[Vato]

America had it coming...i mean latinos do the americans' dirty work so they can have a nice 9-5 sitting all day in an office, and now they're trying to get rid of us? ********.
What do you think about it?

(Read all about it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12573992/?GT1=8199 )

[§å®ðh]

I thought it was all illegal immigrants

[Light Years]

Latin americans in U.S. should get recognition for their work

[Trevor Cold]

United States is a nation of immigrants, mr. W Bush is a very racist person he didnt care about New Orleans can he care about latinos?

[Rafa]

lol mexicanos are really angry

[muzik_freek]

lol, i didn't do anything today, i didn't go to school, i didn't go to work (probably in trouble for this one) and all i've done is watch TV and be online all day.

[StrictMachine]

Ok I totally agree with improving immigrant worker rights...but at the same time I'm also really confused how people who sneak into a country illegally and then demand rights...is well, right? I see both sides to the argument really, balance in between seems to be the right way. Unless someone who knows more about it will enlighten me. I don't know much about it. Legal immigration is important to any modern nation, but mass illegal immigration is bad for safety/health care and other issues.

I mean if Canadians were to sneak into the US, then demand rights due to economic input, would that be allowed?

[Rafa]

^so basically every single immigrant should be screwed because there are illegal immigrants?

[§å®ðh]

Originally posted by Rafa

^so basically every single immigrant should be screwed because there are illegal immigrants?

I understand if you're here legally and want rights... but if you are here illegaly in the first place... that's a different story.

Not every immigrant is here illegaly.

[Nick The Third]

Originally posted by CallMeAtomic

Ok I totally agree with improving immigrant worker rights...but at the same time I'm also really confused how people who sneak into a country illegally and then demand rights...is well, right? I see both sides to the argument really, balance in between seems to be the right way. Unless someone who knows more about it will enlighten me. I don't know much about it. Legal immigration is important to any modern nation, but mass illegal immigration is bad for safety/health care and other issues.

I mean if Canadians were to sneak into the US, then demand rights due to economic input, would that be allowed?

Well said. I was actually gonna say something similar.

[orange]

I really do not agree with the treatment illegal immigrants should apparently get. They should be invited to citizenship, not pushed away. I could understand the whole quote deal since yes, no country wants too many people but in general, America has a lot of jobs and there are illegal immigrants that already occupy them so why try to force them out? I would much rather just try to get them neutralized if they are already doing work. As for the whole idea that yeah, they are illegal so what gives them the right to want rights... well, like I said, if they are already doing work, yeah, offer citizenship instead. If the whole immigration to the U.S. wasn't so complex, there wouldn't be illegal immigration.

[Nick The Third]

Originally posted by ke

I really do not agree with the treatment illegal immigrants should apparently get. They should be invited to citizenship, not pushed away. I could understand the whole quote deal since yes, no country wants too many people but in general, America has a lot of jobs and there are illegal immigrants that already occupy them so why try to force them out? I would much rather just try to get them neutralized if they are already doing work. As for the whole idea that yeah, they are illegal so what gives them the right to want rights... well, like I said, if they are already doing work, yeah, offer citizenship instead. If the whole immigration to the U.S. wasn't so complex, there wouldn't be illegal immigration.

There has to be some sort of complexity to immigration to keep disease and such from spreading all over the world. I agree the treatment should be better, but if anyone could go in and out of countries any old time, half the world would probably fall deathly ill with some disease. And I don't understand what you mean, people that decide to immigrate illegally should get the same treatment as the ones who immigrated legally and obeyed the law?...

[~A*D*O*R*A~]

Originally posted by CallMeAtomic

Ok I totally agree with improving immigrant worker rights...but at the same time I'm also really confused how people who sneak into a country illegally and then demand rights...is well, right? I see both sides to the argument really, balance in between seems to be the right way. Unless someone who knows more about it will enlighten me. I don't know much about it. Legal immigration is important to any modern nation, but mass illegal immigration is bad for safety/health care and other issues.

I mean if Canadians were to sneak into the US, then demand rights due to economic input, would that be allowed?

It is about balance, I agree. (Except about the Canadian example - since even though there are plenty of stereotypes and jokes about Canadians from the US and vice versa their standing as a country and neighbour to the US is quite different to those of the South American countries and Mexico in North America.)

