Where did you find this Marisa?

Debate all you want, but the American people have, by their failure to join illegal alien advocates in opposition to recent law enforcement actions, sided with the federal government. In order to win, advocates would have to convince citizens that their nation is no longer worth defending from being overrun by foreign intruders. Every nation has the moral right to defend itself from invasion, be it military or civilian. Even Latin American governments recognize this.

Rages,the Public Continues to Support Realistic Immigration Solutions
In the spring of 2007, Congress engaged in a bitter debate on the issue of immigration reform. A fierce battle was fought between those who seek practical, comprehensive solutions to our brokenimmigration system, and those who favor only the enforcement of the broken status quo. Thedebate was conducted in an atmosphere poisoned by the harsh rhetoric of conservative talk radioand anti-immigration reform groups. They managed to intimidate Congress into a stalemate. Until Congress picks up immigration reform again, the nation will continue to suffer the consequences of a broken immigration system.If recent experience proves to be a trend, however, the defenders of the broken status quo may come to regret their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. In 2006, the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives bet their political careers on re-election strategies thatinvolved demonizing undocumented immigrants. As election time drew near, however, poll after poll showed that a majority of Americans favored a realistic immigration policy solution that offered undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. Election results provided the verdict on the hardliners’ strategy: the American people were not impressed, and the fastest-growing segment ofthe electorate, Latino voters, were offended—not to mention moderate and Catholic voters, who deserted the Republicans in droves. Many hardliners lost their seats and leadership positions.Unfortunately, lessons were not learned. Immigration hardliners continue to scream “amnesty!” to block all proposals that take a comprehensive approach. The majority of the public continues to tell opinion researchers that they don’t have a problem with such proposals. Where proposals run afoul of public opinion, they focus on one side of the immigration equation to the exclusion of the other—enforcement proposals meant to block needed reform, or proposals perceived as offering leniency without a counterbalance of enforcement.As the immigration stalemate in Congress continues, the American voter’s frustration with Congress, the President, and the government has reached a level not seen in recent years. Meanwhile, as opponents of reform use ever harsher anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric,citizenship applications have risen to record levels, and new Americans are registering to vote and are preparing to have their say in the next election. Following is a summary of recent public opinion polls on the immigration reform debate.

Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg(November 30 – December 3, 2007)A nationwide survey of 1,467 adults, including 1,245 registered voters (MoE ± 3%)•60%- This survey found majority support for a path to citizenship among Democrats,Independents, and Republicans. Among all registered voters, 60% favor a proposal thatwould “allow illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for anumber of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship byregistering…, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among otherrequirements.” 63% of Democrats favored such a proposal, while 64% of Republicans and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
- 2 -57% of independents. When given a list of five actions and asked what they thought was the most effective in dealing with illegal immigration, “more arrests and deportations” was listed last, at 16%. Quinnipiac University Polling Institute(November 6 – 11, 2007)A survey of 1,231 Ohio voters (MoE ± 2.8%)•55%- A majority (55%) of Ohio voters believe that “illegal immigrants who have lived andworked in the United States for at least two years…should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status.” A minority (38%) think that these immigrants “should be deported back to their native country.” Washington Post-ABC News(October 29 – November 1, 2007)A survey of 1,131 adults (MoE ± 3%)•51%- A majority of respondents (51%), when asked if they would support or oppose “a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements,” said they would support such aprogram. More respondents said they trusted Democrats (42%) than Republicans (35%)in handling the immigration issue. ABC News-Good Morning America(September 27-30, 2007)A survey of 1,035 adults (MoE ± 3%)•58%- Respondents favored “giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements” by a margin of58% to 35%.• In this poll, 78% of respondents said they sometimes or often come into contact with people who mostly speak Spanish. Of those, two-thirds (66%) say it does not bother them. Taking a closer look at the data, the report authors note that the one-third of respondents who are bothered by Spanish “are those who are more apt to call for stricter immigration rules and to have negative views on immigration generally, particularly on illegal immigration.”Monmouth University Polling Institute(July 16-19, 2007)A survey of 800 New Jersey adult residents (MoE ± 3.5%)•65%- This survey of New Jersey residents found that 65% favored allowing undocumented immigrants “to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status” verses 30% who believed they should be “deported back to their native country.”CBS News(June 26-27, 2007)A survey of 505 adults nationwide (MoE ± 4%)•65%- In this poll, respondents were asked what they thought should happen to most “illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years.” 65% said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
- 3 -they should “be given a chance to keep their jobs and apply for legal status” while only 28%said they “should be deported back to their native country.”•When asked about the legislation being debated in the Senate, only 13% favored its passage,while 35% opposed passage of the bill. A majority of respondents, 51%, did not know enough about the bill to have an opinion.Texas Employers for Immigration Reform / Baselice & Associates(June 13 – 17, 2007)A survey of 1,001 Texas registered voters (MoE ± 3.1%)•59%- Respondents were asked if they favored or opposed a bill being considered in Congress that included a number of elements including creating “a process for illegal immigrants already in this country to gain legal status by paying a fine, passing a criminal background check and meeting other requirements.” Texas voters favor this proposal by 59%, verses 36% who oppose it. There was little difference in support among Republicans (59%) verses Democrats (62%).•Three-quarters of Texas voters (75%) think that the immigration system is broken and a major overhaul is needed. An even greater number, 77%, believe that illegal immigration is a“very serious” or “extremely serious” problem in Texas.Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg(June 7 – 10, 2007)A survey of 1,183 adults nationwide (MoE ± 3%)•63%- Respondents were asked if they would support a proposal that would “allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements.” Nearly two-thirds of the public (63%) supports such aproposal. Among registered voters, support is slightly higher (65%). Support extends across the political spectrum, including 58% among self-described conservatives. By contrast, only23% of the pubic opposes such a proposal.•The public is very concerned about the issue of illegal immigration. A very large majority(86%) believe it is an “important” problem, including 31% who believe it is the “mostimportant” problem facing the country.•A plurality of the public, 49%, supports a “guest worker” program, verses 26% who oppose such a program.Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll(June 5-6, 2007)A survey of 900 registered voters nationwide (MoE ± 3%)•67%– In this survey, more than two-thirds (67%) of registered voters said they favor“giving illegal immigrants who pay taxes and obey the law a second chance and allowing them to stay in the United States.”•Respondents in this survey were asked to chose, “if it were possible to locate most illegal immigrants currently in the United States,” would they “favor deporting as many aspossible,” or “setting up a system for them to become legal residents.” More than half (51%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
- 4 -said they favored setting up a system for them to become legal residents, while only 39%favored deporting as many as possible.Miami Herald/Zogby International/WFOR-CBS4/Palm BeachPost/WPEC-CBS 12(June 4 – 6, 2007)A survey of 801 “likely voters” in Florida with an oversample of likely voters in Miami-Dade,Broward, Monroe and Palm Beach counties (MoE ± 3.5%; 5% on the oversample)•60%– Three fifths (60%) of Floridian voters think that immigration reform shouldinclude “a path toward citizenship for most illegal immigrants with no criminal record if they pay a $5,000 fine and wait their turn behind legal immigrants to apply for permanent U.S.residency.”•When asked which category of immigrants should have “priority when deciding to allow immigrants into the U.S.,” 42% said immigrants with family ties, vs. 24% who said immigrants with “high-tech skills” should have priority.Pew Research Center for the People and the Press(May 30 – June 3, 2007)A survey of 1,503 adults (MoE ± 3%)•63%– When asked if they favored “providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs,” 63% of respondents said they did.•In this survey, respondents were asked about “amnesty.” A majority, (54%), favored giving“amnesty to illegal immigrants currently in the country if they pass background checks, payfines and have jobs.” Only Conservative Republicans (44% support) and moderate Republicans(50% support) did not show a clear majority support for a path to citizenship characterized as“amnesty.”Washington Post/ABC News(May 29-June 1, 2007)A survey of 1205 adults, with an oversample of African Americans (MoE ± 3%)•52%– In this poll, 52% of respondents said they would support “a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.” Of those respondents, a majority (56%) are opposed to making undocumented immigrant return to their home countries before they can apply for this program. A majority of all respondents (53%) also support “significantly expanding” a“guest worker program.”New York Times/CBS(May 18-13, 2007)A survey of 1,125 adults (MoE ± 3%)•62%– Respondents favored giving undocumented immigrants “a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status” (62%) vs. 33% who thought that they “should be deportedback to their native country.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
- 5 -•More than half of those who favor a path to legal status oppose “requiring [undocumented immigrants] to return to their home country before applying for U.S. citizenship.”•Respondents favor a temporary guest worker program by a 66% to 30% margin. Of those who favor a temporary worker program, by a three to two margin, respondents favor “allowing workers to become permanent residents” at the end of their work period.•Nearly all respondents believe the system is broken, believing that we need to “completely rebuild” our immigration policy (49%) or that it requires “fundamental changes” (41%).Furthermore, 61% of respondents believe the issue of illegal immigration is a “very serious”problem and 82% of respondents believe the U.S. “could be doing more” to “keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country.” Only 1% believe it is not a problem.USA Today/Gallup(April 13 – 15, 2007)•78%– In this poll, respondents were asked whether they favored a government policy that required undocumented immigrants to leave and not return, to leave and return to work temporarily, to leave and be allowed to return to apply for citizenship (if they meet certain requirements), to be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship (if they meet certain requirements). In all, 78% said they favored the two options that would allow immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally to apply for citizenship if requirements are met.Washington Post/ABC News(April 12 – 15, 2007)A survey of 1,141 adults, including an oversample of African Americans (MoE ± 3%)•62%– Respondents in this poll were asked whether “illegal immigrants who are living andworking in the United States now (should be offered a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status),” or should they “be deported back to their native country?” 62% saidthey should be offered a chance to stay, verses 35% who thought they should be deported.CNN/Opinion Research(April 10 – 12, 2007)A survey of 1,218 adults (MoE ± 3)•77%– 77% of respondents favored a program that would allow “illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S.citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes." 21% opposed such a program.Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg(April 5 – 9, 2007)A survey of 1,373 adults (MoE ± 3)•55%– In this survey, respondents were asked whether they favored an approach “that focusesonly on tougher enforcement of immigration laws, or an approach that includes both tougherenforcement of immigration laws and also creates a guest worker program that allowsundocumented workers to work legally in the U.S. on temporary visas?” Only 40% pickedenforcement only verses 55% who chose enforcement plus a guest worker program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
- 6 -University of Iowa Poll(March 19 – 31, 2007)A survey of 1,290 Iowa registered voters (MoE ± 3%)•57%– Given four options—1) deport all undocumented immigrants, 2) allow undocumentedimmigrants to remain in the U.S. to work for a limited amount of time (a guest workerprogram), 3) allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens if they meet certainrequirements like learning English and paying back taxes (earned citizenship), or 4) allowundocumented immigrants to become permanent residents with no requirements (amnesty)—57% of Iowa voters state-wide favored earned citizenship. Less than one-quarter—23%—thought that all undocumented immigrants should be deported.The Field Poll(March 20-31, 2007)A survey of 570 California registered voters (MoE ± 4.5%)•83%– A large majority of Californians (83%) favor the creation of a program that wouldallow undocumented immigrants “who have been living in the U.S. for a number of years anopportunity to stay in this country and apply for citizenship if they have a job, learnedEnglish and paid back taxes.”New York Times/CBS News Poll(March 7-11, 2007)A national survey of 1,362 voters (698 Republican voters)•59%– A majority of respondents (59%) believe that “illegal immigrants who have livedand worked in the United States for at least two years” should be “given a chance to keeptheir jobs and eventually apply for legal status.•Among Republican voters, 49% believe that undocumented immigrants should be given achance to apply for legal status verses 45% who believe they should be deported.•About a third of all voters (36%) believe that these immigrants “should be deported back totheir home countries.”Gallup/USA Today(March 2-4, 2007)A national survey of 1,010 adults (MoE ± 3%)•59%– A majority of Americans (59%) believe that the government should “allow illegalimmigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if theymeet certain requirements over a period of time.”•Less than a quarter (24%) believe the government should “deport all illegal immigrants backto their home country.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
- 7 -California State University, Sacramento(February 17 – March 8, 2007)A Survey of 1106 adults in the Sacramento region (MoE ± 3%)•71%– 71% of residents of the Sacramento, California, area favor a proposal to allowundocumented immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meetcertain requirements over a period of time.•Support was highest among Latino residents, 88%, but there was majority support amongall groups, including 56% support among Republican registered voters.Pew Research Center For People & The Press(December 16, 2006 – January9, 2007)A national survey of 2,007 adults (MoE ± 2.5%)•59%– A majority of Americans (59%) continue to favor a proposal to allow undocumentedimmigrants who have been in the U.S. for several years to gain legal working status and thepossibility of future citizenship.•Opinion on providing a path to citizenship for long-term undocumented immigrants has notchanged in the past year; in April 2006, 58% supported this idea.

