LJWorld.com weblogs Faith Files

KC, area churches entering into immigration debate

Advertisement

Daniel Romero thinks the people of God have an obligation to help illegal immigrants whose families face being split up by deportation."The faith community realizes there are higher laws, such as saving lives or saving children," Romero said. "With the kinds of conditions the families we're talking about here today face, we realize the laws on the books just aren't going to cut it."Romero is lead organizer of Interfaith Worker Justice in Kansas City. His organization is helping to spearhead local churches' involvement in the [New Sanctuary Movement][1], a national effort to have churches assist, and in some cases provide shelter for, illegal immigrants.The local New Sanctuary movement held a rally this week to kick off its involvement. Romero admitted there's nothing to keep local or federal agents from going onto a church property to detain immigrants they're wanting to arrest or deport.But federal agents respected the idea of "sanctuary" in the case of Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant who lived in a Chicago church for a year. Agents arrested her in Los Angeles with her son, who was born in the United States, after traveling to a pro-immigration rally there.Still, there is disagreement over whether providing shelter to an illegal immigrant is against the law.The churches involved in the movement say it's legal because they're not interfering with agents coming onto the property. Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor and chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, told the Associated Press this week that he thinks it is illegal."There are many points of about the role of churches in our society and how much civic engagement there should be," Kobach said. "But I think one area that until very recently has been pretty clear is, churches shouldn't themselves violate federal law."The churches involved in the Kansas City movement say they have yet to shelter an illegal immigrant.But in an interview earlier this month with the Journal-World, Romero said the churches had identified one family they were considering helping. In that case, federal agents were attempting to deport a 17-year-old, Mexican-born boy who has three younger siblings who are American citizens."Now, all he wants to do is stay with his family in the country that's become his own," Romero said.Romero said the New Sanctuary Movement follows in a long line of civil disobedience for faith leaders in the United States, including the Underground Railroad, civil rights and voting rights.Lauren Reinhold, a Lawrence immigration attorney, said she could see benefits for getting churches involved in the immigration debate."It's my impression that this is an act of humanitarian protest against ripping families apart," Reinhold said. "Especially because it's a church, it's more of a broad base, and more of a sense of credibility than other groups might."Ultimately, though, she said it will be up to Congress to come up with immigration reform - something it failed to do so far."Most of us practicing immigration law think some humanitarian angle should be approached here," she said. "We were disappointed Congress couldn't do something."_ - Faith Files, which examines issues of faith, spirituality, morals and ethics, is updated by features/faith reporter Terry Rombeck. Have an idea for the blog? Contact Terry at trombeck@ljworld.com, or 832-7145._ [1]: http://www.newsanctuarymovement.org

Comments

waydownsouth 7 years, 11 months ago

I can see this getting way out of control. In immigration there are a few gray areas but those should be taken 1 case at a time by an immigration judge. These churches have no idea what they are getting themselves into.

Confrontation 7 years, 11 months ago

Start taxing these churches and use them as a tool for arresting the illegals.

july241983 7 years, 11 months ago

Yeh- Shut down these churches for having the gall to feed and give shelter to ALL those in need! (not just the one's the government says it's ok to help)

waydownsouth 7 years, 11 months ago

I am all for the church helping the needy. What they do the government can't of won't. However taking on illegal immigrants who should not be in the US to begin with is taking away from the americans who are legal in this country. Now yes there are some extreme cases that need another look. Kids stranded here by parents is one of those cases. These churches are about to be overrun for all the wrong reasons.

july241983 7 years, 11 months ago

75x55- The article poses the question of whether it is against the law to provide shelter for an illegal immigrant. Kris Kobach thinks it is. If it is illegal to provide this shelter, that means the government is telling the church that they cannot help those persons. And, it makes the persons helping the immigrants guilty of a felony. If you start arresting clergy for giving shelter, that will have a very bad effect on the churches.

If you go to the website for the new sanctuary movement, there is information about a california law that prevents churches from giving any aid to persons until the churches verify that the persons in need are in the US legally. This law tells the churches that they can only feed the hungry that the government ok's. In this regard, I hope the churches follow the paths of those churches that fought segregation, slavery, etc. The government has no business telling the churches who they can and cannot give shelter to. If the government had better immigration policy, there would not be all these undocumented persons in the US. But, if they are here, and they need food/ shelter, I am glad that there are places they can go to receive these basic necessities.

lacoov 7 years, 11 months ago

july241982-the keyword is "illegal". Regardless of the US immigration policies these people knowingly commited an illegal act.It's like I can't rob a bank because I'm short of cash and not expect to be punished if and when I'm caught.

waydownsouth 7 years, 11 months ago

Its really not about changing policy its about inforcing policy. That is where the problem lies. Now we have demonstrations when we are trying to inforce that policy. Illegal immigrants seem to think that if they have a child born here in america that it gives them the right to stay. The child cannot give a parent citizenship until they turn 21. So parent and child should be deported back to their home country.

