<p>^^^Eloquent.</p>
<p>Well, depending on your definition, I guess I DON’T AGREE with it. Then again, I am not a big fan of the UN anyway. I don’t define it as you do. I don’t believe that “Illegal Immigrants” were being considered when they wrote it in reference to local country laws. But we are allowed to disagree. </p>
<p>I have no problem providing rights that deal with a person’s health and life. I don’t however feel that country laws apply to illegals. Or any non citizen. I.e. Germany’s civil laws and rights don’t apply to me being in the USA. I don’t interpret the UN decree as automatically including illegal individuals. </p>
<p>Again, laws are based on legal occupation. Citizens, tourists, visa’s, etc… When I’m visiting Germany, their laws and rights apply. Me in the USA, Germany doesn’t apply. For all intent and purpose, illegal immigrants DON’T EXIST. I don’t believe they wrote such a “Bill of rights” with people that don’t technically exist in mind. Just like diplomatic immunity doesn’t force local laws on certain dignitaries. And for what it’s worth, criminal’s rights are most definitely curbed when they are arrested. I.e. Liberty is reduced. Right to vote for fellons. etc… We disagree and that’s fine.</p>
<p>Christcorp,</p>
<p>You are entitled to disagree with the UN (and with me) as to what constitutes human rights. US Ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick also disagreed with the DHR, calling it “a letter to Santa Claus” (although she was not refering to every clause, just to the sections that prescribe economic rights, such as free education.)</p>
<p>I’m just trying to understand how YOU define HUMAN rights. So far I think it is as follows:</p>
<p>Human rights:
- Life, including emergency medical care.
- Safety from physical harm.
- Liberty (but only if your presence in the country is legal.)</p>
<p>Legal rights:
- Private property.
- Everything else, including in particular protection by the law from harm by others (even in the case of threats to your human rights.)</p>
<p>I disagree with the above distinction between human and legal rights on (at least) the following grounds:</p>
<p>1) Rights are meaningless without a legal framework to enforce them. If it is illegal to rape illegal immigrants, but they cannot call the police when raped, they have no effective rights against rape.</p>
<p>2) In my mind, private property is a basic human right, righ after life, liberty and safety from physical harm. For a mental exercise, try picturing a group of refugees fleeing from war, famine, persecution or whatever. I am sure you see groups of people carrying bundles of their worldly possessions.</p>
<p>My minimum list of human rights:</p>
<p>Human rights:
- Life, including emergency medical care.
- Safety from physical harm.
- Liberty.
- Private property.
- Protection by the law from threats to your rights by others.</p>
<p>Not Human Rights:
Everything else, including the right to education or the right to live in a country other than your own.</p>
<p>The only one that you misunderstood with me was the one about physical safety. I include that with life. If you are harmed by another person, they should be prosecuted. Of course, that’s a catch-22. If you report the perpetrator, they indeed should be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, sentenced. However, the catch is for the illegal to report it, they are then deported. So, chances are they won’t report it. That however is the way it is now.</p>
<p>The same applies to health, medical, life, etc… I am all for ensuring that the individual is not harmed, is helped if sick or injured, etc… However, once the care has been given, and they are found to be an illegal immigrant, they are then deported. The difference currently however is that the cops, hospital, etc… can’t ask or investigate whether the person is here illegally or not. </p>
<p>So, in theory, once an illegal enters the country, they can’t get deported unless a “Business” is known to have illegal workers and is raided. But on an individual basis, no one is allowed to ask. When a parent registers their kid; and they don’t have a social security card, you can’t investigate if they are illegal. If they come in for medical attention, and they don’t have a driver’s license, ssn card, birth certificate, or some form of ID; as well as no insurance, you can’t investigate if they “Might” be illegal.</p>
<p>But that is the problem. So, in theory, until that changes, the bleeding hearts win. Illegal immigrants get pretty much all the same rights and benefits that every legal citizen gets. But I am not for harming, killing, not assisting, etc… illegal immigrants. But if we find out they are illegal, then they are on the first bus out of the country.</p>
<p>
I don’t think we really have to wonder. We could take a look at what happened back in 1986. We had three million illegal immigrants then, I think. We thought it impossible to send them back to Mexico, so we granted them amnesty with the idea of more virulently policing the borders from then onward. Of course there was no real will to police the borders because employers still wanted the cheap labor. Now we have over twelve million illegal immigrants and no more will or ability to police the border than existed back in ’86. This means that during the next amnesty debate we will be talking about granting or not granting amnesty for forty-eight million illegal immigrants. [It</a> seems to me that if we want the sort of low prices we enjoy currently](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4846400&postcount=129]It”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4846400&postcount=129), we need a perpetual flow of labor from suppressed peoples, whether from Mexico, China, or somewhere else. If people gain rights, then wages must increase, which means prices will increase.</p>
