home

There Is No Immigrant Crime Wave

I have an op-ed in today's Washington Examiner newspaper reproduced here...There is No Immigrant Crime Wave.

Politicians will do anything to get elected, including using random, unrelated high-profile crimes to mislead the public, generating fear and hysteria.

Using government statistics that show just 4% of our 2.25 million federal and state inmate population are non-citizens and that young foreign-born men are five times less likely to be incarcerated than those born in the U.S, I argue:

Immigration does not breed crime. Our prisons are not overflowing because of crimes by the undocumented. They are overflowing because of our failed criminal justice policies and over reliance on incarceration versus treatment and rehabilitation with respect to our nonviolent homegrown offenders.

There is nothing wrong with having a debate about immigration. But it is deplorable to falsely stereotype and malign millions of law-abiding people because of one’s desire for a particular outcome in that debate.

Hope you'll read the whole thing. It will make the xenophobic anti-immgrants out there see red.

< Hillary's Huge Gaffe | Duke Lacrosse: "Until Proven Innocent" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    About time (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    As a former chef in San Francisco, let me just tell you that undocumented workers are absolutely critical to restaurant work and farm production. In SF, I know so many people who are working 2 or 3 jobs, going to school to learn English or get a degree, sending money back home, and raising families all at the same time.  I'm disgusted by the way Dobbs and his ilk misrepresent what it is to be an undocumented worker here. The people I know are the very lifeblood of America. The people I know have taught me much about perseverance and patience and I for one am glad that they came.

    tbthorpe (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:52:19 PM EST
    let me just tell you that undocumented workers are absolutely critical to restaurant work and farm production.

    Why do you think that we are supposed to enjoy the good life by taking advantage of illegal aliens?

    Pay a decent wage. Increase prices to cover the wage. If some boomers and Xers find that they can't afford to eat out three to four times a week, tough.

    Parent

    Reform means reform (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:54:12 PM EST
    What happens now is due to a broken system, as I said. I call for reform to fix the system. Neither response above acknowledges that. A path to citizenship would be part of what I would consider good policy and any reform on immigration needs to have that. In places I worked everyone in a given position earned according to the same scale, but I always preferred to work in small, family-run places.  It's places like Wal-Mart and their subcontractors that really take advantage of undocumented workers' desperation. Are you advocating for legislation to protect the vulnerable, PPJ, or just engaging in your usual pointless snarkiness?

    Parent
    So if someone wants to live (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:57:51 AM EST
    in your house, they just break in??

    At present there are some 12-14 million illegal aliens in the country. By and large most are good people who obey the laws and just want to improve their lives. So are bad. The vast majority good. They are people. No more or less.

    So what. They are here illegally. That's the very first thing you need to understand. They have absolutely no right to be here.  Whether they commit zero or a million crimes is of no consequence. Plainer. If they were not here, they would commit no crimes here.

    Their presence does several things that harm US citizens. Their presence in the low end of the labor market depresses the price paid for that labor, whether it is busing tables, roofing homes, cleaning yards or picking tomatoes. If they weren't here, the price paid would rise and the jobs would be filled by US citizens, or technological advances would be encouraged to replace them.

    This would bring more money into the lower income levels of our country and produce all of the benefits that increasing the money supply brings.

    It would also increase the prices paid by the consumer. But a cost increase does not translate into linear price increases. But again, so what? Why would anyone think they are entitled to cheap anything? You mention Walmart. I do not think that Walmart knowingly hires illegal aliens. You mention their contractors. Yes, they have, and they may. But, if illegal aleins were not here, they would not be hired.

    Plus, prices increases have a way of working their way through the economy. I have always felt that loose money and a modest inflation is very acceptable. What it means is that people borrow money long term and pay it back using discounted dollars. That's a very good thing. For a graphic example of what happens when the money supply tightens, look at the just over (I hope.) mini-panic in the stock market and home loans.

    The additional problems this huge influx of people causes is easy to understand. When a family of illegal aliens with four children arrive in a town, an immediate burden of approximately $18,000 per year is placed on the tax payer for education costs. ($4,500 per child) And that family, even with both parents working, and even if they pay all taxes, can not cover the cost. In addition we have the stress put on hospital emergency rooms as de facto medical clinics. Multiply those costs by millions of illegal aliens and you can start to see the cost.

    Another hidden cost is the slowing of technological advancements. Tight labor markets always cause innovations.

    Do you remember the pictures of fields in the south filled with poor whites and blacks pulling cotton sacks picking cotton by hand?? They were replaced by cotton picking machines. Why? Because the post WWII economic boom brought jobs, unionized jobs that paid well, and millions of poor people moved off the farm and into the lower middle class with their children becoming doctors, lawyers and other high income occupations.

