100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students...

Moonliner · 03-27-2006, 04:10 PM

I just thought that deserved it's own thread...

scaeagles · 03-27-2006, 04:18 PM

This whole thing irks me.

No one is saying that immigration should stop. This is how the protesters are making it sound. The issue is illegal immigration. I would not presume that all of the protesters were illegal, but they are marching in support of it.

I think they are making a big mistake, frankly. While most citizens of this country - born here or naturalized - oppose illegal immigration, with this issue coming to a head recently, the silent majority could get very spooked by this large demonstration and put even more pressure on the government to do something real about it.

So many things about this irk me that I can't begin to list them all. I haven't the time.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-27-2006, 04:22 PM

100,000? Lowest estimate I saw was 200,000. Seen as high as 500,000 (and that's from LAPD, which usually low-balls crowd estimates). Saturday night, driving through downtown around 7pm, we saw a large crowd on an overpass waiving flags and banners.

I don't like the bill that passed the house. It's simply ridiculous to expect doctors to turn patients away and clergy to turn away the hungry. Fortunately it seems the Senate is already chipping away at the more extreme provisions. It's unlikely it will pass in anything resembling its current form.

As for an overall solution, I like the sound of the bipartisan proposal coming from Ted Kennedy and a Republican who I can't recall at the moment. It involves a guest worker program, streamlined citizenship for new legal immigrants, and an 11 year process for current illegals to become legal.

Alex · 03-27-2006, 06:03 PM

I haven't really paid any attention to the specifics in the law bouncing around since I know it will change quite a bit before anything passes.

I'm very pro-legal immigration and strongly anti-illegal immigration. I believe that national quotas should be abolished and that the only limits on ability to enter the country and begin the process of citizenship is documentary evidence that the immigrant won't immediately be a burden on social safety nets (that is, they have to have a job waiting for them and a citizen sponsor). I think work visas should be widely available that would allow workers to legally enter, pay less taxes (but still some) and then go home when the visa is up.

I think enforcement has to be strict and unflinching. This creates touching stories of families caught in binds. But so what. Employers should also face severe penalties for hiring undocumented workers and this should be true in all industries (including agricultural and restaurantial). If this means that I pay 400% more for lettuce then so be it. If the government wants to keep lettuce cheap, exempt the industry from minimum wage laws and enforce legal employment rather than creating a black labor market.

I think that in any new structure it is a needed component that illegal residents currently in the country will find it more difficult to get on the legal track than for potential immigrants outside of the country. This will encourage them to either leave and return legally or be penalized for having broken the law in the first place.

I also find the phrase "seeking to criminalize illegal aliens" to be an incredibly stupid one. Also, I hate people who pronounce "illegal" as "e-legal." I'm pretty sure e-legal is a lawyer referral Web site. This linguistic intolerance is unusual for me since I don't care about "nukular" or "febuary" or "libary" but it makes me want to kick a reporter every time I hear "elegal." Even if it wasn't said by a reporter.

innerSpaceman · 03-27-2006, 06:05 PM

Um, that Republican who escapes your mind is John McCain, the likely next president of the U.S.

Reliable estimates of protesters just in L.A. were at over 1 million. There were also huge protests in Phoenix, Detroit, Atlanta, New York and D.C., among other locations.

The protests are not resulting in a backlash, but are resulting in exactly what they are designed to ... influencing the legislators in a direction clearly desired by the populace (whether or not that populace consists of likely voters).

And contrary to any societal backlash, the American public is not yet so cruel that it will condone criminalizing aid by priests, nuns, doctors and social workers to society's most underprivileged class.

innerSpaceman · 03-27-2006, 06:08 PM

In regard to Alex's post, made simultaneously with mine, I would like to add that anything so widespread as illegal immigration and illegal drug use and illegal prostitution should be a wake-up call to society that such things should not be - and cannot in any practical way be - "illegal."

Alex · 03-27-2006, 06:31 PM

I agree. We have simultaneously made it too difficult to legally enter the country and through minimum wage laws created a market for black market labor (I'm not arguing against minimum wage laws, but price controls always create black markets).

I do think that one of the few undebatable rolls of federal government is control of our borders and we certainly have the right and obligation to stringently enforce conditions on which those borders are crossed. I just think that a) creating pools of quotas based on nation of origin is nonsensical and that b) the obvious justifiable place for drawing the line is a priori evidence that the immigrant will be able to support themselves. If all 50 million people (or however many there are) in Mexico can find jobs in California then I say let them in. If all 5.7 billion people in the world not already U.S. citizens can find jobs, then let them in.