<p>To Christcorp:
Your quote"</p>
<p>Here’s a suggestion. Every time we find an illegal immigrant, we ship their sorry butt off to Iraq, Afgan, etc… in place of one of our soldiers. You give them 24 months over there. If they can survive, they come back and have earned their citizenship. If they die, oh well</p>
<p>The irony of you having Christ in your name is priceless.</p>
<p>Kluge–our unemployment rate is near the structural level and in most areas there are not enough willing workers to do the illegals jobs at twice the pay. It is not just the rich who benefit, it is virtually everyone in society. I go to Fatburger and everyone working there is speaking Spanish. So legalize the non criminals, ship back the others and let’s move on. Continue to allow a reasonable number to migrate here–maybe 500,000 /yr.</p>
<p>^^^^ So there you go, Christcorp. That’s why we have “illegals” here. People like Barrons want them. Are you ready to stop dehumanizing the workers yet?</p>
<p>No Kluge, I’m not. We can’t have what’s convenient. If we accept illegal aliens in our country and look the other way because they do jobs that can’t be filled, then there is no sense whatsoever in having borders. Might as well just open up the borders, no customs at Air Ports, no immigration department. Then, as you let all the people in that want to, you get rid of all income/property/etc… taxes and just go with a sales tax on all items. Needed so you can fund the medical, educational, housing, etc… needs of all the people. That is the only way such tolerance can be done.</p>
<p>Of course, then there’s the whole security issue to. But we shouldn’t worry about that either. We know there are no terrorists. We know that the entire world just wants to be our friend. All this evil was just created by George Bush. After all, even if there are terrorists, they have rights too. Matter of fact, we shouldn’t even call them terrorists. They could sue us for slander. We’ll just call them “Socially Challenged”. It will make them feel better.</p>
<p>Sorry for the sarcasm, but people can’t have it both ways. Either illegal immigrants are wrong and need to be found out and deported; or there is no sense on having any type of border, customs, security, etc… Law abiding people don’t even need laws normally. They do whats right because they understand and appreciate right and wrong. Criminals break laws. Illegal immigrants are criminals. </p>
<p>So, how should it be? We do a better job at controlling our borders; reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country; better secure our country; and take care of our citizens first. OR, we don’t have borders; we allow anyone to come in anytime they want; they bring with them whatever they want; etc… Sorry, but that’s really the only 2 choices.</p>
<p>Maren: It’s called sarcasm. The real irony is that you obviously don’t know what the hell you are talking about, but wanted to see your speech in print. That’s about all the rebuttal that your comment is worth.</p>
<p>P.S. It wouldn’t matter if you let 5000, 50000, or 500000 migrate legally each year. There would still be the illegals. Those are the ones no one seems to want to stop. Once we stop them, then we can talk about the LEGAL ones.</p>
<p>
A false dichotomy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone in Victorian times observed, something to the effect of, “The law, with fine impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.”<br>
The Soviet Union had lots of laws, many of which were neither right nor coherent policy. Laws are made to serve man, not vice-versa. And “illegal” does not of necessity mean “wrong,” nor does “legal” have anything to do with “right,” “moral,” or “coherent.” And I’ll be damned if I’ll ask anyone, in the ordinary course of daily events, what their immigration status is as long as they’re not causing any other trouble.</p>
<p>Economically, as several communities that tried to enact punitive laws, such as making landlords responsible for determining immigration status of tenants (why don’t we have neighborhood block security reps…it worked so well in Maoist China) found out, there are jobs that they just can’t get locals to do, even at increased pay. Serves 'em (the communities) right that they had to reverse their ordinances.</p>
<p>
No, just some of it, but he sure has done a good job of distributinge even more of it. Of course, it helps when you’ve got a Svengali like Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location helping you.</p>
<p>
It seems to me it does not matter that Fatburger has to pay workers twice the pay. The economy has to shift in some way to balance itself. Consumers will make enough money to afford to eat at Fatburger, or Fatburger will increase its efficiency, or Fatburger will have to go out of business. These realities are going to present themselves to Fatburger eventually anyway, when the illegal workers are made legal. Those workers are going to then get all the benefits, increased salaries, and everything else—which means their salaries will rise. Then what will Fatburger do? It will do what any business does, adapt or perish.</p>
