His Accent Sounded Fine to Me

by Eric Martin

Since the various arguments regarding the ostensible justifications for Arizona's heavy-handed, discriminatory immigration law generated a good amount of heat on this site, this post from Adam Serwer seemed useful in directly addressing some of the relevant issues:

The arguments in favor of Arizona's draconian immigration law have already been debunked. Arizona isn't being overwhelmed by the undocumented because the undocumented population is decreasing. Crime in the U.S. is down, crime in Arizona is down "dramatically." There is no spillover violence from the border -- in fact the top four big cities with the lowest crime rates are all along the border. The federal government hasn't done "nothing"; it's deporting people in numbers higher than anything seen during the Bush administration. So there's very little empirical evidence to support the idea that Arizona is being overwhelmed by an illegal immigrant crime wave, because it isn't.

In Georgia, another draconian measure is being considered that again proves that anti-immigrant sentiment has nothing to do with crime at all. From Jessica Calefati at Mother Jones:

Georgia's Board of Regents joined the national debate on illegal immigration this week by announcing plans for its public colleges to review every student's immigration status and identify those who are undocumented, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports. While illegal immigrants are allowed to attend Georgia's public colleges, they aren't allowed to enroll at the less expensive in-state tuition rate. And because undocumented students can't work legally, the higher out-of-state tuition rate is something most can't afford.

This effort cannot plausibly be directed at criminals. It is directed at those immigrants who are productive members of American society but also happen to be undocumented, including those whose only crime was being brought here by their parents when they were children. The people being targeted by this law aren't committing crimes--they're trying to get an education so they can make something of themselves. In other words, it's targeted at the kind of immigrants anti-immigration activists claim they want.

Ah, just some more lazy immigrants who come here to steal all of our jobs, and collect welfare, attend our best universities, and refuse to learn our ways and assimilate.

Comments

[Free Lunch]

Bigots always look for cover to excuse their bigotry.

[Marty]

"The people being targeted by this law aren't committing crimes"

Except, of course, being here illegally.

And again, that would certainly make them out-of-state residents from a legal perspective. Seems pretty lame thing to complain about. The alternative, roundly suggested, to the Arizona law was better employment eligibility enforcement. I don't see how this really is different than that.

[Eric Martin]

Except, of course, being here illegally.

So, the AZ law was necessary because of the spike in crime that wasn't really a spike so much as some people coming to Arizona to work, without going through the legal channels?

The alternative, roundly suggested, to the Arizona law was better employment eligibility enforcement. I don't see how this really is different than that.

The alternative was to crack down on employers, removing the incentive to come here, and thus reducing the influx. A little different than making it harder for kids to go to college because their parents are undocumented workers.

[RepubAnon]

"It's been five years since we had a raise in pay
And they disallowed my business lunches today
Somebody must have changed the rules of the game
So we've found a convenient scapegoat we can blame
It's those teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs (They're too lazy to work)"
Austin Lounge Lizards

[Marty]

"A little different than making it harder for kids to go to college because their parents are undocumented workers"

No, it is not. It reduces the incentive to come here to get their kids a cheap education. At some point it comes down to a decision whether the laws should be enforced or not. They are illegally in the country, make it legal, or don't. Give everyone eternal amnesty or don't, but making illegal immigrants pay out of state tuition seems pretty reasonable as an admission policy.

[John Thullen]

"It reduces the incentives to come here and get their kids a cheap education."

I'll try to remember this wisdom next time we have a thread on the high cost of education and how we ought to cut teacher and professor salaries and eliminate tenure, to make it cheaper, so more people can afford an education blah, blah, blah blah .. blah.

What about the incentives for Americans to go to India for cheaper surgery? Let's get rid of those too. Sounds innovative as long as the beneficiaries are Americans.

What about the incentives to outsource American jobs to other countries?

But, yeah, a rational immigration policy would be a nice change.

[Marty]

John,

Blah,blah. It is perfectly fine to come from anywhere for an education. India, Ireland and Indonesia just to stay in the I's, but they pay out of state rates and have a student visa.

[Tyro]

t. It reduces the incentive to come here to get their kids a cheap education.

Seriously, Marty, you think it's all about the low, low tuition rates that they're coming here for?

It strikes me as somewhat more economically effective for someone from Mexico to sent remittances back to Mexico so their kids can attend virtually free Mexican public unversities.

Seriously, Marty, this argument is weak even by your track record of being a nihilistic annoyance here.

