I love the minutemen! Mexicans should get inline just like evry other immigrant. they come here, and they want to protest in Spanish. Normal people come here, learn English, but mexicans want everything in Spanish.

Caucasian Caucus. Make it happen!

My last comment was deleted.

I guess we know the editorial bent of the website now.

"And stop pretending that immigrants are draining resources. Immigrants, illegal or legal

make a strong contibution to our economy that could not be replaced if the Minutemen had their way.

Egocentric."

Show me where those economic benefits are to the average citizens of this nation. They don't exist. The only benefits illegal aliens bring is to the businesses that profit off of them.

My point in illustrating the actual numbers is to show the problem AS IT IS, not as some would PAINT IT. Mexican is a nationality, NOT a race, and 95% of the illegal aliens are Mexican. This is NOT a 'migration', it's an INVASION.

Race is a factor, as is economics. As one commentor pointed out, we are not concerned about our Norther border in the least.

"Hispanic illegal immigration constitutes 98.9% of the problem. It's not racist to acknowledge the obvious."

Thanks bud. Now lets stop pretending that we are concerned for our nation's safety and security, as others have suggested. This is a racist and classist agenda, that pits US (American taxpayer) against THEM ( 98.9% poor Mexicans).

"I'm not willing to PAY for it"

And stop pretending that immigrants are draining resources. Immigrants, illegal or legal

make a strong contibution to our economy that could not be replaced if the Minutemen had their way.

Egocentric.

Your first point is well taken and these are many peoples' concerns with immigration: job security, what it does to wages, etc.

However, race should have NO BEARING on the topic whatsoever. It really doesn't matter that more than 98% of undocumented persons are Latino, does it? What matters is the political, social, and economic conditions that push people to immigrate. Again, race is not a factor in immigration. Think about the demographics of the Western Hemisphere and think about how insightful your comment on "REALISM" is.

I don't blame the people for their plight. However, I'm not willing to PAY for it, either. The responsibility for these people lies with their respective governments, not ours. The bottom line is that American tax-payers, already hit with a cheaper dollar and less ways to make them, are getting stuck with the bill that illegal employers are leaving. It is not our responsibility to pay for the social services of the 30 million illegals here, or their dependents back home.

I'm not trying to endorse ANY racism. I point out the percentage because when you think about it, it's mind-boggling. And for the most part, the 7 legal Hispanics KNOW who the 3 illegals are and condone their illegal behavior. Like I said, when 98.9% of illegal aliens are Hispanic, it's not racism, it's REALISM.

Pat Riot,

Your point is now clearer to me. Don't get me wrong, I understand the gravity of the problem and the effects to working Americans. However, unlike you, I don't blame the people stuck in their conditions. Survival is everyone's instinct and many impoverished Mexicans see their only options (evidenced by how many risk their lives to get here) in the US. I don't blame the victims, I blame governmental policies. As for your math, that 3 in 10 latinos are illegal, does that justify a racist attude toward the other 70%? Your fact seems to be saying that the inherent racism when dealing with immigration is justified in your mind because 30% of latinos are "illegal." Which is one damned awful thing to say.

I believe that there have to be stronger protections for workers in this country, and that unions are one way of accomplishing that. I don't believe blaming the poor immigrants who come here to survive accomplishes anything but perpetuating racism and violence (a la the Minutemen).

And as for your last point, I thought the Minutemen-KKK associations were common knowledge. Your post seems very confusing to me, I have no idea where you are coming from.

Jane,

Mexico's government doesn't take care of Mexico's people because they are corrupt. The elites (Spaniards all) have been sloughing off their poorest 'mestizos' on us for the last half-century. They prefer to let US pay for their greed. They compound that greed with $25 BILLION in remittances, making it their second-largest source of income, after PEMEX.

Our government IS NO BETTER. They allow BIG BUSINESS to import these 'cheap workers' with impunity, undermining the wages and opportunities of our neediest CITIZENS. It also absolves them of the responsibility to pay taxes, Social Security, Workman's Comp, unemployment, etc. That's what makes them 'cheap'. In the meantime, taxpayers are picking up the tab for ALL those things.

To address the 'inherent racism', let me say this. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, "57% of ALL Hispanics in America are foreign-born, and over half of those are here illegally." If you put pencil to paper, .57X.51=.2907 .57X.55=.3135

Suffice it to say that 3 of EVERY 10 Hispanics in America are here illegally. Going further, 2004 USBP data show just over 1 million arrests at our borders. Of that, 44,000 were OTM's, leaving 956,000+ Mexicans. Of the OTM's, 33,000 came from Central and South America, i.e. Hispanic. That leaves 11,000 non-Hispanic arrestees, or 1.1% of the total. Hispanic illegal immigration constitutes 98.9% of the problem. It's not racist to acknowledge the obvious.

Ethos,

I promise not to use the word 'Communist' in this post.

NAFTA-CAFTA-FTAA hurt ALL the countries involved. We can see the damage being done. The only winners are the Corporations that maximize their profit on the backs of the 'Middle Class'.

Who owns the Corporations?

America's 'elite', on BOTH SIDES of the aisle.

As for the Minuteman Project and Jim Gilchrist, I think you should dig a little deeper than Mo Dees and the SPLC. They're the same folks that count the KKK as valued clients.

Ethos, by refering to NAFTA and international economic policies, was I somehow implying an either/or situation? I have never mentioned my own opinions on immigration, I just want the debate to be less about race and more about macro-issues that have always affected immigration. I do not believe that is "playing into the hands" of Rove and the Republicans (nor the Democrats for that matter). Politics in general seems to prefer an ignorant population. Educating oneself (non-partisan, un-biased) on the issues would not be beneficial to most politicians.

I'm sorry if this sounds defensive. The idea that I would be playing into Rove's hands by discussing NAFTA is just absurd to me.

Ethos, I don't believe I ever attempted to make an "either/or" argument. I never even discussed my own personal view-point on the matter. I understand the problems inherent in high numbers of unprotected, undocumented workers. My goal in posting comments was to point people to issues that affect immigration so it may be less of a debate based solely on race and racism and more on international processes and economic policies, which are the general causes of immigration flows.

I'm sorry if this seems defensive, I got a little freaked when I saw you believe I am playing into the hand of Karl Rove (??!!?!?!?) by discussing national and international policies.

Yes, yes. good, good points Jane and ethos. I was coerced to the dark side. It's easy for me to be reduced to 0/1 mentality once I get fired up. I retract the either or comments above.

Admittedly, I know little about immigration, but much about the politics of race in America and I know the difference between someone believing in a policy because it works and someone believing in a policy because it supports his/her interests. I'll still never understand why people who comment here are so brutally racist with seemingly little exposure to the people they chide. Or why they feel that exclusionary policies are in their interest.

One thing, though. I still believe people are hand-picked to come here. It would not be America if we didn't try to steal the best and brightest from other countries in some sytematic way.

Commie.

Yes, yes. good, good points Jane and ethos. I was coerced to the dark side. It's easy for me to be reduced to 0/1 mentality once I get fired up. I retract the either or comments above.

Admittedly, I know little about immigration, but much about the politics of race in America and I know the difference between someone believing in a policy because it works and someone believing in a policy because it supports his/her interests. I'll still never understand why people who comment here are so brutally racist with seemingly little exposure to the people they chide. Or why they feel that exclusionary policies are in their interest.

One thing, though. I still believe people are hand-picked to come here. It would not be America if we didn't try to steal the best and brightest from other countries in some sytematic way.



Commie.

#58 - This is definitely the most fair and rational argument I have read here, ethos, you should run for office.

Wow, so many stereotypes, so little time...

First of all can we stop bandying about the word "Communist" and go back and learn some U.S. history about the Communist Party in America, their many noble (IMO) accomplishments, their ideological split from the Socialists, and how the hell can you even mention a modern-day Democrat and a Communist in the same breath! (btw, we're talking a Hillary Clinton Dem and not a Lyndon Larouche Dem, I'm hoping?)

Second of all, this remark has just got to go:

"Legal immigrants that we hand pick are the rich ones who want to assimilate as quickly as possible so they can make tons more cash at whatever expense...even their own personal history and family heritage."

I mean, wtf???? Are you even aware of the immigration process? Do you have any idea how hard it is to enter this country legally? Have you ever spoken to an immigrant fleeing persecution in their country of origin working a shit job and sharing a room with seven other compatriots as they nervously await their status???

"We hand pick?" What do you mean... like a bunch of wealthy whitefolks having high tea on Ellis Island while Dubya himself stands on a platform and says, "I'll take you, and you , and you..."

Damn Miguel, I usually like what you have to say but sorry, that was just nuts.

Yeah, I know that NAFTA and globilization in general has created intolerable economic conditions in many other countries but come on, there IS more than two sides to this debate. And framing it as a either/or issue plays right into the hands of those crooks we love to hate... I believe the shorthand is "Republican." (Again, we're talking Karl Rove Republican, not Abraham Lincoln Republican, right? Ah, labels...) Intentionally or not, iIlegal immigrant workers bring down the minimum wage and weaken the power of unions, not a good thing for any of us. And no, there's no easy answer to this issue, so why is everyone so quick to dismiss the other, equally valid point of view?

As for The Minutemen: I'm not fooled by these guys, they claim to just want to "protect the border" but the truth is they're in bed with a lot of nastier organizations, Gilchrist himself is on a hatemonger watch list. Which is why the incident at Columbia was such a fiasco, the students could have substituted conversation for confrontation and easily shut him down; instead he comes off looking like a level-headed moderate and the protesters, whose hearts were in the right place, gave him credibility and a platform he doesn't deserve.

Oops, I see I misread your name Pat Riot, I meant no disrespect.

Rat Riot, you fact isn't "biased" as you point out, but you are obvously choosing a fact that really isn't saying that much. How do you define "richest"? Is it based on GDP? You need to give your fact's context. If you were talking about GDP levels, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of immigration. The FACT is that there are, regardless of GDP, a whole lot of poor Mexicans who see opportunity across the border. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with your fact, maybe that you believe all Mexicans are rich and cross the border to piss you off?

And as for "Communist"? Since when are Democrats communists? If you are yourself poor, as you say, yet voting Republican, it must be for a social conservatism (ie you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you want a wall between the US and Mexico as big as they can build it, abortion will send us all to hell, etc). This is fine, and you are welcome to your opinions, however, if you are going to debate immigration, you have to bring up relevant facts.

Here are some to choose from:

Mexico has, with pressure from the US, adopted neoliberal economic policies (NAFTA) that in essense, make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

Those same policies, which enforce tariff-free trade across borders should also have relatively loose immigration policies, but post-9/11, the US has severely shut the borders.

Those policies have lifted barriers for US companies so that they may move across the border and take advantage of cheep labor and essentially no work-place regulation (no costly safety standards, etc)

And to address the inherent racism in this debate, the US-Canadian border is a lot more open. If you met an "illegal" Canadian (or Briton, Caucasian in general) would you feel the same way? Please, honestly ask yourself that question and try to think of immigration taking these facts into consideration.

I think if Miquel is in any position of power Mexico will be our 51st state, and then of course we HAVE to include the poor people in Guatemala, Honduras, and so on. Let's make the Americas one big happy commune nation, just like the USSR, then I am sure we won't have any poor people anymore.

And yes, I do care about myself, my family, and the American citizens and legal immigrants who work hard to get to where they are now. And I do support the guest workers program, letting hard working and law abiding illegals to prove themselves and work towards a path to legal residency.

Dude - the "typical" Republican

That's not anger seething, I have a speech impediment.

I've ALWAYS cared about poor Americans, I AM ONE.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but that's changing this year.

Typical Communist, it's people like you that have driven me from the Democratic Party.

It's never what you say, it's how you say it, about whom, why, and the anger that seeths from between your teeth when you say it. Context.

And how good of you to care about poor New Yorkers now that it's convenient for you to make a point.

Please. Like a typical Republican, you care about yourself, your interests, and your prospects. Nothing more.