home

New Immigrant Detention Report

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:40:09 AM EST
Tags: immigrant rights (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Amnesty International has released a new report , Jailed Without Justice (available here, pdf). Via Reuters:

On an average day, the rights group said, more than 30,000 immigrants are in detention facilities. That's triple the number that were in custody a decade ago, according to Amnesty's report "Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA."

"America should be outraged by the scale of human rights abuses occurring within its own borders," said Larry Cox, director of Amnesty International USA.

< Weds. Morning Open Thread | New Study: Providing Incentives to Snitches Increases False Information >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Immigrant Detention Report | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    fair enough squeaky, (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    And by the way no human is illegal, even if they are Mexican as you would have it.

    but the actions putting them here were illegal. semantics is merely another, higher class sounding way, of losing the war.

    so, where are the other (estimated) 11,970,000 illegally here immigrants? 30k is .25% of the total estimated in the country. a % so small, it doesn't even register on the scope. clearly, those in charge of locating and securing these people aren't doing a very good job of it.

    in fairness, it's way beyond their available resources. perhaps it's time, not unlike the "war on drugs", to re-think our approach.

    Not Semantics (3.50 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    Many of the persons the right blasts as being illegal entered this country legally and then overstayed their visas. Their initial entry was lawful. Staying past the expiration date on their visa is not a crime.

    (Note: That's why the term "illegal immigrant" is a misnomer and "undocumented resident" is the correct term.)

    Jeralyn

    Parent

    I dunno (3.00 / 0) (#8)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 04:04:18 PM EST
    But that's just semantics.  They didn't come in the correct way and are flaunting the system.  National borders havent suddenly become optional.

    I understand that an unholy alliance of white liberal guilt and corporate interests are going to see increasing numbers of both illegal and legal immigration in the country but can't we at least pretend that "undocumented residents" bear some responsibility?

    Ive been an illegal alien/undocumented worker before and I knew I was wrong.  I wouldnt take kindly to activists portraying me as some kind headcase who didnt understand what a border was. I think it's insulting to mother grown men who know they are doing it incorrectly.

    Parent

    Well (2.33 / 3) (#9)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    Join the right wing then, perhaps they can help you assuage your mother grown manly yet guilty criminal mind. Perhaps you can be a commie hunter, ooops I mean a mexican hunter. I hear that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is hiring.  

    Parent
    um, no (none / 0) (#10)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 04:23:37 PM EST
    I'm not a right winger, I just dont agree with you.  Some balance might be in order.

    Ive been an illegal worker in several countries and wouldnt appreciate people acting as if I didnt know any better.  Ive been sweated by angry immigration officers before and avoided a holding pen by the hair on my chinny chin chin.  

    It never occured to me that I was being unfairly treated while I was being yelled at.  I knew I was wrong and knew they couldve caught me at any time.   If there was an expatriate community of Americans in those countries arguing that I should get special treatment, I would have laughed.

    Parent

    Not Calling You A Right Winger (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    But I am suggesting that you can get more sympathy over at red state et al, for your pegging people as illegals. IOW, your guilty conscience, and ensuing reactionary view, is not going to get massaged here.

    Parent
    hmm (none / 0) (#12)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 04:52:07 PM EST
    I don't understand your post.  I see words though.

    Parent
    As I Said (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    Try some other blogs, their commenters/bloggers words may be more comprehensible. Newsmax, for example agrees with you, there are many more blogs that share your view, just so happens that they are right wing.

    Parent
    ah (none / 0) (#16)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    Oh, wait, I see. Your argument is that you are angry that I dont agree with you.  Ok.


    Parent
    Angry? (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:37:16 PM EST
    Hardly. I am trying to help you get among friends who also believe people should be called illegal. The fact that you do not understand why no person should be called illegal, and that you do you understand my comments clearly indicates that there are better places for you to discuss your guilty conscience, and feelings about immigrants.

    Parent
    hmm (4.00 / 0) (#19)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:57:33 PM EST
    Well, by your own argument some of them are illegal.   Your argument was that some are not entering illegally as they are just overstaying their visa.  Here you suggest that illegal immigrant is never accurate so youve blurred the lines to remove a definition you dont like without establishing your case in each particular.

    If you simply dont like the term and find it dehumanizing, you should have made that argument rather than argue that it is wholly inaccurate in all cases.

    Just trying to help.

    As for my point, it was simply that you shouldnt treat grown men as children.  They know full well about the established laws and rules.  You dehumanize them by suggesting they are mentally or socially defective and thus incapable of self-determination.  They know as I knew. No different.