Unlike drugs and prostitution where I support complete decriminalization (and I mean complete decriminalization; not only should I be able to take heroin if I want but I should be able to take vicodin without a prescription) I can't quite go that far with border control.

Kevy Baby · 03-27-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

The protests are not resulting in a backlash, but are resulting in exactly what they are designed to ... influencing the legislators in a direction clearly desired by the populace (whether or not that populace consists of likely voters).

If there is going to be backlash, you wouldn't see it same day.

Alex · 03-27-2006, 09:29 PM

And it may not provoke a backlash in California but there are 46 non-border states where people may be a bit more bothered by images of hundreds of thousands of protestors marching through American cities, waving an awful lot of foreign flags (though debates rage on as to an accurate breakdown) saying "we may be here illegally but that's not reason for you to treat us like it."

scaeagles · 03-27-2006, 09:53 PM

Well never stop murder so we shouldn't try.....we'll never stop child abuse so we shouldn't try....we'll never stop blah, blah, blah.

I know prostitution and drugs are victimless crimes (for the most part, speaking in terms of a user, or a woman who truly wishes to be a hooker). However, illegal immigration is far from a victimless crime.

One thing that I have found to be so comical is the invocation of the immigrant farmers' hero, Cesar Chavez. Chavez was completely against illegal immigration because he knew anyone working off the books would continue to lower the wages being paid to those who were in the country.

I can certainly agree that humanitarian organizations should be exempted from criminal prosecution. Giving food to the hungry and water to the thirsty is one of - if not the highest - calling of Christianity.

However, the solution lies not with open borders. It lies not with the under economy. I am disgusted when I read about the Mexican government and their demands when they brutalize Guatemalans who would dare to enter their country looking for a better life.

I look at the corruption of the Mexican government and know that the answer is not opening the border. It is reform in Mexico. Mexico is oil rich, has two coastlines ripe for ports and trade, and contains more resort and potential world class resort locations than most anywhere in the world.

The better life for Mexican citizens lies not in the long run with coming to America and working for ridiculously low wages that they can send home. That adversely affects low wage earners in America as well. The answer lies in revolution within their own country. Corrupt officials in Mexico know this, and will therefore do anything they can to put pressure on the US to keep the status quo.

I fully support a guest worker program. All above the table. But it has to be done with respect to the laws of this country.

That was rambling and much longer than I had anticipated it would be.

