Why Do Illegal Immigrants sound like Troublemaking High School Students?

[SOLDIER #819]

In a high school setting the troublemakers are often misunderstood and come from poor or broken families. Then we have majority who look down on them without even attempting to glimpse at their circumstances. Except this isn't high school, and they're probably jumping the border out of necessity lest they starve or whatever horrible circumstance is relevant to their situation. Unless we're assuming that all countries are as well-off as America and that they're just border hopping because they like going on road trips and splitting/uprooting their families for kicks. Ohoho, those silly latinos and their issues of life and death.

Not that they're saints. I myself live in a pretty low-end area populated by mostly latinos, many of which are illegal. Recently our car got rear-ended and the guy didn't have a license, much less insurance. What's more is that people in the surrounding area actually came to his defense, no doubt because my dad is white. They claimed he was at fault and a racist. Great.

But the guy himself wasn't bad and wasn't wishing misfortune on anyone. Life just isn't fair or simple and these are the results of that. Some of those who cross over may be dangerous, no doubt, but I think most are just trying to live the only way they know how. If you want to talk pragmatism and politics, yeah, lock 'em out! It may or may not keep it safer, it may or may not give us more jobs. But most people we do keep out are just desperate.

Oh well, they'd just cause trouble anyway!

[Sasquatch]

In a high school setting the troublemakers are often misunderstood and come from poor or broken families. Then we have majority who look down on them without even attempting to glimpse at their circumstances.

I came from a broken and poor family and I wasn't a troublemaker in high school. Please, don't say that people can't help but be dumbasses because of their bad situations. People "look down" on them not because of their poor circumstances, but because the little bastards can't act like decent human beings.

Except this isn't high school, and they're probably jumping the border out of necessity lest they starve or whatever horrible circumstance is relevant to their situation.

Congratulations to them -- do it legally. There are plenty of ways to get into the country legally. I'm all for legal -- legal -- immigration. There are plenty of poor people in America with enough principles not to sell drugs or prostitute themselves to make money. If you don't support Americans resorting to crime in America to make money, why overlook other people resorting to crime in America?

And yes -- being here illegally is a crime. Hence illegal. And everybody who is here illegally is a criminal.

Some of those who cross over may be dangerous, no doubt, but I think most are just trying to live the only way they know how. If you want to talk pragmatism and politics, yeah, lock 'em out! It may or may not keep it safer, it may or may not give us more jobs.

It will keep us safer. It will let us keep more jobs. This has been proven. With the economy in a slump and unemployment high, why should we not lock down our borders so more criminals don't come in and take jobs that Americans would do? And no, illegals don't do the jobs that Americans won't do. They do jobs for cheaper than Americans do them -- which means that while taxes go up, the costs of some products go down slightly, and jobs are unavailable for Americans, which means more of them end up on welfare, unemployment, etc.

[T.G. Oskar]

Congratulations to them -- do it legally. There are plenty of ways to get into the country legally. I'm all for legal -- legal -- immigration.

Umm...right. There are several ways to enter legally to the US.

Mind explaining that to a person whose amount of scholarship at times reaches only 1st or 2nd grade? Might seem a bit exaggerate, but it's not undeniable.

You, being someone who quite probably has access to the Internet and perhaps with a scholarship well exceeding high school, perhaps even a bachelor's degree, might be aware of those several ways, which is great. For those people, the only way is "cross the border or pay a coyote to get over the border".

And of course, those are the people willing to work, and who knows, even to study...

There are plenty of poor people in America with enough principles not to sell drugs or prostitute themselves to make money. If you don't support Americans resorting to crime in America to make money, why overlook other people resorting to crime in America?

Well...that depends on the degree of desperation they might have. And I don't mean the kind of desperation where you think "darn, maybe I'll have to tighten my wallet to pay my bills" or the kind where you think "hmm, maybe if I delay my payment of water, I can pay my mortgage and my electricity bills, and maybe if I change the kids into a cheaper school...". This is the kind where you think "I haven't eaten for a month and I won't have food tomorrow: it's now or never".

There's also enough people in America with scruples and principles that are scammed daily by people offering them dreams. These are people with enough revenue to make a living, and they get scammed. Imagine when you have someone who got deported, saying "I got caught, but things are better there!" and sell them a dream.

These people are ignoring, or perhaps are ignorant of, that crossing the border is a crime. For all they know, they think it is to keep them away. Those who advocate for an immigration reform know what these people are doing, but they also provide legal assistance to change their migratory status from illegal to legal, through the existing ways to do so (usually, filing a case where they, even already inside, request legal residence or citizenship). Usually, these same people urge them to fix their migratory status, and not fall into the usual traps (marrying a US citizen for the papers and then leaving them, since the US citizen has the right to inform Homeland Security out of fraud), for example.

And yes -- being here illegally is a crime. Hence illegal. And everybody who is here illegally is a criminal.

That depends. Illegal for Chinese since the 1875, illegal to Southern and Eastern Europeans since 1924, barely legal since 1917 for people of low scholarity, illegal since 1934 for Filipinos, illegal since 1950 for anyone suspected to be a Communist and illegal since mostly 1954 to Mexicans and Central Americans. However, anyone who's white Caucasian (although I believe Indian Caucasian as well), mostly of Anglo-Saxon descent, and mostly of Protestant denominations are usually welcome (i.e., usually allowed entry and quick naturalization).

Immigration was not originally illegal. It has turned restricted ever since the last quarter of the 19th Century. That goes without mention that America is a land built from immigration at its core.

It will keep us safer. It will let us keep more jobs. This has been proven. With the economy in a slump and unemployment high, why should we not lock down our borders so more criminals don't come in and take jobs that Americans would do?