    The loss of cheap labor forced the farmers to buy equipment developed because a market for the cotton picking machine had been made.

    As to a "solutions" to the existing problem, you start by closing the borders. Period. That does two things.

    1.    It forces other countries to solve their own problems. Mexicans and others are leaving their families and homes because they see no future. These countries have a surplus of people because of their failed system. i.e. When society provides no safety net, the poor have always favored large families. In addition, the religion in the countries providing the majority of the illegal aliens highly discourage birth control.

    2.    It gives us time to develop a rational plan on what to do with the illegal aliens who are here. Amnesty is not an acceptable answer because the American people do no believe that the border will be securded.

    The most viable would be benign neglect with a aggressive policy of deportation when an illegal alien is caught, coupled with very aggressive enforcement of laws punishing business owners who employ them.

    Parent

    I'm having a flash back! (none / 0) (#7)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    To this, which was probably supported by "liberals" in its day.

    As for the article:

    1. I don't entirely trust TL's stats, especially because she's mixing legal immigrants and illegal aliens.

    2. The NJ suspects didn't "fall through the cracks"; their policy was only to ask ICE about someone's status after they were convicted. Their AG - realizing which way the wind is blowing - has changed that policy to ask ICE when they're charged. If that policy had been in place before, those three fellow citizens would most likely still be alive.


    Parent
    System is broken (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    Economically, workers from Mexico and other parts of Latin America are fully integrated into our nation. As Diane Feinstein points out on the floor of the Senate:
    "One is a bill that has been negotiated between farmers and growers and organizations representing farm labor, such as the United Farm Workers, over a substantial period of time.  The reason for this portion of the bill is because agriculture in America is dominantly - perhaps 90 percent - undocumented illegal workers.  The reason it is that way is because American workers will not do the job.  I know that in California because we have tried over the years to get American workers to do these jobs.

    One day I went out to the Salinas Valley, and I watched row crops being picked.  What I saw was the degree to which this is stooped labor - in the hot Sun - but with a skill.  These people bring a skill.  Agriculture workers have a skill:  the way they pick, the way they sort, the way they pack, the way they prune.  If you watch them, you see they go from crop to crop.  They are not American citizens.  They come from other countries.  They are the labor that puts our food on the table in the United States of America" link here.
    It's time for real reform based on our economic reality and enough of the immigrant bashing. We are after all a nation of immigrants.

    Parent

    Nonsense (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    The reason it is that way is because American workers will not do the job.  I know that in California because we have tried over the years to get American workers to do these jobs.

    The reason is that the wages are too low. Plus innovation has been almost stopped.

    Are you aware that a grape picking machine has been developed and is now being sold? About $80,000 each with the various attachments.

    Parent

    Reality is different (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    Machines can't replace workers, though some machines may assist workers and improve productivity. I worked in Sonoma's Valley of the Moon and grapevines grow on hillsides too steep for big machinery. In higher end vineyards picking by hand is necessary to keep quality up. These are facts. In most cases, machines may ease only incrementally the need for labor on farms since, as Feinstein rightly points out, harvesting is a skill.
    As for wages, I would also like to see wages rise. Immigration reform that allows for unionization would be a good place to start. Look what happened when Chavez started the UFW. Immigration reform that acknowledges our mutual dependence and seeks to bring some fairness to the grotesquely uneven distribution of social goods would be a good place to start. Without legislation that involves business, workers, and consumers more and more agriculture will simply move to Latin America. We can do better.


    Parent
    tnthorpe (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    Machines can't replace workers

    No. Cotton pickers were completely replaced by the cotton picking machine. Cotton choppers were replaced completely by chemicals and new methods of planting facilitated by new equipment. Workers whose job was to manually insert electronic components into printed circuit boards were replaced by automatic insertion machines...The "farm worker" was replaced by mechanical farming implements... etc, etc.

    I worked in Sonoma's Valley of the Moon and grapevines grow on hillsides too steep for big machinery

    Then they will build smaller more nimble machines.
    If the economics to do so is not squashed by illegal alien labor.

    In higher end vineyards picking by hand is necessary to keep quality up.

    No. The sorting and grading will be moved inside for a more automated process requiring fewer workers.

    Feinstein rightly points out, harvesting is a skill.

    And a skill that is very easy to learn. If it was not, wages would be much higher.

    As for wages, I would also like to see wages rise.

    Then remove the source of the cheap labor. Close the borders.

    Immigration reform that acknowledges our mutual dependence and seeks to bring some fairness to the grotesquely uneven distribution of social goods would be a good place to start.

    You are calling for open borders.

    I say let's take care of our own, help other countries that deserve it when we can.

    Mexico is the source of most of our problems. Close the border. Stop being a safety valve for a country that will not reform itself.