Quit lieing Horace.

Bien hecho, Evelyn. He is astro-turfing.

NIF.... riiiiiiigggghhhttt!!! "Realistic Immigration Solutions"????

Nothing like taking a poll and re-arranging it to fit what you want it to. Here is the link for the first Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg(November 30 – December 3, 2007) poll.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-12/34119655.pdf
goto page 6. Question 50.

Looks like the majority want "More Border Security" to me, with the exceptions being Liberals and Moderates.

Totals of Registered Voters also seem to want 73% Security, arrests, and sanctions, while only 45% want a guest worker program or path to citizenship.

So which is the "Real Immigration Solution"?

73% want more Border Security, "Illegals" arrested and employers sanctioned, while only 45% want a path to legalization.

How about the Sacramento one, since that is where I live. They, CSUS, refers to the Gallop Poll here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27307/Most-Americans-Favor-Giving-Illegal-Immigrants-Chance.aspx

Yet, the poll specifically states: 14% Require "illegals" to leave the country for good; 6% will allow them to return, after leaving, for temporary work; 42% will allow them to return, after leaving, and apply for citizenship if certain requirements are met; and 36% will allow them to stay, without leaving, and apply for citizenship if they meet certain requirements.

So you see, 62% require them to leave the country, prior to doing anything else, while only 36% will allow them to stay and apply for a path to citizenship. Again, which is the "Real Immigration Solution"??

According to the "People of the USA", all the percentages are higher for the removal of "Illegal Immigrants" prior to anything else.

Polls can be made to be whatever the person so chooses simply by using the half of the information they choose. The NIF has done nothing to prove which "Solution" is better or more warranted. They only showed what they wanted you to see, and you fell for their ploy.

Now, do I really need to show how all the polls that the NIF listed are opposite of what they claim?

Many Would Deny Illegal Immigrants Access to Basic Social Services
But Path To Citizenship Still Finding Wide Support

This is what your poll said, Liquid. Didn't you bother to read this part?

Everyone wants the border secure. The way to do that is through CIR. If no one can work without an id card. No one will come unless they can get one.

The first thing to do is legalize those immigrants who are presently unauthorized to work. Especially those with American citizen families.

O, and by the way, even legal immigrants dont qualify for public services, except schooling for their children and emergency medical care for which they overcompensate the gov. with taxes they pay.

My poll??? I simply showed your polls that your article linked to. And from what I read, a path to citizenship would start after they were repatriated. Like I said, your linked article is only giving half the information in its conclusions. It's nice when you can pick and choose what information you want to use from a poll to try to make a point. Thats why polls, unless read and used in there entirety, are pretty much worthless.

"Everyone wants the border secure. The way to do that is through CIR. If no one can work without an id card. No one will come unless they can get one."

Am I to understand that you want the Real ID Act to pass with this statement? Everybody wants a form of CIR, just not the one that was proposed.

"O, and by the way, even legal immigrants dont qualify for public services, except schooling for their children and emergency medical care for which they overcompensate the gov. with taxes they pay."

This has been refuted long ago. Circumvention of the law and loop holes, denies nobody.

Liquid

You do an excellent job of spinning the facts to fit your ideology and the way you wish things were.

Spinning to fit my ideology??? The way I wish things were???

C'mon Evelyn, you can argue the points better than that. NIF is an open borders group, one you are in agreement with. They write what they believe, and you hole heartedly agree with them. I don't agree with their outcomes, it's that simple. The polls that they reference are just that, polls. You look at the outcome and answers and draw your own conclusions, just as I have done. What you claim as "facts" are nothing more then their opinion. And as opinions are not facts, I fail to see your truth. I can write a report based on the polls as well, with an outcome based on what I interpret them to say, it would be no different than what they have done, other than mine would be far more truthful than what their's is.

Now, answer the topic question on the morality of the immigration enforcement.

Horace,

It is less like an invasion and more like an invitation. When an American employer gives an illegal immigrant a job to meet the demands of the American consumer for low prices, the illegal immigrant is now a welcome addition to the American experiment in capitalism.

P.S. Mickey Kaus is an asshole.

"Horace,

It is less like an invasion and more like an invitation. When an American employer gives an illegal immigrant a job to meet the demands of the American consumer for low prices, the illegal immigrant is now a welcome addition to the American experiment in capitalism."