I'd go with "fight the outsourcing", but that's just me. It's fine if you wish to keep the jobs American-born people might want to do, but try also to reduce outsourcing and keep the darned jobs in America, instead of having companies send them to cheaper places. That should work wonders for the economy, considering that...

And no, illegals don't do the jobs that Americans won't do. They do jobs for cheaper than Americans do them -- which means that while taxes go up, the costs of some products go down slightly, and jobs are unavailable for Americans, which means more of them end up on welfare, unemployment, etc.

...companies are always looking for people that do stuff for cheap. Just like in this example: Mexican and Central American immigrants don't usually go and say "I'll do it for 70% less than what any American can do it", instead they go for "I'll work for anything, because I'm hungry". And that is the people who wishes to work, not the people who wish to cause troubles.

So think about it: immigration is unfair because it takes jobs from Americans, but outsourcing is fine because it takes jobs from Americans, but you can't do jack because you're not willing to migrate for that job?

Just saying. I'd rather tackle the problem with some finesse rather than just keep everyone away, instead of just the people you really don't want here. Either work things smartly, or plain destroy the illusion of the American Dream (tm) for all these people.

[Sasquatch]

Umm...right. There are several ways to enter legally to the US.

Mind explaining that to a person whose amount of scholarship at times reaches only 1st or 2nd grade? Might seem a bit exaggerate, but it's not undeniable.

Embassies and consulates do this. If I would want to move from America to any other country, I would have to actually research how to do it legally -- and if I was too stupid or uneducated to understand it myself, there are people whose sole reason for employment is to explain it to me.

Besides, if these people have nothing more than first- or second-grade education levels, why would we want to import them into our country? We have enough low-educated workers to do the jobs with no higher standards.

You, being someone who quite probably has access to the Internet and perhaps with a scholarship well exceeding high school, perhaps even a bachelor's degree, might be aware of those several ways, which is great. For those people, the only way is "cross the border or pay a coyote to get over the border".

Of course, the Mexican government distributing fliers and brochures teaching people how to sneak over the border doesn't help, either. But since when is ignorance an excuse to break the law?

And of course, those are the people willing to work, and who knows, even to study...

And the majority of those people go through legal measures to ensure their entry and security in the United States. Like I said, I have no problem with immigrants to the U.S. being upstanding, law-abiding, contributing citizens -- but one cannot claim to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen when their very presence in this country is against the law.

Well...that depends on the degree of desperation they might have. And I don't mean the kind of desperation where you think "darn, maybe I'll have to tighten my wallet to pay my bills" or the kind where you think "hmm, maybe if I delay my payment of water, I can pay my mortgage and my electricity bills, and maybe if I change the kids into a cheaper school...". This is the kind where you think "I haven't eaten for a month and I won't have food tomorrow: it's now or never".

That's the kind of desperation that makes them pay money to a coyote, or wait a few weeks to get paid to send money back to their family?

There's also enough people in America with scruples and principles that are scammed daily by people offering them dreams. These are people with enough revenue to make a living, and they get scammed.

And what do they do when they get scammed? They work harder or longer to make their money back. The vast majority don't say, "Well I got screwed out of my money, so I'm going to start breaking laws until I have money again."

These people are ignoring, or perhaps are ignorant of, that crossing the border is a crime. For all they know, they think it is to keep them away.

Many of them have crossed illegally into Mexico from its southern countries -- they know it's illegal, and they know it's dangerous.

Those who advocate for an immigration reform know what these people are doing, but they also provide legal assistance to change their migratory status from illegal to legal, through the existing ways to do so (usually, filing a case where they, even already inside, request legal residence or citizenship). Usually, these same people urge them to fix their migratory status, and not fall into the usual traps (marrying a US citizen for the papers and then leaving them, since the US citizen has the right to inform Homeland Security out of fraud), for example.

So they came here illegally, and they've lived here for years illegally -- why do they care to make it legal now? Why do these people advocate for the legalization of past criminal activity instead of the prevention of future criminal activity?

That depends. Illegal for Chinese since the 1875, illegal to Southern and Eastern Europeans since 1924, barely legal since 1917 for people of low scholarity, illegal since 1934 for Filipinos, illegal since 1950 for anyone suspected to be a Communist and illegal since mostly 1954 to Mexicans and Central Americans.

It's not illegal for Chinese, Southern and Eastern Europeans, low-educated, Filipinos, Communists, Mexicans, or Central Americans to immigrate to the United States. They just have to apply and fill out some paperwork, then take a test reflecting their knowledge of the country and its history. It's the same process for everybody.

Not to mention, the rest of those groups of people didn't come here and demand that the rest of the country learns, teaches, and observes their culture and language.

However, anyone who's white Caucasian (although I believe Indian Caucasian as well), mostly of Anglo-Saxon descent, and mostly of Protestant denominations are usually welcome (i.e., usually allowed entry and quick naturalization).

After they go through the same process, yes -- but you've also got to remember, most Anglo-Saxons don't come from countries that are complete shit-holes. And their presence here does not inflate rates of crime, teen pregnancy, dropouts, drug use, etc. etc.

Immigration was not originally illegal. It has turned restricted ever since the last quarter of the 19th Century. That goes without mention that America is a land built from immigration at its core.

America is in a much, much different situation -- and obviously much more populated -- now than it was a hundred and fifty years ago. We have our own people to worry about, we don't need to import more problems.

I'd go with "fight the outsourcing", but that's just me. It's fine if you wish to keep the jobs American-born people might want to do, but try also to reduce outsourcing and keep the darned jobs in America, instead of having companies send them to cheaper places. That should work wonders for the economy, considering that...

The way to do that is to stop punishing companies that succeed and profit, so they stop moving overseas for cheaper production costs. But that's a whole separate issue.