    Parent

    tnthorpe is correct on the specific issue (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    that there are some (many?) wine grape vineyards that cannot be harvested by machine (at this point). They are too steep and the rows are planted too closely together. And also, machine harvesting of grapes is not exactly viewed as conducive to premier winemaking.

    It is also true that harvesting wine grapes, especially for the higher-end wines, is something that takes quite a bit of expertise and as such the wages for that labor are significantly higher and legal workers significantly more prevalent than in the almond orchards, for example, where the ability to use a rake and shovel are the general work skills needed. (Huge oversimplification, but you get the idea).

    Parent

    So, basically, (none / 0) (#19)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:55:54 PM EST
    Feinstein is supporting the importation of a foreign serf class. Meanwhile, "liberals" might want to read this.

    Parent
    all illegal means (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:23:29 PM EST
    is undocumented. We face the terror of changing a bureaucratic procedure in order to bring some sanity into our transnational farm economy.  Farm workers deserve to be protected from pesticides, abusive working conditions, unscrupulous employers, etc. What we have NOW is a permanent underclass without rights and I would like to see that fact gone yesterday. I quote Feinstein not because I like her legislation particularly or her policies generally, but only to make the case, as does the article you sent, that such workers are absolutely central to farm production. I think we can do better and as the article you provided shows, right now we're doing bad things to hard working people. There are 12 million or so, so-called illegals here now and I support legislation that would put them on a path to citizenship a.s.a.p.

    Parent
    No. They did not obtain the proper (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    documents.

    Illegal: not according to or authorized by law

    Farm workers deserve to be protected from pesticides, abusive working conditions, unscrupulous employers, etc. What we have NOW is a permanent underclass without rights and I would like to see that fact gone yesterday.

    The underclass you call permanent can be easily fixed. Just close the borders.

    The working condition protections you cry for can be easily provided by motivated employers. They will become motivated when they must actively compete for a labor supply that is not being replinished by millions of new illegal aliens each year.

    Remember, insanity is to keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

    Parent

    like I said and you said (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    I say: "all illegal means is undocumented."
    You say: "No, they did not obtain the proper documents."
    I say: "We face the terror of changing a bureaucratic procedure in order to bring some sanity into our transnational farm economy."
    You say: "Illegal: not according to or authorized by law."

    FYI: making immigrants safer here is about changing the law which amounts to bureaucratic procedure, nothing more. How scary!

    Parent

    First of all, (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 10:41:20 AM EST
    we are not speaking of "immigrants."

    We are speaking of "illegal aliens."

    Those who are here legally can esily demand proper treatment.

    Those who are here can not. That leads to problems.

    What you want is for the illegal aliens to be made "legal." I understand that.

    If you made all of those here "legal" and do not close the border, the continual influx of illegals will still provide such a huge amount of labor that the problems won't go away.

    First you must remove the source.

    Parent

    Should (none / 0) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 05:56:50 AM EST
    the illegals be put on a path to citizenship ahead of people that have legally been trying to get into the country for years?  

    Parent
    I've have yet to see a proposal that does (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    put illegals on a path to citizenship AHEAD of people that have legally been trying to get into the country for years. The proposals I have seen usually require them to "go to the back of the line" and add extra hoops to becoming a citizen.

    If that is your only complaint, it doesn't seem to hold up.



    Parent

    They get to stay (none / 0) (#37)
    by Pancho on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    and work IMMEDIATELY, and that is what they want; they don't give a damn about becoming citizens.

    Parent
    I was asking (none / 0) (#45)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 04:49:10 AM EST
    tnthorp that question.  

    Parent
    Once more for the record (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:02:56 AM EST
    Reform immigration law. If you've been here for 5 years or so, haven't broken the law in any substantial way, have worked consistently, then what's the hang up with a resident alien status or a path to citizenship at that point? If the major objection is that you've come here illegally, then that makes you guilty of wanting to improve your and your family's condition. I'm not surprised that people see America as a land of opportunity, and I wish we would rationalize the necessary procedures. Closing the borders isn't rational; it's delusional. Right now the poor get the shaft, traffickers-coyotes- fleece them and somtimes kill them, agribusiness plunders their labor, and the pols stand around wringing their hands and bickering. Both Republicans and Democrats use it as a campaign talking point as the need for reform continues. We can do better.
    I hear all the time from commentators on the right, immigration is going to destroy America--Buchanan, Dobbs preeminently--Islamofascism is going to get us, Al-Quaeda is going to destroy us. Nonsense, not one of those hysterical claims is true. We can deal with the immigration issue, with the challenges from terrorists, because we're tough, resilient, and smart, like any nation of immigrants would be. I just don't see why there is such profound resentment of immigrants but the Irish, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Japanese all had to endure it as well. We might try learning from history instead of repeating it.