Really? The only way for an illegal alien to work cheaper than a citizen is to live in overcrowded dives and consequently pay lower per capita property taxes, avoid paying income taxes, fail to purchase auto insurance and impose upon our hospitals and our taxpayers by claiming indigency to default on his hospital bills. Contrary to popular belief, illegal aliens do not provide cheap labor, as we pick up the costs that the employers foist the hidden costs upon us. I for one refuse to accept this crap any longer.

arturo, the American employer has no right to invite illegal aliens into our country against our labor and immigration laws. They are beholding to our laws just as us regular citizens are. They are only padding their own wallets while they pass on the social costs of the illegals to we the taxpayer. Get real will you and grow some morality. Money isn't everything.

Now, answer the topic question on the morality of the immigration enforcement

Speaking of morality....

Morality has to do with the ability to feel empathy and remorse.

Racist are lacking in this ability. Racists see themselves as superior to others. Fear is what drives a racist. Ignorance is what fuels the fear that causes the hate that disables the racist to feel empathy or remorse.

Here Liquid, spin this also.

Home : Press Room : Press Releases : Immigration Politics

Press Releases
Immigration Issue Not Shaping Up to be the Republican Electoral Wedge Some Predicted

January 30, 2008
Washington, DC - Yesterday, Sen. John McCain won the Florida Republican presidential primary. The following is a statement by Douglas Rivlin, Communication Director of the National Immigration Forum, a non-partisan, pro-immigrant advocacy group in Washington.
Based on exit polls provided by CNN, which included questions about immigration and ethnicity, the results of the Florida primary are further evidence that the immigration issue is not shaping up to be the wedge issue some had hoped it would be. In fact, the deportation-only approach favored by many candidates seems to be more of a liability than an asset.
The exit polls show that the deportation-only approach to immigration was favored by a minority of Republican voters (40%), with the majority (58%) selecting either a temporary legal status (29%) or a path to citizenship (29%) for immigrants in the country illegally. Gov. Romney captured 38% of these deportation-only voters, compared to Sen. McCain's 26%. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain captured a majority of the majority of voters who selected temporary or permanent legal status for immigrants here illegally.
Similarly, Gov. Romney won among Republicans who identified immigration as their number one issue (43% to McCain's 25%), but these voters were only 16% of the Republican electorate.
So pandering to the deportation-only crowd, in which Gov. Romney, Gov. Huckabee, and Sen. Thompson have all engaged in to varying degrees over the past several weeks, doesn't seem to deliver a win, even in a Republican primary.
The flip-side - the harm a deportation-only approach does to a candidate - also shines through in the Florida results. While Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney split the non-Latino Republican vote (33%-33%), Sen. McCain had a big edge among Latino Republicans, winning both Cuban Republicans (54% to Romney's 8%) and non-Cuban Latino Republicans (53% to Romney's 21%).
These results are from just one state, albeit an important one, but they lend further evidence to what we have been saying about harsh anti-immigration positions in an electoral context. The benefits to a candidate of a strict deportation-only approach to immigration are practically non-existent, while the downside with the fastest growing group of American voters - Hispanics - of wanting to deport their families and neighbors can be decisive.
Print-friendly version

There is no immorality in enforcing our immigration laws. Every country does it. But for some reason the real racists in here don't think the U.S. should be allowed to.

One of my definitions of a racist would be those who attack their fellow citizens for wanting our immigration laws enforced in favor of their own ethic kind here illegally in our country. That is racism thru and thru!

We must not repeat the mistake of the 1986 amnesty. How stupid is it to repeat a disaster?

Frank-Horace, nonsense. Illegal immigrants are a net plus to the economy. I can't imagine you'll go near the last word on the subject so far, Jason Riley's new book "Let Them In." Lou Dobbs obviously didn't read it to have him on his show. It is because the illegal immigrant has been good for the US that its people (employers but more important consumers) have acted rationally in letting them in. Your belief that Americans would work against their self-interest by inviting illegal immigrants shows your contempt for the US and its people. You're willing to turn the US into a police state to indulge irrational fears. Shame on you.

"Get real will you and grow some morality. Money isn't everything."

Of course money does not dictate morality. It is not "moral" to hire an illegal immigrant to save American consumers money. But it is a decision Americans made. Americans took in illegal immigrants to save money. Morality is about how we now deal with people we have made part of our community. We treat them with respect.

Your article is only showing the Republican voting blocks. Again, this pole is similar to the other polls, where in by approx. 40% are wanting deportation and only approx. 30% are for giving them a path to citizenship. The other 30%, allowing them to become guest workers, if it is like the Gallup poll from your earlier posting, without knowing the questions asked and pertinent information it's hard to say which. As I am a Democrat, i think we should make all the farmers hire the "illegals" as H-2A visa holders, give them 2 years and then repatriate.

The wording of the question of this CNN poll is missing, so to come up to any decent conclusion, is again nothing more then mere opinion, which you obviously post from a biased web site for the issuance of granting citizenship for them.

Nothing is spun here, I interpret differently than you do, I come to my own conclusions and state my opinion based on them, unlike you believing what ever is written by a biased group which you agree with.

Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law. Some have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality (Dworkin).

Leave it to you to turn Morality into racism.

Main Entry:
mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural mo·ral·i·ties
Date:
14th century

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b: plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

arturo, I hate to burst your bubble but it wasn't regular Americans who invited these illegals here nor do they condone. It is the greedy corporatations that did. You think it alright and moral for them to break our labor and immigration laws to pad their bank accounts? The savings are not passed on to we the consumer but their social costs are. You don't have your facts straight.

Anyway, we are a nation of laws and immigration is regulated for a good reason. You are not thinking clearly at all. Based on your name, I would say you are a typical ethnocentric pro-illegal sympathizer. Ethnicity means more to you than your own country.

Why no accounability on the part of the illegals for breaking our laws? Why do you give them a pass? We didn't make them a part of our communties, they just barged right in without permission.