...companies are always looking for people that do stuff for cheap. Just like in this example: Mexican and Central American immigrants don't usually go and say "I'll do it for 70% less than what any American can do it", instead they go for "I'll work for anything, because I'm hungry". And that is the people who wishes to work, not the people who wish to cause troubles.

Now you're generalizing that all immigrants are otherwise law-abiding, contributing citizens -- but we know that's not true, don't we? If it was, illegal Hispanics wouldn't have higher rates in prettymuch every bad category and lower rates in prettymuch every good category.

Of course, it's also a generalization to say that all immigrants are bad people -- that's not what I'm saying at all. Most -- hell, even some illegal immigrants -- are good people, with jobs, that obey most laws. But it's just silly to expect that a person can not give a damn about laws when it comes to legal entry into the country, but obey and abide by all other laws.

So think about it: immigration is unfair because it takes jobs from Americans, but outsourcing is fine because it takes jobs from Americans, but you can't do jack because you're not willing to migrate for that job?

If it wasn't for overpowered unions and over-taxation of the achievers in the United States, there would be no need to outsource.

Just saying. I'd rather tackle the problem with some finesse rather than just keep everyone away, instead of just the people you really don't want here. Either work things smartly, or plain destroy the illusion of the American Dream (tm) for all these people.

Telling a group of people, "Come on in -- and stay -- but do it legally," is not the same as telling them, "stay out".

The types of jobs that illegal immigrants are taking from Americans... are jobs that Americans wouldn't want to do in the first place.

Landscaping duty. Maintenance duty. Hard Labor...etc.

Are you trying to tell me that fifteen million unemployed Americans wouldn't earn a paycheck with manual labor? Or that they don't want to? Hell, ninety-something percent of jobs are jobs that people don't want to do, but they do them because they need money and it's their most acceptable solution. But it's ignorant to think that without millions of illegal aliens, none of those jobs would be filled.

[T.G. Oskar]

Embassies and consulates do this. If I would want to move from America to any other country, I would have to actually research how to do it legally -- and if I was too stupid or uneducated to understand it myself, there are people whose sole reason for employment is to explain it to me.

I guess you mean something like this, right?

To be more specific: to enter legally to the United States and to gain the chance of permanent residence, the visa must be an immigrant visa (one that allows the holder to remain indefinitely and that may be used to apply for permanent residence) or a dual-intent visa (one that might be applied for visit or for purposes of permanent residence).

The three types of visa that might apply for purposes of the usual average of individuals pursuing illegal immigration are: the temporary worker visas H-2A/H-2B for seasonal, temporary, peak-load, intermittent or one-time agricultural or non-agricultural workers; employment-based visas EB-3 for skilled, professional or unskilled/other workers (in this case, applying only to skilled or unskilled workers, as professional workers require a bachelor's degree to qualify), or Diversity Immigrant visas DV (the "Green Card" lottery, as most people might refer to).

The first kind, temporary worker visas H-2A and H-2B are non-immigrant visas (hence, incapacitating the holder of such visa to become a permanent resident unless it becomes eligible by alternative means), which are of a temporary nature not exceeding 1 year (or in extraordinary circumstances, up to 3 years). These visas cannot be requested by the individual; the employer seeking foreign workers must apply for it. As stated above, these visas are granted only if the employer can prove that there is not enough qualifying U.S. workers capable of supplying the labor demand, and also that the acquisition of these temporary workers will not affect adversely the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. For purposes of what you're implying: no, a person cannot apply to this visa through an embassy or consulate; it is granted if the person is contracted through a U.S. company that fulfills the requisites indicated above that requires and proves it needs foreign workers to meet the labor demand.

The second, the employment-based EB-3 visas (Employment Third Preference) is roughly similar to the H-2A/B visas, but are immigrant visas which allow the holder to apply for permanent residence within the U.S. Again, not all of these people apply: professional workers require at least a bachelor's degree, which means they cannot be considered for purposes of the average type of individual who may engage in illegal immigration. Furthermore, there is a specific quota of 28.6% of the worldwide limit on employment-based immigrants (plus any exceeding amount of visas from First and Second Preference employees; the annual quota is 140,000 individuals, so that means something around 40,040 employees per year, around 10,000 for unskilled workers), both types of workers require a labor certification, Schedule A designation (a a schedule of occupations for which it delegates authority to the USCIS to approve labor certifications: Group I includes physical therapists and nurses, Group II includes "includes aliens of exceptional ability in the sciences and arts, except performing arts."), or evidence that they qualify for one of the deficient occupations in the Labor Market Information Pilot Program (a program instituted by the Immigration Act of 1990 that defines up to ten occupational classifications in which there are labor shortages). Again, this kind of visa (which allows the individual to request permanent legal residence) must be issued by an employer within the United States in order to claim this person, which means the individual cannot apply for said visa on its own on an embassy or consulate.

Finally, there's the Diversity Visa. The latter is exactly what you might suggest: an immigrant visa which can be requested by the specific individual. Now, there are a few restrictions with that visa: first, it is limited to 50,000 annual visas; second, individuals of certain countries cannot apply for this kind of visa as they have already sent more than 50,000 immigrants in the past five years (for purposes of the average individual that might incur in illegal immigration, that means people from Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala; you might include Dominican Republic and Haiti as well if you wish); third, these visas are only registered online (whether that means you can apply on the consulate by having someone fill the application for you or not is unclear, but the requirements imply that only online applications are possible); fourth, you need to provide evidence of high school education or equivalent, or two years' worth of experience in an occupation within the last five years; fifth, the entry period is rather short (between October and November; two months, to be precise); sixth, the entire thing is a lottery, so basically you have only a chance that you fall within that kind of people (now, they don't actually choose only 50,000 people, they choose around 96,000 people and start looking for people that qualify amongst those). The winning chances of an individual of South America, Central America or the Caribbean is of 2% (that roughly means around 1,800 people), which then must present the evidence that they qualify in order to gain the Diversity Immigrant visa.