I agree slightly differently though. See, it's usually the same attitude towards immigration, legal and illegal that we see in particular countries. It's the 'they're taking our jobs, our money, send them back to their country' argument strangely alongside 'all they do is come here and beg, go on benefits and take our money' argument. Most legal immigrants (not talking about refugees and asylum seekers) go to places like the US/UK to study, work for while or both and then leave - some get extended visas and then leave, others and people do because it's just life, find partners want to get married and/or perhaps have a child(ren) and hence are allowed to stay or the couple move somewhere else. With illegal immigrants, it's often to get work and send home money or establish themselves to bring over their family, they basically want a better way of life and are willing to do the **** it takes to get there and either can't get through the system to legall move, even for a while or haven't tried (immigration workers can be real pieces of **** though, I feel sorry to all the genuine people out there who have to go through them). Then, there are those who want to cheat the system by getting married falsly or having kid(s) for the sole reason of citizenship.

But basically, in regards to what you said, yes, illegal immigrants shouldn't necessarily (with the exception of some individual cases) have the same or as many rights as legal ones, but when the country knows, and they do, that they are getting a cheap ride off these people rather then employing their own citizens and because not as many of their own citizens would take such conditions unless they had to and employers can't be bothered to go looking for those people desperate enough - they just stick with illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants who do the work others don't want, but claim they are taking the jobs, get paid pittance and have none of the fair practice rights or benefits because they are illegal. When a country knows it is benefitting and alot from these people, they should give them more rights - otherwise they're going to have to start finding tons of their own citizens to fill the places and hike up the salaries, pensions, benefits, pay more attention to unions, take up the level of housing to a decent standard and basically be more fair and considerate. Which they should do anyway, but when they know they can get cheap labour that can't officially complain that saves them a ton of money and makes them a ton of money who do you think they are going to choose and have chosen for ages. They may be illegal, but their not peice of **** under someone's shoe and especially if they have been in the country for a long time and there are many who have been illegal immigrants for many years, and they do bring in money to the economy and aren't in any other way criminal, I think they desserve more positive recognition. For example, all the trouble in France lately, their police know who is illegal and who isn't but did **** all about it because they knew they were bringing in money.

Many want to take as much off illegals as they can and think they should put up with whatever and don't have a right to complain because they are illegal and shouldn' tbe there anyway. But just because a person might have no other way and not much choice, doesn't mean they should be exploited. If people really think they have no right to be there, then stop taking money off them and send them back - that's what is proposed now, I'd like to see them enforce it (sarcasm). It's be a major deal if the US could do it, do it properly without harassing and treating people like ****, and then managing to fill the employment gap in a fair way to their own citizens.

I also find the attitude to many legal immigrants ridiculous - especially ones that start and do well with their own businesses, that is a pretty substantial amount as well and you get all these jealous anti-immigration people going on about them taking their jobs, living the high life in their country blah blah blah. Please, it takes a lot of work and if they were willing to put in the hours maybe they would have their own business too. Small-medium business isn't easy for anyone, especially nowadays and it's harder for people who have just arrived with no roots in a country but they bring in a lot of revenue and tax and the govt knows it. It's a joke the way people in certain countries seem to forget they didn't come from their either but want to close the door behind them anyway. Then there are shot stay legal immigrants who have it tough, e.g. they come to study but need to pay or the study but aren't allowed to work but then they might be allowed to but only certain types of work and even though they are legal they are still short stay hence still only get ****** jobs, but can only do a certain amount of hours and aren't allowed to earn over a certain amount anyway. Who may also be trying to send home money at the same time, and then get treated like **** from some solicitors who treat them as second class and do the job slowly or not good enough if that person wants to stay abit longer or has reasons for wanting to stay permanently and are trying to do everything legitimiately and haven't gotten married or had kids for reasons other then love like some people would do (immigrant or not) and then make progress but because the Home Office is so slow keep sending them letter warning of deportation and ignoring how many years they may have been here working hard. Immigration is basically a tough issue, but the people who deal with immigration don't make it any easier.

There is also a colour issue involved - in the UK, in relatively recent times, African black people had it hard with immigration but with all the troubles in certain countries in Africa a certain awareness developed and sympathy/understanding developed and refugees were ok and were seen as 'better' then legal immigrants (even though later a proportion of those refugess became immigrants) but obviously the general public couldn't decipher on appearance so they still got ****, the same attitude was aimed at brown people as well. These attitudes continued but less so in the few major cities which became milti-cultural and anti-immigration attitudes didn't really include white immigrants from Europe, but now, that gap is definitely closing, which is a shame. More of that attitude is not helpful and now many cultural communities are segregating themselves but shares schools and workplaces (the practising Jewish communities are the only people to have their own full time schools - other just have saturday school or after school teaching to learn the language and perhaps religion in some). Now, however, in terms of immigration, short term, long term and through airports brown people are getting the brunt of it due to the terroist issue, and immigration officers are far too thick and rude to realise the difference in brown people and their cultures. But anyway, I digress...

(Note - probably missed out a ton of valid points, pretty ill at the moment.)

[Vato]

Originally posted by Taste Like Fire

And I don't understand what you mean, people that decide to immigrate illegally should get the same treatment as the ones who immigrated legally and obeyed the law?...

Like Ke said, forcing them out of the country isn't the solution. Maybe legalizing them. After all they're the ones who do America's dirty work and you can't deny it: janitors, construcion workers, agricultors...79% of the people who do these kinds of jobs are illegal immigrants, why? cause no american wants to do the dirty work.

[~A*D*O*R*A~]

Originally posted by Taste Like Fire

There has to be some sort of complexity to immigration to keep disease and such from spreading all over the world. I agree the treatment should be better, but if anyone could go in and out of countries any old time, half the world would probably fall deathly ill with some disease. And I don't understand what you mean, people that decide to immigrate illegally should get the same treatment as the ones who immigrated legally and obeyed the law?...

That is a xenophobic gereralistion.

Complexity of immigration to prevent disease from spreading all over the world?

Immigration isn't all about health checks (more of immigration is about money and red tape), those are of course carried out but that was just a funny statement (it's not really of course...). Countries that generally have a large immigrant population (although I don't consider legal people immigrants since they are citizens and most people in the US and UK for example are immigrants anyway) generally seem to create their own diseases, sicknesses and chronic ailments and many of them. The diseases from other countries that may cause concern are generally ones we can treat but those places don't have access or enough of the medicine required and other places have things they can solve with their own medicine. Plus, if you speak to people who have moved here in this or the previous generation from different places and places other then those who had an epidemic or extenuating circumstances, many would probably tell you that people weren't so ill where they came from, not as ill so much or from so many things, namely because they are healthier. The only area in which your statement would have more premise is the fear of very bad conditions from poverty stricken places perhaps with war, famine, lots of death and hence disease. But people from those areas generally come into the refugee and asylum seeker categories, which are different and not what this topic is about.

Also, Ke didn't say in such a general fashion, that people who immigrated illegally should have the same rights as legal persons; she explained what she meant and suggested alternatives.

Oh and btw - many people do go in and out of countries all the time, it's called tourism and migration with max lengths depending on where you go and for what reasons of 3 months to 2 years to 10 years, think about the effect that has.

[Travis10]

Originally posted by CallMeAtomic

Ok I totally agree with improving immigrant worker rights...but at the same time I'm also really confused how people who sneak into a country illegally and then demand rights...is well, right? I see both sides to the argument really, balance in between seems to be the right way. Unless someone who knows more about it will enlighten me. I don't know much about it. Legal immigration is important to any modern nation, but mass illegal immigration is bad for safety/health care and other issues.

I mean if Canadians were to sneak into the US, then demand rights due to economic input, would that be allowed?

Ditto. I'm feeling very tired to type like ADORA at the moment. But Yeah, what ^ she said sums up my thoughts plus more.

I'm also tired of not being able to communicate AT ALL to some of these immigrants because of their lack of/no sense of English. (And they're in an English-language-dominated U.S. society.) But I try with my Spanish/Cherade skills as mush as I can familiarize with.

[TrueBeCause of yoU]

Originally posted by Trevor Cold

United States is a nation of immigrants, mr. W Bush is a very racist person he didnt care about New Orleans can he care about latinos?

Maybe you should check your facts once more. GWB is actually trying to help immigrants...

[Nick The Third]

Originally posted by ~A*D*O*R*A~

That is a xenophobic gereralistion.

Complexity of immigration to prevent disease from spreading all over the world?

Immigration isn't all about health checks (more of immigration is about money and red tape), those are of course carried out but that was just a funny statement (it's not really of course...). Countries that generally have a large immigrant population (although I don't consider legal people immigrants since they are citizens and most people in the US and UK for example are immigrants anyway) generally seem to create their own diseases, sicknesses and chronic ailments and many of them. The diseases from other countries that may cause concern are generally ones we can treat but those places don't have access or enough of the medicine required and other places have things they can solve with their own medicine. Plus, if you speak to people who have moved here in this or the previous generation from different places and places other then those who had an epidemic or extenuating circumstances, many would probably tell you that people weren't so ill where they came from, not as ill so much or from so many things, namely because they are healthier. The only area in which your statement would have more premise is the fear of very bad conditions from poverty stricken places perhaps with war, famine, lots of death and hence disease. But people from those areas generally come into the refugee and asylum seeker categories, which are different and not what this topic is about.