In response to a person quoting Jesus ("enter ye at the strait gate") to justify nativist or racist immigration policy.

Dear Sir,

I had to laugh out loud at Jim Roberts’ use of scripture to defend Mr. Tanton and his nativist opinion ("Enter ye in at the strait gate" (Matthew 7:13)). Surely he must know that in that context Jesus was talking about entering the kingdom of heaven, not the U.S. (and they aren’t the same). What an awful example of proof texting. Anyone who knows anything about our immigration laws knows that they are anything but "straight." A more informative passage from Jesus would be later in the same gospel of Matthew (chap. 25) where he tells a story about the end of the age when Jesus (the "Son of Man") "comes in his glory" to judge "the nations." He separates them into the righteous and the unrighteous, calling them the sheep and the goats. To the righteous, he says,

’Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I WAS A STRANGER AND YOU INVITED ME IN, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ [emphasis added]

To the unrighteous, he says,

’Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I WAS A STRANGER AND YOU DID NOT INVITE ME IN, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ [emphasis added]
Jesus spoke a lot more about the "weightier matters of the law" such as "justice, mercy, and faith" (Matthew 23) than about our adherence to unjust, punitive, and merciless immigration ordinances. Where the law is unjust, it should be changed, not held up as some sort of measure of morality.

I really like this article. It's about jobs Hispanic citizens won't do. It's so richly ironic! I can see a lot more of this in the future.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_9482779?source=most_emailed

St. Paul McDonald's sued by applicants who claim they were rejected for being born in U.S.
Men claim bias for being born in U.S.
By David Hanners
dhanners@pioneerpress.com
Article Last Updated: 06/04/2008 11:55:14 PM CDT

Two Hispanic men have sued the owner of a McDonald's in downtown St. Paul, claiming the restaurant's manager told them he wouldn't hire them because they were born in America.

"Oh, I only want to hire Mexicans from Mexico," the lawsuit quotes the unidentified manager as telling one of the job applicants. "When I hire Mexicans from America, they always quit."

In the suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, the two men allege they were discriminated against because of their national origin and race. They also claim the manager violated state law.

Local Hispanic groups and state officials said the allegation at the heart of the suit — that a hiring manager expressed a preference for foreign-born workers — was a complaint they'd not dealt with before.

"This is certainly something new that I've never heard of," said Rogelio Munoz, executive director of the state's Chicano Latino Affairs Council. "Perhaps people from other countries are not too familiar with current employment law, and perhaps people here know those rights regarding labor issues. That's all speculation. We haven't had any case like that here."

The McDonald's involved is in the skyway level of the Minnesota World Trade Center in downtown St. Paul. McDonald's Corp. is not named as a defendant. The sole defendant is the franchise owner, identified as Ervin Grulkowski, although the lawsuit incorrectly spells his name "Groulkowski."

The suit was filed by Nicholas G.B. May, a
lawyer in Hastings, on behalf of Alejandro Villanueva, 29, and Matthew Filius, 23, both of St. Paul.
"This guy said that Mexican-Americans weren't going to work as hard as Mexicans from Mexico," May said.

In an interview, Grulkowski said he had no idea what the two plaintiffs were talking about, and he maintained he hires people from all ethnic backgrounds at the three St. Paul McDonald's he owns.

"I have no knowledge where they're coming up with this claim," he said. "I don't care how old or what race or where they're born. All you have to do is go into my restaurants and you'll see the makeup of my employees. I've got Hispanic managers, I've got Asian managers, I've got African-American managers."

McDonald's did not immediately return a call for comment.

May said the incident was "express discrimination. This manager blatantly explained to these folks that they weren't being hired based on their race and national origin.

"The discrimination laws are meant to protect everybody and level the playing field, regardless of where you're from, regardless of whether you're foreign-born or were born here in the U.S.," May said.

The suit claims that Villanueva and Filius, both born in St. Paul, submitted employment applications last October to the skyway McDonald's.

In December, a manager asked Villanueva to come in for an interview and a "pre-employment exam" for a job unloading trucks.

"Villanueva arrived for his interview as scheduled," the suit claims. "After arriving, the interviewing manager asked Villanueva in what language he would like to take his employment exam in, English or Spanish. Villanueva responded that he would prefer to take the test in English."

The manager then asked the man where he was born, the suit claims. Villanueva told him he was born in St. Paul, which allegedly prompted the manager to say that when he hired Hispanics "from America, they always quit."

"The manager then refused to let Villanueva take the exam," the suit claims. "When Villanueva protested and offered to take any job the manager had to offer, the manager again refused and reiterated that he only wanted to hire 'Mexicans from Mexico.' "

Filius' experience was similar, the suit contends. When he called to see about the status of his job application, the manager allegedly asked him where he was born. He told the manager he was born in St. Paul.

"The manager then stated that he was only interested in hiring Mexicans from Mexico and that there were no positions available for Filius," the suit says.

Both men filed complaints Feb. 5 with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But the men withdrew the complaints after deciding they wanted to pursue the matter in court. The law prohibits pursuing an EEOC complaint and a lawsuit simultaneously.

Elaine Hanson, the state human rights agency's enforcement supervisor, said the men withdrew their complaints before the state could determine whether there was any merit to the allegations.

May said he's never handled a case like this, although he's heard of similar cases involving minorities who are U.S. citizens.

"I'm aware of discrimination against American-born minorities. I know it's been an issue," he said. "But it's the first one that I've handled quite like this."

He claimed there was "a well-known problem where some employers discriminate against native-born minorities."

Why?

"You'd have to ask them," he said of the employers. "In this instance, there were comments made to one of my clients that 'you don't work as hard.' "

David Hanners can be reached at 612-338-6516.