    Parent

    No (3.50 / 2) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 06:04:26 PM EST
    Labeling someone as an illegal is dehumanizing. No person is illegal. To suggest that this argument infantilizes immigrants is absurd.

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 06:20:03 PM EST
    Going by your own stats the majority of undocumented workers entered the country illegally.

    So what term do you prefer for them?  Unlawful Tourist?  Unlawful Friend?  Unlawful but well meaning visitors?  Really Lost but friendly people?  If you call them that, it will be RLBFP in a week and carry the same stigma because the underlying reality that many people find offensive hasnt really changed.

    At what point does the language lose all meaning in the interest of not offending people who have broken the law?  Do we need to change the term "felon" as well for fear of insulting our prisoners? Is ex-con disrespectful? Should we make up a new word?  It will have the same meaning in time.

    Parent

    My Stats? (3.00 / 2) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:27:44 PM EST
    You are FOS. Every time I cross the street when there is a red light, I am breaking the law. Does that make me an illegal. Every time I take a toke, does that make me an illegal.

    Your whole premise is a right wing framework. People are not illegal and never will be.

    Parent

    Keep it secret from the truck drivers, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:32:45 PM EST
    power forwards and foot doctors that they're  being dehumanized.

    Because, of course, no human is a truck, a power or a foot.

    Parent

    well (4.00 / 0) (#26)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:54:02 PM EST
    It makes you a jaywalker rather than an illegal immigrant. Those are the conventional terms.  

    If you rebrand pedophiles as "national heroes", people dont actually give them medals.  The underlying contempt for their action is simply transferred to the new term.

    What you seem to want is to remove the stigma of illegally entering another country by playing games with names.  It's Orwellian in my opinion.

    You can't just go to Britain, call yourself "undocumented" and demand some kind of special status.  They call the shots. That's why they have a government.

    Parent

    Didn't just (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:22:16 PM EST
    have a reactionary view up just a post ago?

    Parent
    con yankee, do you also (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by WS on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:45:23 PM EST
    use the term "welfare queen" or "feminazi" because they're in the same right wing dehumanization dictionary.  If you don't think undocumented people should get a path to citizenship (even though you're wrong), that's fine but stop using right wing talking points.  It's insulting to people's intelligence.    

    Parent
    eh? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:03:50 AM EST
    The term illegal immmigration is international in nature.  It wasnt coined or trademarked by american right wing media to my knowledge.

    Google up british or international papers using the term to describe any number of scenarios. Situations that have nothing to do with hispanics or mexico.

    The BBC uses it quite often.  

    Parent

    Nice try (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 08:11:10 AM EST
    but your derogatory language towards undocumented people would make a right winger proud.  

    Most people want responsible comprehensive immigration reform to fix the broken immigration system with only the extreme right wing who froths at the mouth on this issue.          

    Parent

    sure (3.00 / 0) (#29)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:16:42 AM EST
    But unlike you I made a coherent argument.  

    My language was not derogatory, my points werent even about illegal immigrants.  My points were about those who profess to be concerned for them and yet infantilize them.

    I said that I have also been an illegal immigrant and that they were the same as me.  You are reading with a filter because you are a partisan net warrior who skims through looking for someone to attack based on certain keywords you find.

    All youve done is miss the point.

    Parent

    That is your main issue, con yankee (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    Not everyone thinks or acts like you, and your many assumptions about people is need of major revision and introspection.  

    How could you even write an inane sentence like this,

    I said that I have also been an illegal immigrant and that they were the same as me.

    And you know this to be true, how?  There's 12 million undocumented men, women, and children by the way.  
     

    Parent

    well (4.00 / 1) (#37)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:34:05 PM EST
    First of all, you could try sticking to the issue rather than filling your evey post with a diagnosis of my political and or mental state.

    Secondly, Ive already clafified that.  I was referencing my earlier statement that we (the adults) are the same in that we understand we are circumventing the laws and regulations.  You shouldnt view them as helpless billiard balls who respond only to stimulus from the north and have no awareness that a border exists.  it's insulting in my opinion.

    I dont really know what your argument is because you havent made one beyond saying I'm either a right-winger or just wrong.  I don't see much to comment on.

    Parent

    Such a long comment (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    for someone who says there's not much to comment on.

    Also, read back on your previous comments before you accuse of reading into people's mental state.  

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#43)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    Ok, on topic here is he president of Mexico stating that stopping central american illegal migrants ia a high priority:

    """"On our southern border, we are very active in patrolling, in construction of [immigration] stations, to stop the illegal migrants that enter Mexican territory and return them to their country, always with full respect for their human rights."""" --vincente fox, 2006

    """""En la frontera sur estamos muy activos en el patrullaje, en construcción de estaciones para detener a los migrantes ilegales que entran a territorio mexicano y regresarlos a su país, siempre con el pleno respeto a los derechos humanos",""""

    How dare he refer to Guatamalans as illegal migrants. lol.  What a racist!