[J.J. (Jay Jerome)]

eric: "So there's very little empirical evidence to support the idea that Arizona is being overwhelmed by an illegal immigrant crime wave, because it isn't."

It's been overwhelmed, overtaxed, overstressed by continuing and continuous crimes committed by illegals.

Although the FBI statistics you linked us to show Total Violent Crime was down 5.6% in Arizona in 2009, the remaining statistics are not insignificant. They show 18,135 Violent crimes committed, including murders, forcible rapes, robberies, assaults, property crimes. The crime numbers in fact are actually higher, because the FBI statistics only includes the 10 Arizona police agencies who reported to them.

Of those crimes, illegals committed 1,851, including 40 rapes and murders. That may not be a 'wave' but it's a pernicious unnecessary burden on Arizonians, and on all the rest of us in the Southwest who suffer similar percentages of assaults and robberies and murders at the hands of illegals, and the subsequent burden of paying for trials and incarceration.

If you tally up the Arizona crime statistics over the last eight years (available on line; Google Arizona Department of Public Safety Annual Report On Crime), Illegals have been arrested for more than 145,000 violent crimes, including 400 rapes and murders.

No, it's not a wave; it's the illegal immigration equivalent of the Gulf Of Mexico oil spill...

Bottom line: illegals left the country last year, and crime rates dropped in Arizona and elsewhere. And so did automobile fatalities: Arizona in 2009 had their lowest numbers of deaths in the past 15 years. Less illegals driving on the highways, less fatal accidents.

And as far as your boo-hooing about US college requirements for illegals, Mexico will only allow foreign students to register at their schools if they have an approved visa... no foreigner, no matter how long they've resided in Mexico, is admitted without proper documentation. But all Mexicans living in the US, no matter how long they've been here, were accorded Mexican citizenship by that government some years back, and if they qualify academically, they can get their education at the Mexican government's expense.

[RepubAnon]

JJ, try doing some math:
1,851 crimes from immigrants out of 18,135 total works out to about 10%. This isn't a gushing wave of criminals flooding across the borders - it's a blip.

Of course, the crime statistics don't show all the crimes committed against immigrants that went unreported due to fear of being deported. But then, crimes against immigrants are not what has the tea party folks worried, either.

Your comment that "But all Mexicans living in the US, no matter how long they've been here, were accorded Mexican citizenship by that government some years back" is even more bizarre. If native-born Mexican citizens came to the US at an early age, why would they lose their Mexican citizenship merely because they lived here for a while? Doesn't "some years back" translate to "because they were Mexican citizens by birthright"?

[bobbyp]

The solution is obvious....lower domestic wages to a level at or below Mexican wages. This would also help our trade deficit immensely.

However, the problem has always been this...somebody has to go first. I suggest the employees of Goldman Sachs.

[liberal japonicus]

You know, the wider you make people's horizons while they are at university, the more benefits are going to accrue. And having people come over here and experience American culture, gain American friends and connections, is the best way to immunize the future from outbreaks of lashing out at America. Better trolls please.

[J.J. (Jay Jerome)]

repub: " This isn't a gushing wave of criminals flooding across the borders - it's a blip."

I didn't use the term gushing wave. Eric waved the wave.

I said it was a cumulative 8 year's of crimes that would have been significantly reduced if there were significantly fewer illegal immigrants in the US committing them. 18,135 Violent Crimes is not a blip. That's just the 8 year total in Arizona. The crime rates are higher here in California. And if you add them up nationally, they are significant.

You seem to be willing to rationalize away all those crimes committed by people who are here unlawfully because the percentages aren't higher. If 10% of iPhones start blowing up in people's ears you going to say it's only a statistical blip, and not be in favor of a total recall? How about if it's only 2%, or 1% -- you still on the forget-about-it it's only a blip bandwagon? And that's what Arizona wants to do, a reflection of the will of a strong majority of Americans: recall the illegals,

We bring in about a million legal immigrants a year, almost half of them from Mexico-- If you think it's in our national interest to allow more in each year, or to accord another amnesty for the 11-million who came here illegally after the last amnesty, organize a national referendum, and let the people vote on it. And if the majority votes to let them stay, the rule of law will have prevailed.

But until that happens Arizona has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from the crimes and misdemeanors of those people who are in this country illegally, even if they're only 1% of the total.