The only useful reason to discuss the "illegality" of the act is to find a way to make our laws more sensibly reflect "regular" Americans' values. Drive around every hot afternoon in Southern California middle-class neighborhoods and house after house you'll see illegal immigrants mowing the lawns and keeping its exteriors beautiful. These homes belong to regular Americans not "greedy corporations". After legalizing those who are here who have proven productive and of good character, it is important that we allow for those who will be needed in the future to come in legally.

Your side wants to see this simply as a matter of legal vs criminal conduct because it is your easy way to dehumanize the illegal immigrant. Indulging this fascist impulse is not good for you Frank.

"Based on your name..."

Whatever.

I see you still are plagiarizing, Evelyn. We already went over all of this. Remeber Miss Holier Than Thou!!

"

I am thrilled you will be sooOO disappointed when you find out I am not catholic. I am not christian either. I dont need religion to tell me right from wrong. Nature has taught me all I need to know. You forget I am half Indian, raised on a reservation by my Indian grandmother. Our spirituality is geared more towards respecting all things nature.

If this country should someday seize to be a free country. Maby then I will keep faith and religion or anything else you dont want to hear about to myself. until then I suggest you SHUT UP! Telling me what to do will only leave you even more frustrated.

Yes in a few years my plans are to move to Mexico, by then you will be burning in hell."

Yet, here you are plagiarizing Bible Verse from someone else, seems you are incapable of original though and opinion.

"Your side wants to see this simply as a matter of legal vs criminal conduct because it is your easy way to dehumanize the illegal immigrant. Indulging this fascist impulse is"

Just wait until there are so many Hispanic illegal aliens in California that you too will have to compete with them for work and we'll see how generous and self righteous you will be.

Mexicans dehumanize their own people, because if they didn't they wouldn't be mistreating them so abysmally by forcing them to leave their homeland. Don't talk to me about dehumanizing people, Fernandez, because one has only to look at the sorry state of Latin America in their treatment of their own citizens to see it. Now you have the nerve to to call people of this country, whose only objective is to defend their sovereign borders, xenophobes and racitsts. I find suggest rhetoric not only hypocritical, but revolting.

arturo, how in hell would you know that those mowing lawns are illegals? I live in a community where an American of Mexican ancestry (legal citizen) does all of the common area yard work.

So bringing up the illegal act of robbing a bank is dehumanizing the bank robber? LOL!

"How in hell would you know those mowing lawns are illegals."

I know some of them. I talk to them, and it comes up. They're here illegally. Most people mowing the lawns of regular Americans are here illegally or were at one time illegal immigrants. Regular Americans like to save money, so they don't ask to see their gardeners' legal documents. Just like regular American small-business restaurant owners, who can that way offer the regular American comsumer a fine meal at a good price. Just like the regular Americans hiring illegal immigrants to wash the cars of regular Americans who never complain to the car-wash owner because they're getting a good deal, even if they well know that the people washing their cars are illegal immigrants.

"Just wait until there are so many Hispanic illegal aliens in California that you too will have to compete with them for work and we'll see how generous and self righteous you will be."

First of all, people crossing the southern Borders illegally are not competing with me nor will they start. I'm not looking for a job at a car-wash, not because I'm better than they, but because I can get a better paying job. The illegal immigrant provides labor that supports an economy where the better-skilled can make a good living. If regular Americans washed their own cars and mowed their own laws, they wouldn't have as much time to spend at the office or studying for the SAT.

Second, this is not about being generous, it's about doing what's fair and what's right. It's not really because I'm generous that I tip well at the carwash. It's because I know some of the workers at carwashes get ripped off by their employers. Their employers rip them off because they, like you, see no reason to respect them as people.

"Now you have the nerve to to call people of this country, whose only objective is to defend their sovereign borders, xenophobes and racitsts"

Where did I call you racist? "Fascist" it appears you are, but "racist" I don't know.

"So bringing up the illegal act of robbing a bank is dehumanizing the bank robber?"

Regular Americans who for eighty dollars hire an illegal immigrant to houseclean one day a week usually leave the woman unattended in their home. They know they're not letting a bank robber into their home. Using the word "illegal" as a noun, not as an adjective for the noun "immigrant", is dehumanizing.

Liquid

I guess it IS possible, for people to be that DUMB. The article was not posted for my benefit???? ROTFLMAO!

I guess you forgot about this Horace.

Why Immigration Has Spiked

In recent years, subsidies received by U.S. corn farmers have resulted in overproduction—flooding the market and causing large dips in the price of the crop. Under Washington’s agricultural subsidy program, in 2000, U.S. corn producers alone received $10.1 billion in payments from the U.S. government—ten times the Mexican government’s annual agricultural budget. Subsidies are determined by a farm’s land area and historical output; thus, due to these factors, the vast majority of the aid goes to large agribusinesses. In the U.S., the top ten percent of agricultural subsidy recipients (most of whom earn, on average, over a quarter million dollars per year) receive over 70 percent of the subsidy dollars. There are also provisions for “counter cyclical payments,” which are subsidies given to U.S. farmers for the sole purpose of protecting their produce from price fluctuations within the global market.

The U.S. has established a pattern in which it seeks to open its borders by means of free trade deals, bringing supply and demand capitalism to a developing world, hoping, at best, to create mutually beneficial trade arrangements, which, in many instances, do not work out that way. Meanwhile, Washington protects its own farmers against the self-correcting mechanisms inherent in the capitalist model by rewarding overproduction at home, economically penalizing small farmers in other parts of the world.

NAFTA has caused unemployment within the agricultural sector of Mexico to skyrocket. According to the Economic Policy Institute, at the end of 2004 there were 6.8 million unemployed agricultural workers in Mexico. Corn producers were perhaps the hardest hit by the free trade agreement: over one million of the crop’s cultivators have lost their jobs since the end of 1993, with many of them being forced to sell off their land at artificially low prices. Overall, paid wages to Mexicans working on corn farms have fallen 70 percent and, according to Witness for Peace, rural poverty rates in Mexico have risen to 81 percent. Between 1991 and 2004, the percentage of the Mexican population involved in the agricultural sector fell by over 10 percent.