    Parent

    President Obama (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:51:01 PM EST
    will attempt immigration reform in the coming months and rhetoric that trivializes and dehumanizes people does not help the cause especially when the right wing uses these words with such relish.

    Comprehensive immigration reform is designed to fix the broken immigration system through stabilizing security measures, streamlining family and employment immigration, and giving earned legalization to undocumented immigrants.  Undocumented immigration is a civil offense, not a criminal one, and the punishment and rehabilitation of the offender should fit the offense including but not limiting to paying back taxes, paying restitution, and going to the back of the line.

    I hope you are with the President on this issue.      

    Parent

    ah (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    That's not true.

    It is a crime to enter the country without authorization.  It's title 8 of the US criminal code. MOre often than not they just deport you on a civil charge.  But if you repeat you can be charged with a felony.   There are two seperate issues, the entering and the residing. Different rules govern each.

    In mexico, it's a straight up felony but they normally just deport instead.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, an actual lawyer, (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    disagrees and says:

    Talk Left: Guiliani: Illegal Immigration is Not a Crime

    Rudy's right, it's a civil offense, not a criminal violation, to be in this country without proper documentation.

    You are right that if you enter this country a second time after deportation, it becomes a felony, but the vast majority of undocumented immigrations are residing here in an undocumented fashion and need to be punished and rehabilitated through earned legalization fitting a civil violation offense.  

    Parent

    but.. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:02:51 PM EST
    YOu need to read that carefully.  It doesnt say what you think.

    If you read my comments carefully youll see that I'm correct.  There are two issues: entering and residing. Jeralyn is just addressing residing.

    Entering illegally is most certainly a crime.  It only takes a few seconds to google it.

    Parent

    Yes (3.50 / 2) (#48)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    Entering illegally makes you guilty of a crime, not illegal.

    Parent
    Certainly, (none / 0) (#50)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    a certain subset of the undocumented population entered the US without authorization and guilty of a low level federal misdemeanor, which is why they and visa overstayers are charged in civil court.  Speaking of visa overstayers, they are the other subset of the undocumented population who entered the country lawfully but overstayed their appointed stays inside the United States.

    To put it into context speeding is also a crime so just saying something is a crime doesn't merit draconian punishments like the right is advocating.  

    That's why we should be careful with words because saying things like illegal unfairly tars people and doesn't help to solve the problem.  

    Comprehensive immigration reform needs to punish and rehabilitate undocumented people in keeping with their offense.    

    Parent

    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    Title 8 seems to only mention civil penalties.
    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1325Prev | Next § 1325.
    Improper entry by alien

    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

    Any alien who
    (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
    (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
    (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
    Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of--

    (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
    (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

    Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.



    Parent
    I think unauthorized entry into the US (4.00 / 1) (#52)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:57:21 PM EST
    ,e.g. crossing the border, is considered a crime, but it's a low level crime like speeding, which is why it has civil penalties.  

    I'm not a lawyer though.  Immigration law is certainly complex, but we need to keep in mind that punishment and rehabilitation of undocumented immigrants needs to be appropriate.  That's what CIR will provide.          

    Parent

    both (none / 0) (#51)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:53:54 PM EST
    for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

      those are criminal penalties for the first offense.

      The civil aspect refers to possible civil fines for those who are apprehended while entering, and are in addition to any criminal penalties which might be applicable.

    I

    Parent

    OK. Not sure what difference it makes anyway. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:03:49 PM EST
    Exceeding the speed limit is illegal regardless of whether it's a civil or criminal offense.

    I'm often an illegal speeder, despite the dogmatic insistence by some that no person can be illegal...

    Parent

    Illegal Speeder (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    Is a pleonasm. Absurd construction that is never used except to defend calling a human being who happens to be Hispanic and an immigrant, illegal.

    Parent
    Agreed, no one (none / 0) (#58)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:21:46 PM EST
    uses the term "illegal speeder."  That's actually the first time I've heard of such a term and probably the last.  

    Parent
    Oy. No sense of humor at all. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:28:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Gesundheit. (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:22:46 PM EST


    Parent
    hm (none / 0) (#53)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:58:59 PM EST
    Well, I'm not a laywer but that part about incarceration doesnt sound like a civil penalty to me.

    At some point you get hooked up with a felony for repeat violations.

    Reading a bit on google shows that "illegal alien" is used in US law rather than "illegal immigrant".  