    Parent
    Try some logic (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:50:42 AM EST
    You claim:

    Closing the borders isn't rational; it's delusional.

    Then you note:

    Right now the poor get the shaft, traffickers-coyotes- fleece them and somtimes kill them, agribusiness plunders their labor,


    Try to grasp this. If you close the border, the above can not happen because the people will not be here.

    The price of labor and its working conditions is based on the number of people looking for work. As long as we have millions of illegal aliens here, and millions more illegal aliens pouring across the border,the problems you define, and they are real in many cases, will not be fixed.

    Parent

    2 points (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    There's a long tradition of connection, legal, cultural, social, familial between Mexico, Latin America and the US. My family is mostly Latino, from Cosa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico. You can't shut that down. There will be traffic, some of it now is legal and some illegal.

    The market for labor is global. Building a wall between Mexico and the US will not alter that fact. Agribusiness will seek to move to lower wage, lower regulation regions, given the low cost of transport. This is the Jack Welch theory of labor--he would love to put his factories on barges and put them where conditions are most favorable. Recall the Chinese adulteration of products and ask do you want more offshoring of food production. There will be innovation, but it will be in the form of making transport less expensive and damaging to food. Take for example the tomato. It's usually tasteless in supermarkets because it's genetically designed to hold up under the wear and tear of travel. There's lots of research on this, but see a book called Fatal Harvest for some great details. Unless we close the borders to trade as well as immigration, your contention that wages will rise here will generally fail as many though not all farm businesses will simply move. It will be harder to move a dairy than an avocado farm, obviously, but read the label: where is that cheese, that celery, that canteloupe originating? Alternatively, yet more farm subsidies might be doled out by the billion to support higher wages to corporations like ADM, since you know they'll be on Capitol Hill complaining. Closing the border would be another way for conservatives to grow the government.  Long story short, there is no magic bullet such as closing or opening borders for dealing with immigration because the labor pool is global. We need immigration law reform as I have repeatedly said to require businesses here to give a fair shake to farm workers and to enable immigrants to become citizens.

    Parent

    tnthorpe (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:19:14 AM EST
    Nice try, but no one is wanting to "shut down" any relationships. What is being said is: "Shut down the borders. Stop the influx of illegal aliens. Then we will discuss how to solve the problems of 12 to 14 million illegal aliens who are now in the country."

    We need immigration law reform as I have repeatedly said to require businesses here to give a fair shake to farm workers and to enable immigrants to become citizens.

    When you, and people who believe as you do, stop calling illegal alien "immigrants," then the rest of us will start believeing that what you are really calling for is open borders.

    As for your comments re the movement of labor, that is true for some industries, not for others.
    Most of the agriculture imports you now see is based on out of season availability, and command a premium price because of transportation costs.
    Those costs aren't going to go down, so the "local" produce will not be unduly impacted if the cost of labor rises.

    BTW - Parts of my mongrel past are Scott Irish and NA.

    I haven't seen Ireland or England declaring open borders and the Native American part has reminded me to be careful about who we let in.

    ;-)

    Parent

    So... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 05:27:28 PM EST
    would you let anyone that has been here illegally  ahead of someone that has been trying to get in here for several years legally?

    Parent
    That's a tough question (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    Well, short of deporting 12 milliion or so who are illegally here now and starting from scratch, I wonder how not to do that. Yes, then, to your question. If people have been here, been productive, not broken the law in a serious way, have families, then I don't really see an issue with it, beyond its unfairness to those who have played by the rules. I think it's unfair to change the rules on people, but it happens all the time. Laws change. I guess I don't see this as a zero-sum issue. Is there some number of immigrants beyond which we cannot take the strain? I haven't heard of one, but what do experts in the field say?   On the other hand do we allow all 12 million to stay? No, we will be sending people home, but the show raids that are being conducted now are simply political theater that detracts from the necessary business of reform.

    This from the AFL/CIO; link here
    The Southern Poverty Law Center's recent report, Close to Slavery, shows that current guest worker programs allow labor contractors to maintain blacklists of workers who work slowly or demand their rights. Public interest lawyers spend years in court, trying just to get back wages for cheated immigrants. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor almost never decertifies contractors who abuse workers."

    This has to stop and since closed borders are chimerical, let's allow people in who will work, regulate those employ them so that they are not abused,  vastly expand the number of those legally admitted,  and make it plain that illegality will be prosecuted to both employer and immigrant. That's a whole lot to ask for. How would you resolve this?