Robbing a bank is a felony=crime

having illegal status while in this country is an administrative issue=not a crime

arturo, you are just blowing smoke if you think that the majority of Americans hire illegal aliens or support them in any way KNOWLINGLY. I have a hot flash for you! Many Americans wash their own cars and mow their own lawns and clean their own houses. I am a good example of it. In today's economy, it is also a cost saving measure.

Most of those low paying jobs that the illegals are taking were once done by our American youth and less-educated Americans. When was the last time you saw a Black janitor for example?

Why should any American respect a law breaker or a job stealer, or an identity theif?

Sorry, but our government's legal term for those in our country without papers is "illegal alien." Don't like it, then bitch to them not to me or other Americans who choose the correct terminology to describe them.

Agricultural workers in this country illegally only account for about 2% of the illegal population. The rest are doing jobs that Americans will do for a fair wage but can't compete with cheap, illegal labor.

It is still violates our immigration laws when one enters this country illegally. No sense in candy coating it. If one is deported and returns again it is a FELONY. Many of the illegal fit this description. Also identify theft and working under false pretenses and documents is a FELONY. Many of the illegals fit this description.

Evelyn, you'll note many examples of family values while listening to this NPR piece on Mexico. Notice that the new saints of Mexico head criminal enterprises.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91303968

Smugglers' Hero Status Hampers Cartel Crackdown
by Jason Beaubien

Morning Edition, June 9, 2008 · Mexico is in the midst of a fierce drug battle. Since President Felipe Calderon declared war on the smuggling gangs, violence has increased in many regions, including the western state of Sinaloa, where smugglers are revered as heroes.

-----------------------
and here, from my buddy Thomas at Hispanic Tips:

June 6, 2008

Mexico’s War on Drugs is a Sham

By Gardenia Mendoza
La Opinión

Mexico’s strategy against organized crime is failing because it has not attacked the larger financial or political structure behind drug trafficking, writes La Opinión’s Mexico City correspondent.

MEXICO CITY – When he came to office in December 2006, President Felipe Calderón implemented a strategy against organized crime. But the plan is failing because it has focused solely on the seizure of drugs, weapons and traffickers without attacking the larger financial or political structure.

National security and organized crime experts came to this conclusion to explain the escalation of violence, including beheadings, torture, kidnappings and mass killings that have been unleashed during the current administration.

“This is the experience of 107 countries: If you only go after gangsters without attacking the financial structure or political protection, what happens is a paradox: you add more troops, prosecutors and police, and the criminal groups put more money into corruption,” says Edgardo Buscaglia, advisor to the UN and academic at Mexico’s Autonomous Technological Institute (ITAM).

“This creates an escalation of violence because criminals respond by bribing high-level officials in order to protect themselves against the state’s actions,” he adds.

It has happened in Lebanon, Pakistan, Colombia… and now it is happening in Mexico: Organized crime has infiltrated the government in a kind of “feudalization,” buying off officials (governors, mayors and police officers) and influencing them by contributing to their campaigns.

“In order for this car to work it has to have four wheels, four combatants: the gangsters, the armed wing, their finances and their politicians,” notes Buscaglia.

Would attacking drug trafficking money harm the national economy?

Jorge Santillán, an analyst with the Technological Institute of Higher Learning in Monterrey, believes it would: “Mexico lives off of three major money-makers,” he says, “oil, remittances and drugs.”

Buscaglia says that both finances and political interests would be affected: if this sector is attacked, many companies in Mexico and other countries would fall, and their links with officials would be discovered.

“For any president there is a very high political cost because they have to attack the same players they must negotiate with in order to govern: attacking those areas is much more complicated,” he adds.

Pedro Isnardo de la Cruz, a specialist in drug trafficking at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), believes that the “failure” of the fight against drug trafficking lies with Calderón. Calderón’s war on drugs is simply theatre, Isnardo argues, an act to reassure foreign investment and confidence in his presidency.

“Why hasn’t the war on drugs included the Ministry of Finance and banks to track money laundering, and why hasn’t more been asked of the U.S. government to cooperate?” he asks.

Analyst and journalist Jorge Fernández Menéndez believes that the opposite it happening: This wave of narcoviolence, he says, is a sign that criminal organizations – though they may appear to be strong – are actually cracking.

“This isn’t anything new; it happened in Colombia,” he says. “Pablo Escobar’s people, when their position was weakened or lost, would used increased violence in the same way, from the killings of policemen and officials to the Supreme Court and finally to car bombs and an escalation of kidnappings. But it was not a demonstration of strength,” he says, “but of weakness.”

Translated by Elena Shore, New America Media.

---------------------------
Mexico is now a Narco-state. So much for being the poster child for family values.

"arturo you are just blowing smoke if you think that the majority of Americans hire illegal aliens..."

frank, you're just blowing smoke by saying that I think 150,000,000+ Americans are hiring illegal immigrants.

"...term for those in our country without papers is 'illegal alien.'"

in that case, you're using "illegal" as an adjective for the noun "alien". I don't mind that usage of "illegal", even if I'm not crazy about "alien"

You think, arturo? What you "think" is irrelevant. Where is your proof that your average American knowingly hires illegal aliens?

Illegal alien is a lawful government term for those in this country without permission. Don't like it? Take it up with them!

"What you "think" is irrelevant."

It was relevant to you. My thinking that 150,000,000+ Americans hire illegal immigrants proves me wrong, you said. It takes a majority of Americans to make something not objectionable, was your point. Your silliness is relevant, only because it typifies the nonsense coming from the anti-illegal-immigrant obsessed.

My thinking would also be irrelevant if it weren't backed up by proof or our laws. As I asked and you sidestepped, where is your proof that your average American hires illegal aliens all the time, KNOWINGLY?

