meauxna

Because I'd like you to be able to make your argument successfully, and have a decent conversation about this, I did some searching on this post. As others noted, the thing was probably lifted in its entirety from somewhere (ie you did not compose it) so you might like to know about a couple of errors so that you can repair them.

I did read through the first 11 pages of the google returns on key phrases, looking for an official source/government website. I already know what the annual report on immigration statistics is called, but you might not be aware that there is no report titled "INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants" especially for 2006, by which time, the INS did not exist.

Further, Snopes, a respected fact-checking organization, traced the origin of some of the statistics. The one I left in is missing a key word, for example: "outstanding" warrants.

I'm sure if you wanted to dig into them all, you'd come up with some interesting information!

meauxna

Wait, wait... what document do you carry on a daily basis (or a bus ride to say, Boise) that proves you are a US citizen? If you were asked the question the border agent uses in the story "Where were you born?" would you be OK with being denied onward travel and being detained until your records were checked?

S Folinsky

Hi:

I could make a catty comment, but I won't. I would like to take the "illegal alien" and "anchor baby" discussion out of the present day and take a historical approach, if you don't mind.

The debate today is highly politicized which gets in the way of rational and analytic thinking IMHO. By the way, traditionally, it was the Democrats and the "Libs" who were not so friendly to immigration -- think "Pro-union" -- and it was the Republicans who were pro-immigration -- think "pro-business." It has been interesting to see the flip.

Back in 1972, I had to write a fairly extensive research project on the California Alien Land Law of 1913. Many of the same issues involved in the discussion today were the subject of vehement debate at the beginning of the last century. Part of the research project was to teach me how to use "primary source" material. I had to research original political material from the time. I was NOT allowed to use "secondary" material written after the fact other than as a guide to "primary" material."

I long ago lost my notes and in fact, the paper -- but I do remember many of my reactions and conclusions.

There were two "oriental" groups that were subject of derision. First were the Chinese, the second the Japanese.

The Chinese immigrants had been first brought over to build the railroads. Of course they were almost all men. Railroad completed and then the door slammed in their face. [BTW, in reading the "Wong Kim Ark" case, it pays to remember that the Chinese were the closest thing we had to an "illegal alien" in those days -- the only racial/national group facing an absolute bar to coming to the United States].

Well, the criticism of the Chinese eventually went like this -- they don't settle down and raise families, they frequent prostitutes, smoke dope [opium] and gamble. My thought at time when I researched this? -- They are not allowed to participate in the general economy, not allowed to get laid in the context of marriage -- what do you expect?

[In today's context, the laws on immigrants have been tightening a lot of the last 20 years -- if it is impossible to comply with the law, don't be surprised when the law is broken a lot.]

Now with the Japanese, the complaint was quite different. The window to Japanese immigration opened up in 1896 when Japan allowed people to leave. Families came over to the US.

In 1905, the Japanese Navy kicked the ass of the Russian Navy at Tsushima Straight proclaiming Japan to be an international naval power. In 1906, the San Francisco School Board, at an inopportune time, prohibited Japanese school children from public school. Japan was not amused and they now had a battle tested navy. This resulted in the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement" which cut-off Japanese immigration and things settled down.

Unlike the Chinese, many of the Japanese immigrant families became farmers and were quite successful at it. Unlike the slovenly, dope smoking, immoral Chinese -- the Japanese were sub-humans who were willing to work harder than a person should be required to work and were therefore unfair competition to the American farmers.

By this time, the Panama Canal was under construction, and the powers that be in San Francisco discovered the principles of free-trade. The farmers were worried about unfair competition. The fight was on.

By 1913, the legislature decided to take advantage of the Federal Immigration law that allowed only Caucasians and Africans to naturalize and prohibited those not eligible to citizenship to immigrate. So, the proposed legislation would prohibit "aliens ineligible to citizenship" to own land in the United States.

At the time, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the Democrats were the openly racist party. The Dems won the 1912 election. Also, the "Progressives" had become the power in Sacramento and racism was a "progressive" idea.