    Parent

    This needs to be corrected (4.00 / 1) (#56)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:12:19 PM EST
    At some point you get hooked up with a felony for repeat violations.

    The vast majority of undocumented immigrants who are here don't leave, don't get caught, and are rooted inside the United States.  There will always be exceptions who do re-enter the US after deportation, and they need to be punished accordingly.  There are also others who have US citizen children who are born here.  Undocumented immigration certainly has lots of nuance.  

    CIR will provide for the punishment and rehabilitation of the vast majority of otherwise law abiding undocumented immigrants.  CIR will also fix the broken immigration system for an orderly immigration system not like the current one we have now.  The broken immigration system isn't in America's best interest.    

    Parent

    sure (4.00 / 1) (#61)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    The majority have broken criminal law by entering illegally (assuming 40-45% only overstay a visa),  but I dont mind a path to citizenship with fines and other requirements.

    But if a path is opened and they refuse to follow it, they should be removed.  There needs to be a carrot and a stick.

    Parent

    Yay! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by WS on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:22:58 PM EST
    Now we can agree :). You should be commended for your support of comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that reaffirms the rule of law while also providing a humane way to solve the broken immigration system.  

    Parent
    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:11:30 AM EST
    It's just a series of slogans so I cant really support it yet.  The devil is in the details.

    If it turns into all carrot and no stick, I wont be supporting it.

    Parent

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#64)
    by WS on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:59:57 AM EST
    comprehensive immigration reform will meet all your standards :).  

    Parent
    "Alien?" Even worser. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:05:05 PM EST


    Parent
    you make some valid points, but (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:27:54 AM EST
      you then go well too far with, "I have also been an illegal immigrant and that they were the same as me." Others may be "infantalizing" them but you are, perhaps inadvertantly, robbing them of their individuality. some might well be very similar to you in many respects, but others might be very different in almost all respects.

      An American abroad is backed by a bit more than a Guatemalan. If apprehended in many countries you would likely receive better treatment than many illegal immigrant apprehended here.

    As an American it might also be the case that you have greater financial and social resources (beyond Uncle Sam) you could marshal.

      It's also possible that you as an individual have greater skill, both vocationally and those useful for dealing with authorities, than many other illegal immigrant.

      I don't find the TL position persuasive as a whole, but the point that everyone should be treated humanely and with respect for his individuality and his individual circumstances is one with which i do agree.

    Parent

    as I said up top.. (4.00 / 1) (#31)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    We are the same in that we know we are breaking laws and rules to do as we please.   They know, I knew.  The same in that respect.

    There is no reason to pretend that the rules arent  being broken and the term "illegal immigrant" is in wide use beyond the american-mexican border.

    Parent

    I fully agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:04:09 AM EST
      that the admonition not to use the term "illegal immigrant" is utterly pointless and makes the people insisting that their preferred usage be adhered to by all seem something less than serious.

      I also understand that there must be rules governing travel, residency, immigration and naturalization. Those whose positions can't be endowed with any meaning beyond "the rules suck so we should get rid of all rules," do not help the cause they proifess to support.

      This is a hugely complex, multi-dimensional issue and empty slogans and cheerleading n both sides do nothing but make reasonable reform less likely. It would be easier for the people with real ideas  that would represent an advancement for those who want less restrictive policies to make progress if they were not encumbered by angry sounding radicals pushing for something that makes no sense.

       That said, I do belive this natin should allow more people to enter, more to become permanent residents and more to earn citizenship.

    Parent

    ya (none / 0) (#33)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    Yeah, I agree with most of that.  I'd like tighter controls on immigration though because I think we have limited resources. Birthrates in the northern hemisphere have fallen, which in my opinion is a good thing.  Endless growth is unsustainable. Slowing growth before the entire country has the density of California would be nice.

    On the other hand, the Pat Buchanan fear mongering is also off.   When he says that whites will no longer be the majority by 2050 he isnt saying that any one group will ounumber whites.   Non-hispanic whites will still outnumber hispanics in 2050.  It's just that nh-whites will be less that 50% compared to all other ethnic groups combined.  I think that confusion is used to scare people.

    But wait until the chinese and africans get more wealth and freedom.  Then we'll see some real demographic shifts.  There are more waves to come.

    Parent

    fwiw, I'm not so sure about that. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    An American abroad is backed by a bit more than a Guatemalan. If apprehended in many countries you would likely receive better treatment than many illegal immigrant apprehended here.
    Back in the day, when I was yanked out of my bed in the middle of the night in a Guatemala City pensione by the policia and was forced to kneel on the floor in my boxers with my forehead on the concrete so as to not see any of the police's faces, them finding my "Americano" passport in my backpack earned me a couple sharp jabs of a pistol barrel up my rectum that none of my European and Australian traveling companions received.