So: while this may sound cynical, here's the deal: either you get a job (in which case, you aren't so desperate anymore to get a job) and hope your employer gets you to the U.S., or literally win the lottery. And afterwards, you still (at least for the EB-3 visa) need to apply for permanent residence in order to qualify for citizenship.

Applying for permanent residence within the United States is a bit different: you require to live already within the United States, or be reclaimed by an employer or legal permanent resident in order to apply for permanent resident, as far as I can gather: without that kind of support, you need a visa that allows the wielder to become a permanent resident (an immigrant or dual-intent visa) in order to apply for permanent residence. Of the above-mentioned, that means the H-2A/B visas are ineligible unless your employer or a family member claims you, and that people with the EB-3 visa still need to be sponsored by the employer in order to become permanent residents. So, technically, in the case of employers, you're depending on their good faith in order to become a legal permanent resident. Even then, you still require a specific amount of time to become a legal resident (that depends on the type of person that claims you), and once applying for legal permanent residence, you still need to wait for that application to be considered. Just so you know: backlogs may reach up to 9 years of delay, which means in some cases people from the USCIS are actually considering cases from 2001... While that happens, you're pretty much on an existencial limbo: you *may* remain so as long as your visa doesn't expire, if the visa allows you to remain. People may apply for permanent residence from outside the U.S. but they are also limited by the same kind of restrictions as mentioned above. That means: unless you are issued a DV type of visa, you need someone to sponsor you to become a permanent resident, so that means you can't apply for permanent residence with an embassy or consulate (unless, of course, you apply for a DV visa, which is something entirely different and mostly restricted).

There are other methods, of course, for legal entry, which may allow an immigrant to apply for permanent residence: amongst those, one would be to study in the U.S. (F-1 and F-3 type visas, which can only be issued on academic institutions), another to marry an U.S. citizen (IR visas, specifically the IR-1 visa or CR-1 visa if the marriage is no more than 2 years old), another to be transferred from a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company to a local subsidiary (L-1 visa, which is mostly a non-immigrant visa with capability of allowing the holder to issue permanent residence), be the fiancee of a U.S. citizen (K-1 visa) or spouse of a legal resident (V-visa, which no longer can be applied). Of those: one requires to follow studies within the country and then apply for studies above (we've already stated that the average individual that may incur in illegal immigration might not have that degree of scholarity or the ability to pursue further academic studies), or work within a company and be transferred abroad (that usually happens within businesses or corporations, rarely between farmers and small-town workers), or marry an U.S. citizen (the usually easiest choice, but one that leads to fraud in most occasions) or at least have the intent to marry one.

The final one would be to request political asylum (in the case of Cuba, and quite probably Venezuela in recent years) or a status as refugees. In such cases, they may apply for permanent residence pretty much automatically.

That's...pretty much some of the legal options of entering the U.S. and/or becoming a permanent resident, soliciting outside the U.S. As you can see, the embassy can't help much on that, unless you get sponsored to enter (or win the lottery). So...either you have the grace of having someone let you enter the U.S. (family, specifically immediate relative, or employer) or win the lottery. That's...as simple as you can explain any would-be immigrant. That's...almost a joke, you know; for some people (and I don't mean actual criminals that have been evading the law on their countries, or gang-members; I mean the people willing to work and/or study in the U.S. because they have no such chance in their own countries, which should be a sizeable amount of the people if not a solid majority), their chances of entering the country legally are pretty much close to zero. Why, then, provide them with the illusion of legal entry to the U.S. if the goverment will place so many hurdles on them, some so inaccessible so as to completely deny their entry by legal means, and not blatantly tell them "we don't want no wetbacks in here"?

Besides, if these people have nothing more than first- or second-grade education levels, why would we want to import them into our country? We have enough low-educated workers to do the jobs with no higher standards.

That doesn't seem to be the case, if H-2A and H-2B visas indicate the contrary. Otherwise, they wouldn't exist at all. And even then, they are only for temporary measures. Nor the "Guest Worker" program. Nor the "Braceros" program. Much less the need for "jornaleros" (journal workers).

Of course, the Mexican government distributing fliers and brochures teaching people how to sneak over the border doesn't help, either. But since when is ignorance an excuse to break the law?

Hmm...by that you mean the Mexican federal government, the government of the state of Mexico, or the regional governments of northern Mexico?

Since...the official posture of the Mexican federal government is to prevent the incursion of Mexican nationals and nationals of other Central American countries through the U.S.-Mexico border (in cooperation with the Border Patrol of the U.S.), and to advocate for an immigration reform in the U.S. so that Mexican nationals may enter the U.S. legally as immigrants (specifically those whom the above-mentioned immigrant or dual-intent visas don't apply to).

If what you refer is to the documents provided by the government of Yucatán (and I assume you are; it's the closest thing I could find), consider that it is not specifically an action of the federal government; it is an action of a regional government of Mexico (though not the northern regions; it would be an initiative from the southeastern regions of Mexico, and by no means it should mean the entire federal government is sponsoring that. That would be much like equaling what's happening in Arizona to all of the United States; the actions of a regional (or state) government do not necessarily reflect the views of the country as a whole. And no, that doesn't excuse them from doing something stupid (or giving a flimsy excuse); it's just that generalizing that action to the entire government while you have an official posture of the federal government of Mexico attempting deals with the U.S. on immigration issues that's pretty much the opposite...

And the majority of those people go through legal measures to ensure their entry and security in the United States. Like I said, I have no problem with immigrants to the U.S. being upstanding, law-abiding, contributing citizens -- but one cannot claim to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen when their very presence in this country is against the law.

Such as realizing that they may only apply for a chance of a specific kind of visa which they might not get in at least 10 years. Since not everyone has a relative that they can rely upon to bring them here, for example. Or the kind of luck to get a Diversity Immigrant Visa through means of lottery.

It's not easy to become a legal immigrant with intentions of becoming a legal resident within a degree of poverty and scholarity well below the average, if existing at all. In fact, it may seem even ridiculously difficult.

That kind of thought, though...it's kinda like saying "well, a convict cannot claim to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen if it broke a law", but never recognizing that they have paid their debt to society. The way laws exist now, that would be the equivalent of saying "well, since you broke a law, you're now confined to remain in prison indefinitely", which makes crossing the border a crime along the lines of homicide (since once deported, a person may not enter the U.S. by legal means ever again). And as mentioned above, some of these people might not even have a legal chance of becoming permanent residents because of their conditions of life (unless they win the lottery or have the incredible luck of being claimed by a relative or employer, a case which in times it's self-defeating). Or finding true love...

That's the kind of desperation that makes them pay money to a coyote, or wait a few weeks to get paid to send money back to their family?

Um...isn't that desperate enough? I mentioned that kind of desperation because I don't think someone hungry for days would be still capable of thinking rationally; at least, not the average person. Even worse when they get tempted.

And what do they do when they get scammed? They work harder or longer to make their money back. The vast majority don't say, "Well I got screwed out of my money, so I'm going to start breaking laws until I have money again."

Those who fall in pyramid fraud scams are breaking the law, no? Just saying...

Now...how about people who get scammed out of their Social Security check, or receiving pension, for example (meaning, people who cannot work harder or longer, as you say)? Or people who have lost so much, they'll probably incur into debt (by a loan, for example), which may make them lose some of their crucial properties (even a house)? These people earn enough revenue to make a living, but "making a living" doesn't necessarily mean they'll make more than that; they just do barely enough to survive. Working harder or longer might just not be enough; heck, maybe even two works won't be enough.

Now suppose that having two jobs were a crime. Or that working overtime were a crime (it's not a crime per se, but not all employers will allow or support working overtime, and working harder does not necessarily imply getting a sure raise). How would they survive, then? Selling their home; then where they might live? Worse, starting from zero in order to recover from that scam or fraud; you might just pull it, but you might as well never recover from that hit.

So they came here illegally, and they've lived here for years illegally -- why do they care to make it legal now? Why do these people advocate for the legalization of past criminal activity instead of the prevention of future criminal activity?

Because for these advocates, being an immigrant with a desire to progress isn't a crime. Because these advocates know the hurdles that some people have to become legal residents, and they understand the desperation of the people who came illegally to work and/or study (and progress and even repay the society in which they currently live). Because there are already resources for illegal immigrants within the U.S. to change their status from illegal to legal, but they need assistance on the matter. And while there are resources, there are not enough resources.

It's not illegal for Chinese, Southern and Eastern Europeans, low-educated, Filipinos, Communists, Mexicans, or Central Americans to immigrate to the United States. They just have to apply and fill out some paperwork, then take a test reflecting their knowledge of the country and its history. It's the same process for everybody.

Umm...the paperwork, sure. The test of country knowledge and country history is for naturalization, which can't be done specifically outside the States, as far as I can reckon (must be a permanent resident, to be precise...guess what you need to do to become a permanent resident? Yep, see above; if someone cannot get a viable method of legal immigration or someone that might claim you for entry to the U.S., that means no permanent residence and no citizenship.

And no, it's not "just some paperwork". I think above you've seen the kind of hurdles that you need to pass in order to gain a visa. So that's a bit closer to "fill loads of paperwork, look for documents which imply even more paperwork, win the lottery, get an interview to see if they let you enter, get the visa, get the passport, get a ticket to any U.S. port of entry and hope the immigration officer allows you to enter".

That last one is important: having a visa does not mean you're allowed guaranteed entry into the United States.

Not to mention, the rest of those groups of people didn't come here and demand that the rest of the country learns, teaches, and observes their culture and language.

So...apparently Kwanzaa, Hanukkah and Ramadan are clearly 100% American traditions (religious traditions? Bah, humbug; heck, Kwanzaa isn't even a religious tradition...). Apparently stuff like pizza, bratwursts and sauerkraut, lager, crepes, various kinds of pasta such as spaghetti, fettuccine and others, baklava, gyros...well, various kinds of food are pretty much American-exclusive (what if Italy has several kinds of pasta? Durum semolina was invented in America!). And certainly there's no requisition of African-Americans to learn and respect and observe African (not African-American, African) cultural traditions, there's no Chinatown, there's no Jewish or Italian ghettos...

Alright, let's stop with the joke. No, Hispanics don't demand people that they learn their language and observe their culture and language: they are just adding that to the big mixing pot that's America. You aren't forced to learn Spanish, not as much as you're forced to learn the stereotypical slang of African-Americans (not all of them speak that way, actually). As for people requesting services in their language: people from other countries are following suit (otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for translators of different languages, most specifically people fluent in Arab).

Actually, quite the contrary: Hispanic-Americans usually are quite willing to adopt American traditions. The thing is that they aren't willing to ignore their own cultural heritage; same as the Italians, same as the Germans, same as the Jews, same as the Chinese. The main difference is that Hispanics are a larger minority population, so they'll eventually sound a bit more.

After they go through the same process, yes -- but you've also got to remember, most Anglo-Saxons don't come from countries that are complete shit-holes. And their presence here does not inflate rates of crime, teen pregnancy, dropouts, drug use, etc. etc.

According to what? According to studies that show that influence, but that usually have to indicate that the data is not sufficient or clear enough to really point at them as the actual cause? Or that there are studies that show the contrary, along the same guidelines (but hey, since those are by groups that advocate an immigration reform, they are biased and hence unreliable sources in comparison to groups that advocate no immigration, instead of mentioning that they are unreliable sources because any study would equally have insufficient data to prove the other side...)

Certainly, there might be an increase in crime on places whose population usually increases in size; that happens virtually everywhere and doesn't necessarily have to deal with immigration specifically (not to mention a specific sub-set of immigrants). That seems more like generalization than anything else.

America is in a much, much different situation -- and obviously much more populated -- now than it was a hundred and fifty years ago. We have our own people to worry about, we don't need to import more problems.

Well then: stop issuing more visas to people. Or at least, visas that allow legal immigration; visits are OK, since they are that, visits.

But that isn't the case. If an employer has a reasonable need for applying with the Department of Labor and the Department of State for H-2A or H-2B visas for temporary foreign workers, then that means they have done enough worrying to realize it's not enough. And it's not like the Border Patrol is inefficient (or are you insinuating that? I presume not).

Now, when you're referring to "our people", you're referring to...anyone who's a citizen, right? Or just a section of the population that can be identified as "our people"? Would you include on that case people that are legal residents, naturalized citizens of the United States that are of Hispanic descent as well? That term, "our people", is pretty broad; I'd say pretty ambiguous.

Now you're generalizing that all immigrants are otherwise law-abiding, contributing citizens -- but we know that's not true, don't we? If it was, illegal Hispanics wouldn't have higher rates in prettymuch every bad category and lower rates in prettymuch every good category.

"And that is the people who wishes to work, not the people who wish to cause troubles. " Go on; you even quoted it from me. So...no, I'm not generalizing. It was a very specific response: you stated that immigrants do jobs for cheaper than Americans would do, and I stated "companies are looking for people that are willing to work for cheap", then I stated that the immigrants work for any kind of wage, and then I specified "and that's the people who wishes to work".

Two separate things: the people that are willing to work are willing to work for anything (they just wanna work). In no moment I specified that said effect applies to all Mexican or Central-American immigrants; I stated that applied to the amount of immigrants willing to work. Hence, why I had to state "not the people who wishes to cause troubles".

Was it really so hard to understand? No, I wasn't generalizing...

Of course, it's also a generalization to say that all immigrants are bad people -- that's not what I'm saying at all. Most -- hell, even some illegal immigrants -- are good people, with jobs, that obey most laws. But it's just silly to expect that a person can not give a damn about laws when it comes to legal entry into the country, but obey and abide by all other laws.

...but this might be a bit closer. Those people that want to legalize their immigration status within the U.S.? Yep, at least the majority of those people are what you explained: good people, with jobs, that obey most laws (and that also might be willing to learn English and become citizens and that pay most taxes as well). Pretty silly, right?

Telling a group of people, "Come on in -- and stay -- but do it legally," is not the same as telling them, "stay out".

Telling people that they have to wait several years to get in...that's not saying "stay out", that's staying "just wait a while". Maybe in that wait, they might not be wishing to migrate anymore, you know. Worse if what you can tell them is "well, you can stay...on the closet...up until you're living here for 4 years, in which I'll let you into the old unused room I got right there, unless you become part of the family several years later and then I can let you share the rest of the house".

[Heartless Angel]

100% agree with ya Cain. When i first heard some of these morons opposing the Arizona law, I almost went insane. One in particular I recall hearing from a senator...

"This bill would make it against the law to be in the country illegally!"

And he said this like it was an outrage, are you ****ing kidding me?

"This bill would make it against the law to be in the country illegally!"

AGAINST THE LAW . . . ILLEGALLY

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

No Shit Sherlock! That tends to be what the word ILLEGAL means.

And all these idiots trying to pin it on racism, nice try. They know damn good and well it has nothing to do with race, they just want you to feel bad for supporting what's right. Much like all the people in the media opposing the Tea parties. Actually confronting the issue doesn't end well when you're on the wrong side, but labelling the entire group on the right side as racists so that nobody wants to admit being a part of it works just fine.

Hey, guess what? My insurance company charges me more because I'm a young male. Does this make them sexist? Ageist? Absolutely not. Statistically speaking, young male drives cause more accidents. It's not discrimination, it's common sense. Statistically speaking, most illegal immigrants are hispanic who don't speak a word of english, am I racist for suspecting that a hispanic who doesn't speak a word of english might be illegal? No, I'm using common sense. And really, if you ARE here legally, you're supposed to be carrying a green card at all times, if someone stops you and asks to see it, assuming you ARE here legally, how hard is it to open your wallet and take the thing out? That's like being offended by someone pulling me over and asking to see my driver's liscence. The only time it's a problem, is when I DON'T have one, in which case, I am in fact breaking the law. The only people here who should really be upset by this, are the people here breaking the law.

This bill isn't to make a new law, it's to give Arizona the power to enforce an existing one, because the Federal govenment refuses to do so.

As for Obama opposing this so fervently, let's think for a moment... statistically most hispanic voters are democrats... he'd want to trun them away because... why exactly? This is also why he's trying to push Peurto Rico into statehood. Next time you see them on the news telling you that people in Arizona and teaparty goers are racists, stop and think for a moment, it should be fairly obvious who the REAL racists are. Apologies to any Obammunists I've offended, but this absolutely infuriates me.

[Sasquatch]

I guess you mean something like this, right?