    Parent

    IF today (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:56:54 PM EST
    all the illegals were made legal and the borders opened would America cease to exist? Would it suddenly be more dangerous if the people who come here to work were treated responsibly by the American government? Right now big business wins because they have the best of both worlds; low wages and no chance of unionization. Immigration laws are easily changed when there's a genuine will to do so. As I keep saying, we need reform because the system is broken. As for who gets citizenship when, that's what Congress is for. Surely there a genuine discussion can resolve our current impasse. Yet, every time serious immigration reform comes close to the floor of the House or Senate, there's a Willie Horton-esque hue and cry. I say enough immigrant bashing and let's get real. How do you propose to both pass legislation that acknowledges the dignity of immigrant labor and the need for cross border security? That's what we should be asking.

    Parent
    tbthorpe (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    Ah, now we understand:

    all the illegals were made legal and the borders opened

    you are an open borders guy..why didn't you just say so??

    would America cease to exist?

    Yes. Yes it would. You see for somegthing to exist, you must be able to define it, and if it has no borders, how can you do that??  

    How do you propose to both pass legislation that acknowledges the dignity of immigrant labor

    Please. You must be kidding. Do you think being poor makes you dignified?? Trust me. I have been there. Being poor makes you poor. Nothing else.

    I got you figured now. The next thing you're gonna do is emote over the honor and dignity of the native peoples...

    I have to ask. Are you a sophmore or junior??

    But to answer your question. You close the borders and all the as*holes living off an endless supply of cheap labor will learn to say please and thank you.

    That's better than "dignity" any day of the week. Not to mention higher wages and better working conditions. That's real dignity.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:25:05 PM EST
    when you lose an argument you can always resort to name calling. While I am young for my age, I'm no sophmore, though your sad comment is sophomoric defined. But I've seen you tell other folk to piss off, and now on top of the bile, you call people you don't know and clearly don't understand a-holes. Your are not and I can see now will likely never be a serious interlocutor. Have a nice day.

    Parent
    tnthorpe (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    Ah yes, I did tell Repack to just leave after he ignored my comment and launched into one of his ad hominem attacks. The use of the vulgar wasn't typical of me as any search of the archives will show...Probably haven't done that more than a very few times in over four years...Did feel good, so I'll have to be sure it doesn't become addictive.

    So don't be scared, I'll try to be nice.

    But to answer your question. You close the borders and all the as*holes living off an endless supply of cheap labor will learn to say please and thank you.

    And yes, I did designate the people you claim to be underpaying and providing unsafe working conditions "as*holes." How else would you describe these people? Do you think they will willingly change? Will the hotels in LA give the maids a $4.00 an hour raise? Will the Nanny's all start working 40 hours? Will Joe Burb quit using landscape services where none of the workers speak English and are picked up at the local home improvement store's parking lot at 6AM? Will the farmers suddenly start paying twice the current wage? Will they provide lunch breaks and company paid insurance??

    Do you understand "cause and effect?"

    Serious interlocutor? Serious? My parents were sharecroppers and we were poor. I totally understand from personal experience the agriculture "experience." I have shopped in the company store and seen its poor quality and sky high prices. I have also seen what a shortage of labor and the establishment of unions will do. Because of that we became part of the "moving on up" generation.

    That's why I asked if you were still in school. I wanted to know if you were getting all of this stuff from a book, or had actually seen any of it up close and personal. And you haven't.

    And don't misunderstand. By calling for amnesty, lax enforcement, etc., you are contributing to the evils you condemn. The only way to stop it is remove the source of the cheap labor. Shut down the border.

    Parent

    enough (none / 0) (#55)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    How about giving the people who work those jobs now the right to unionize? How about the gov't protecting that right? I remember the UFW and its impact, the boycotts, the violence, so please don't tell me what I have and haven't seen. It's been decades of concerted effort by agribusiness and hostile California administrations that's reduced its membership. It was formed when though? Were the borders closed? No, they weren't. You obviously don't read posts closely: I was a chef in Sonoma where they harvest grapes and grow food and raise cattle. I grew up spending summers on relatives' farms. Hard working relatives who employed illegal--because the system let them down not because they're bad--immigrants and treated them well. The middle class business owners who employ undocumented immigrants aren't all of a piece. I've run businesses, but of course you knew that, right, because you've paid attention to the posts? Did you ever consider how expensive it is to train people, to have a consistent labor force that helps build customer confidence? But for you one size fits all, they're all a**holes. Bully for you, you're superior again.  Crossing the border isn't a crime like murder, or is that not clear somehow? It's a bureaucratic hurdle that we've made all but unrealistic because why? Haven't heard a single reason why. All I hear is send 'em back, shut the border down. Yeah, the height of realism there. You are now indulging in rudeness in addition to being a serial fantasist. I can't see why I need to extend you the courtesy of further replies.

    Parent
    What Patience You Have (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 12:51:31 PM EST
    You obviously don't read posts closely
    That is an understatement. PPJ is our wingnut windup toy. His job here is to automatically repeat GOP talking points.  

    Nice comments though. Sounds like you have quite a bit of first hand experience and the compassion that comes with it. Abstract problem solving with no ground level experience is most often a disaster.  Welcome to 'heck of a job' BushCo and its fledgling pack of lapdogs.

    Parent

    Squeaky's SOP (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.


    Parent
    Can't Stop (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    Lying. Can you? Unless, that is, you fancy your self Karl Rove. Sorry to say you are just a lapdog wannabe.

    Parent
    Squeaky's follow up (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:25:35 AM EST
    You wrote it. You also wrote this as a follow up 18 months later:

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had written)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (Squeaky replied) I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.




    Parent
    tnthorpe - Strawmen galore (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    How about giving the people who work those jobs now the right to unionize?

    Define "people who work those..."

    That sounds like cover for illegal aliens..

    As far as I know any US citizen can join a union. And the rights to organize are well protected.

    You obviously don't read posts closely: I was a chef in Sonoma

    Oh, really?


    As a former chef in San Francisco,

    Looks like you can't remember where you worked with any certainty. And yes, I have been to both.

    I grew up spending summers on relatives' farms.

    Let me assure you that farm work continues after the summer visitors go home. That's the difference between those who live there and you.

    -because the system let them down not because they're bad--immigrants and treated them well.

    And treated them well, eh? Well shut my mouth and call me Thoughtful... Why I bet they even gave them some tacos... Have a Saturday party? Let them dance around the sombrero??

    The point was, is and remains. If you want labor to be treated well, shut off the flow of illegal aliens and the market place will do the rest.

    BTW - In case you missed it, being from the South I understand how the landowners took "care of.." the workers. Now your relatives may have treated them wonderfully. However, don't you agree that being dependent in such a manner is an absolute invitation for poor treatment and loss of dignity by the worker??

    BTW - The UFW started forming in the 60's.

    What that has to do with the current problem I have no idea.

    Crossing the border isn't a crime like murder,

    Neither is simple robbery. Think that would be a defense?

    But it is an illegal act.

    Did you ever consider how expensive it is to train people, to have a consistent labor force that helps build customer confidence?

    Having ran a customer service organization for a large size company, yes. Yes I do. And we didn't use our problems as an excuse to break the law.

    And BTW - One more time. The skills involved and used by these illegal aliens aren't that difficult or their wages would be much higher.

    All I hear is send 'em back,

    No. You are hearing challenged:

    As to a "solutions" to the existing problem, you start by closing the borders. Period. That does two things.

    1.    It forces other countries to solve their own problems. Mexicans and others are leaving their families and homes because they see no future. These countries have a surplus of people because of their failed system. i.e. When society provides no safety net, the poor have always favored large families. In addition, the religion in the countries providing the majority of the illegal aliens highly discourage birth control.

    2.    It gives us time to develop a rational plan on what to do with the illegal aliens who are here. Amnesty is not an acceptable answer because the American people do no believe that the border will be securded.

    Close the borders, and then we'll talk.

    As to replying, that is strictly up to you. In fact, I would say if your ideas can't stand up...

    Parent

    blah blah blah (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    You're rude. Done with you I am. You offer spite, no ideas, right wing memes, and distortion. Enough.

    Parent
    That's Our PPj (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    heh (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    I got you on "tape."

    Parent
    Having discovered that (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:29:39 AM EST
    he can't counter my arguments...

    tnthorpe decides disagreements are rude and runs away..

    Parent

    By that logic... (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by roy on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    You see for somegthing to exist, you must be able to define it, and if it has no borders, how can you do that??

    Kansas doesn't exist.

    I drove through Kansas recently.  It seemed to exist.  Close call, I'll admit, but overall more there than not.

    Parent

    Well, as Dorthy said, (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 01:59:52 PM EST
    "This isn't Kansas, Toto..."

    ;-)

    How was the move??

    Parent

    DIgnity (none / 0) (#44)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:57:09 PM EST
    This from Pope John-Paul II,

    And yet, in spite of all this toil-perhaps, in a sense, because of it-work is a good thing for man. Even though it bears the mark of a bonum arduum, in the terminology of Saint Thomas18, this does not take away the fact that, as such, it is a good thing for man. It is not only good in the sense that it is useful or something to enjoy; it is also good as being something worthy, that is to say, something that corresponds to man's dignity, that expresses this dignity and increases it. If one wishes to define more clearly the ethical meaning of work, it is this truth that one must particularly keep in mind. Work is a good thing for man-a good thing for his humanity-because through work man not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfilment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes "more a human being". link here

    Parent

    You need a better exampke. (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    The Catholic Church with its position against effective birth control is part of the problem.