Haiku_Cuckoo 7 years, 11 months ago

Anyone notice the extreme hypocrisy of the lunatic right and Christian Supremecists who are whining ... when it comes to protecting families from separation or facing extreme poverty or starvation or abuse back in their home countries.

So the churches mentioned in the article aren't christian churches?

july241983 7 years, 11 months ago

75x55- But the churches said there is nothing to stop the feds from coming onto their property and obtaining the undocumented persons for deportation. Thus, they are not preventing the authorities from enforcing the immigration laws. They are giving the immigrants a place to stay. Thus, I believe the "shelter" that I used is more appropriate. And, in other parts of the country, this organization is fighting for the right to assist these people in any way, including "shelter from lousy weather with a nice meal," as you put it.

And lacoov, yes these people did commit an illegal act. But, if you had to rob a bank to feed your family, you should be punished, but the government shouldn't make it illegal for others to feed your family once you're in jail.

bd 7 years, 11 months ago

Next time I go to church I will wear my fake" INS "hat and see who bolts for the doors!

mustangbabe 7 years, 11 months ago

I think that it is wrong for the churchs to help the illegals. I feel that if those illegals want to live here, they should go through the proper channels to receive their citizenship. They would then be entitled to everything that the rest of us are, like paying taxes. I get tired of providing for everyone else through our taxes and they get to sit at home and do nothing but collect a pay check.

feeble 7 years, 11 months ago

Separation of church and state, it needs to go both ways. You want 100% government sanctioned religion, move to China.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

mustangbabe,

The church is not wrong by helping the illegals. They have moral obligations for humanity. But what they do are illegal too. Back in those days, blacks and colored were supposed to be segregated from the whites, some churches tried so hard to integrate the races and remove segregation but they were breaking the law too. There is a difference between wrong or right, legal and illegal. I won't fight the churches against their support against illegals (though I'm an agnostic), cos they are supporting their own moral issues. But I would rather say what they're doing is illegal.

Also, illegals are not sucking so much of your money too. I thought that is an invalid case against illegal immigration. More money have been spent doing the wrong thing (like the war in Iraq) and if you look at the money, how much are the illegals taking? None. Yes, we're supporting their children in our education system. But they're legal citizens. Surprisingly, many illegal pay taxes. If we really want to work out a solution to normalize the illegal issues, I think we really need a better reason than them sucking up our money. It's like invading Iraq using WMD reason is not good... do you get what I mean?

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

feeble,

Surprisingly, religions do survive in China and are thriving in China now. At least, China is much better than many Middle Eastern countries where breeding of suicide bombers can be that easy. The taking out of religions from politics is extremely important, that's why China is not as dangerous as Iran.

justvisiting85 7 years, 11 months ago

That's funny babe, if your so concerned about how your wasted tax dollars help the lazy, there are plenty more types of people around here who do nothing, living off your taxes in welfare and social security than illegal immigrants. Which do you think there are more of in Kansas, "Illegals" or the collective unemployed, drug addicts, welfare parent(s), uninsured poor and/or combination of these types of people. Which do you think is the greater tax drain, not just here, but across the country?

This is not about immagration exactly, but the churches involvment. Churches worldwide are not just places of worship, but places of hope and help. The question is how should law enforcement should proceed with the delicate matter of crossing the theshold of a legal place of worship. Taking law enforcement into the church, any church is always a delicate matter, you are bringing the government into religion, always a risky proposition even under the best of circumstances.

Don't just think about your stance on immigration, which I am not debating now, but rather your stance on governmental involvement in religion, and the precident it sets for future dealings just because you feel one way or the other on this. BTW, I believe splitting up a family is cruel, and should be done only under the most extreme cases.

JobbyJobless 7 years, 11 months ago

Can't we just deport Kris Kobach instead?

SearchingForTruth 7 years, 11 months ago

Checkout Terry Anderson. His weekly show is devoted to this issue. You can listen to it online: http://www.theterryandersonshow.com/

elkwc36 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm a Christian but believe we should still obey the law. And to harbor a criminal is wrong. And to the person who said they don't drain public money is way off. Here in our area many of the students are illegal. They were born and brought across after their Dads came across. They smuggle their relatives(illegals) up here to have medical procedures and the taxpayers pay. When one illegal shoots or stabs another we pay that bill also.They are illegal and get aid. That is another drain. They should all be deported and those never allowed to come back. Then the ones down there wanting to come will be more inclined to do it legally.

ralphralph 7 years, 11 months ago

I have close, dearly-loved relatives with names like Lopez and Galindo. They all came here legally, and their lives are being made more difficult by those who did not. There is a growing level of suspicion and mistrust of anyone who "looks Latino", even if they were born right here in Kansas. We can't just ignore the law. What we can do, though, is renew some real pressure on the Fed Govt to get its act together and come down with a clear and reasonable policy. I don't really care if I like all the parts of it, just so long as we can all live with it. I feel tremendously for those who are in this country under the shadows, but this is a nation of laws --- if it ceases to be so, it will cease to be a place you would want to make your home.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

cool,

US citizens go to jail as they cannot be deported from their own country for committing crimes. They can only be deported if their citizenships are revoked. In this case, their citizenships cannot be revoked simply because they are not a threat to national security. A crime should not be equated to terrorism.

Chris Redford 7 years, 11 months ago

I would like to set one thing in this debate straight: legality and morality are not the same thing. A law only useful if it protects some kind of moral value.

Let us take a look at a modern law that is in the Kansas books RIGHT NOW regarding homosexuals:

KSA 21-3505 defines Criminal Sodomy as "Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex". What is meant by the word "sodomy" in this law? It is defined in KSA 21-3501 as many things but it includes "oral contact of the male genitalia". So it is illegal for one man to give another man a blow job in Kansas. How illegal? KSA 21-3505 states that same sex sodomy "is a severity level 3, person felony".

That is right: it is illegal to be gay in Kansas. Not only is it illegal but it is a FELONY. Gay people are FELONS in Kansas. This is the LEGAL status of gay people in Kansas. But I think most people in the world would say that this law is pitifully backward and has little to do with the actual MORAL value of gay relationships.

So we really have to be honest here: referring to gay people as "felons" is a ridiculous abuse of the moral weight that the word "felon" carries. And calling Mexicans who make the difficult moral choice of living illegally in our country or living legally in desolate poverty in their own governmentally corrupt country (poverty beyond anything that we could call "poverty" in America) "felons" and "illegals" is equally ridiculous.

So let us please remove the ridiculous "legality" implications from this moral debate because they are deceptive and more criminalizing than is appropriate. This is a moral debate and we should be debating values. Just what tangible COST are the illegal immigrants causing to Americans? What COST are they incurring? Now what VALUE are they bringing to Americans? And what VALUE are they getting?

I think you will find that illegal immigrants incur higher costs than Americans. They still live in poverty even here; it is just less poverty than Mexico. But definitely more poverty than the average American would endure. Just watch the 30 Days episode on Immigration to see what I mean. I will leave it to the rest of you to answer the other 3 questions (I think ljreader and americorps have done a pretty good job already).

But, again, "legality" is a pitifully absurd and irrelevant basis for moral argument. The legal landscape shifts and wanes at the whim of whoever is in power; it typically lumbers along, adapting and correcting itself at a retarded rate, far behind moral reality. The moral landscape is in the hands of whoever can think, examine, and critically evaluate; it improves and adjusts every day in the minds of people with good will who seek to make informed judgments.

-Chris

waydownsouth 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines (Anonymous) says:

If I rob a bank and go to one of these churches, can I get sanctuary? I have a child who is a US citizen, and putting me in jail would be an undue burden on my child, being separated and all (and she won't even have the option of moving to stay with her parent).

Good point. They are illegal. They are comming over to the US to have children to make them citizens. There is many that come over using the proper paperwork and spending lots of money to come into the US. The others are comming over in large numbers dissrespecting our country by refusing to learn english and taking away jobs from americans. Down near mexico Texas Arizona, and California you can't hardly get a job unless you know english and spanish. Women in labor wait outside hospitals until the last minute so the hospital can't refuse them so they can give birth. Yet they want you to feel sorry for them. No other country does this but mexico. I use to work in the immigration call center. The calls that came in daily that they wanted their underage child to help them get citizenship was overwhelming. Some come over to work and then go right back over the border. Alot send money back home thats why they are here. I key word here is illegal.

Chris Redford 7 years, 11 months ago

"Let me see if I'm following you - forgive me if I'm having trouble following your argument - what you're saying is that we should allow illegal immigrants to stay because gay men can't get oral sex in Kansas???"

That's an incredibly dense interpretation. My argument is meant to show that just because something is a law, that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean we should uphold it; maybe we should change it.

If you want a more undeniable example, take slavery. It used to be illegal to give shelter to slaves. These slaves were acting as illegal citizens taking OUR jobs and acting as if they had OUR rights. They should NOT be admitted to the US as legal citizens; they aren't legal! Sound familiar? If anyone heard you talking about African Americans this way today, you would be committing social suicide; you would be an outcast. Yet, back then, people did. Allowing a huge population of black slaves to become legal citizens probably cause a drastic shift in the country's economics and culture. It probably had a huge cost. But do you think we should have denied them citizenship to avoid that initial cost? I think not. Humans are humans. Adding a group of uneducated, unregistered black slaves to our population had an initial cost but now they are no different from anyone else and make a positive contribution to society.

The moral of the story is that laws are not perfect and we should never treat them like they are. If that were the case, a large percentage of our population would be enslaved instead of contributing to society.

But, back to the point, I really was not arguing for the rights of illegal immigrants per se. I was just arguing AGAINST the use of legality as a justification for not thinking deeper about this problem. So many people on this board have said something to the effect of "der see! it's illegal! they are the same as bank robbers! let's just put everything illegal under the same umbrella cuz its illegal!". What we are debating here is whether it SHOULD be illegal. Responding to that question with "well it's illegal!" is meaningless.

So that will keep my post relatively short for you (and me): I'm not taking a side per se. I'm just refereeing how this should be talked about. You personally are responding with a discussion of values (tax payer cost, etc) instead of just parroting the law in question. That is a useful and valid response. I'll leave it to the rest of you to collectively search for an answer to the questions I posed.

"To quote the infamous words of Arlo Guthrie, ":there was a third possibility he hadn't even counted upon," maybe coming to the United States - legally?"

You make it sound like it is a cakewalk. Like anyone who needs into the US could get into the US if they just tried to do it legally. I highly doubt this.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

Honestly, no matter which side you stand on illegal immigration, there is one stand we do have to agree: Our economy really cannot do without illegals, at least we need half of those who are already in the country. If not, those meat packing plant and farms will definitely shut down for 1-2 years until someone find a source of labor or robots for them. Those restaurants will all close down (how many depend on these kind of labor to wash and collect dishes?). Then, there is a war on outsourcing..... and then war in Iraq... hey everyone. You cannot have wars on all fronts. You will drain your own country.

BillStrong 7 years, 11 months ago

Repeating another time in History, forgetting all the hypocrisy of the past. This seems to be the ways of many so-called Christian Churches today who desire amnesty for illegal aliens. Remember when the people chose another criminal over a law abiding man? Come now don't feign ignorance, you know exactly what I am talking about. The people choose Barabbas a THIEF over Jesus. Now we live in a Society that seems to serve lawbreakers over law abiding, when our Congress is filled with the immoral serving personal agendas or catering to the greedy. WE have seen so many underhanded tactics used in this debate for illegal aliens.Back room deals and open lying.Deception is abounding in our Government. Despite the majority (80%) wanting attrition, our elected seem intent on shoving amnesty down our throats, and smile while they ignore the voice of the people. Illegal Immigration is only one of so many problems facing our Nation, but it is one that could explode sending this nation into Civil War. For Churches to open arms and say come invade our Country , steal our benefits, id's and jobs, is a Church promoting Anarchy.God said "Go out into the World", he didn't say bring the World in. Go to where the problem is , and the problem lies in Countries these illegals came from, if they had 'decent ' lives there they wouldn't be stealing in here.Take the message to the people , don't sit on your pews and wait for them to come get the message. To all the greedy employers and elected, "GREED" is your creed, it is greed that will destroy you all, you put money ahead of lives. You can't even relate to real people.You are blinded by your greed and worship of material possessions. This mentality fringes on insanity, the drive for money breeds dehumanization. They can't see the wrong as long as it makes money.They feel above common Law and above the lowly common man and women. They get this delusion that the commoner should serve them.That unless you are wealthy , you are nothing. "For it is easier for a Camel to go threw the eye of a needle than for a RICH MAN to enter HEAVEN" Now I find it unsettling when Churches are siding with greedy corporate heads, when Churches seem to condone law breaking, and when Churches violate the laws themselves. I fear for this Nation, I fear that we are on a downward spiral that will end in a bloody mess. When "We the People" ends up being "WE the Wealthy", and when the Churches serve Anarchy instead of God. I don't know where we are headed , but I know I will fight to the end for my Country. My question is why am I having too? Jack Euly- CHOICE

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

That's why the church is only interested in those who have American kiddos. They're the one who will stay and spend their money back into the economy. For the singles, they will go home with the money. Those with kids will less likely to be involved in crimes and will work hard.

Also, sometimes it's pretty good to know that there is someone who will compete with you and it's needed to push us to work harder. I also think it is important to know which jobs are not needed by Americans and which can be done by Americans. My uncle's farm in rural Cali needs workers, but there are no Americans who like to stay in his county except some retirees. He honestly told me he needs illegal workers. I understand his side of the story, I also understand the other concerns.

denak 7 years, 11 months ago

"Remember when the people chose another criminal over a law abiding man? Come now don't feign ignorance, you know exactly what I am talking about. The people choose Barabbas a THIEF over Jesus.,,,,,

Barrabas wasn't a thief. Barabbas was convicted of murdering a roman soldier. There is some indication that he was a revolutionary. If you look at that time period, there were quite a few movements, both violent and passive, that were fighting against roman tyranny. Barabbas killed a roman soldier. A symbol of all that the non-roman oppressed hated. So, when the people were given a choice between Jesus, a preacher that was basically unknown and passive, and a popular revolutionary, they picked Barabbas in the Pascua amnesty.

Read Mark 15:6-15. Matthew 27:15-18 Luke 23:16-25 and John 18:39-49

denak 7 years, 11 months ago

"But I think one area that until very recently has been pretty clear is, churches shouldn't themselves violate federal law.",,,

Yeah, someone should have told Martin Luther King that.

Chris Redford 7 years, 11 months ago

"there is one stand we do have to agree: Our economy really cannot do without illegals, at least we need half of those who are already in the country."

"That's what we'd do if they left. Our economy will be just fine."

So here are the positions:

1) If the illegals leave, this would have a COST to our economy. This is because illegals contribute a value that would be lost. They do this by holding many low income jobs that Americans just aren't there to take either because of physical absense or just plain disinterest. Americans typically want honorable and stable CAREERS with benefits and a decent name. The kinds of jobs Mexicans are taking just do not fit into that category. Americans will take them if they HAVE to because they can't find anything else. They will take them if they NEED them. But most Americans don't WANT those jobs unless they are teenagers looking for extra cash.

2) If illegals stay, this would also have a COST to our economy. They use our tax-funded resources without paying taxes. Sometimes, on top of not paying taxes, they take our money OUT of our economy to another country's.

Now the first question is which COST is greater? That is a very difficult question which I think none of us really has enough information to answer.

But here is one we could answer even without knowing the answer to the first question. If the COSTs were the same (exactly the same, meaning our country would be in the same economic position whether we chose to give them amnesty or deportation) which would be the right choice? If the COSTs to the American people were the same either, which choice would help the most people?

I think, quite obviously, the choice would be the first. Because there would be no loss to Americans and there would be a gain to Mexicans fleeing desolate conditions. I'm interested to see if people agree with this: i.e. if there is effectively no cost (or rather an equal cost either way) to Americans, should we allow them to stay?

It is important to note that this argument is only valid if the COSTs above are equal or if COST 1 is greater than COST 2. Which one is greater is something we should try to answer. Personally, I won't believe someone on either side until they make an honest, unbiased comparison of the two. Meaning they lay out the costs objectively then show that one costs more than the other.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

ljreader,

"There are more illegal aliens working in agriculture than any other sector. Yet, The Dept of Labor states that 55% of agrictultural workers are American born citizens- (Jobs Americans won't do???) Only an estimated 24% are illegal alien workers- The rest are LEGAL foreign born workers."

How do they know the number of illegal alien workers if they don't have data? We're still disputing on the actual number of illegal aliens actually in this country. These 24% could be those who're actually paying tax. There isn't sufficient seasonal workers where most farms are facing. If the jobs are permanent and close to a big city, I think it will attract legal and citizens. But if the jobs are in very very rural areas, and in meat packing cities, like Dodge City, I really don't think people will move there if they have a choice.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 11 months ago

"Still, there is disagreement over whether providing shelter to an illegal immigrant is against the law."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NO there is NO disagreement over whether that is breaking the law. IT IS breaking the law, you just refuse to accept that.

8 USC 1324 and 1327, Aiding, Abetting, employing, or harboring illegal aliens are CRIMES an FELONIES! THe Churches should be prosecuted. What the hell is the Catholic CHurch thiking, that the laws do not apply to them? THey can molest little boys and children, and ignore the immigration laws? They forget the 10 commandment that these illegal aliens have broken as well, number 10, thou shall not covet your neighbors house.

Seems as if today's churches and religious leaders are a bit too selective in their applications of "christian values".

These chruches want more membership, and they believe that the iellegal alien community is it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The churches involved in the Kansas City movement say they have yet to shelter an illegal immigrant."

How do they know that, are they even asking? IF it is a Catholic Church it IS providing shelter for illegal aliens and assissistance and abetting as well. Do you really want a religious leader that LIES?!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Most of us practicing immigration law think some humanitarian angle should be approached here," she said. "We were disappointed Congress couldn't do something."

OF COURSE an immigration lawyer that is protecting illegal aliens is going to say this.

WHY DID THE LJWORLD NOT INTERVIEW SOME POR IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT FOLKS, or maybe even INTERVIEW ICE PR people?

ASBESTOS 7 years, 11 months ago

"Our economy really cannot do without illegals, at least we need half of those who are already in the country. If not, those meat packing plant and farms will definitely shut down for 1-2 years until someone find a source of labor or robots for them."

DO you really think that a loss of 12-20 million illegal aliens (not all of those are workers, some are children and teens) will impact a country of over 300,000,000? If you believe that you are dense.

NOW if you believe like I believe, there is 30-60 million illegal aliens then YES that would impact our economy negatively, but allowing that number of illegal aliens to stay in this country puts social pressures and political pressures that the country CAN NO LONGER HANDLE.

We simply are not responsible for thw world's poor.

This argument is based on illelgal aiens, MOST of which are MEXICAN! 60% of either 12-20 million or 30-60 million whatever you choose, is STILL an INVASION plain and simple and the political leaders of Mexico PLANNED this and STUPID AMERICANS still do not get it. So here is the real issue: equality! If it is OK for MExicans to come here literally by the millions and by opposing that makes it racist, how would it be if say 20 million came over from CHINA or INDIA?? Would that be OK too? We let Mexicans in, we will have to let in Indians, and Chinese as well.

OH, that is right, La Raza and MeCHA, and MALDEF would probably be opposed to us importing "well meaning hard working people to do the work that MExicans will no longer do. Because they will do it cheaper than Mexicans!

