generated little
attention. Until 1999, the Border Patrol did not systematically
record migrant deaths. Mexican consulate figures show
that since Gatekeeper began six years ago, at least
625 people have died during illegal border
crossings along the 140 miles from San Diego, California
to Yuma, Arizona. They were mainly men in their 20's.
More than 300 of them died from heat stress or hypothermia
in the mountains and deserts. Almost 200 have drowned
in the strong currents of border canals and rivers, trying
to bypass the worst of the desert. Most of the rest died
in various types of accidents. These numbers are conservative.
The Border Patrol itself says that no one knows how many
bodies lie undiscovered.
The following is a year-by-year
breakdown of the Gatekeeper deaths.
|
1994 |
|
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001
(hasta 30/4) |
Hypothermia/
Heat Stroke |
2 |
|
5 |
34 |
50 |
71 |
63 |
84 |
|
Drowning |
9 |
|
30 |
10 |
22 |
52 |
30 |
33 |
|
Accident |
11 |
|
21 |
15 |
16 |
20 |
18 |
22 |
|
Homicide |
1 |
|
5 |
0 |
1 |
4* |
2 |
1 |
|
Pending |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
23 |
|
61 |
59 |
89 |
147 |
113 |
140 |
74 |
|
* Three of these migrants were shot dead by the Border
Patrol in "rocks for bullets" incidents
which are disputed.
|
The San Diego and El Centro sectors encompass three
of the four places considered by the Border Patrol as
"the most hazardous areas" on the Southwest
border. (6) They are East San Diego County, the Imperial desert
and the All American Canal. (7) The fourth such place is the Yuma desert. By comparison
to California, the Mexican Foreign Relations Office
says that the number of migrant deaths at the Texas
border were: 21 in 1996; 34 in 1997; 170 in 1998; 201
in 1999; and 269 last year. (8)
The migrant
deaths at the Arizona border were: 7 in 1996; 26 in 1997;
12 in 1998; 44 in 1999; and 90 last year. During
the first quarter of calendar year 2001, the Mexican government
counted 61 more deaths, broken down geographically as
follows: 24 in California, 7 in Arizona, 30 in Texas.
The Border Patrol belatedly
launched a search-and-rescue operation in June, 1998.
But almost 375 migrants have died on the San Diego-to-Yuma
stretch since then -- over half of the six-year Gatekeeper
death toll. In the El Centro sector, where 80% of
the deaths on the California border have occurred, the
ratio of deaths to rescues for FY 2000 was 1:3. (9) Increasingly, migrants have been trying to cross at
less patrolled spots on the Southwest border. Despite
regular pronouncements from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service about redoubling its so-called border safety efforts,
migrant deaths are rising steeply, border-wide.
Strategy | Apprehensions | Human Rights Abuses
Strategy:
The number of Border
Patrol agents assigned to the Southwest border has more
than doubled since 1994, to 8,500 today. A quarter are
assigned to the 66-mile San Diego sector, alone. And the
westernmost 14 miles are where most of the agents are
concentrated. It is by far the most heavily-fortified
spot on the U.S.-Mexico dividing line. Before Gatekeeper,
this coastal corridor was popular with migrants because
of its relative safety and proximity to highways, and
used to account for 25% of the nationwide apprehensions.
Over the past six years, however, Gatekeeper has pushed
migrants into ever more difficult terrains and extreme
climates to the east of San Diego. The low visibility
of illegal border crossers there was been a political
windfall for the Clinton Administration.
New and reinforced fencing has also played a substantial
role in re-routing migrants. The San Diego sector
has 72% of the border fencing erected on the 2,000
miles from San Diego to Brownsville, as well as
54% of the border illumination. Before Gatekeeper,
there were 19 miles of fencing in the San Diego
sector; currently, there are 52 miles of primary
and secondary fencing. Triple fences now run from
the Pacific Ocean to the base of the Otay Mountains
-- a heavily urbanized area. Various East San Diego
County communities along the border also have stretches
of fence. The El Centro sector, which covers 72
miles of the border and is sparsely populated on
the U.S. side, has only seven miles of fencing --
all between the contiguous border cities of Calexico
and Mexicali. As explained by the Urban Institute's
director of immigration studies, the point of the
new strategy was to reduce the migrant foot traffic
through border cities. (10)
The
intention was not to seal the border — something
the Gatekeeper plan deemed "unrealistic."
(11)
|
|
Photograph: Alfonso Caraveo Castro
|
|
Gatekeeper was
developed with help from the U.S. Department of
Defense's Center for Low Intensity Conflicts. The
strategic plan recognizes that "illegal entrants
crossing through remote, uninhabited expanses...can
find themselves in mortal danger" and assumed
that the "influx will adjust to Border Patrol
changing tactics." (12)
Gatekeeper
has been implemented in three phases. Each raised
the risks of migrants dying.
The objective of
Phase I, launched in October, 1994, was to seal
the westernmost 14 miles of the border. As a result,
migrants began using more desolate and dangerous
routes (mainly the Otay Mountains), and began dying
of exposure and exertion. In a report on Gatekeeper
by the U.S. Justice Department's Inspector General,
the Otay Mountains are described as being "extremely
rugged, and includ[ing] steep, often precipitous,
canyon walls and hills reaching 4,000 feet."(13)
|
Phase II began in the
spring of 1996. Gatekeeper was extended to the entire
San Diego sector. This effort to reroute the migrant foot
traffic was stepped up in response to an outcry by East
San Diego County residents about the massive illegal border
crossings which had materialized there. As the next step
in this phase, the migrants were, in the words of Alan
Bersin, the Clinton Administration's border czar, "forced
to enter into a much more inhospitable terrain,"
i.e., the Tecate Mountains. The peaks rise over 6,000
feet and the snow can fall at altitudes as low as 800
feet. From mid-October to mid-April, there is a greater
than 50% probability of below-freezing temperatures. The
winter after Phase II was introduced, 16 migrants froze
to death in just one month.
Phase III began in fall,
1997. As the Immigration Commissioner explained, "the
next real step in moving east gets you into the desert
and [like the mountains, it is] very formidable territory."(14) The shortest route that migrants hike in the Imperial desert is ten miles.