    Parent
    fair enough (none / 0) (#35)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:56:40 AM EST
      I was comparing an American abroad to a Guatemalan here, not the relative treatment of  westerners from different nations in Guatemala.

    Parent
    I see what you're saying, (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    but I think most country's treatment of foreign citizens is based more in the foreigner's social standing than anything else.

    Foreigners here on holiday or attending college, or whatever, are generally treated just fine. Not so much for foreign laborer's here illegally.

    I think it's pretty much the same in most countries. Central Americans illegally in Mexico, for example, aren't exactly welcomed with open arms...


    Parent

    ya (none / 0) (#39)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    Yeah, they treat illegal immigrants pretty poorly in mexico.  It's a felony punishable by two years in prison apparently.  They deport as well.  

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#40)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:57:27 PM EST
     relative social standing is  a large component and alluded to that in my post by raising the likelihod that as an American Yankee had a higher real and perceived social status in the countries in which he worked than would most Guatemalan illegal immigrants. Now, if the Gutemalan happened to be an oligarch's daughter overstaying her visa and checked into the Ritz-Carlton that might not hold.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:05:26 PM EST


    Parent
    You too (none / 0) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    classy.  

    Parent
    Pedantic semantics. (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:29:17 PM EST
    If an immigrant is here illegally it matters not  a whit whether he waded across the Rio Grande or overstayed a visa.

    But you keep harping on it, all you do is alienate people even further away from your point of view.

    Wait a minute, people can't be aliens...

    Parent

    Until we correct history... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by mexboy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:46:46 PM EST
    There are a lot of people who value our common humanity and who stand up for immigrants. A lot of them are here at TalkLeft, including Jeralyn and BTD.

    I also think we have generally been defined as less than human, other, and illegal; which then allows people to treat immigrants in ways we would not treat animals.

    The contributions of Mexicans to the US have been tremendous. We have lived in the west prior and since the forming of the US. We have fought in all the wars and continue to contribute to this country in many ways.

    Up to 750,000 Mexican American men served in World War II, earning more Medals of Honor and other decorations in proportion to their numbers than any other ethnic group.

    Here

    The truth is that we need to tell our own stories and recover our history in all areas, not only military, to correct the  damaging role we have been cast in.

    Racial Healing? (2.00 / 0) (#20)
    by bettym47 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 06:02:43 PM EST
    Does this mean that Obama hasn't healed the nation yet which Barack promised to do? Aren't we all suppose to be holding hands and signing songs around the camp fire by now? It was so critical to heal the nation racially according to people on this blog that women had to be robbed of their dream of having the first female president. For this fiasco we needed Obama? I don't think so.

    Business as usual (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    The immigrants, legal or illegal, are the last priority of the political spectrum. The right wants them out no means barred. The left is way more worried about the Palestinians than the illegal Hispanics.

    Illegal and orphaned politically, we end up with tens of thousands in jails.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    Got some evidence for your outrageous fantasy prioritization about "the left"?

    And by the way no human is illegal, even if they are Mexican as you would have it.

    Parent

    I don't know ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by sj on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    ... if I feel more sadness than despair, or vice versa.  

    I grew up believing that anyone can make a difference.  That standing up for right would make a difference.  

    All that energy.  All that earnestness.  All those hours volunteering.  For what exactly.  We have regressed.  Society is worse than it was in the 80s when Reagan wouldn't even say the word AIDS.  The safety net has shrunk.  The wealth concentrated in the hands of today's robber barons has grown -- probably beyond even their expectations.

    My spirit is very tired today.

    There's something to be said... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    for fighting the good fight and losing sj...keep your chin up, don't let the bastards get you down.

    The prophecy says it has to get worse before it gets better....hopefully we're almost at the turn of the tide.  And people do seem angrier about the robber barons then they have been in years...maybe thats a start.  Now if we can get them angry about the chains and cages for people who have committed no crime absent not having the stupid f*ckin' required papers we'll really be getting somewhere.

    Parent

    semantics (none / 0) (#65)
    by catmandu on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    In legal terms, people are classified as
    citizens or aliens. Most countries use this classification.  Those classified as aliens are subclassed as resident aliens (aka green card)
    legal aliens (tourists and visitors) and illegal aliens.  If you go to Mexico, you will have the same classifications.  To go through customs, you have to fill out an alien application for a visitor's visa on the plane before you enter customs, or they get kinda nasty with you.

    New Immigrant Detention Report | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment