More Pro-Illegal Doublespeak

[Charley]

Another good article on the attempt of Pro-illegal groups to alter the Border debate by changing the language.
Denver Post Link

It is not about lawful immigration. It is not about race. It is about the criminal crossing of our borders in mass numbers, and the consequences of turning a blind eye to this illegal activity.

 

[wingman]

The Mexican government has spent big bucks in order to lobby various
government agency's in this country. I guess they see it as give some
get more in return.


Colorado unplugs online guide for illegal immigrants


By Valerie Richardson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


DENVER — Colorado Gov. Bill Owens has removed an online pamphlet from the state Web site that offered advice in Spanish to illegal immigrants on living and working in Colorado.
Titled "¡Entérese!" which means "Inform Yourself," the 50-page pamphlet was posted on the Colorado Department of Education Web site until Monday, when the governor's office had it removed after criticism from advocates for tighter borders.
The 2003 guide, which included a welcome message from Mr. Owens and the Mexican consul general, was intended to offer advice to legal immigrants, said Mr. Owens' spokesman, Sean Duffy.







But the guide wound up resembling a "how-to" manual for illegal aliens, providing them with tips on how to obtain medical care, open a bank account, earn university scholarships, and deal with police and other authorities.
"The way it was described to us was that it would be a tool for recent arrivals — I'm assuming legal arrivals," Mr. Duffy said.
"... The booklet is dedicated to doing a good thing, which is to help recent arrivals assimilate. But clearly, there are some sentences that are inappropriate."
Terry Graham, a Denver illegal-immigration opponent who stumbled upon the guide last weekend while searching the Internet, compared it to "The Guide for the Mexican Migrant," the comic book-style pamphlet issued last year by the Mexican government that offers advice on how to cross il legally into the United States.
She criticized Mr. Owens earlier for giving the guide his seal of approval.
"It's totally inappropriate for the governor of Colorado to endorse a how-to guide for illegal invaders," said Miss Graham, who posted the guide over the weekend, with English translations, on vdare.com, an anti-illegal immigration Web site.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, sent a letter to Mr. Owens on Monday asking him to remove the booklet from the Education Department's Web site and to stop any other agencies from promoting it.
"Judging from the specific advice offered, the booklet is quite obviously aimed at illegal aliens more than legal immigrants," said Mr. Tancredo, an advocate for tighter borders. "It tells illegal aliens how to take maximum advantage of Colorado's government-funded social services and how to seek employment at companies that will not try to verify their documents."
Examples of advice offered by the pamphlet, as translated into English, include:
•"Private organizations such as clinics or schools by policy do not ask about the immigration status of persons who attend. They do not report them to immigration authorities, either."
• "The job of the police is not to report you to Immigration. Always carry the name and phone number of an attorney who will take your calls. If you do not have [immigration] papers, you also have the right to remain silent or call a lawyer."
• "Many businesses employ illegal aliens without papers, or without verifying that papers are legitimate since they do not have the responsibility to investigate the legal status of employees or contractors. ... All workers, regardless of their legal status, have the same rights — the right to work — regardless of your nationality or legal status ..."
• "Regardless of your economic or immigration status, you have the right to receive medical attention if you go to the [emergency room]."
• "You can receive medical services at the community clinic closest to you. Doctors do not deport."
The pamphlet also mentions university scholarships for "Hispanics, legal or illegal aliens," and that bank accounts can be opened using a Matricula Consular card, which is frequently used by undocumented workers who cannot obtain other forms of identification.
The guide was copyrighted by two Colorado organizations, Salud Family Health Centers and Focus Points Family Resources Center. Neither organization could be reached for comment. The credits page also lists the Mexican consulate-general of Denver.
The guide, which was "made possible" by the First Data Western Union Foundation, also offers advice on how to send money back to Mexico by electronic transfer by using companies "such as Western Union." A sample budget for "Jose and Ana Maria" budgets $200 per month to "family in Mexico."
William Herron, chairman of Defend Colorado Now, praised the governor for removing it promptly from the state site. "That sounds terrific — it sounds like some progress is being made," he said.
Defend Colorado Now is pushing for legislation that would ban state and county services for illegal aliens. Mr. Herron said he was confident the legislature would introduce such a bill this year, but if it fails or if the governor refuses to sign it, his organization plans to start collecting signatures to put an initiative on the November 2006 ballot.
An estimated 200,000 illegal aliens live in Colorado, a population that grew by more than 300 percent from 1990 to 2000, according to Defend Colorado Now.

 

[progunner1957]

Too bad the governors of the southern border states do not have the cajones to declare a state of emergency, activate the national guard (if there are any left that are not deployed to Iraq) and station them on the border with orders to shoot all incoming adult illegals. I'll bet THAT would at least slow down the invasion!!

Of course, that would spell the end of their political careers, and their careers are the most important thing in the world to them, not protecting the state and the people they swore to protect when they took office.

 

[shootinstudent]

Too bad the governors of the southern border states do not have the cajones to declare a state of emergency, activate the national guard (if there are any left that are not deployed to Iraq) and station them on the border with orders to shoot all incoming adult illegals. I'll bet THAT would at least slow down the invasion!!

And make US soldiers out to look like a bunch of murdering bandits who will shoot unarmed men and women for the crime of border crossing. Yeah, I think what that would do is so discredit the US on freedom and rights that the terrorists would be showing videos of it for the next 100 years in recruitment campaigns.

Bad Idea, IMO.

 

[JimDiver]

And make US soldiers out to look like a bunch of murdering bandits who will shoot unarmed men and women for the crime of border crossing.

Read the links that I have posted in this thread and you might change your mind. What these illegals are doing once entering the country is damn scary. Alot of the people crossing the border are not innocents... they are violent criminals.

America supports 15-20 million illegal aliens that have no allegiance to our country. A dozen cities feature more foreign-born immigrants than American citizens. Last year, 800,000 Californians fled their state.

The 20,000 member "18th Street Gang" in Los Angeles owns the streets. They coordinate all drug traffic, extortions of businesses, prostitutes and robberies. Their power, along with MS-13 gangs in 28 American cities, grows by the day. Over 60 percent of the members are illegal aliens and the other 40 percent are legal immigrants.

Los Angeles sheriff files register 100,000 gang members. San Antonio features 5,000 gang members. Chicago estimates 50,000 members. Former Attorney Janet Reno estimated over 500,000 gang members imported themselves into the USA. "They commit an average of 580,000 crimes annually in our country," Reno said.

 

[shootinstudent]

Read the links that I have posted in this thread and you might change your mind. What these illegals are doing once entering the country is damn scary. Alot of the people crossing the border are not innocents... they are violent criminals.

Does that justify shooting anyone who is crossing? If you applied the same logic to bad neighorhoods in the US, it would be alright to just cruise the streets and mow down crowds of young men who look rough, on the theory that some of them are certainly drug dealers and murderers.

I think the idea that people would really want our troops shooting down unarmed men and women for the crime of illegal immigration is much, much more scary than the idea that some illegals will commit crimes.

 

[redhawk41]

from what i've seen in the news, the shooting is coming from south of the border:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040805-120253-7001r.htm

 

[Charley]

Does that justify shooting anyone who is crossing?

SIS, so what is the answer? Most people that I know who are concerned with the insecurity of our borders do not harbor racist hatred of Mexicans, and in fact have a healthy respect for legal immigrants. Yet they are becoming increasingly agitated by the fact that nothing is being done about what we consider to be a very threatening and time-sensitive crisis.
Short of putting the thumb-screws to the Mexican Government, putting American companies who hire illegals in jail, and Yes, dispatching the National Guard to turn back the hoards of illegals crossing every day...what do you advise? What is your proposal? I only have one condition:
That the plan result in the immediate reduction of illegal entries from 4000 a day to, say, forty a day.
After that, some of us will be more than happy to discuss issues of limited amnesty, better race relations, diversity appreciation, legal immigration reform, language issues, ect. But right now, all of this is secondary. Until the borders are secured, these issues are diversions, and I believe in many cases, intentional distractions stirred up by pro-illegal activist groups.
So let's hear a plan. I don't like the idea of people getting shot any more than you do, but this crisis (and it is one) is going to continue to grow and is doomed to explode into the loss of lives on both sides if it is not addressed soon.

 

[shootinstudent]

I think some of the solutions you mentioned are good ideas, sure. Putting the screws to employers is the best one, because illegals won't spend the 1000 dollars or so a piece they spend to come here if there is no work. I don't think this is about racism either. I just think it's simply a terrible idea to have the US military intentionally shooting down unarmed people for a crime like border crossing.

One thing you should seriously consider is the cost of the measures you want to take versus the cost of illegal immigrants. It's entirely possible that a complete border seal would cost more money that it would take to develop all of northern mexico to the point that immigration wouldn't be economically feasible.

Honestly though, even if there were no feasible plan other than shooting to stop immigration, I still think it would be a horrible thing to do and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who agree with me. Look around you today; are things bad enough in the United States that you'd be willing to shoot thousands of unarmed men and women without trial for a crime that has never, ever been considered a capital offense?

We've got some problems, sure, but I'm nowhere near the point where I feel indiscriminate shooting of petty criminals is either justified or necessary.

 

[Charley]

Look around you today; are things bad enough in the United States that you'd be willing to shoot thousands of unarmed men and women without trial for a crime that has never, ever been considered a capital offense?

This is the really slippery thing about mass illegal entry into the country. Its effects are not all immediate; there is the real concern that if we wait until "things [are] bad enough" then we will have waited too late.
In addition, there is the issue of terrorism: both persons and substances, such as chemical agents, making it across the border. If a van carrying 9 illegal persons can wind up in NY, it does not take too much imagination to fathom a van full of chemical or biological agents arriving. The effects could very quickly create a "bad" situation. In many other ways, since 9/11, our policies have been proactive...overseas, in the security of our airports, etc. Yet, our land borders remain open.
No one is recommending shooting thousands of unarmed men and women. A genuine border control, possibly involving the National Guard, once installed, would itself be a deterent. Illegals would simply not be allowed through. After a while, the ones who had to walk all the way home would tell their friends and to a large degree, the flood would slow to a trickle.
Will there be incidents where people get killed? Yes, undoubtably. Drugrunners are not going to be so easily turned back. If they draw a gun, attempt to rush the border with a vehicle, etc., we will open fire. Will there be an incident where an "innocent" illegal gets killed because of miscommunication or misidentification? Perhaps, especially in the beginning. We must attempt to avoid that scenerio as much as possible; still, the border must be secured. Remember, as Redhawk41 pointed out, the killing has already started. Our border agents, as well as hapless Americans, are already under fire.

 

[shootinstudent]

No one is recommending shooting thousands of unarmed men and women.

Well, then with you I'd have no disagreement except on cost. I'm not entirely convinced that funding a complete border seal with troops would cost less than the system we use now, all things considered. But I do agree that this is at least a fair plan.

I was responding to progunner's statement above, which is as follows:

Too bad the governors of the southern border states do not have the cajones to declare a state of emergency, activate the national guard (if there are any left that are not deployed to Iraq) and station them on the border with orders to shoot all incoming adult illegals.

That I think would amount to ordering troops to commit criminal homicide.

Even now there are mixups where the wrong people are killed, and where border patrol and other Law Enforcement fight with drug runners and armed people smugglers. And those people should be met with as much violence as we can give them. But an order to shoot every adult crossing the border? There's just no way to justify that kind of thing.

 

[Charley]

I'm not entirely convinced that funding a complete border seal with troops would cost less than the system we use now, all things considered.

The "system that we use now" is almost totally incompetent. If what we are doing now is all we are going to do, I would recommend doing away with border control altogether and put the money elsewhere. Actually securing the borders would take more money, no doubt. But in the long run, the advantages will outweigh the cost a hundred times over.
Ways in which a secure border will "pay" off:
1) Less money drained from our social, welfare, and school systems going to non-citizen illegals.
2) If American companies have to pay an American citizen a decent wage, instead of giving a low wage to an illegal who will send most of it "back home"
the money is generally re-entered back into our economy.
3) Taxes. The American worker mentioned above will be taxed by our government. The illegal worker does not generally pay taxes. More lost revenue. You can look up the figures, but the studies I have seen show the lost revenue in the millions.
4) Reduction in crime, or at least a stalling of the growth of violent, drug and gang crime in the border states and across the nation. I realize crime is not entirely an Illegal Alien problem. But there is enough evidence that through illegal entry, some really organized and vicious gangs such as MR13 are infiltrating the states. Not just the border states, by the way. They apparently have chapters in 22 states. This sort of crime--- not to mention your epidemic of burgaries, thefts, and property damage that is occuring on the borders---has a very high cost in law enforcement, detention, court costs, ect.
5) Untold "savings" of preventing a terrorist act. Like crime, terrorism does not necessarily need the open border to exist. However, the open border makes it exponentially easier, and thus more probable. The cost of another attack will far outweigh the cost of securing the border in order to make it less likely to happen.

Something else to keep in mind. Once the border is secure, the numbers of illegals coming across is going to go down. Once they figure out it is a wasted trip, all but a few are going to stop trying. At this point, we will have to continue to "work" the borders, of course, but there will be less chasing of illegals, less detention costs, ect. Therefore, over time, the actual "cost" of a secure border will still be there, but will go down, or at least even out. In addition, it will be largely minimized by the "savings" listed above.

 

[wingman]

Bonilla demands review of OTM release policy

By Karen Gleason
The News-Herald

Published July 31, 2004

Releasing undocumented immigrants to roam freely in the U.S. is "a terrible policy," U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla told Del Rio and Eagle Pass leaders during a press conference in Del Rio Friday, and announced he is asking the Department of Homeland Security to take a hard look at the issue.

"If these people were being released in your neighborhood I am sure you would be outraged. This is happening in the communities I represent and I am outraged," Bonilla said in a letter Thursday to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Bonilla released copies of the letter during his press conference Friday.

More than 5,200 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico (often referred to as OTMs) have been processed in the Del Rio Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol since January 2004, Bonilla said. Of that number more than 4,400 - about 85 percent - have been subsequently released in the Del Rio Sector.

Bonilla said a total of 15,000 such undocumented immigrants have been released in Texas since the beginning of the year.

Both Del Rio and Eagle Pass are in the Del Rio Sector, as are Abilene, Brackettville, Carrizo Springs, Comstock, Rocksprings, San Angelo and Uvalde.

During the press conference, Bonilla also released a series of photographs, some of them taken in Eagle Pass, he had titled "Free Ticket to America." The series of five photographs depict undocumented immigrants crossing the border and being arrested by Border Patrol agents, then receiving their "walking papers," leaving the detention center and "entering a community near you."

Bonilla said cities like Del Rio and Eagle Pass are at the forefront of the Department of Homeland Security's "Capture and Release" program. Once undocumented OTM immigrants are detained and processed, each is given what Bonilla called "Own Recognizance" or "OR" papers, which give the immigrant the right to stay in the United States until their immigration court hearing.

"It is estimated that more than 85 percent of illegal immigrants released do not return for the scheduled court date," Bonilla said.

The congressman charged that "many illegal immigrants are freely giving themselves up to the Border Patrol and in some cases, seeking out agents so they can receive the OR papers to legally enter the United States."

Bonilla also charged that the OTM release program represents a threat to U.S. security. "Terrorists can take advantage of this policy by posing as a person of South American descent and easily enter the United States," he said.

Bonilla also invited several Del Rio and Eagle Pass community leaders to address the media about the release of OTMs. Those leaders included Del Rio Mayor Dora G. Alcal‡, Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster and Val Verde County Sheriff A. D'Wayne Jernigan.

Alcal‡ praised Bonilla's efforts last year to end the "lateral repatriation" of Mexican immigrants caught along the Arizona-Mexico border through Del Rio and into Ciudad Acu–a, Coah., Mexico.

Alcal‡ also called attention to the humanitarian aspect of the OTM releases. She said a group of Brazilian immigrants released in Del Rio several weeks ago could not speak English or Spanish "and none of us could speak Portuguese."

Jernigan, who originally raised the hue and cry about the releases of the immigrants in September 2003, said the issue is one of both national and community security. He recounted to Bonilla the fear several downtown merchants expressed to him when groups of the Brazilian immigrant tried to cash checks without identification in their places of business. "One business actually closed out of fear," Jernigan said.

The sheriff also introduced Val Verde County Judge Mike L. Fernandez, who read a resolution passed by Val Verde County Commissioners Court earlier this year, calling on the Department of Homeland Security to end the OTM releases.

 

[longeyes]

Look around you today; are things bad enough in the United States that you'd be willing to shoot thousands of unarmed men and women without trial for a crime that has never, ever been considered a capital offense?

Better start thinking the Unthinkable--if you want your country and your culture to survive.

Do I relish the idea of slaughtering innocents? OF COURSE NOT. Only psychopaths would. But neither do I relish the idea of seeing my country overwhelmed. And make no mistake about it, we are not just going to be able to absorb the kinds of numbers we are seeing without not only moral hangwringing and the gnashing of teeth but outright serious strife.

Imagine just turning away masses of people at the border. Imagine them squatting at the border, slowly expiring from hunger, thirst, and exposure. Now imagine the world media coverage, the complaints from the U.N. and other humanitarian organizations. Your choice? Keep absorbing them, regardless of consequences, or letting them die?

 

[shootinstudent]

I don't agree that there's a threat to my culture here. I'm interested to hear specifically which facets of American culture you think are threatened by immigration.

As for your other points, I'm relieved to see that you agree longeyes that we can't go shooting down unarmed men and women for a crime like border crossing. And there are people starving and destitute in Mexico as it stands; no international pressure to take them in, either. If the scenario became as bad as you portrayed, there are lots of options besides opening the border. Foreign aid is one of them, and that's been effective in lots of places.

Charley, I'm still not convinced that spending that kind of money on border defense would amount to a gain over the cost of immigrants. Immigrants come with some benefits (cheap labor), and even a border seal would still require detention and policing inside the US, because you can't know if you've got a sealed border without policing. I'm just not convinced we'd come out ahead on that count.

 

[shaggy]

Too bad the governors of the southern border states do not have the cajones to declare a state of emergency, activate the national guard (if there are any left that are not deployed to Iraq) and station them on the border with orders to shoot all incoming adult illegals. I'll bet THAT would at least slow down the invasion!!

Wow.

You might want to read Article I of the Constitution sometime...

 

[Charley]

Charley, I'm still not convinced that spending that kind of money on border defense would amount to a gain over the cost of immigrants. Immigrants come with some benefits (cheap labor), and even a border seal would still require detention and policing inside the US, because you can't know if you've got a sealed border without policing.

Once again, the discussion is not about Immigration. Millions immigrate to this country each each by going through the proper channels. Millions. Our legal immigration policy is considered one of the most accepting and accessible in the world.
This is about ILLEGAL CROSSING of our NATIONAL BORDER.
Cheap Labor is good for two entities: the big companies who are too damn greedy to pay a decent wage and the ILLEGAL.
I don't care if we have to sell the Statue of Liberty back to France...securing the borders is just that important.
Enjoyed talking with ya; sorry we disagree.

 

[Charley]

Wingman, thanks for the post. I had not seen that one.
Here is a link to a article by Tom Tancredo, for anyone who is curious about opposition to Bush's "Guest Worker Program". It gets at the heart of things by asking some valid questions that I think Bush would find difficult to answer.
TancredoArticle

 

[shootinstudent]

Cheap Labor is good for two entities: the big companies who are too damn greedy to pay a decent wage and the ILLEGAL.

This is absolutely untrue. You get both services and goods at a much, much reduced rate because of cheap immigrant labor. Can you imagine what food would cost if minimum and overtime rates were strictly enforced, against a workforce that was relatively good at bringing claims in federal courts? How about what it would cost to operate a walmart store if every single cleaning job paid the standard janitor rate?

You're talking about triple the cost for a wide range of services. You don't think that cost will get passed on to you, the consumer? Do you honestly think big companies will just eat the profit loss?

I don't think so. I think it's fair to include the monetary benefit of cheap illegal immigrant labor. Legal immigrants are by and large well educated people who do not come to sweep floors, so that's really not an issue.

 

[shaggy]

This is absolutely untrue. You get both services and goods at a much, much reduced rate because of cheap immigrant labor. Can you imagine what food would cost if minimum and overtime rates were strictly enforced, against a workforce that was relatively good at bringing claims in federal courts? How about what it would cost to operate a walmart store if every single cleaning job paid the standard janitor rate?

I have to agree 100%.

My hometown has a large population of illegal immigrants who work on small farms and agricultural businesses. They get less than minimum wage and the employers would either be out of business were it not for the cheap labor or they would have to pass along the costs to the consumer. So do you prefer tomatoes at $20/pound or putting more American businesses into bankruptcy and American entrepreneurs into the unemployment lines?