Oh, so it is an "obsession" and "silly" and "nonsense" to object to the invasion of millions and millions of illegal aliens into our country? Well I have to hand to you pro-illegals, you came up with some new words anyway. Found out that racist, xenophobe, hater doesn't work on us anymore?

More on Mexico, the narco-state and poster child for family values. The Mexicans can't even provide proper medical care for their police. They sponge off of us at every opportunity. Is there no shame?!!!!

El Paso to ask feds for help treating wounded Mexican cops
06/10/2008

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL / Associated Press

El Paso County officials want the federal government to take over transporting and caring for wounded Mexican police officers seeking treatment in a local public hospital.

County Judge Anthony Cobos pleaded for help Tuesday, four days after two police officers wounded in an ongoing turf war among powerful Mexican drug cartels were brought to the county hospital in El Paso.

The officers' arrival prompted the El Paso County Sheriff's Office to provide tight security to prevent Mexico's violence from spilling into the United States. It is the second time this year deputies have guarded the county hospital, the only Level 1 trauma center for 280 miles.

"This is the responsibility of the federal government," Cobos said after meeting with officials from Homeland Security, the U.S. Army and other agencies. "Don't put the burden on the local community. This is clearly the result of the federal government's policy on the war on drugs."

Cobos said the county doesn't have the money to fund massive security efforts every time a wounded police officer, or anyone else caught up in Mexico's ongoing violence, seeks medical care in the U.S. He also questioned the laws and policies that federal officials have used to allow these wounded officers into the United States.

Lorenzo de la Torre, the assistant police chief in Casas Grandes, and his boss, Juan Etiene, were wounded Thursday and brought to El Paso on Friday. Casas Grandes is about 140 miles south of El Paso.

Mexican officials said last week that de la Torre was gravely wounded while Etiene's hand was injured.

The officers' immigration status was not available Tuesday.

Cobos said he's been told that Etiene was released from the hospital. Details about de la Torre's condition and Etiene's whereabouts were not released Tuesday.

"I believe they may have needed a level of medical attention, but absolutely safety was on their mind," Cobos said.

Hospital officials have said that federal law bars them from refusing treatment in an emergency situation.

Chief Customs and Border Protection Officer Rick Lopez said this week that he could not discuss specific instances of someone arriving at the border in need of medical care. But not everyone seeking care is admitted to the U.S., he said.

"It's not a given that just because you arrive in an ambulance we just open the door," Lopez said. "There's a lot more that just opening the door and saying come on in."

In life or death situations, Lopez said, patients are generally allowed into the country for medical care.

"If the person is gravely injured ... then you have to take into consideration, if they are going to a hospital they aren't going anywhere and may be allowed in," Lopez said.

Lopez did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday afternoon.

El Paso County Sheriff Jimmy Apodaca said his office spent more than $47,000 to secure the hospital for three weeks starting in mid-January when Fernando Lozano Sandoval, a U.S. citizen and commander with the Chihuahua State Investigations Agency, was treated for multiple gunshot wounds after an attack in Ciudad Juarez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso.

Apodaca said he did not know how much the latest security detail would cost. His office plans to ask the Mexican federal government to help cover the costs, Apodaca said.

Veronica Escobar, an El Paso county commissioner who sat in on Tuesday's closed-door meeting, said earlier in the day that she worries the city is being used as a safe haven.

"One of the patients who was brought over (Friday) was not a trauma patient and could have been treated anywhere," Escobar said. "There is a pattern emerging where we are seen as a safe haven for injured Mexican officials. That's what the police chief was doing, he was seeking safe haven."

Cobos said one solution could be to transfer patients from Mexico to secure military hospitals or other government-run facilities outside El Paso.

"A community right on the border is not the best place" to treat targets of violent drug cartels, Cobos said.

"As I asked and you sidestepped, where is your proof..."

Frank, be serious. My neighbors are average Americans. Their gardeners are illegal immigrants. My neighbors aren't stupid. They know.

"...to object to the invasion..."

...It's less like an invasion and more like an invitation...as I said before.

"...you came up with some new words anyway. Found out that racist..."

Where, when, have I said you are racist? So far I can't tell if you are or aren't.

arturo, maybe that is the way it is in your neighborhood but not mine. Most loyal Americans will not hire illegal aliens. As I said, many Americans mow their own laws and other domestic chores.

I wasn't implying that you personally had called me a racist. My remark was about pro's in general (and obviously you are one) and their usage of the word racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. against any American opposed to illegal immigration and wanting our immigration laws enforced.

Horace

It is easy to see you must have forgotten WHO is buying all those illicit drugs, and WHO is to blame for Mexicos war on drugs. I believe in the saying, that if you kill the dog the rabies will be no more. If Your fellow up standing, law abiding Americans were not consuming these drugs then you would have a right to complain. Until than focus on stopping the use of drugs in your country.

"...It's less like an invasion and more like an invitation...as I said before."

Sure, we've invited MS-13, fugitives from Mexican justice, other criminals who are not, drug smugglers, drivers without insurance, DUIs, and dealers and all those people who think our health care facilities are free. I think it's time to withdraw our "invitation", as the host is suffering immeasurably. If Al Capone were alive and gave these people an invitation you'd still be saying the same thing?

"...as the host is suffering immeasurably."

Not true. Illegal immigration has been a net plus to the US economy and to Americans. Americans have acted rationally in taking in illegal immigrants. Your contempt for the US and its people makes you equate its free-market economy to drugs and gangs. In your mind, frugal American consumers who shop around for the best prices are like gangsters and drug addicts. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Your ignorance and racism is on display again for all the world to see! Thanks for showing the world who the driving force behind the immigration debate is.

It isn't the majority of Americans who use drugs anyway. Oh, that's right we are all guilty by association? Both the user and the pusher are guilty!