Yes. There are multiple types of visas, with one being needed to apply for permanent residency and citizenship. Nobody said it's easy -- I just pointed out the obvious fact that it's more than possible, and thousands upon thousands of people do it every year.

If I had to choose who I wanted to join my country, it would be the immigrant who cares about upholding the law.

That's...almost a joke, you know; for some people ... their chances of entering the country legally are pretty much close to zero. Why, then, provide them with the illusion of legal entry to the U.S. if the goverment will place so many hurdles on them, some so inaccessible so as to completely deny their entry by legal means, and not blatantly tell them "we don't want no wetbacks in here"?

Would you prefer if the United States federal government said, "no immigration"? Or would you rather thy provide multiple means of legal immigration and enforce them? Very few people have a problem with immigration in general -- and very few have a problem with Mexicans. (Don't try playing the race card, with "oh you just don't want them in your country because they're hispanic" -- you're better than that.) What we do have a problem with isillegal immigration. From any country.

Hmm...by that you mean the Mexican federal government, the government of the state of Mexico, or the regional governments of northern Mexico?

Yes. Since the state of Mexico prettymuch surrounds the capital, they share many of the same political ambitions. The local governments in the north are overpopulated with Mexicans and Central Americans who have traveled through the country, and the best way to get them out is to help them move north.

Since...the official posture of the Mexican federal government is to prevent the incursion of Mexican nationals and nationals of other Central American countries through the U.S.-Mexico border (in cooperation with the Border Patrol of the U.S.), and to advocate for an immigration reform in the U.S. so that Mexican nationals may enter the U.S. legally as immigrants (specifically those whom the above-mentioned immigrant or dual-intent visas don't apply to).

Yes, that's the official posture of the Mexican federal government. Of course that's the official posture -- we have a problem with something that's happening between their country and ours, and it would be simply moronic for them to openly, publicly, and officially advocate for more of that to happen. Unfortunately, U.S.-Mexico relations are frequently strained when it's discovered that the Mexican government -- mainly their federal government and northern local governments -- are printing brochures and pamphlets to tell people how to sneak over more effectively.

It's not easy to become a legal immigrant with intentions of becoming a legal resident within a degree of poverty and scholarity well below the average, if existing at all. In fact, it may seem even ridiculously difficult.

And again I ask -- why should we import people with low levels of education and job skills, when we have more than enough of our own people who already fall into the same category?

That kind of thought, though...it's kinda like saying "well, a convict cannot claim to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen if it broke a law", but never recognizing that they have paid their debt to society.

No. No. No.

It's kinda like saying, "well, a convict cannot claim to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen if they continuously break the law." Being in this country illegally is just that -- illegal. It's not just getting in to the country, it's staying as well.

The way laws exist now, that would be the equivalent of saying "well, since you broke a law, you're now confined to remain in prison indefinitely", which makes crossing the border a crime along the lines of homicide (since once deported, a person may not enter the U.S. by legal means ever again).

No, it wouldn't -- it would be the equivalent of saying, "well, since you broke a law to come in here, you obviously can't be trusted to uphold our laws, so you lost your chance."

Um...isn't that desperate enough? I mentioned that kind of desperation because I don't think someone hungry for days would be still capable of thinking rationally; at least, not the average person. Even worse when they get tempted.

So it's a situation of "I'm so poor I'm willing to do anything for money -- so let me spend a bunch of money to have that chance"? Let me guess, they're all Obama supporters?

Those who fall in pyramid fraud scams are breaking the law, no? Just saying...

And they're their own fault. What's your point?

Now...how about people who get scammed out of their Social Security check, or receiving pension, for example (meaning, people who cannot work harder or longer, as you say)?

Do you see a bunch of grandmas who've been scammed out of their pension prostituting themselves or selling drugs? Or is it just as I pointed out -- most people who need money find legal means of making it?

Now suppose that having two jobs were a crime. Or that working overtime were a crime (it's not a crime per se, but not all employers will allow or support working overtime, and working harder does not necessarily imply getting a sure raise).

Working overtime is a crime? Where are you, France?

Because for these advocates, being an immigrant with a desire to progress isn't a crime.

And maybe to me, smoking marijuana isn't a crime. Or having sex with minors. Or stealing from somebody with more money than I have. Too bad it doesn't matter what I think or what they think -- whether they perceive it as such or not, it's still a crime.

Because these advocates know the hurdles that some people have to become legal residents, and they understand the desperation of the people who came illegally to work and/or study (and progress and even repay the society in which they currently live).

So it's aright to break the law so you can repay society? I should use that argument if I get caught selling drugs or prostituting -- it's alright, Your Honor, I was only doing it to pay my taxes and donate to charity.

Because there are already resources for illegal immigrants within the U.S. to change their status from illegal to legal, but they need assistance on the matter. And while there are resources, there are not enough resources.

From who? Why should my tax dollars go to protecting a criminal?

Again -- why are these advocates supporting criminals and trying to make their crimes legal? And why am I the bad guy for trying to make them not commit the crimes in the first place?

So...apparently Kwanzaa, Hanukkah and Ramadan are clearly 100% American traditions (religious traditions? Bah, humbug; heck, Kwanzaa isn't even a religious tradition...).

We don't have African, Jewish, and Muslim lobbies trying to force America to obey their traditions, do we? (Well, we don't have African and Jewish lobbies trying to force America to obey their traditions, do we?) How many demands have you heard for Jewish holidays to become national holidays? Now think about the demands for September 16 and May 5 to be American national holidays -- I know I've heard quite a few.

Apparently stuff like pizza, bratwursts and sauerkraut, lager, crepes, various kinds of pasta such as spaghetti, fettuccine and others, baklava, gyros...well, various kinds of food are pretty much American-exclusive (what if Italy has several kinds of pasta? Durum semolina was invented in America!).