Now, at the time, the "Tariff" was the big issue, but more than trade, the Federal Government was more concerned about the fact that the Japanese Government was not amused and still had that big navy. So the Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, took a four day cross country train trip to personally beg the legislation to eliminate that "prohibition." The legislature agreed and Bryan returned to DC. The legislature then turned around and passed legislation to allow citizens and those eligible to become citizens to own land. Cute.

Of course, the Japanese farmers hired smart lawyers who told them about legal concepts of both "birthright citizenship" and "trusts." The intent of the statute was then thwarted "legally" which later lead to more legislation and suits and the law was declared unconsitutional after WWII by the state supreme court.

My point is that, like in 1909-1913, a lot of hot air is being blown about and it led to stupid results.

BTW, -- let me pose this hypothetical question. You seem to agree that it is the sovereign right of a country to determine who its citizens are. [The 14th Amendment sets a "floor" -- one you don't agree with]. OK, US does away with "birthright" citizenship while Mexcio does away with jus sanquinis [by blood] citizenship. So what had been what you call "anchor babies" become essentially stateless. The US will nowhere to deport such children TO. What then?

Oregon4now

Yeah right I forgot the USA is the only country that has changed since 9-11.

S Folinsky

BTW, the existing employer sanction laws were passed in 1986. Yes, that is an eight. The Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton did not enforce that part of the law. [I think it was more of an agency decision to after the aliens rather than the employers -- go figure].

Recently, it is the Obama administration that is stepping up enforcement activity -- the only part that is being cut back on are those who have no criminal record and have a good chance of staying here.

fatbrit

We really don't need facts getting in the way here.

MrEmjoy

Pfff.

The only country other I can comment on is England, and we've had our civil liberties hacked away from us a lot longer than the US has.

Giantaxe

Here's an LA Times article on this. Fascinating that these "facts" have been doing the rounds since 2006 despite their almost complete lack of reliable attribution. Ah, the "joys" of the Internet:

http://immigrationworksusa.org/uploa...ye-opening.pdf

The conclusion to that article says it all:

S Folinsky

My big political beef with DubYa is that on 9/12 he had a degree of national unity and international support almost unprecedented in the history of this country -- and he pissed it away.

I felt by 2008 that we had a FUBAR that I wondered if it could be repaired. I was simply looking forward to "not-Bush" with low expectations. I went into the general election not knowing who to vote for. I liked John McCain. But John McCain worked very hard to lose my vote. I did not like being in the position of voting against someone. In the last debate, Barry O answered one question, and only one that made feel "at least I have something to vote for."

Had low expectations for repair of the FUBAR -- so I am not too disappointed.

BTW, have a very good friend who is a highly educated and competent physician. She has ragged on for years about the health care system and how to fix it. Still ragging on. Finally, I asked her this year "what would you prefer?" Her answer shocked me: Single payer, physicians on payroll, and malpractice liability will be with the single payers [but subject to license revocation for malpractice]. The payment vehicle to be figured out.

I have since found out that many M.D.'s find that quite attractive. No way in hell that will ever get adopted.

S Folinsky

Yeah. Not recognized by his opponents and objected to by the bleeding heart, sushi eating, Volvo driving "libs."

Oregon4now

Why do you act as if this is unheard of in other parts of the world.
Last I checked, The Netherlands, Italy,Germany, Mexico all REQUIRED non citizens and guest workers to HAVE the proper ID, Passport etc on their person at ALL TIMES....

Sally Redux

Keep on digging, you're looking more of a tit every minute.

S Folinsky

Actually, non-citizens in the US are required to carry proof of alien registration. But DHS seems to not make all that a big priority to provide same.

But the question was -- what about US Citizens? There is a wide-spread liberterian streak against "National Identification." I know that the SSN has become a de-facto ID number -- I'm not sure that I like it.

Oregon4now

How so ?... shall I provide links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document

Oregon4now

You are correct I lifted the source, I never claimed it as my own as the header itself would imply , and have been nitpicking it to death to come to a fair conclusion as I realize the mistake of my ignorance in taking it for face value, Though I am getting numbers that are high up, I am having difficulty in separating fact from fiction while doing the research..