[J.J. (Jay Jerome)]

"And having people come over here and experience American culture, gain American friends and connections, is the best way to immunize the future from outbreaks of lashing out at America. Better trolls please."

Again, I repeat, we bring in a million legal immigrants a year, half of them from Mexico. You have to be dense dumb and blind not to see that.

Better thinking please.

[J.J. (Jay Jerome)]

repub: "Your comment that "But all Mexicans living in the US, no matter how long they've been here, were accorded Mexican citizenship by that government some years back" is even more bizarre."

Yes, that's a little jumbled.

What I was trying to say was all people born in Mexico, no matter how long they've lived here in the US, as Mexican citizens can go back to Mexico, and legally apply for college acceptance there. This is also true for 'anchor babies' born in the US, who under Mexican law can have duel citizenship in the US and Mexico, and can also return to Mexico for their education, or to live there full time if they wish. The same is true of any and all Mexicans born in Mexico who legally relocated here and have become American citizens (those who received the last amnesty for instance).

And all of those 'Americans' with duel citizenship can go back to Mexico, and can buy property (where non-Mexican Americans are forbidden to buy property), and open businesses (where non-Mexican American can't) and be hired for governmental jobs (non-Mexican Americans excluded) or join the military (no non-Mexican Americans need apply).

[Jesurgislac]

"Duel citizenship".

*snigger*

[liberal japonicus]

"Better thinking please."

That's only going to come about if one follows who is saying what to whom. I was speaking to Marty's comment (he's the one who restricted his countries of choice to ones that being with I) rather than address your racist screed. Do you really think that the children of illegal farmworkers and maids have enough money pay even in-state tuition? (U of Arizona $6540, Arizona State $7,793 excluding housing, board, textbooks) You also realize that migrant workers often can't establish residency, because they are 'migrant'. If you can squeeze a dictionary up where your head is, you might want to take a look at it. Look up 'duel' while you are at it. Or better yet, ask a desi kid. They might take pity on you.

[Brett Bellmore]

I really hate this term, 'undocumented"; It's meant to suggest, (Without really saying so.) that we're dealing with people who just misplaced their wallet, or neglected to go through some trivial formality.

Why not call a bank robber an "undocumented customer" of the bank? A car thief an "undocumented car owner", because they're not in possession of a title?

The reason they don't have the documents is that they're here illegally. Taking something they're not legally entitled to: The benefits of being here.

Nobody calls somebody 'undocumented' unless they're trying to slip one past you.

[Tyro]

organize a national referendum, and let the people vote on it.

That system has worked out great for California. Besides, isn't this the point where you're supposed to be frothing at the mouth with slurred speech about how, "we're a republic, not a democracy!" ?

What we have basically realized is that the Reoublucans are out and out lying when they try to claim that there is some kind of massive crime wave sparked by illegal immigration. For the most part, border stares are relatively low crime. Those who try to claim otherwise are simply trying to pull one over on you.

Mexican citizens can go back to Mexico, and legally apply for college acceptance there.

You are forgetting that according to Marty, they're coming to America to take advantage of the low, low in state tuition available at America's public universities!

Honestly, most of these students grew up here, went to school here, and have a relatively tenuous connection to their home countries and are just trying to finish college.

I really hate this term, 'undocumented

How nice for you. I'll get the fainting couch. It's similar to using the term "unlicensed driver."

[Eric Martin]

No, it is not. It reduces the incentive to come here to get their kids a cheap education.

Marty, I take it I don't need to pile on and point out how this argument refutes itself, right?

At some point it comes down to a decision whether the laws should be enforced or not. They are illegally in the country, make it legal, or don't. Give everyone eternal amnesty or don't, but making illegal immigrants pay out of state tuition seems pretty reasonable as an admission policy.

It comes down to this: unless we punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants, then all else is more or less beside the point. If you're going to allow employers to continue hiring illegal immigrants, giving an irresistible incentive, then I would rather their children have medical care and attend universities. No sense in luring them here and then taking punitive measures against them and their children. That would be the worst of both worlds.

Now if you wanted to actually punish employers (you know, enforce the law!), then the other stuff would make at least a bit more sense as part of a comprehensive approach. As is, it is an incoherent and counterproductive approach.

[Eric Martin]

Why not call a bank robber an "undocumented customer" of the bank? A car thief an "undocumented car owner", because they're not in possession of a title?

Yeah. Why not call someone operating a motor vehicle without a license an "unlicensed driver"? Or a worker (citizen) not on your payroll, "off the books"? Or why don't we describe someone pretending to be a doctor as "practicing medicine without a license"? Or "practicing law without a license"?

That would be crazy, right?

[Marty]

Eric,

You can pile on but...the facts are that if access to work, education and healthcare required documetation (all places I have to provide ID already), the incentives would be greatly reduced.

All of which is beside the point of this post or my response. The point was that if you can't prove you are a legal resident of the state, then you should pay out of state rates. I don't see that as being equivalent to the Arizona law in any way.

[Eric Martin]

Marty,

Only equivalent in that it is not in response to a crime surge, or directed at same.

But as I said, if it was part of a comprehensive approach, it would make a bit more sense, although even then, I don't think punitive measures against kids trying to go to college (who likely had zero say in the decision to come to this country) is the right way to go, unless it was the last step in a sequence, but certainly not the first.

[liberal japonicus]

Maybe Hartmut can find us a link to the original German so as to better appreciate them

[Marty]

"I don't think punitive measures against kids trying to go to college"

So should poor out of state students get in state rates in general? Or should out of state rates be banned? I am really trying to understand the "punitive" nature of this requirement. Not to mention the whole set of assumptions you are making about the reason a college age child is in Georgia, which casts them as tragic victims of their parents crimes.

All that said, i agree it would be more effective if we had aa comprehebsive approach.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm surprised no one has linked to this

[Jesurgislac]

Marty: I am really trying to understand the "punitive" nature of this requirement.

Denying children access to college on the basis of who their parents are punishes:

1. The children themselves
2. The parents, who would doubtless rather have educated children
3. The future society the children live in, which would benefit from having more people better educated.

The only group that isn't punished is:

1. The employers who want more uneducated and unresourced workers who have no option but to take whatever jobs they can get at whatever rate of pay the employers will offer.

In short; the only people this doesn't punish are the people who are directly responsible for undocumented workers and who directly benefit from their presence.

How, exactly, is this helpful?

I come from a culture that values education as a good in itself, which causes me to struggle to understand your notion of education as reward/privilege to be withheld as a punishment.

[Jesurgislac]

Oh, and denying people healthcare because they're "illegal aliens" is beyond a joke. This is the US, of course, but... even so.

[Hartmut]

Maybe Hartmut can find us a link to the original German so as to better appreciate them
pre or post-1945? If the latter, East or West Germany?
Most neutral "Wirtschaftsflüchtling" (economic refugee). This includes both 'true' refugees and migrants. It says nothing per se about legal status but given the difficulty of getting a work permit, 'unauthorized' is often implied.
Always popular (although a bit oldfashioned): foreigners that take your bread away ('bread' is more powerful than 'jobs').
But I think the word meant but deliberately not used is 'Schmarotzer' (parasite) with an appropriate prefix like Sozial- (social or welfare) or Bildungs- (education/training). Many universities have no tuition fee making them attractive. But we are of course a totalitarian police state lacking basic human rights (no 2nd amendment and Coulter&Co would get into legal trouble in no time for disturbing the peace, calling for wars of aggression and genocide) where "papers please" is almost as old as paper itself. So, getting enrolled without valid student visa or other proof of legal status of residence could be difficult.

[Hartmut]

I might add that student visa become invalid almost instantly when studies get finished or aborted.

[liberal japonicus]

Hartmut, I was thinking 'Alle gastarbeiter raus!', though there is probably a spelling mistake or three in there.

[Marty, J.J., and Brett's Parents]

Dear Marty, J.J., and Brett,

We are so sorry to have to break this to you via an internet comment on a blog, but events have come to the point that we cannot withhold the truth from the three of you any longer. You see, the six of us snuck into the United States together with the three of you when you were each three months old.

We were hoping for a better life in the United States that our home country couldn't provide. And provide the U.S. has! What wonderful opportunity the land of, er, opportunity has given you! But sadly, the Department of Homeland Security has been closing it's net around us ever tighter these past few months, and we are reliably informed that we are soon to be arrested and deported as illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately, when that happens, they will find that the three of you are also illegal immigrants and you will all surely be deported as well. We know you have no memories of our home country, and that a transition back there may be difficult, given the language, ethnic, and religious barriers, but we ask you not to despair!

The six of us all have wonderful memories of growing up in Kyrgyzstan before we left for the United States, and while things may be tough right now there for ethnic Uzbeks like yourselves, we're sure you will find a nice tent city to settle down in and make your lot in your new life.

Don't forget, we love you, and be sure to brush up on your Russian and Krygyz language skills!

[John Thullen]

Dear M, JJ and B's parents:

This is a great idea for a movie.

You could call it "Borat Goes Home"

Or, it could be like the Hope/Crosby road pictures.

Who gets to be Dorothy Lamour?

[McKinneyTexas]

My wife came to the US on a student visa. She was required to have it on her person at all times. When she became a legal resident, she kept her green card with her drivers license. She's now a citizen but doesn't carry proof of citizenship.

I agree with Eric only in the limited sense that employers who employ illegal immigrants should be heavily sanctioned. As for enforcing existing law, why isn't that a universal consensus?

People who enter the country illegally and make a life here do so knowing they are subject to deportation. The alternative is to enter legally, a mechanism available to anyone even if it takes some time.

It is ridiculous to suggest that crime isn't crossing the border. We see it everyday in Texas. Cherry picking four cities in border states, only one of which is actually on the border is the kind of misleading advocacy that cheapens the entire pro-immigrant argument.

Further, the relevant statistic is what percentage of the population is illegally in the country accounts for what percentage of the overall crime rate. I don't have that number or the time to look it up, but annecdotally, illegal immigrants do bring with them--in the aggregate--a significant amount of crime.

All of that said, having represented, hired and associated with Mexicans here illegally for years, having watched (while hunting in south Texas) people lugging their only possessions on their back walking over some of the most inhospitable country in the state to take a job washing dishes, the vast majority are lovely people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent, the calculus of pluses and minuses is very difficult to work out. At present. In the out years, the situation is not so rosy.

First generation Mexicans and Central Americans know poverty and oppression at such a granular level that anything the US has to offer, no matter how menial, is a huge step up. Population growth south of the border coupled with no real change if not actual regression economically will continue to drive people north in large numbers.

The very, very vast majority of these people are not educated and have no cultural referents beyond the need for hard work just to put food on the table. Their offspring will not be raised in an environment that prizes education, ambition and advancement. Even third and fourth generation Mexican descendants have a depressingly low rate of college matriculation. It is a cultural phenomena in which the familial bonds are so strong--a plus in most ways, but not every way--that leaving home for school is viewed negatively. Familial pressures to stay close to home, to take whatever work allows that to happen, are strong. The documented result is the comparatively low rate of completing college.

As for second generation immigrants, will their children, less educated by far than their white, Asian and African American contemporaries, be satisfied with the entry level work their parents came to the US to find? I think not. Expectations will rise, but not the ability to achieve them. The downstream social costs of absorbing the next several generations, with an ongoing influx from the south, cannot be seen as anything positive.

The only solution that makes any kind of sense is a guest worker program. Give current illegals a year to register and then five years in the country to work. Then they go home to give others a chance to put together some money and take it home, hopefully there to build a better life and perhaps, in time, make their home countries better places to live.

We cannot continually absorb every person who desires a better life, no matter how good and decent each of those people probably are.

[wj]

ROTFLMAO!

And, before one of them brings it up, any illegal immigrant who manages to get false papers will also have a great story prepared to give a false background to anyone who asks. Including their children (who, as children, cannot be counted upon not to let the cat out of the bag).

[liberal japonicus]

[Marty's] notion of education as reward/privilege to be withheld as a punishment.

It is also a remarkably cramped version of what education is. Marty imagines that you don't want an education that teaches people how to be aware of differences, to be challenged by the best, to know how their efforts measure up. What Marty would have would be a system that where you are automatically keeping out some of the best (because, population mechanics being what they are, I don't think he's got that balls to assert that braininess is the sole domain of the legal folks only) He seems to imagine education as simply training a bunch of like minded people to think the same way, rather than a way to bring in new ideas, new viewpoints, that often can't be found within a homogenous group. My current favorite example of this is this guy. It is hard to imagine the ingenious lo-tech equipment being used to make profound discoveries if you didn't come from another way of viewing things. Ironically, I imagine conservatives would be for 'conserving' these sorts of view point, viewing it as ultimately supporting their desire 'conserve'. But the venom that comes out when the talk about this (count the number of times JJ 'Johnson' spits out the word Mexico or Mexicans) shows what is really being conserved here.

[Eric Martin]

So should poor out of state students get in state rates in general? Or should out of state rates be banned? I am really trying to understand the "punitive" nature of this requirement. Not to mention the whole set of assumptions you are making about the reason a college age child is in Georgia, which casts them as tragic victims of their parents crimes.

I'm not sure what you're asking, and what your confusion is.

If the kid is a resident of a given state, he/she should have access to in-state tuition breaks. This would not apply to residents out of state, but should apply even if the parents are in the country illegally.

The kids are not "tragic victims," just being punished with higher tuition, which is not a good thing since for many the difference can be a dealbreaker.

Not good. That is all.

[Eric Martin]

It is ridiculous to suggest that crime isn't crossing the border.

Good thing I didn't suggest that then.

Further, the relevant statistic is what percentage of the population is illegally in the country accounts for what percentage of the overall crime rate. I don't have that number or the time to look it up, but annecdotally, illegal immigrants do bring with them--in the aggregate--a significant amount of crime.

This is actually not true, factually. Crime rates in the immigrant population run far below the domestic population, especially when you factor in socio-economic class, but even without doing so.

...people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent...

Huh? Are you suggesting that I don't work hard, or that I'm not kind or decent?

McTex, for the record, I not only bust my ass as a lawyer (and, due to years of hard work, will make partner come December), but I have a paying gig editing a foreign policy website, and then manage to do this, for free, on top.

I also coach (and play) for a competitive softball team, while raising a now 8 month old child.

While I might be tempted to say something intemperate in response to your not so kind or decent statement, because I am both kind and decent, I will ask you to clarify instead.

As for second generation immigrants, will their children, less educated by far than their white, Asian and African American contemporaries, be satisfied with the entry level work their parents came to the US to find? I think not.

Do you have stats to back that up, or is that another "anecdotal" assertion?

[Phil]

. . . the vast majority are lovely people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent, the calculus of pluses and minuses is very difficult to work out. At present.

Uh . . . aside from "conservative," which of your adjectives here fails to describe Eric or Jes, but includes Marty and Brett? Brett Bellmore is a lot of things, but "kind and decent" isn't any of them.

All of that said, having represented, hired and associated with Mexicans here illegally for years . . .

Uh . . . aren't you a lawyer?

[JanieM]

I have no hesitation in being intemperate.

the vast majority are lovely people with a lot more in common with Brett and Marty than with Eric and Jes. Hardworking, conservative, kind and decent, the calculus of pluses and minuses is very difficult to work out.

“Brett” and “Marty” and “Eric” and “Jes” are cyberfigments. We know almost nothing of how we’d react to them if we met them in person. I have met five other ObWians in Boston for dinner several times. They are all wonderful, fun, interesting, kind, decent, lovely people (no, mostly not conservative, and I have no personal evidence of hardworking but based on what I know of their educational attainments and their working lives, they can hardly be anything but) but not one of them is much like what I imagined from their handles and their comments.

So I suggest that McKinneyTexas is filling in the 98% of what we don't know about “Brett” and “Marty” and “Eric” and “Jes” from his own imagination, and then, unless the comment came across very differently from the way it was actually meant, saying nastily that Brett and Marty share a lot of wonderful qualities with immigrants McK has known (decent, lovely, hardworking, etc.) and Eric and Jes don't. If McK means a lot more political opinions in common he may have a thin leg to stand on, but beyond that, he’s making it up. And making it up in a singularly nasty way, too.

From where I sit, Brett and especially Marty are most of the time among the most unpleasant and (in Marty's case) dishonest people I have ever had the bad luck to encounter. Their political opinions pale in importance in comparison to the general attitude of curmudgeonly nastiness they bring here.

To suggest that because some people writing on the internet seem in cyberspace to share some political opinions with some other people, they are “more like them” is sheer fantasy. People are a lot more than their f*cking political opinions.

Bye.

[Catsy]

J.J., would you mind sticking to one style of pseudonym? It makes it a touch more difficult to keep you in my pie filter when you go changing it around, and judging by what I've seen in this thread you still belong there.

[McKinneyTexas]

Uh, what I meant was that Brett and Marty--and me, for that matter--tend toward socially conservative, traditional values. This is in line with the vast majority of Mexicans I've come across.

Yes, Phil, I am a lawyer. Also, perhaps a hypocrite since I believe our laws should be enforced and our borders handled in the same way Mexico and every other country I've visited handles theirs. Yet, when it gets down to the person-to-person contact, I know every Mexican I meet who is looking for work starts from a lot farther back in the race than pretty much anyone else, so it's damned difficult not to extend a hand. If I am prosecuted for that, fine. I can hire a good lawyer.