03-27-2006, 04:10 PM	#1
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students... I just thought that deserved it's own thread... __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 04:18 PM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	This whole thing irks me. No one is saying that immigration should stop. This is how the protesters are making it sound. The issue is illegal immigration. I would not presume that all of the protesters were illegal, but they are marching in support of it. I think they are making a big mistake, frankly. While most citizens of this country - born here or naturalized - oppose illegal immigration, with this issue coming to a head recently, the silent majority could get very spooked by this large demonstration and put even more pressure on the government to do something real about it. So many things about this irk me that I can't begin to list them all. I haven't the time.
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 04:22 PM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	100,000? Lowest estimate I saw was 200,000. Seen as high as 500,000 (and that's from LAPD, which usually low-balls crowd estimates). Saturday night, driving through downtown around 7pm, we saw a large crowd on an overpass waiving flags and banners. I don't like the bill that passed the house. It's simply ridiculous to expect doctors to turn patients away and clergy to turn away the hungry. Fortunately it seems the Senate is already chipping away at the more extreme provisions. It's unlikely it will pass in anything resembling its current form. As for an overall solution, I like the sound of the bipartisan proposal coming from Ted Kennedy and a Republican who I can't recall at the moment. It involves a guest worker program, streamlined citizenship for new legal immigrants, and an 11 year process for current illegals to become legal. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 06:03 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I haven't really paid any attention to the specifics in the law bouncing around since I know it will change quite a bit before anything passes. I'm very pro-legal immigration and strongly anti-illegal immigration. I believe that national quotas should be abolished and that the only limits on ability to enter the country and begin the process of citizenship is documentary evidence that the immigrant won't immediately be a burden on social safety nets (that is, they have to have a job waiting for them and a citizen sponsor). I think work visas should be widely available that would allow workers to legally enter, pay less taxes (but still some) and then go home when the visa is up. I think enforcement has to be strict and unflinching. This creates touching stories of families caught in binds. But so what. Employers should also face severe penalties for hiring undocumented workers and this should be true in all industries (including agricultural and restaurantial). If this means that I pay 400% more for lettuce then so be it. If the government wants to keep lettuce cheap, exempt the industry from minimum wage laws and enforce legal employment rather than creating a black labor market. I think that in any new structure it is a needed component that illegal residents currently in the country will find it more difficult to get on the legal track than for potential immigrants outside of the country. This will encourage them to either leave and return legally or be penalized for having broken the law in the first place. I also find the phrase "seeking to criminalize illegal aliens" to be an incredibly stupid one. Also, I hate people who pronounce "illegal" as "e-legal." I'm pretty sure e-legal is a lawyer referral Web site. This linguistic intolerance is unusual for me since I don't care about "nukular" or "febuary" or "libary" but it makes me want to kick a reporter every time I hear "elegal." Even if it wasn't said by a reporter.
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 06:05 PM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Um, that Republican who escapes your mind is John McCain, the likely next president of the U.S. Reliable estimates of protesters just in L.A. were at over 1 million. There were also huge protests in Phoenix, Detroit, Atlanta, New York and D.C., among other locations. The protests are not resulting in a backlash, but are resulting in exactly what they are designed to ... influencing the legislators in a direction clearly desired by the populace (whether or not that populace consists of likely voters). And contrary to any societal backlash, the American public is not yet so cruel that it will condone criminalizing aid by priests, nuns, doctors and social workers to society's most underprivileged class.
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 06:08 PM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	In regard to Alex's post, made simultaneously with mine, I would like to add that anything so widespread as illegal immigration and illegal drug use and illegal prostitution should be a wake-up call to society that such things should not be - and cannot in any practical way be - "illegal."
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 06:31 PM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I agree. We have simultaneously made it too difficult to legally enter the country and through minimum wage laws created a market for black market labor (I'm not arguing against minimum wage laws, but price controls always create black markets). I do think that one of the few undebatable rolls of federal government is control of our borders and we certainly have the right and obligation to stringently enforce conditions on which those borders are crossed. I just think that a) creating pools of quotas based on nation of origin is nonsensical and that b) the obvious justifiable place for drawing the line is a priori evidence that the immigrant will be able to support themselves. If all 50 million people (or however many there are) in Mexico can find jobs in California then I say let them in. If all 5.7 billion people in the world not already U.S. citizens can find jobs, then let them in. Unlike drugs and prostitution where I support complete decriminalization (and I mean complete decriminalization; not only should I be able to take heroin if I want but I should be able to take vicodin without a prescription) I can't quite go that far with border control.
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 09:29 PM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And it may not provoke a backlash in California but there are 46 non-border states where people may be a bit more bothered by images of hundreds of thousands of protestors marching through American cities, waving an awful lot of foreign flags (though debates rage on as to an accurate breakdown) saying "we may be here illegally but that's not reason for you to treat us like it."
	Submit to Quotes

03-27-2006, 09:53 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Well never stop murder so we shouldn't try.....we'll never stop child abuse so we shouldn't try....we'll never stop blah, blah, blah. I know prostitution and drugs are victimless crimes (for the most part, speaking in terms of a user, or a woman who truly wishes to be a hooker). However, illegal immigration is far from a victimless crime. One thing that I have found to be so comical is the invocation of the immigrant farmers' hero, Cesar Chavez. Chavez was completely against illegal immigration because he knew anyone working off the books would continue to lower the wages being paid to those who were in the country. I can certainly agree that humanitarian organizations should be exempted from criminal prosecution. Giving food to the hungry and water to the thirsty is one of - if not the highest - calling of Christianity. However, the solution lies not with open borders. It lies not with the under economy. I am disgusted when I read about the Mexican government and their demands when they brutalize Guatemalans who would dare to enter their country looking for a better life. I look at the corruption of the Mexican government and know that the answer is not opening the border. It is reform in Mexico. Mexico is oil rich, has two coastlines ripe for ports and trade, and contains more resort and potential world class resort locations than most anywhere in the world. The better life for Mexican citizens lies not in the long run with coming to America and working for ridiculously low wages that they can send home. That adversely affects low wage earners in America as well. The answer lies in revolution within their own country. Corrupt officials in Mexico know this, and will therefore do anything they can to put pressure on the US to keep the status quo. I fully support a guest worker program. All above the table. But it has to be done with respect to the laws of this country. That was rambling and much longer than I had anticipated it would be.
	Submit to Quotes