I've never seen a group of Germans outside a high school demanding that they serve sauerkraut and bratwurst for lunch every day, washed down with a good stout. Have you? However, there are schools in California that have buckled to the pressure of their mostly-immigrant constituents and ended up with an entirely Mexican menu.

And certainly there's no requisition of African-Americans to learn and respect and observe African (not African-American, African) cultural traditions, there's no Chinatown, there's no Jewish or Italian ghettos...

If they want to follow their own traditions, that's fine -- nobody's got a problem with that. The problems come in when they start demanding that everybody else follows their traditions. Blacks, Chinese, Jews, Italians -- they don't expect everybody else to act and sound like they do.

Alright, let's stop with the joke. No, Hispanics don't demand people that they learn their language and observe their culture and language: they are just adding that to the big mixing pot that's America.

Many hispanics have demanded that we learn their language and observe their culture. That's quite the opposite of "they don't demand". There are demonstrations in California quite often -- most with Mexican flags, some with Mexican flags flown above American flags.

You aren't forced to learn Spanish, not as much as you're forced to learn the stereotypical slang of African-Americans (not all of them speak that way, actually). As for people requesting services in their language: people from other countries are following suit (otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for translators of different languages, most specifically people fluent in Arab).

I'm not forced to learn Spanish? Are you sure that I didn't have to have at least two credits of Spanish to graduate high school? Are you sure that local governments haven't been forced to put up road signs in English and Spanish both? Hell, even road signs warning drivers to slow down because they might hit people sneaking over the border? Or to teach their police officers Spanish, to ensure that any hispanic they arrest understands their rights?

According to what? According to studies that show that influence, but that usually have to indicate that the data is not sufficient or clear enough to really point at them as the actual cause? Or that there are studies that show the contrary, along the same guidelines (but hey, since those are by groups that advocate an immigration reform, they are biased and hence unreliable sources in comparison to groups that advocate no immigration, instead of mentioning that they are unreliable sources because any study would equally have insufficient data to prove the other side...)

If that was the case, yes. You sound like you are flat-out denying problems caused by illegal immigrants. I thought you were smarter than that. It's fact: illegal aliens are disproportionate in commissions of crimes, teen pregnancy, poverty, and dropout rates. Hell, about a quarter of our federal inmates are illegal aliens. Do you really not know, or do you just prefer to deny it?

Certainly, there might be an increase in crime on places whose population usually increases in size; that happens virtually everywhere and doesn't necessarily have to deal with immigration specifically (not to mention a specific sub-set of immigrants). That seems more like generalization than anything else.

It's not much of a generalization when places with higher populations of illegals have more crime than places of the same size with less illegals.

Well then: stop issuing more visas to people. Or at least, visas that allow legal immigration; visits are OK, since they are that, visits.

So you'd rather we stop allowing legal immigration, instead of simply cracking down on illegal immigration?

And it's not like the Border Patrol is inefficient (or are you insinuating that? I presume not).

That's true. The Border Patrol has their hands tied with underfunding and politics. When they can't do their job without worrying about investigations and harassment (and, of course, insults and accusations of racism), they simply can't do their job.

Now, when you're referring to "our people", you're referring to...anyone who's a citizen, right? Or just a section of the population that can be identified as "our people"? Would you include on that case people that are legal residents, naturalized citizens of the United States that are of Hispanic descent as well? That term, "our people", is pretty broad; I'd say pretty ambiguous.

There you go, trying to insinuate that I'm a racist again. Nice try. But no, "our people" refers to Americans -- whatever color, sex, religion, or national origin. You really had to dig for that one, didn't you?

...but this might be a bit closer. Those people that want to legalize their immigration status within the U.S.? Yep, at least the majority of those people are what you explained: good people, with jobs, that obey most laws (and that also might be willing to learn English and become citizens and that pay most taxes as well). Pretty silly, right?

So "the majority" of people who want this crime to not be a crime ... their presence here is illegal, but they care about the laws?

Sure -- and the majority of people who want to legalize marijuana have never touched the stuff, right? The majority of people who want to change the legal drinking age to 18 are over 30, right?

Telling people that they have to wait several years to get in...that's not saying "stay out", that's staying "just wait a while". Maybe in that wait, they might not be wishing to migrate anymore, you know. Worse if what you can tell them is "well, you can stay...on the closet...up until you're living here for 4 years, in which I'll let you into the old unused room I got right there, unless you become part of the family several years later and then I can let you share the rest of the house".

Or, more accurately, "we don't have room for all of you, so some of you can come in now and be a part of us, and the rest will have to wait. Unless you just want to sneak in my window, then get upset when I catch you and tell you to leave and not come back."

[SOLDIER #819]

I came from a broken and poor family and I wasn't a troublemaker in high school. Please, don't say that people can't help but be dumbasses because of their bad situations. People "look down" on them not because of their poor circumstances, but because the little bastards can't act like decent human beings.

While that may or may not be true, my point was merely that there is a tendency for people to group together others and simplify their situations.

Congratulations to them -- do it legally. There are plenty of ways to get into the country legally. I'm all for legal -- legal -- immigration. There are plenty of poor people in America with enough principles not to sell drugs or prostitute themselves to make money. If you don't support Americans resorting to crime in America to make money, why overlook other people resorting to crime in America?

I am personally neither for nor against this (as of now) since the situation is rather difficult. Many people who cross the border probably don't have the resources or, and perhaps this should be stressed, the time to get in legally before they succumb to their circumstances. So while it is illegal, I can sympathize with the desire to live. Few are so stoic that they would simply resign themselves and their families to miserable living conditions or death.