[Eric Martin]

I can hire a good lawyer

Just not yourself ;) OK, I earned the right to that joke.

Uh, what I meant was that Brett and Marty--and me, for that matter--tend toward socially conservative, traditional values.

May I suggest, counselor, a bit more care in drafting the language, as your syntax did not make such a distinction.

[liberal japonicus]

What JanieM said.

But the point about Mexican American achievement is too mendacious to let stand, so when the proud Anglo McKinneyTexas opines:
It is a cultural phenomena in which the familial bonds are so strong--a plus in most ways, but not every way--that leaving home for school is viewed negatively. Familial pressures to stay close to home, to take whatever work allows that to happen, are strong. The documented result is the comparatively low rate of completing college.

In McKinneyTexas' rush to say 'it's not that I'm racist, it's that their family bonds are too tight', he misses (or chooses to overlook) the education research that suggests that when Mexican Americans are taught in a manner more resembling their own culture and less in the standard IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) style, their success rate climbs. And the insight that IRE style may not be the best way is one that has moved into work with learning disabled.

Of course, if McKinneyTexas' little Johnny happens to have a learning disability, and an understanding of how changes in classroom interaction make a significant difference in little Johnny's success, I have this strange feeling that dusky Juan whose grandparents are from Jalisco is not going to receive any thanks, unless the little Christmas bonus in the maid and gardner's off the book payment counts. As Flem Snopes said 'A little sweetening for the chaps'.

Losey's Listen to the Silences has a good overview of the research on how a wide range of strictures serve to limit and reduce the achievement of Mexican Americans.

[McKinneyTexas]

Yes, I really did drop the ball by implying that Jes and Eric and everyone else here at ObWi don't work hard, aren't good folks, etc. What I meant to say was what I tried to correct above. My apologies. Really. I wouldn't hang out here if I didn't like and respect pretty much everyone here. JanieM in particular. Damn.

Eric, I daily marvel at your prodigious output. I have no idea how you do it.

As for the stats, I should have saved the article by a UT sociology prof that came out a couple of weeks ago. The numbers were pretty remarkable and I remember thinking at the time I should save it for just something like this. I am not making this up.

[Hartmut]

Hartmut, I was thinking 'Alle gastarbeiter raus!', though there is probably a spelling mistake or three in there.

Gastarbeiter are the legal aliens. The ones that for the most part shamelessly stayed here instead of going back to their countries when their work was done and are under the illusion that working their asses off for decades in jobs Germans thought themselves too fine for entitled them to anything. Just like those ungrateful Chinese coolies that built the US railways.

[russell]

One thing I note is that the kids in question actually do reside in GA. FWIW.

People are going to come here if they think that, even in spite of whatever hurdles we throw in front of them, their lives will be better than they are at home.

By far most of these people come here to work, and they work freaking hard. I see them every day. They work more than one job, they are working when I leave for my job in the morning, and they are working when I leave my job to come back home in the evening.

We pretend we hate them but we also like cheap vegetables. We like our restaurant tables bussed, we like our lawns mowed and our flower beds mulched, we like our office buildings and hotel rooms clean and neat, and we don't want to pay a lot for it.

My druthers would be to just let them come here legally. I don't understand why we don't do that.

In the meantime, we'll just keep making it more and more difficult and unpleasant for them to be here, and they'll come anyway.

We'll be having this same argument five years from now.

[liberal japonicus]

Yes, and I wonder how the German World Cup squad would have done without Ozil...

[Jacob Davies]

MCT, much earlier: The alternative is to enter legally, a mechanism available to anyone even if it takes some time.

I just wanted to correct this - for a lot of people it is not possible to immigrate to the US legally no matter how long they waited. Take a look at the list of immigration visa types and you'll see that the categories are very restrictive. For temporary work visas there are fewer restrictions but those visas don't grant permanent resident status. There is the green card lottery, but many citizens of many countries (including Mexico) are barred from participating because they already send a lot of immigrants.

Just clarifying because I think it's a common belief that anybody can immigrate if they just wait long enough, but it's not actually true.

[russell]

The only solution that makes any kind of sense is a guest worker program.

To my eye, a guest worker program just legitimizes the use of immigrant labor to keep payrolls low.

Just let them freaking move here if they want to move here. As McK notes, they are hardworking, family-oriented, decent people. We should welcome them.

My two cents.