Of course, migrants going the desert route will have already
been hiking through the Baja California side of the desert
when they arrive at the border. In the summer of 1997,
a total of 27 migrants died of dehydration. The
figure last year was 68. Now that Gatekeeper has
been extended to Arizona, the desert deaths have soared
there, too. The effects are, of course, also being
felt in Texas. On the eve of a presidential summit
In Guanajuato this February, the University of Houston's
Center for Immigration Research said its researchers had
found a "clear correlation and pattern" between
the new enforcement strategy and the ever-mounting death
toll at the border.
Notwithstanding, the
Bush Administration did not heed a recommendation by the
Carnegie Endowment that the U.S. government "freeze"
the building of additional fences, etc., with an eye towards
"recasting the U.S.-Mexico migration relationship."(15) Instead of reviewing the existing policy, President
Bush proposed an additional $100 million for "border
management." Up to now, Operations Gatekeeper,
Safeguard and Rio Grande are estimated to have cost between
six to nine billion dollars.(16)
Deaths
| Apprehensions | Human Rights Abuses
Apprehensions:
The U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service touted the Gatekeeper idea
-- dubbed "prevention through deterrence" --
by predicting a big fall in the apprehension figures along
the entire Southwest border at the end of five years.
Supposedly, the risk of apprehension would be raised high
enough to serve as a real deterrent. But apprehension
figures from the Border Patrol confirm that the added
dangers have not slowed the migrant foot traffic.
And the General Accounting Office has concluded repeatedly
that there is no reliable data to indicate that Gatekeeper
or its counterparts in Arizona and Texas have deterred
illegal crossings.(17)
Between fiscal years
1994 and 2000, the number of apprehensions in the Border
Patrol's San Diego and El Centro sectors, combined, dropped
by 20%. While the apprehensions have plummeted in
the San Diego sector, they are at an all-time high in
the El Centro sector. (18) The apprehensions have also risen dramatically
in Arizona and Texas -- 351% and 55%, respectively, since
FY 94. The upshot is that from October, 1994 to September,
2000 there were 88,001 fewer apprehensions at the California
border, 564,409 more at the Arizona border, and 188,170
more at the Texas border. (19) All told, apprehensions at the Southwest border
climbed by 68% between fiscal years 1994 and 2000 -- from
979,101 to 1,643,679.(20) The Immigration & Naturalization Service's statistics
division was right last summer when it projected that
the FY 00 total might exceed a record of 1,615,844 apprehension
set in FY86.(21) Furthermore, experts say that increased use of
smugglers may actually have driven down the probability
of apprehension -- from 30% to 20%. In the face of all
these figures, the San Diego Union-Tribune (until
the last couple of years a staunch Gatekeeper defender)
admitted in an editorial that the new approach to border
enforcement has "merely shifted the problem elsewhere."(22) There has been a dip in the apprehensions during the
first half of FY 01, but the Border Patrol itself has
cautioned against reading a turnaround into those figures.(23)
Meanwhile, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service efforts to counteract the employer
magnet have been "modest," to cite an understatement
in a General Accounting Office report released in April,
1999.(24) In fact, the agency devotes only 2% of its enforcement man-hours
to enforcing immigration laws at the worksite.(25) Not surprisingly, only a half-dozen employers of undocumented
workers have been prosecuted in California's border counties
(San Diego and Imperial) during Gatekeeper's lifetime.
Deaths
| Strategy | Human Rights Abuses
Human Rights Abuses:
In a petition filed year
before last with the Organization of American States,
the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego &
Imperial Counties (ACLU) and the Oceanside-based California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF) have charged
that the U.S. government has flagrantly abused its right
to control the border by resorting to a strategy which
is designed to maximize the physical risks. They argue
that Gatekeeper cannot be reconciled with the obligation
of a member-state to protect life, be it an undocumented
person's or a citizen's. That obligation is memorialized
in Article 1 of the American Declaration of the Rights
and Duties of Man. In their petition, the groups ask "why
not revert to the pre-Gatekeeper strategy," pointing
out that it was no less effective overall than the new
strategy, and that relatively few border-related deaths
occurred before 1995. A hearing on the petition is pending.
In another case before the Interamerican Commission on
Human Rights, the U.S. has acknowledged limits on its
right to control entry into its territory, saying that
a government could "take effective and reasonable
steps to prevent unlawful entries." The ACLU and
CRLAF assert that the new strategy is neither, calling
it perverse and counterproductive.
The U.S. is also bound
to protect life as a signatory of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, specifically Article 6.
Accordingly, the ACLU and CRLAF have appealed to the U.N.
High Commissioner for Human Rights, who was briefed on
the ongoing tragedy when she visited Tijuana in November
1999, as part of a fact-finding visit to Mexico. She called
the then-456 deaths "shocking," and said that
the border stop had given her a sense of migrants being
diverted from their normal crossing places "at a
risk to their lives."(26) The High Commissioner also said that she planned
to take up the deaths with the U.S. government. The newly-appointed
U.N. Special Rapporteur for migrant issues is expected
to conduct a more extensive investigation. The Mexican
government issued an official invitation to the Special
Rapporteur last May and the U.S. State Department was
prevailed upon to follow suit, but no time has been set
for the visit.(27)
Recently, Amnesty International-U.S.A.
overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Gatekeeper
for forcing migrants to attempt border crossings in areas
which put them in mortal danger. The resolution says that
Amnesty International "does not take issue with the
sovereign right of the U.S. to police its borders, but
insists that it do so in a manner which complies with
international human rights obligations."
Groups like Global Exchange
have also taken up the border deaths cause, making
it the focus of a protest at the 2000 Democratic convention.
That party's plank on immigration did recognize that the
current border control efforts had "led to an alarming
number of migrant deaths on the border" and had not
substantially reduced illegal border crossings.(28)
Ostensibly, Gatekeeper and its counterparts in Arizona
and Texas are part-and-parcel of immigration policies
and practices which the Democrats said they were "committed
to reexamining."(29)
Gatekeeper has not been
just a federal operation. California also invested personnel
and resources in Gatekeeper -- a legacy of Governor Pete
Wilson. Starting in 1995, the California National
Guard deployed a 33-member "immigration support team"
at the border. The stated purpose was to contribute
to a strategy that "channels [migrants] into the
mountains and desert."(30)
During a
border governors conference held in Tijuana last year,
Governor Gray Davis was asked by migrant advocates to
reconsider state support for a border control effort which
they say is both deadly and ineffective. Notwithstanding,
the new governor proposed another $1.5 million appropriation
for Gatekeeper in his 2001 budget. The California
Legislature, however, eliminated the funding and the Guard
withdrawal began on July 1st of last year, the day after
the state budget was signed.
Deaths
| Strategy | Apprehensions
1.
The actual figure is 1.5, counting only
Mexicans. The number of Central and South Americans
who died at the border is unknown.
2.
These deaths went from 231 in FY 99 to 369 in FY 00.
Forty-one percent died from exposure in FY 00 -- up from
33 % in FY 99. (Caveat: Neither FY 99 nor
FY 00 figures include migrants who died on the Mexican
side of the mountains, deserts, canals and rivers which
straddle the Southwest border. The Mexican Foreign
Relations Office reported 23 such deaths in calendar
year 1999 and 52 last year.)
3. FY 00 figures for the nine sectors on the Southwest border show that
20% of the migrants died in the 80-mile long El Centro
sector.
4. See "I.N.S. Chief Targets Risky Rural Crossing," Los
Angeles Times, 9/7/00.
5. See, e.g., "Foreign Workers at the Highest Level in Seven Decades,"
New York Times, 9/4/00.
6. INS Fact Sheet, 7/26/00.
7. This waterway parallels the border for 44 miles. It is 21 feet deep
and nearly as wide as a football field.
8. The sudden rise in 1998 is attributable in part to the fact that it
was the first year the Mexican consulates in Texas decided
to include John Does (i.e., unidentified persons
who died during illegal border crossings) in the migrant
body count.
9. El Centro sector Press Release, 10/7/99.
(Caveat: Border Patrol headquarters gave a ratio
of 1:3.1). Border-wide, the death to rescue
ratio was 1:4.5 in FY 99 and 1:6.7 in FY 00.
10. "More Agents, Immigrants Travel
Dangerous Terrain," Austin-American Statesman,
11/28/99. See also INS Overview, 9/10/99.
11. "U.S. Border Patrol Strategic Plan
for 1994 & Beyond," approved 8/4/94.
12. Ibid.
13. "Operation Gatekeeper Report,"
7/9/98.
14. "Q's and A's," an interview
with Commissioner Meissner, San Diego Union-Tribune,
7/21/96.
15. This recommendation was part of a report released on 2/14/01 by a binational
panel whose U.S. chairs are Thomas "Mack" McLarty,
former Clinton chief of staff, and Catholic Bishop
Nicholas DiMarzio. The Mexico chair is Andres Rozental,
former deputy foreign minister.
16. See "Arrests up since 1994 crackdown at border: county effort
fails to deter illegal flow," 2/20/01, San Diego
Union-Tribune. The article explains the big range
by saying that the I.N.S. has no specific breakdown for
the costs.
17. See, e.g., "Illegal Immigration: Status of Southwest Border
Strategy Implementation," 5/19/99.
18. In FY 00 151,678 apprehensions reported in the San Diego sector and
238,127 in the El Centro sector. The FY 94 figures
were as follows: 450,152 in the San Diego sector
and 27,654 in the El Centro sector.
19. This jump cannot be explained away by saying that the Border Patrol
is apprehending the same people more times. There is only
anecdotal evidence from the Border Patrol to back up such
assertion because the electronic fingerprinting and computer-stored
photograph system for detecting those who are apprehended
repeatedly is plagued with glitches.
20. The most dramatic rises were
in the Yuma and Tucson Border Patrol sectors, where the
apprehension during FY 00 were 16% and 31% higher, respectively,
than during FY 99. Not withstanding, the Border
Patrol still talks about "elevating the risk of apprehension
to a level so high that prospective illegal entrants consider
it futile to enter the U.S. illegally. " See
testimony of Associate INS Commissioner Michael Pearson
before the U.S. House of Representatives, 2/16/00.
21. That was the year that the Immigration Report and Control Act was enacted
and expectations were raised throughout Mexico about legalization
possibilities.
22. See, e.g., "Binational Study on Migration," released
in 1997. It was authorized by the U.S. and Mexican
governments and prepared by a binational team of scholars.
23. See "Arrests Up Since
1994 Crackdown at Border: County effort fails to
deter illegal flow," San Diego Union Tribune,
2/10/01.
24. "A Losing Battle: Border Patrol
Scores Tactical Gains, Strategic Losses," San
Diego Union-Tribune, 11/5/99.
25. "Illegal Aliens: Significant
Obstacles Exist to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment,"
4/2/99.
26. As Associate Immigration Commissioner
Robert Bach, one of the architects of Gatekeeper, explained
in a 3/9/00 New York Times article entitled
"I.N.S. Looks the Other Way on Illegal Immigrant
Labor," once undocumented workers manage to get to
the U.S., they are at little risk of deportation:
"It is just the market at work, drawing people to
jobs, and the I.N.S. has chosen to concentrate its
[interior activity] on aliens who are a danger to the
community."
27. "U.S. Policy on Mexico Border
Irks Human Rights Chief," San Diego Union-Tribune,
11/28/99.
28. The invitation encompasses both the
southern and northern borders of Mexico. See "The
Crisis at the Northern Border Worries the U.N. Rapporteur."
The La Jornada article involved is summarized
on the web site of the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(www.sre.gob.mx/communicados/prensahoy/2000/vc190500.htm).
29. See www.dems2000.com/AboutTheConvention/03c-progress.html, specifically the "Building One
America" section.
30. Testimony
of Deputy-Commander Edmund Zysk before the U.S. House
of Representatives, 3/10/95.
PREPARED
BY CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOUNDATION April
30, 2001
|
|
|
© 2004, StopGateKeeper.org
|
|
www.stopgatekeeper.org
Report this post as:
by Leslie
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 7:49 PM
For a moment (and it won't be long), I'll play this game on your terms.
Using 2004 figures . . .
You think a gov't. policy that encourages upwards of mass deaths, at $250,000 per death, is a good policy.
You think that using the Border Patrol to drive economic refugees to their deaths in the desert, rather than stop terrorists and known felons, is a good use of the BP.
You think a "bigger, better" wall is a good use of taxpayer money, when the current wall has increased border deaths 30-fold; when the current wall is forcing people who would otherwise return to Mexico in the off-season to stay here, separated from their families; when migration from Mexico has only increased since the installation of the current wall.