Also, Ke didn't say in such a general fashion, that people who immigrated illegally should have the same rights as legal persons; she explained what she meant and suggested alternatives.

Oh and btw - many people do go in and out of countries all the time, it's called tourism and migration with max lengths depending on where you go and for what reasons of 3 months to 2 years to 10 years, think about the effect that has.

Wow...you completely over-exaggerated my statement and made it a LOT more negative than it was meant to be.

All I said was that if immigration was like tourism, as you said, then spreading of diseases might and probably would get worse than it already is. Immigration isn't all about health checks, I'm aware of that, but it's a factor. I also said that there has to be some sort of complexity to immigration, like having health checks, not that it has to be as complex as it is now.

Yes, I'm aware of what Ke said and we actually had a good discussion about it over AIM. I still don't think that those who immigrate illegally should get any special treatment because they're doing dirty work. Does that mean I think they should be deported from the country? Not at all. But I don't think it's FAIR to those who immigrated legally to be treated as bad if not worse than the people who immigrated illegally.

[~A*D*O*R*A~]

Originally posted by Taste Like Fire

Wow...you completely over-exaggerated my statement and made it a LOT more negative than it was meant to be.

All I said was that if immigration was like tourism, as you said, then spreading of diseases might and probably would get worse than it already is. Immigration isn't all about health checks, I'm aware of that, but it's a factor. I also said that there has to be some sort of complexity to immigration, like having health checks, not that it has to be as complex as it is now.

Yes, I'm aware of what Ke said and we actually had a good discussion about it over AIM. I still don't think that those who immigrate illegally should get any special treatment because they're doing dirty work. Does that mean I think they should be deported from the country? Not at all. But I don't think it's FAIR to those who immigrated legally to be treated as bad if not worse than the people who immigrated illegally.

Um no, you're the one who made the extreme and almost totally inaccurate statement. NOW, you've made it sound watered down and explained it properly but taken my words out of context in doing so. For example, I didn't say tourism was like immigration, even though you said I did and neither did you for that matter, so what's with the 'All I said was that if immigration was like tourism, as you said' business? In your original post you went on after the some sort of complexities of immigration being needed to prevent disease from spreading all over the world bit - to say that if people could go in and out of countries any old time hald the world would have some deathly disease - without realising that that could equate to tourism and migration and now you come back and say you actually said if immigration was like tourism and then claim I pointed that out? I pointed out that part of your out of proportion statement does happen, but half of us aren't dying from it and I did not say it was immigration.

You stated:

'There has to be some sort of complexity to immigration to keep disease and such from spreading all over the world. I agree the treatment should be better, but if anyone could go in and out of countries any old time, half the world would probably fall deathly ill with some disease.

What did over-exagerrate about that exactly? You spoke as if immigration policy needs some sort of complexity because otherwise half of the billions on the planet would probably have some fatal disease caused by immigrating people. That was extreme and ignorant.

I pointed out that immigration (let alone it's complexity) isn't all about health checks but of course it figures but not in the way you stated and went on abit further to explain. Now you come back to me after that and agree, health checks isn't all of it but it's a factor (copy of what I said) and that some sort of complexities are needed to ensure it (well yeah I said that it is a part of it already and not all of it) - but it was you who originally made it out to be more then a factor. Your statement made it out to be the necessary reason for immigration complexities and without a mention of other possible factors, you made out we'd probably have some global epidemic without it. You made out that 'some sort' of complexities was to prevent that, not anything else.

Your post never had any inclination of saying that immigration policy doesn't need to be as complex as it is now. Your post implied it needs some sort of complexity as prevention for worldwide disease, full stop - but now you're saying you said there needed to be some sort of complexity like having health checks and it doesn't necessarily need to be so complex? That's totally a step back from the original post.

You talked about on AIM with Ke - good stuff. As for the bit after that, that's got nothing to do with what I said in reply to your post, I never claimed you said people should be deported etc so hopefully you and Ke discussed that better.