    I repeat:

    That's better than "dignity" any day of the week. Not to mention higher wages and better working conditions. That's real dignity.



    Parent
    tnthrope (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    There are 12 million or so, so-called illegals here now and I support legislation that would put them on a path to citizenship a.s.a.p.
    What problem would that solve?

    I can see that that might be a "reward" for many, but w/citizenship will come an end to their work in the kitchens and fields, because the employers will choose those non-citizens to the work for the wages offered.

    Don't take my word for it, just look at what happened the last time illegal aliens were given citizenship - despite that amnesty, our food is still harvested and cooked by other, non-citizen immigrants.

    Again, what problem will giving them citizenship solve?

    Parent

    Good for you (none / 0) (#1)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    I am going to read it right now.

    CNN (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    CNN has jumped right on this bandwagon.  As a Hispanic it offends me!

    Do the (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    illegals become law abiding after they illegally enter the US?  Additionally, I notice you are mixing legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.  On purpose?  

    Yes actually (none / 0) (#6)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:41:30 PM EST
    in higher numbers than those already here

    Parent
    wow, really? who knew? (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    Politicians will do anything to get elected, including using random, unrelated high-profile crimes to mislead the public, generating fear and hysteria.

    jeralyn, let me clue you in: it's been going on since, oh, i don't know, 1781 maybe? does the name "alien and sedition act" ring a bell? and that's just in this country. throughout history, politicians have successfully used fear of the "other" to maintain power over the ignorant rabble.

    wile, wile, wile! shame on you boy, i gave you more credit than that. don't move that strawman too close to the fire, next thing you know, "poof!", up in smoke! really, i kid you not.


    point (none / 0) (#12)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    out the strawman, please.

    Parent
    The strawman is not of your creation; (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    it is the notion that there is a war on immigrants. They have no case against deporting violent felons so they are intentionally distorting the argument by lumping in legal immigrants.

    Can you imagine making such a glaring logical error in a courtroom? Jeralyn knows she could never get away with it, but she does it here regularly.

    Parent

    Very good (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:59:25 PM EST
    I agree.  

    Parent
    You are intentionally missing the point; (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:26:30 PM EST
    when an illegal immigrant commits a crime, such as raping a 5 year old, they should not be freed on bail, and they should be deported after serving their sentence.  I don't care how they compare to citizens, because citizens cannot be deported.

    In my state, an undocumented immigrant who (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    is convicted of a felony is asked upon arrival at state prison if he/she would prefer to serve the sentence in country of citizenship. Answer re Mexico is always no. Upon release, the immigrant is deported. Hence, no parole. Immigrant returns but w/o parole supervision. Not a good plan.

    Parent
    Are you really suggesting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    that parole supervision is more effective than deportation? Why would they comply with any of the rules of parole?  What are the consequences of non-compliance? Prison? Ok, so what are the consequences for a deported felon who re-enters?

    Parent
    Just commenting. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    Yes, the deported felon frequently returns. Not sure if the state has the right to impose parole and also deport, but if that was possible, the procedures to deal with the returnee are simpler and frequently there is an additional time in state prison custody solely based on violation of parole.

    Parent
    OK, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    but couldn't the terms of the parole include a stipulation that the parolee not enter this country?

    Parent
    I have asked this question (none / 0) (#10)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    a hundred times of various people and have never received a response:

    Why do you insist on dropping ILLEGAL from your description of ILLEGAL immigrants?

    Also:

    If you are against deporting any illegal immigrants, will you then acknowledge that you are in favor of open borders?

    Nowhere has she called for open borders (none / 0) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    what she has said is stop demonizing immigrants. Here is something else she wrote that you missed.

    There is nothing wrong with having a debate about immigration. But it is deplorable to falsely stereotype and malign millions of law-abiding people because of one's desire for a particular outcome in that debate.



    Parent

    I'll try again- (none / 0) (#20)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    What is the difference between letting any and all who enter to remain, and open borders?

    Parent
    Why don't you try reading instead? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    Where does she say she favors:

    letting any and all who enter to remain
    ?

    Its not in this post and its not in that article.

    I gave you a direct quote from this post and her article

    There is nothing wrong with having a debate about immigration. But it is deplorable to falsely stereotype and malign millions of law-abiding people because of one's desire for a particular outcome in that debate.

    How do you reconcile her actual words with those you wish to put in her mouth?



    Parent

    She has posted numerous topics dealing with (none / 0) (#22)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    immigration and has consistently opposed deporting illegal immigrants.

    Parent
    I'll take that as a statement that you cannot (none / 0) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    I've never seen JM call for open borders. I have seen others, possible, accuse her of it.



    Parent

    No, of course (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:42:55 PM EST
    no leftist will ever admit to being for open borders, but if all of their actions and words are in line with open borders, the conclusion is obvious.