You think the Mexican gov't. is going to be a better neighbor if the U.S. builds a triple-layered wall along 2000 miles that allows U.S. residents free passage, but continues to kill off Mexican residents.
Are you using real, genuine human logic to come to these bizarre conclusions? No, I think not. I think it likely that BR is actually a Zetan from Maldek, and what we're seeing here is real, genuine Zetan logic.
Report this post as:
by Border Raven
Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 9:54 PM
Leslie,
I prefer to think the US gov't policy discourages illegal immigration, while encouraging legal immigration. Look, if we can change the course of a mindless river, and bring it into control, so we can harness the power of the water, why can't people, who have a brain, learn not to attempt to cross a dangerous border region, by illegal means, out of season? Why can't people with a mind of their own, follow the laws? Why do people with brains encourage the immigrants to cross the border, by leaving food, and water, on the trails? Why don't the enablers, go to the source and educate the migrants, of the correct path, and process to immigrate here? Why do you and your cohorts, send so many contestants to the Annual Darwin Awards Competition (DarwinAwards.Com)?
The Border Patrol, doesn't "drive economic refugees to their deaths in the desert", the Mexican government does that. Everyone along the trail to the border, participates in the systematic victimization of the immigrants, both going and coming across the border. Last Christmas, there were complaints from Mexicans, going south, being victimized by the police, federales, and other assorted banditos. Yet, you eagerly point a crooked finger to the Minutemen.
BTW -- The Border Patrol, cannot discriminate, by racial profiling, so they won't know the difference between an immigrant and terrorists or known felons, until they run them through the computer.
The Minutemen will be helping to back up the Border Patrol, and the Sheriff's are free to deputize the Minutemen, as needed.
Yes, Leslie, I think the walls of Operation Gatekeeper were a job half-done, and needs to be completed. I like the idea of the triple fence, and putting the US Army on the border. Good fences make good neighbors. We have given the situation a long time to solve itself. Mexico, has proved unwilling or unable to control the situation, to the contrary Mexico has encouraged the immigrants to face the deadly trek, all so Mexico can reap the rewards.
Ummm, Leslie, Zetans are from Nibiru. But, I am not one of them. We Xlactans, have been warring against the Zetans, for 4,000,000 zar.
BR
Report this post as:
by River God
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 11:28 AM
The river is not mindless!
The Mississippi River destroyed New Orleans.
The Los Angeles River is next.
You will know my wrath by the number of dead.
Report this post as:
by River Demon
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 1:00 PM
Actually, the Sacramento levees are the most impending disaster in Ca. And the Dike not the levees 'failed' because they were blown in NO.
Report this post as:
by Scorpio
Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 2:56 PM
I agree, Leslie. lets "Do it for the Children"... OUR CHILDREN.
Lets drastically increase border security and immigration enforcement so that OUR CHILDREN won't be saddled with...
...higher crime rates created by hispanic gangs such as MS13.
...higher health costs created by care for the uninsured.
...higher health costs due to drugs brought into the US by illegals.
...the cost of autoposies on illegals who die in the desert.
...higher incarceration costs incurred by having to house tens of thousands of illegals.
...higher legal costs incurred by prosecuting illegals for crimes such as theft, drug dealing and murder.
...higher property taxes to pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants, many of whom are themselves illegal.
...higher costs to pay for official documentation in both English and Spanish.
...ridiculous 'multicultural' programs in government schools that don't require immigrants to learn English.
...higher fed, state and local taxes to cover all of the items above.
I agree Leslie... Lets preserve the economic liberty of our children by ensuring that they aren't forced to live in a Socialist Nanny State that relies on 25% of the population to support the other 75%.
I agree, Leslie... lets "Do it for the Children".
Report this post as:
by Leslie
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 12:33 AM
I didn't make the remark that titles this article (that's why it's in quotes), but I'll say it now.
The white nation has created the circumstances for the conditions Scorpio lists and then blames the victims. Enough blame, enough fingerpointing. The time has come for white people to do some real soul-searching. Do it for the children--all of them.
Re: Scorpio's arguments:
...higher crime rates created by hispanic gangs such as MS13.
I say: a society that respects young people as people, regardless of ethnicity or national origin, so they don't need to find acceptance in any gang.
...higher health costs created by care for the uninsured.
I say: respect for human health, so that our children never see someone left wounded and broken in their homes or in the streets. And restore the massive cuts the hospitals have taken from government cutbacks.
...higher health costs due to drugs brought into the US by illegals.
I say: legalize drugs and make treatment readily available or, better yet, provide a sane society where drugs don't make sense. At least make the CIA stop selling drugs first, and I guess, in your spirit, we should start locking up all those who go to Canada or Mexico to buy their drugs off prescription.
...the cost of autoposies on illegals who die in the desert.
I say: let folks in at ports of entry, screen for terrorists and convicted felons, and no one except terrorsts and convicted felons will die in the desert.
...higher incarceration costs incurred by having to house tens of thousands of illegals.
I say: make 'em legal.
...higher legal costs incurred by prosecuting illegals for crimes such as theft, drug dealing and murder.
I say: give people a chance at a livelihood, a real living, and you'll see a lot less crime. Fom everyone.
...higher property taxes to pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants, many of whom are themselves illegal.
I say: let's not let our children find themselves in a two-tier society, with some in school and some running the streets without even an elementary education.
...higher costs to pay for official documentation in both English and Spanish.
I say: let's go to a paperless society. But short of that, let's make sure that language isn't a barrier to knowing the law and having opportunity. Since you're so sold on "assimilation," let me point out it won't happen if people can't read the Constitution and all that follows from it. And are you really going to tell businesses what language they should do business in?
...ridiculous 'multicultural' programs in government schools that don't require immigrants to learn English.
I say: Where? But let's require bilingual (or trilingual) education for all students in all public schools, especially for those children restricted by parentage to English only, on this shrinking planet.
...higher fed, state and local taxes to cover all of the items above.
I say: see above. I want my children to live on a sane planet, not one where one group (or another) is rounded up and deported because they don't happen to speak English well enough for Scorpio, where one group has an education and another is illiterate, where drugs and gangs are refuge from the craziness. None of these are the result of Mexicans--they are the result of the hatred and bigotry, the artificially generated scapegoating, the fingerpointing in every direction except at people who gain from a white-dominated society.
No child in the U.S.: citizen, non-citizen, white, Asian, Black, Brown, Middle-Eastern, able-bodied, differently-abled, straight, lesbian, gay, transgendered, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish, will benefit from a society that can divide itself into those who "belong" and those who don't.
Report this post as:
by johnk
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 12:21 PM
I think the degree to which immigrants "assimilate" is still very high, because the kids all function mainly in English... but the parents still could use some help.
Have free English classes. Not only conversational, but written, and literature.
Free classes, for everyone, in Native American languages.
Shorten the work day to 6 hours.
Encourage the use of pidgins and creoles on television. At every mall, suburban wannabes have adopted some kind of modified Ebo, with a Brooklyn accent. It's feasible to spread other American languages, like Spanglish, Hawaiian pidgin, and Cajun, through mass media.
Princess Diana and Benny Hill are dead.
Morrisey, Siouxie Sioux, and Johnny Rotten live in LA.
What use do we have for England anymore?
Report this post as:
by Scorpio
Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 3:31 PM
>>> You make this too easy, Leslie. All of my responses to you are preceded with ">>>"
Re: Scorpio's arguments:
...higher crime rates created by hispanic gangs such as MS13.
I say: a society that respects young people as people, regardless of ethnicity or national origin, so they don't need to find acceptance in any gang.
>>> "A society that respects young people as people?" You think the problem is we don't respect young people? After 40 years of 'self esteem' focus in schools, childrens rights crusading and what has become a virtual Tyranny of the Children, you think we don't respect 'young people as young people'? Your answer is pure tripe. Kids join gangs for lots of reasons, but it isn't because of a failure on the part of adult society to 'respect them'. If adults are responsible at all its because adults are afraid or too lazy to discipline their kids... because spanking your kid would damage his 'self esteem'. Nice try.
...higher health costs created by care for the uninsured.
I say: respect for human health, so that our children never see someone left wounded and broken in their homes or in the streets. And restore the massive cuts the hospitals have taken from government cutbacks.
>>> Stop them at the border and they won't be in the streets. "...respect for human health." Give it a rest... The problem isn't lack of respect for health. "Lack of respect for health" is a leftist fantasy. Your tear jerker appeal solves nothing. And since when is government (read: your tax dollars) responsible for private hospitals? Why should my hard earned federal tax dollars pay for the health care of someone who snuck into my country and doesn't pay federal taxes? I don't expect you, Leslie, to pay for my health care... Why should illegals expect me to pay for theirs? What gives them that right? And if you tell me that health care 'is a right' I'll puke all over this website.
...higher health costs due to drugs brought into the US by illegals.
I say: legalize drugs and make treatment readily available or, better yet, provide a sane society where drugs don't make sense. At least make the CIA stop selling drugs first, and I guess, in your spirit, we should start locking up all those who go to Canada or Mexico to buy their drugs off prescription.
>>> "Legalize drugs" ... shall we legalize heroin and crystal meth and then pay for treatment at the same time? Isn't that a bit like lighting a fire and then paying for more fire extinguishers? And what is this "sane society" nonsense? I'll tell you what it is: Its an undefined utopian concpet entertained by those unable to formulate realistic solutions to difficult problems. And your comment about people buying drugs in Canada or Mexico is a non sequitor.
...the cost of autoposies on illegals who die in the desert.
I say: let folks in at ports of entry, screen for terrorists and convicted felons, and no one except terrorsts and convicted felons will die in the desert.
>>> "let folks in at ports of entry" We already have ports of entry! What will you do about those who don't use these ports of entry? Secure the border? Good! Then you agree with me!
...higher incarceration costs incurred by having to house tens of thousands of illegals.
I say: make 'em legal.
>>> "make 'em legal" ... Translation: Screw the law and those who have entered the country legally and been through the proper process. Screw 'em....
>>> I would also note that the vast magority of illegals in our jails are not in jail for being here illegally... they are in jail for robbery, drugs, murder, etc... Making them legal won't change that or the behavior that got them into jail. Making illegals legal solves exactly NOTHING.
...higher legal costs incurred by prosecuting illegals for crimes such as theft, drug dealing and murder.
I say: give people a chance at a livelihood, a real living, and you'll see a lot less crime. Fom everyone.
>>> "give people a chance..." Just how do we do that, Leslie? It's one thing to say it, quite another to offer a concrete solution. Furthermore, given that we barely enforce immigration laws in this country, these people have far more opportunity here than they did in Mexico. It's not like we aren't 'giving them a chance' already. This weepy "give them a chance" blather is more juvenile tripe that completely lacks substance or direction.
...higher property taxes to pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants, many of whom are themselves illegal.
I say: let's not let our children find themselves in a two-tier society, with some in school and some running the streets without even an elementary education.
>>> Translation: 'The taxpayer is responsible for making sure kids show up in class.' This is more utopian slag, Leslie. Schools have plenty of funding right now (more on that later if you like). The problem isn't lack of dollars, its lack of accountability within the gov't school system and lack of parental discipline. This 'two tier society' you foist is a straw man. I can't believe you even suggested this.
...higher costs to pay for official documentation in both English and Spanish.
I say: let's go to a paperless society. But short of that, let's make sure that language isn't a barrier to knowing the law and having opportunity. Since you're so sold on "assimilation," let me point out it won't happen if people can't read the Constitution and all that follows from it. And are you really going to tell businesses what language they should do business in?
>>> "Lets go to a paperless society" ... And do what, Leslie? This only changes the medium (print to electronic), not the problem. It solves nothing. Further, if people want to read the Constitution they need to learn English. Period. I wouldn't tell a business what language to to use, and its rather silly of you to suggest this. I said OFFICIAL documentation, not restuarant menus. I WOULD tell the school system, the IRS and every other gov't agency that English is a REQUIREMENT. Have you ever been to Quebeq? French is a requirement. Are they wrong?
...ridiculous 'multicultural' programs in government schools that don't require immigrants to learn English.
I say: Where? But let's require bilingual (or trilingual) education for all students in all public schools, especially for those children restricted by parentage to English only, on this shrinking planet.
>>> "Where?" Lets start with just about every gov't school in the country, where nearly every minority group has a special day or week or other recognition. More to the point, bilingual education should consist of English first, all other languages second. Spanish speaking students should be REQUIRED to learn English, and there should be NO REQUIREMENT to force other kids to learn other languages. If they want to (as I did), then fine, but it shouldn't be forced.
...higher fed, state and local taxes to cover all of the items above.
I say: see above. I want my children to live on a sane planet, not one where one group (or another) is rounded up and deported because they don't happen to speak English well enough for Scorpio, where one group has an education and another is illiterate, where drugs and gangs are refuge from the craziness. None of these are the result of Mexicans--they are the result of the hatred and bigotry, the artificially generated scapegoating, the fingerpointing in every direction except at people who gain from a white-dominated society.
>>> You said: "I want my children to live on a sane planet, not one where one group (or another) is rounded up and deported because they don't happen to speak English well enough for Scorpio..." You don't get it, do you Leslie? They are deported because they are here ILLEGALLY. They BROKE OUR LAWS. They are NOT deported because of a 'language barrier'. But you know this perfectly well. This is yet another weepy straw man from you.
>>> You said: "...where drugs and gangs are refuge from the craziness".... Earth to Leslie... DRUGS AND GANGS ***ARE** THE CRAZINESS.
>>> You said: "hatred and bigotry" I'm calling Bull Cookies on you now, Leslie. This is the usual baseless 'racism' accusation trotted out by nearly every Leftist in an attempt to smear their opponent. I'm no more racist than you. But unlike you I have respect for the law. I also have respect for the future of our kids. You don't seem to care much if your kids or grandchildren are saddled with huge financial burdens, paying for people who snuck across the border.
No child in the U.S.: citizen, non-citizen, white, Asian, Black, Brown, Middle-Eastern, able-bodied, differently-abled, straight, lesbian, gay, transgendered, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish, will benefit from a society that can divide itself into those who "belong" and those who don't.
>>> You said: "citizen, non-citizen, white, Asian, Black, Brown, Middle-Eastern, able-bodied, differently-abled, straight, lesbian, gay, transgendered, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish" Good God, Leslie, are their any special groups you left out? What about the Nigerians? You should feel huge shame about leaving them out. That's racist of you! (see how easy it is to play your little game, Leslie)
>>> Bottom line, Leslie, you spew a lot of platitudes but you have no real answers or solutions. Get real.
Report this post as:
by Border Raven
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 12:53 AM
Leslie, I appreciate your position, from your perspective, as a parent, but rather than catering to a person's feelings, we should strive to help them build their character. Struggle builds character.
It's my position that, first, people who are here without documentation screwed their chances of a reasonable process for obtaining "legal" status.
Bye bye -hasta la vista baby.
I propose that people within the territories of the United States without the permission of the U.S. government should be afforded Assisi, in finding their way, back home to their families. Perhaps a free map and compass, to guide them, to where their governments are more than responsible for providing them essential services, specifically basic education and emergency medical service.
I think this would afford them a process for achieving "self-actualization", in their homeland, and it would be most humane. Of course, that don't violate any religious precepts and international law, but no plan is perfect, in fact it actually follows the rule of law, essential to a civilized society. It's fundamentally humane--people have a responsibility to behave in a manner respectful of their host, not to freeload, and to know when the time has come to leave. Why should the host be burdened with providing services when they are able, to take care of themselves? Why continue the self-victimization? Why not allow them to stand on their own legs and climb out of the rut, they have fallen in? On a personal level, it's cruel and sadistic, not to encourage people to end their self-victimization, when they should be given the "tough love" and "discomforting nudge", so they will self-motivate and seek a better life for themselves. On a cultural and societal level, should they not self-deport, they will face a genocide.
In fact I do believe a government has a responsibility to provide essential services first and primarily to its citizens.
"In this particular brand of nationalism, the state has no responsibility to anyone except its citizens." Agreed
And it would follow that non-citizen residents, whether here with or without the state's permission, should not be provided essential services by the host nation, for the long-term, but if so, the state should bill the guest's nation.
It should be noted that the children of illegals, don't contribute to the economy, but are a drain on resources, until, they are employable.
I don't prefer to see people die, I prefer to see people not attempt to put themselves and others in dangerous situations, or burden others by such acts.
I don't accept responsibility or liability, for the foolishness of others.
BR
Report this post as:
by Scorpio
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 9:31 AM
You said: "...you just want to see people suffer and die."
That statement alone demonstrates your reading comprehension problem. It also completely delegitimatizes the rest of your Internationalist, Socialist apologetics.
I have no desire to see people suffer or die. That's why we should keep them out of the desert by stopping them at the border.
As for those already here... if they are illegal, deport them. Period. ITS THE LAW. If they have valid papers and came here legally, more power to them.
The rest of your drivel is hair splitting in an attempt to sound valid and erudite. I'm pulling the commode chain on it.
Report this post as:
by Alfonso Alonso
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 5:10 PM
Leslie, I'll grant you that people dying in the desert is tragic. I'll even go so far as to say that if there were a viable mechanism for legal entry into the US for migrant workers that it would help abate such tragic deaths.
But I also differ on a few points with you:
- I think your vision of largely unrestricted, though documented, immigration is unrealistic. It really doesn't matter what type of 'reform' or 'program' is put in place because documented immigration will always come with strings attached, i.e., where you go, how long you stay, where you are employed, etc., that by definition there will always be a class of people wishing to avoid the consequences of those 'strings', both on the part of immigrants and the businesses that choose to use them in an illegal labor market. So there will always be people trying to bypass the system so long as there are dollars to be gained because to cross legally either costs money or takes too long or places too many restrictions on where or how long you can reside somewhere.
- On the question of education, health services, etc.: The funding mechanism for providing these social services is pretty straight forward for legal residents ... taxes. Anyone working in the legitimate employment market that have payroll taxes deducted, or that pay property taxes, etc., are paying into "the system". The problem is when you have the people in the black market labor pool consuming those services but that largely don't contribute to funding them. This is largely the fault of the business that employ illegal immigrants. The solution is to force the commercial business sector to shoulder the true costs of the labor market they create. If a business feels it needs to import foriegn national labor, it needs to compete on a level playing field and pay payroll taxes, fund healthcare insurance, and yes, contribute $$$ to public education, etc., for the labor force it CHOOSES to import. It is not the responsibility of legal US residents to bear that cost as a means of subsidizing the profits of business that choose to create an illegal labor market. The economic activity that draws them into the country needs to pay for the costs of them being here.
The only way to truely stop illegal immigration is to remove the economic incentives that drive it. Make it so that business can really only employ legal residents. Make the businesses bear the true costs of their own employment market. Make the employment of illegal immigrants so onerous and risky that it becomes economically non-viable for businesses. Make legal immigration the ONLY way a foriegn national can effectively immigrate into the US, find employment, and make a living. Then, make it easier to gain legal status to enter the US, but not ever unrestricted ... people won't risk crossing in the desert if there is no certain economic gain at the end of the trek.
Then and only then will people stop dying in the desert.
Report this post as:
by Leslie
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 9:42 PM
It seems there are three different positions from minutemen here: There's Border Raven with "'let 'em suffer, 'cause suffering builds character,' and no essential services for any non-citizen." To that, let me say, if suffering builds character, then suffering children in underdeveloped countries (like Mexico, for instance) are in much better shape character-wise than children raised in the U.S. But I don't think BR would agree with that conclusion. Further, he thinks that he's in a position to judge people sho made choices he can't even imagine. And he ends with suffering and death as his choice of punishment for those decisions. His position is extreme isolationism and xenophobia: all foreign nationals should be abandoned without any social support unless their native country anties up. I thought maybe Scorpio the pragmatist would call him on the practical impossibility of that accounting nightmare. I don't see any need to make the ethical argument. Speaking of Scorpio, I thought he'd do better at this. I offered him three positions, he dismissed one and then dismissed me, without even addressing the more sophisticated positions So much for dialogue. Alfonso alone is left making real arguments here. He says that "of necessity" legal immigration will come with strings. I disagree--the stringless plan I offered is sleek, relatively easy to administer, secures the borders, and allows easy passage to and from Mexico (and, of course, I would add, all of Mesoamerica). He points to the underground econony, which is not entirely populated by non-citizens, as most citizens know from experience. Of course, if Mexicans and other non-citizens are all here legally, then non-citizen employees have little incentive to hire on for low-wage or untaxed jobs. All migrants pay at least some taxes, and many pay more than you or I, proportionate to our incomes. If they're paying into social security (and the $300B SS suspense fund tells me they are), then they are also paying federal income tax and medicare. If they're paying federal income taxes or paying into social security, they're paying state taxes. If they own or rent property, they're paying property taxes. They're paying sales tax and "sin" taxes. Current estimates is that the proportion undocumented people pay in taxes is just about equal to what they receive in benefits. I would agree with Alfonso that the U.S. should "Make it so that business can really only employ legal residents." Make all residents legal--it's that easy. Then they can receive all the benefits the U.S. offers (unless Border Raven has his way), and they'll stop dying in the desert.
Report this post as:
by Jammer CC
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 10:20 PM
If I may add something that I'm sure will be an interesting addition to this discussion. I have here the lastest CCIR newsletter. Yes I actually signed up for a membership, which includes a newsletter suscription. How about that, technically I'm a CCIR member on paper. Maybe I'll go to the next meeting and share some views and ask some questions. What with free speech and America and all, why should they object? If they do, it makes their lawsuit to get into the Laguna Beach parade look all the more embarrassing.
Anyways, there's a flyer for their party at the capital in Washington DC, in the form of a letter to one Senator Dodd, sincerely from Jim Gilchrist. For February 8th, so I guess that event already happened. Hardly noticed it go by myself. Anyone seen it on the news?
Anyways, of the listed issues, the third is a "much needed seven-year moratorium on all legal immigration in excess of 100,000 per year."
So not only does Jim Gilchrist(and his remaining supporters I suppose, since he's got them following his every footstep) want to stop people from crossing the border against US immigration laws(and overstaying visas I suppose, although I haven't heard much of that from them) but he also wants to greatly limit legal immigration as well! Why, that's a disruption on immigration itself! Oh my!
I must say, that one caught me by surprise. I don't recall hearing about that one, even in my time in the Gilchrist campaign. It must be a new one they let out.
Maybe a piece of a puzzle? A plan? What exactly are they trying to construct here? Do they want to decide which countries the immigrants are to come from as well? Would they, oh say, propose to cut off immigration from Mexico on the principle that there's so many immigrants from there already? Hmmm. And why the number 100,000? Very curious, no doubt indeed.
Well anyays, I wonder if I can get some answers at the next CCIR meeting. Good day now!
Report this post as:
by Alfonso Alonso
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Leslie, I admire your idealism and I don't doubt your motives are philanthropic ... but your 'simple' solution of just calling anyone who manages to fog glass on US soil a legal resident is naive and unrealistic. It's only simple as a statement ... it's not simple in terms of the downstream consequences if such a policy were enacted. If anyone lacking any documentation can be declared a legal resident, then anyone showing up at the border without documentation would have to be afforded that same opportunity ... which by definition means immigration into the US would become wholey annonymous and unregulated. There would essentially cease to be any real 'borders' ... now that may sound romantic in a way and like a step towards a utopian view of a true multi-cultural, cross-national society. But, the harsh reality is that it would only result in chaos and a total breakdown of national identity, our political systems, and savage our economic stability. No amount of idealistic wishing is going to change the impact of human nature in an unregulated environment.
Such a hypothetical policy would also have to be applied globally to all comers to appear 'fair' in the international community, not regionally or based on a nationality bias, and it would start such a massive flood of global immigration that it would dwarf anything we've seen in the past century. While many foriegners hate the US, millions more would love to live here as legal residents and get a free education, free medical care, and welfare benefits ... in addition to living in a fairly progressive, unoppressive society.
I could spend all day writing a list of socio-economic problems unrestricted 'open' legal immigration would create ... but there are a few really big ones, like making our national security completely impossible to defend. Regardless of anyone's position on the war in Iraq, etc., it is a stark reality of our times that there are some really bad people who have developed a singular purpose for their lives: sacrificing their lives as a means to kill as many Americans has possible, preferably on American soil, if possible by the tens or hundreds of thousands ... with the hopeful side effect of fatally wounding the US economy in the process. There are only two possible ways to diffuse this very real threat: identify and kill such fanatics before they get a chance to execute a plan successfully; or, have the US withdraw politicly, militarily, and economically from the middle-east, Europe, and Asia to appease the fanatics that the "evil empire" has withdrawn into a cave of isolationism. The only way to identify good guys versus bad guys at our borders is to enforce them and control documented entry in to the country.