This is a "zero sum" game. IMMIGRATION needs to stop until we can get a hand on it, and THEN and OPNLY then will we continue. We need to know WHO and HOW many, and HAVE ALL POINTS of entry into THE UNITED STATES, secured to end ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and BORDER CROSSINGS, until then, it is pandering and no solution.

You have to shut off the water to fix the pipe.

waydownsouth 7 years, 11 months ago

Alot of those jobs can be taken care of by high school and college age kids. Just trying to get my 16 year old son a summer job was hell. They have taken over fast food and lawn mowing. My father who is a carpenter by trade lost alot of work to the mexicans due to the fact that they were cheaper. He just decided to retire. Alot of these grunt jobs could be taken over by kids people on welfair and some of the disabled. Give our own a chance to work. That would cut our taxes because less would depend on the system. Its bad enough that you can't buy anything american made any more now the labor is going to soon be gone as well. There are many solutions to this problem but saying that we can't live without them i beg to differ.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines (Anonymous) says:

"Musta' missed that part of the story - you're saying that the church's motivation is economic, not humanitarian? Whew, that's a relief."

Hahaha, you caught me! The church's motivation is more religious... of course, we know. But I think the married ones are those who will stay back and contribute to America. Those singles... more likely to deal with drugs and send money back. I don't need people who are not loyal to this country, if they're illegal but will confirm loyalty, why not? There are many immigrants in the military, and there are some "illegals". If they're willing to pay with their lives, I will hail them and accept them.

"This is a false assumption. There are well documented costs to their presence. There would be no cost to our economy if they left. If half the money being earned by illegals leaves the country, then filling half those jobs is all that would be required to keep the same amount of money flowing through the economy. Some jobs might go unfilled, yes - Martha Stewart can do her own housework if she doesn't want to pay for an American maid."

Well, in Kansas, you can clean hotel rooms with Americans or legal residents. But meat packing plants? Kansas farms are not affected by illegals, cos all you need is a big machine. When it comes to fruit and veg... it's harder. Sent this one to some illegals who are willing to walk to San Diego to help my uncle pick his fruits. Legal and Americans welcome too.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 11 months ago

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who ... encourages or induces an alien to ... reside ... knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such ... residence is ... in violation of law, shall be punished as provided ... for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs ... fined under title 18 ... imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

  • assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

  • encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

  • knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

ASBESTOS,

You can try to enforce that. You won't have meat or fruits to eat in the next two years.

waydownsouth 7 years, 11 months ago

ASBESTOS I think they forgot to read that part. Maybe it fell out before they could get that far in the handout.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

Your Math adds up, but when things operate on the larger scale, it may not work. First, college students will not wash dishes if they have a choice to wait tables. If you pay dishwashers more than waitering, you still won't get people to wash the dishes. Second, there are jobs in meat packing plants and seasonal works in plantations where even if you pay a normal salary, Americans and legal residents will not go. I don't mind moving to Dodge City if you make me the CEO or senior manager and pay me well. But I mind if you ask me to work as meat packer and pay me $45,000 and I'd rather work at a groceries store for $30,000 or slightly less but stay in a nicer town. Finally, if you put out the millions of jobs taken by the illegals and give them to Americans and legals, they will be fighting for employees (remember we're at our lowest unemployment rate now). We can foresee pay rising by more than 1.5 times... what's the solution for biz? Outsource..... It's hard to be an economist without the ability to control the market....

ASBESTOS 7 years, 11 months ago

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who ... encourages or induces an alien to ... reside ... knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such ... residence is ... in violation of law, shall be punished as provided ... for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs ... fined under title 18 ... imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

  • assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

  • encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

  • knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

ASBESTOS,

We all get your laws, but read this:

http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/flux/gSpot/sexLaw.html

Read this: "In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom!", then, where are all the babies in Nevada come from? I bet nearly half of the Nevadians should be in jail.

Some laws are there for nothing, it's impossible to implement what you've written. Just because it's of more concern for you, it doesn't mean it should be the key concern for law enforcement agency.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

http://www.helium.com/tm/607575/apparently-attempted-quick-check

Read this, someone posted that having "oral---s" even between husband and wife and in their bedroom, will get you 15 years in jail! I wonder how long will I get, since I had plenty with my wife here in Kansas and back in California. Hey, don't tell the police Asbestos!

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

If your figure is correct, illegal aliens affect the bottom 5-10% of the population, which means 4.5-9 millions. There are 12 millions illegals, if the figures are correct, 1.4-2 millions work in agriculture, and if the figures are correct, the sector employs 100k to 200k of Americans or legal residents. Most illegals work in construction... why? When INS tries to enforce the law, they normally go to manufacturing facilities and not the farm and construction sites. I think INS knows something about the impact on the economy.

In short, you cannot remove the illegals immediately as various sectors still need them.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 11 months ago

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who : encourages or induces an alien to : reside : knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such : residence is : in violation of law, shall be punished as provided : for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs : fined under title 18 : imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

  • assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

  • encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

  • knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

I'm looking at the broad picture here. If we take a look at illegal immigration around the world, no single country can eliminate them 100%. There are still some sectors that need some illiterate foreign workers, illegal or legal. I'm not supporting illegal immigration. Let me make this clear.

However, there are many sectors that need illiterate foreign workers desperately. The highly skilled workforce, such as professors, scientists, artists are being taken care of very well. We have a good program that retains talented workforce very well and I'm a strong supporter of that. It's kept in control very well and I can safely say that there are nearly zero illegal talented workforce in this country. It's easy to control the number of H-1B and H-1 being issued as there is a control system that is functional. And no scientists, professors etc. want to be illegal and of course, the pay they demand makes it compulsory for them to pay high taxation. Also, the business side has been taken care of very well. The most prominent legal immigrant through the Biz Visa program is the Virgin Atlantic boss. It's easy to see why we want these highly skilled workforce and businessmen to put their money into our country. Virgin America alone generates more than 100 jobs here in the United States. Japanese automakers have also been on the forefront of employment in this country (ironically).

However, when it comes to the illiterate workforce, mainly the illegal immigrants, most of them from Mexico and Central America, cannot have a way to come into the country legally. Also, their pay is so low that it's almost impossible to tax them. The bottom 10-20% of the earners in this country pay little or no tax and are sucking up social benefits too. It's natural since they don't earn much and we, as higher income earners, pay for their livelihood. I'm totally agreeing with that concept.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

There isn't any system in place to make sure that these low-end workers will come in legally to take some jobs that most Americans do not want (not that it's not good for them, but the locations may not fit or need too much relocation), then, they will come in as illegals. The same happens even in Thailand, a poorer country than the United States, where poorer Burmese have been immigrating illegally there, what can you say about a rich country like the United States. These poor Burmese are taking jobs in the construction sector that are vacated and rejected by Thais as they have better options to be illegals in other Southeast Asian Countries (such as Malaysia and Singapore) while earning more. To counter that, the neighboring countries are implementing low-end workforce VISA to track the incoming and outgoing of these workforces and tolerated some illegals as long as they don't break the law or get caught.

Yes, we have a H-2 Visa program, but hey, the Congress blocked it from being used for the illegals? We have to resolve this problem before it gets worst! The natural flow of illegal workforce is Natural, as long as people wants to make more money and improve their lives. There are jobs that many Americans and legal do not want. Giving green cards to the illegals will not solve the problem as there are many illegals who got their GC and leave their jobs! We want them there in that jobs. How do we keep them there and make sure that the seasonal fluctuation of labors is taken care of, while protecting the Americans and legals from such unstable jobs? Legalization of some of the jobs that need the low-end labors. We cannot ban everyone from their jobs, there are demand for them. We either close our eyes on them (we did, and then see 12 millions got it, if the figure runs around 2 million, I think it won't be an issue at all), and then it flows into jobs that Americans want.

If both sides want to eliminate illegals and the workforce from certain jobs that are not demanded by Americans and legals, I think we will have problems by many industries.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

Not true. Malaysian workers are not emigrating out of their country and most ended up in Singapore and Australia legally. In fact, most of them are emigrating for business and very few of them actually emigrated to USA (you cannot get Malaysian food that easily in the USA but it's everywhere in Australia). However, most of the workers who emigrated from Malaysia are legal and not illegal as they normally go in as permanent residents, most of them have money. If they wish, they can of course come to America. Australia faces less problem with illegal workers simply because it has a sea and it's further away from many poorer nations. Most of the illegals in Australia comes from Indonesia. But it ain't as bad simply because Indonesians have many choices in that region.

The same goes with Europe which faces more illegals from Africa. Africa nations are a whole lot poorer so the wave is greater unlike in Southeast Asia where most people can get by without having to risk their lives.

What does this tell you? When people are poor, they don't have a choice, they will run. It's just the same as you don't see that many Europeans migrating to the USA anymore unlike in the past. You don't get to see that many Brazilians, Argentinians, Japanese (those enclaves in the big cities were the past waves of migrants), Southeast Asians (except Philippines), but you see a whole lot more from Mexico. I call that the natural flow, that's how human emigrated in the past.

The solution? Set up a legal path for people to come in to work and then when their VISA is up, set up a system for them to get home. For the qualified ones, set up a system for them to stay back. Not all immigrants ended up in the USA.... immigration is a global phenomenon. It's less likely for a person from a well off nation to migrate to another country, the flow is always from the poor to the rich. Try to stop the flow without any controlled gap, you will create a huge problem.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines:

There is only some logic for emigration, people will flow to the richest country in the region. If you look at the emigration in Africa, poorer Africans migrated to neighboring countries, and those from the richer ones, moved to Europe. Europe has a lot more Morrocans than say Ghanians, but there are still Ghanians. In Southeast Asia, Thais moved to both Malaysia and many rushed to Singapore. They go where the jobs are. There are of course control. North Koreans have traditionally moved to China to escape Kim, since it's better to live under a communist regime that runs on capitalism than to live under fear.

Haitians still flocked to neighboring Dominican Republic even though they were prosecuted there, and count how many Haitians do we have? Very very few, except those who can afford to fly. So Guatemalans will naturally move into Mexico to work, but found out that USA is a better option, so they all flock here, if they can get more money, why not?

If there is a richer country beside the Dominican Republic, Haitians will move there. It was the reason why Europeans immigrants moved here, it was the reason why Chinese came to build the railroad (I even know of a 7th Generation chinese immigrant in San Diego!).... That's why there's a Japanesetown and all sorts of towns in New York City.... The Irish were here illegally too... can you imagine a richer country like Ireland send 250,000 here? And Ireland is that far away and it's not so distance future away! So a poorer nation like Mexico and Gua... of course, they will flock here.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

There were 250,000-300,000 illegal Irish in the United States. Judging from their small country with slightly over 4 million population, it's about 5-7% of their country's population here! Then you take a look at Mexico. If we presumed 8 millions illegals are Mexicans, there should be slightly over 108 millions Mexicans, it looks like 7-8% of the Mexicans are here. Then you compare the wealth in both countries, wooh, Mexico is poor!!! Then, you compare the distance.. wow, Mexico is so near, you just walk across. Imagine if Ireland is just next door!

If America is so far and Ireland is wealthier, but 5-7% of their population came as illegal, it's justifiable that 7-8% Mexicans come in as illegals. And of course, the total number of illegal Africans are way smaller than the Irish, and so are the Chinese, Koreans, Eastern Europeans etc. Then, if you take a look at the recent legal immigrants from outside, the figures add up to a MUCH SMALLER percentage and the figure is slightly lesser than the time back in the 1800s and 1920s (can you imagine that!!! How many human beings existed back then! And the number was slightly larger than the total migrants today!!!).

Now, you can see why many people start calling the stop to the illegal immigration a racist policy? The black-white conflict continues till today... the very same reason: Our history. Like it or not.... the politicians are making all the fault themselves, one letting them in without control to escape the problem, and the other try to squeeze them out. I don't call for totally open borders, but i call for better controlled borders. A fence will never work, what we need is a controlled system that give out VISAs and then we're able to track them down and sent them back. For the good ones, keep them here, we don't need the bad ones.

Also, America is built with the blood and sweat of immigrants. It should not close its doors to even the lowest end immigrants... remember, back then, some of those who migrated to the USA were the lowest of the lows from Europe.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

"One of the major differences, if you check your history, is that most of these people brought job skills with them - job skills the country needed. They were hardly the drain on our society that the current influx is."

I'm very surprised when you said this. I thought you might want to check with your granddad etc. What were the skills? If you check histories, millions of immigrants were out of jobs, many had no skills at all when they immigrated. Many were cheated by former immigrants, and many women ended up selling their bodies. Yeap, job skills were needed, and they weren't draining the society? This is funny. Because, the locals were also complaining about new immigrants, but the government only banned Asians and Latinos back then.

If you said that the European job skills were better, then I think they were comparable to the illegal Latinos we had today. Didn't we? They're building all the roads, pluck all the fruits. I thought that is a very racist comment you had.... what makes a European more "skilful" than a Latino?

Moreover, you could simply take a boat in Europe and sail across and land yourself in New York. They did not check whether you have the skills or not... how can you justify your statement on the skills? Many of the Latinos I met had better skills and born Americans.....

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

I used to have respect for your comment, until I saw this:

"Okay, fine, I might too. So when someone steals your car, breaks into your house, or robs you at gunpoint on the street, as long as they leave a note saying "I had to feed my kids" I assume you won't be pressing charges."

So you must have admitted that White Europeans stole the lands from the Native Indians right? But did the Latinos stole the land from Americans? How do you treat illegals? Depot them... that's all. I start to feel something is really wrong with your comments.... and if you read my previous post, you said that the Europeans immigrants were much more skilfull the existing Latinos.... that really exposes the agenda..... I totally lose my respect for you. If you use this reason, the illegals can easily attack you and label you a racist.... and that's the reason why the movement is doom to fail.... This country is build with immigrants, and it should stay that way, even though the color changes.

Sean Livingstone 7 years, 11 months ago

DotsLines,

Not all immigrants are needed in this country, I have always agreed with that. But not all immigrants want to come to this country, and I hope you understand that. There are more countries whom new immigrants can go to than simply America. Immigration, legal or illegal, has always existed, it's the gap of economy that creates it and human wants to define borders. Legality is pre-determined by how the country issued VISA and legal status. For example, a European who walked through the shore in New York was legal, but a Mexican who walked through the Mexican border was illegal.

You said this: "There were 250,000-300,000 illegal Irish in the United States. Who might have been fleeing something else besides poverty:"

Sure, the illegals are also fleeing poverty. people call that invasion...... I really hope people in this country can look at history to better understand why things happen in that way and why the majority must be more silent in many ways. Good luck!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.