<p>I do not think this argument works as a defense of illegal immigration, UNLESS we wish to claim we need a constant flow of illegal workers that employers can suppress, which allows employers to pay consistently lower wages than they would pay to legal workers – which would allow them to charge lower prices for their goods. If we wish to claim this, then I think we would be correct. Otherwise, the moment we legalize the workers, the fun ends. Am I making sense, or do I miss something here?</p>
<p>The Fatburger workers will not likely get any different pay than they do now just because the SS# is now real. Perhaps some firms underpay but many pay well above minimum wage. Around Seattle you have to pay $10 an hour to get kind of physical labor done. Even the guys who hand around Home Depot won’t take less than that.</p>
<p>We have a need for lower skilled workers that is obvious. Teenagers for the most part don’t want the work anymore. Druggies and criminals tend to be unreliable workers. Anyone running a small business such as a restaurant or construction will tell you they prefer hiring certain groups because they work better and it has nothing to do with taking advantage of them. Most employers are happy to pay people who will work.</p>
<p>"We have a need for lower skilled workers that is obvious. Teenagers for the most part don’t want the work anymore. "</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree with you on this Barrons. This may be a geographic thing, but teenagers in NYC are desperate for work, particularly black males. When the City has summer job fairs, the demand is overwhelming. I also respectfully submit that, at least here, illegals really are pushing kids out of those entry level jobs. This is not agricultural work and I won’t presume to speak for the rest of the country, but this is the case here and it IS a problem and it IS causing some hostility.</p>
<p>And for all those who think all these illegal immigrants crossing the border are just hard working people trying to better their lives; here’s a couple of stats:</p>
<p>“The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.”</p>
<p>The Federation for American Immigration Reform also turned to the Justice Department to get statistics on criminal aliens. They report:</p>
<p>"In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones [including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings]. </p>
<p>“In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens [who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges].”</p>
<p>Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics - but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.</p>
<p>“An extremely large proportion of gangs, gang violencence, organized crime, etc… in California and other states is highly attributed to illegals”.</p>
<p>As to the “hard-working” claim, CIS notes: “The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3 percent for native households.”</p>
<p>These stats were compiled last year and don’t really include 2004-2007. The numbers haven’t gotten better. Sorry, but there is nothing good coming from illegal immigrants. It costs less to not have them here than it would for the increase in goods and services by paying legal residents at a higher rate. It would be lower unemployment; higher tax base; higher security; lower criminal activity; etc…</p>
<p>As far as teen jobs go- I can’t address NYC specifically- but I would think that employers will hire those who are good workers. Who show up on time- who do their job- if they deal with the public can communicate well & dress appropriately and use appropriate language.</p>
<p>I can’t see an advantage to hiring immigrants who may not be here legally if paid the same wage- you are risking legal issues-fines. etc.
If they deal at all with public, they may not have strong English skills.</p>
<p>Some teens however are very casual about their job performance. They don’t plan on working more than a couple months to get money for an xbox or some clothes and it shows in their attitude.
Workers who need the job to support their family, who plan on building skills and responsiblity towards a better position have more of an attitude that businesses are looking for.
It is very expensive and time consuming to retrain workers every few months-if you can show that you are committed and will stay, even as a reoccuring seasonal worker- you have a better chance to be hired.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_3_a1.html[/url]”>http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_3_a1.html</a></p>
<p>
Considering that latinos - legal and otherwise - only constitute 37% of California’s prison population, that’s a pretty impressive “estimate.” </p>
<p>“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” - you got’em all.</p>
<p>Perhaps in NYC, but where the money is, in the suburbs in most areas, kids don’t work anymore–at least not in “undesirable” jobs which is anything outside a mall. There have been many news stories about this trend.</p>
<p>The Immigration issue is great. It has all the Republicans fighting each other like the rabid dogs they are. It’s like the fall of the Roman Empire except this empire was neither grand nor worth ****.</p>
<p>So many stats, so little explanation of what they mean, trends, etc. So so meaningless without a context.</p>
<p>There may be however many illegal immigrants in jail, but what’s the per capita crime rate? That’s far more meaningful than gross numbers.</p>
<p>" can’t see an advantage to hiring immigrants who may not be here legally if paid the same wage- you are risking legal issues-fines. etc.
If they deal at all with public, they may not have strong English skills."
That’s exactly the point. The wages are not the same.</p>