Of course, you'd be waking up the next day to news about the outbreak of widespread warfare in the middle east, and it wouldn't take long before there were nukes involved and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would die. We would soon be facing WW III.
Maybe you think this is fear-mongering ... but the reality is that the guys that killed over 3,000 people on 9/11 wished they could have killed 300,000 if they only had the means. If the US unilaterally withdrew from world affairs to appease fundamentalist terrorists, they would simply re-target their efforts to finally eradicate Israel and force any non-fundamentalist Muslim country to overthrow their secular authoritarian governments with fundamentalist authoritarian ones. It really doesn't matter where you stand on the whole Israel/Palestinian thing ... Israel has nukes. If the US were to withdraw into isolationism (and thus the only way it could safely 'open' its borders to all comers) and the Isreali's were being militarily attacked, there will be mushroom clouds, quickly. Israel won't wait to be overwhelmed by numerical force. Lacking the US as an ally and 'hypothetical' threat to its enemies, they will take preemptive measures using 'decisive' force. Once you start down that slope and introduce fundamentalist/secular civil wars in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, etc., it quickly spirals into the next world war ... which just might affect the price of your morning bagel on the pier at Venice beach, and you'd better like riding bicycles.
The world as you know it today would cease to exist and the last thing you'd be worried about is people dying in the desert. You'd be worried about how to put 300 calories a day into your belly, and so would the person next to you.
Report this post as:
by Leslie
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Going backwards through your note . . .
I think I've been clear that the only people who should come through the ports of entry are those who have cleared checklists for felons, drug smugglers, and terrorists. That's the best we can do, ultimately, for people currently entering with visas. The most efficient way to set this up would be to provide visas for all who qualify, so they go through the check once and from then on are cleared to travel in the U.S. and across the boundary (unless, of course, they're convicted of a felony, they haul in contraband, or they're sporting shoe bombs). That's how I conclude that felons, smugglers, and terrorists will be isolated in the desert for the Border Patrol.
Again, there is a contradiction in your argument--you say there's significant hatred for the U.S. internationally, and that millions would flood our borders. It seems to me it's going to be one or the other, but if it's not, then we can be assured that the masses of people you envision crossing will, by and large, want to contribute to the U.S.--after all, they are, by definition, people who believe their wellbeing is tied to the wellbeing of the United States.
To clarify again, I limited this plan to mesoamericans--I'm willing to use those peoples as a sample for opening the borders, since there are good historical, archaeological, and geographic arguments that the southern border is an artificial boundary between the peoples north and south of it.
The facts are that the U.S. has created an untenable problem at the southern border, allowing business to export capital and exploit non-U.S. labor through CAFTA, NAFTA, and soon AFTA, and labor will inevitably push to right the balance. That push is playing out now in the deserts. My plan would ease that pressure and prevent the some of international conflicts that concern you.
I realize a lot of this is counterintuitive, or at least runs against the grain of what we have been told. But what we have been told clearly isn't working, so I say it's time to think outside that box.
Now, if the truth be known, I have other ideas about what could happen for the good of North America, but they don't involve the presence of the United States, so I think it's best I keep them to myself.
But thank you for the forum to elaborate on my idea.
Report this post as:
by johnk
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Long before NAFTA, there were these "banana republics" in Central America, from the age of US imperialism. American capital has been all over the Americas, for a long time.
www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm
Report this post as:
by Alfonso Alonso
Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 2:42 PM
Leslie, I don't think there is a contradiction in saying many foriegners hate America while millions would like to immigrate here ... there's long been this love/hate relationship between the US and the citizens of other countries. There are countries where you wouldn't want yourself identified as American, while at the same time you have millions of people that have immigrated into the US over the last ten years both legally and illegally, and millions more that wish they could. There is a very long waiting list of people seeking legal residency here and people attempt to be smuggled here from multiple countries ... Mexico just has the lions share due to physical proximity.
The concept of relatively unrestricted immigration while still retaining some form of documented process that served to 'screen' immigrants for bad guys would be logistically very difficult to implement and thus very prone to fraud and circumvention. I believe that unrestricted immigration and a documented process that allows for screening of undesirable elements are mutually exclusive ... it's the difference of trying to identify dirt on an apple under a kitchen faucet versus under a fire hose ... at some point you can't even see the apple anymore let alone the dirt ... all you see is water. By it's very nature a documented screening process has to restrict numbers simply so the resources performing the screening aren't overwhelmed to the point of just looking at noise ... and anything that restricts numbers means people determined to get here will continue to circumvent the system. As long as you have a system, any system, there will be motives for some people to circumvent it. And the political realities in this country will never permit the effective elimination of the border via unrestricted immigration without the US essentially ceasing to exist. While I won't get into the philosophical discussion of whether a world without a US is good or bad, l think we can at least agree that there are way too many people with a lot of money, a lot of power, and big guns that will likely prevent that scenario from ever occuring, at least not within the next several hundred years. That's what I meant by unrealistic.
The middle ground where I think there is some possible realism. Immigration processes could be 'eased' so that it was much less onerous and at the same time eliminate the magnate to circumvent the immigration processes by rigorous enforcement of labor laws. It takes a combination of making it easier for foriegn nationals to enter the country as a legal work force PLUS the rigorous elimination of economic gain for immigrants (and businesses) to circumvent the system. Then you get more people entering legally for good jobs, you can still screen for bad guys, businesses would have to support the cost structure of their imported labor force (instead of pushing the costs indirectly onto the American public), and there's no longer an incentive to trek across the desert ... unless like you say, you're by definition a bad guy. Why trek across the desert if you know you absolutely can't get a job doing anything but illegal activity?
Report this post as:
by ME
Saturday, Dec. 08, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Hey last time I checked this was a free country! UMM YEA WAT HAPPENED TO THE BIBLE SAYN WE ARE ALL GODS CHILDREN!?????! why dont you find something better to do with your free time.
Report this post as:
by ME
Saturday, Dec. 08, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Hey last time I checked this was a free country! UMM YEA WAT HAPPENED TO THE BIBLE SAYN WE ARE ALL GODS CHILDREN!?????! why dont you find something better to do with your free time.
Report this post as:
|