    How do Jeralyn's views on immigration differ from open borders?

    How about you?

    Parent

    No rightwinger will ever admit (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    that their immigrant bashing is just an election scam, because they are running out of "others" to scagegoat and campaign against.



    Parent

    Molly is selective (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    I would (none / 0) (#13)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    love to see a link to the stats you use.

    Links to the Stats Used (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:13:15 AM EST
    Here are the stats used in the Examiner op-ed:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics Report: Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006

    See in particular, page 18 and the chart Appendix Table 6: Number of noncitizens held in State or federal prisons, by state and gender, June 2006 and June 2005.

    The 2.25 million figure is also in their press release for the report here.

    Also see the report for 2005 showing the difference between 2005 and 2004, in particular, page 5, right hand column (chart at top and bottom)

    Immigration Policy Report showing 2000 Census Bureau stats on low incidence of foreign born men in prison written up here.

    "The incarceration rate of U.S.- born men 18 to 39 years old in 2000 was 3.5 percent -- five times higher than the incarceration rate of their immigrant counterparts, the study found.
    The report -- which analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau, police records and other sources -- also shows that a large increase in illegal immigrants has not resulted in a rise in crime. Since 1994, violent crime in the United States has declined 34 percent, and property crime has fallen 26 percent. At the same time, the illegal immigrant population has doubled to around 12 million. "

    Also see this article from 2/07 charting numbers from study

    Violent and property crime stats for past decade (decline subsustantially)

    2000 Census stats analyzed

    See section, "Immigrants Have Lower Incarceration Rates Than Natives"

    See in particular, charts 3 and 4

    Footnote 23 says:

    Data from the 5% Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) of the 2000 Census are here used to measure the institutionalization rates of immigrants and natives, focusing on males 18 to 39, among whom the vast majority of the institutionalized are in correctional facilities. For a description of the methodology used to produce estimates of the incarcerated population from census data, see Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl, Recent Immigrants: Unexpected Implications for Crime and Incarceration (Working Paper 6067). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, June 1997.

    The 2000 Census report is here

    Yearbook of INS Statistics

    On the number of those who enter with visas vs. illegally, citing the INS Statistical Yearbook, see here, go to number 8.

    I think these are all the stats in the oped. Also see, Indianopolis Star Editorial, 7/27/07, "Illegal doesn't make them criminal" citing many stats.


    Parent

    Thanks for the info! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    Just a couple nits:
    Crime is the result of myriad conditions, from poverty to drug and alcohol abuse to a variety of other factors. Immigration is not one of them.

     I agree, but how about illegal immigration?  Is that not a crime in your book?  

    T

    here is nothing wrong with having a debate about immigration. But it is deplorable to falsely stereotype and malign millions of law-abiding people because of one's desire for a particular outcome in that debate.

    aren't you doing that when you write:

    It will make the xenophobic anti-immgrants out there see red.

    When you know that it is about illegal immigration. Not immigration.

    Parent

    of course (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:31:04 PM EST
    I will post them tomorrow night when get back home to where they are sitting on my desk. (I'm in the mountains now.) I spent hours researching the op-ed. The format of the newspaper oped doesn't allow much linking, so I could only include one. I will provide the remainder (which you can also find on your own since I did name the sources for them) here when I get back either Sat. night or Sun. morning at the latest.

    Parent
    All of this begs the question (none / 0) (#41)
    by diogenes on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    The question is really whether local police departments should report immigration status of those who have been arrested to the INS, not "demonization" of immigrants as a whole.

    Under restricted conditions a county jail (none / 0) (#65)
    by JSN on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:41:37 PM EST
    can be reimbursed by the Federal if they hold a foreign national in their jail. My recollection is that the charge has to be a felony and there may be other restrictions. In order to get the money the jail has to provide the feds with a list of everyone held in the jail with their country of birth and other data.

    The feds get the information they need to determine the immigration status of anyone who was jailed because most jails need the money. A lot of people are admitted to jail each year so the feds have a big data base to mine.

    Parent

    Feds seldom pay up (none / 0) (#73)
    by katmandu on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
    I'm in Arizona, and our gov Napolitano has been
    trying to get the feds to pay up for the past
    four years.  She estimates Arizona is over a
    billion in the hole each year due to illegal
    immigration costs.  Over 30% of our prison
    population in illegal alien.  
    We have a huge problem with illegal crime, from
    hit and run to home invasions to cop killing.
    Our news stations announce the immigration status
    of criminals.  
    However, these stats do not reflect LEGAL
    immigrants and in no way should be considered
    when discussing immigration in general.
    Also, when viewing these stats, it must remembered
    that Arizona at this time is about 10% illegal
    in population.