EDITE NOTE - just some extra info: Complexity in immigration is about a lot of things, and 'some sort of complexity' isn't needed just for health, health itself has very stringent regulations from country to country and organisations of countries already that can work together in order to reduce the amount of possible duplicate checking in immigration process. 'Some sort of complexity' is needed for a lot of things but not so much with the emphasis you had on spreading disease, the unfortunate thing is, much of the complexity is tied up on a candidate's ethnicity, nationality, their education, job, how much they earn, family background, ties to the country they want to live in, whether they want to get married, what they can offer the country etc etc rather then the state of their health (unless it's pretty bad) and if the immigration officers dealing with their case like the look/sound of them. Plus, the US is one of the hardest countries to get through in terms of moving over there permenantly legally - you pretty much have to be some academic or business whizz and get invited over there to work and sponsored by the company or are very wealthy. Unless of course you live closer to the borders and have ties there or you go there and get married or have kids - whereas if, for example you apply to be able to get married to someone over there, it's not very nice, looked down upon and some of the criteria is just...

[Nick The Third]

Originally posted by ~A*D*O*R*A~

Um no, you're the one who made the extreme and almost totally inaccurate statement. NOW, you've made it sound watered down and explained it properly but taken my words out of context in doing so. For example, I didn't say tourism was like immigration, even though you said I did and neither did you for that matter, so what's with the 'All I said was that if immigration was like tourism, as you said' business? In your original post you went on after the some sort of complexities of immigration being needed to prevent disease from spreading all over the world bit - to say that if people could go in and out of countries any old time hald the world would have some deathly disease - without realising that that could equate to tourism and migration and now you come back and say you actually said if immigration was like tourism and then claim I pointed that out? I pointed out that part of your out of proportion statement does happen, but half of us aren't dying from it and I did not say it was immigration.

I apologize on that one, my wording was horrible. I didn't say that tourism and immigration were the same thing. You said "many people do go in and out of countries all the time, it's called tourism and migration with max lengths depending on where you go and for what reasons of 3 months to 2 years to 10 years, think about the effect that has." I compared the effects of immigrating without "some sort of complexity" (meaning things like health checks) to what you said about the effects of tourism and people going in and out of countries.

Basically, if immigration were like tourism, in the fact that people can just go in and out of countries, then the effects could be like the effects you said tourism might be having on the spread of illness.

What did over-exagerrate about that exactly? You spoke as if immigration policy needs some sort of complexity because otherwise half of the billions on the planet would have some fatal disease caused by immigrating people. That was extreme and ignorant.

Ignorant? I really don't think I'm being ignorant, I think you're just reading into these posts far too literally. Anyways, yes, maybe I did take that comment a bit far, but when I said "some sort of complexity" I meant things like health checks to keep any sort of potential outbreak from happening. How is that extreme and ignorant?

I pointed out that immigration (let alone it's complexity) isn't all about health checks but of course it figures but not in the way you stated and went on abit further to explain how. Now you come back to me after that and agree, health checks isn't all of it but it's a factor (copy of what I said) and that some sort of complexities are needed to ensure it (well yeah I said that it is a part of it already and not all of it) - but it was you who originally made it out to be more then a factor. Your statement made it out to the reason for immigration complexities and without a mention of other possible factors, you made out we'd have some global epidemic without it. You made out that 'some sort' of complexities was to prevent that, not anything else.

Well I'm sorry that I didn't write out every possible factor and every potential problem that "some sort of complexity" could prevent. You're just looking into the post way too literally now. I admit that I had exaggerated the world-wide statement, even looking back on it, I completely agree that I had over-exaggerated that statement. The spreading of illness, minor to major, is a potential problem that could happen if some sort of complexity to immigration, like health checks, weren't present, happy?

Your post never had any inclination of saying that immigration policy doesn't need to be as complex as it is now. Your post said it needs some sort of complexity as prevention for worldwide disease, full stop - but now you're saying you said there needed to be some sort of complexity like having health checks and it doesn't necessarily need to be so complex? That's totally a step back from the original post.

I figured that most people would assume that "some sort of complexity" meant "Some things like...", but now I see I was wrong.

You talked about on AIM with Ke - good for you. As for the bit after that, that's got nothing to do with what I said in reply to your post, I never claimed you said people should be deported etc so hopefully you and Ke discussed that better.

You mentioned what Ke had said in her post, and Randy had said something too, so I wanted to put some clarification on it all.


Also, I editted the post a little bit, but you're probably already replying to some of the major typos I made