Homeland Security??????? For shame!!

Subject: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 12:33 PM

This is a post I did in another thread. It describes such madness ...... such a fundamental betrayal of the principles and history and dreams of this land, that I just feel like it needs discussion on its own.

Let me tell you about being caused to live in fear. Let me tell you about one of the the Departments that is creating fear.

ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)recently raided a couple of Swift and Co. plants. They rounded up 1300 folks that simply went to work. The raid was conducted by agents dressed in black commando gear, with automatic weapons, balaclava's, and very little that ID'ed them as Agents. They forced everyone into a hall, and cuffed them using the fiber cuffs. For 4 to 5 hours, they wouldn't let them eat, drink, or call their kids (who were getting out of school). When they finally let women go to the bathroom, they had to do so with the stall door open, a male agent present and watching, and the male agents in some cases, due to still being cuffed, had to pull the pants down so the women could go to the bathroom. Virtually every person subjected to this was a US citizen, or a legal resident alien. When the raid was over, and the suspects vetted, it turned out that less than 4% of the suspects were undocumented aliens. A number of these folks, citizens and undocumented aliens, were moved to facilities in another State. One of the men was a Korean War veteran. Another was 6th generation American. One woman born and raised here was detained for hours while the ICE agents insisted she was Guatemalan. Another US citizen was 7 1/2 months pregnant and not allowed water or bathroom privileges for 5 hours. She was in tears just telling of her fear, shame, and humiliation. Another lady, a legal resident alien, when she saw the men with guns all dressed in black, was sure it was a terrorist attack and was looking to hide in the middle of people and play dead.

This is not second hand. I was present and heard these accounts given from the mouths of those who experienced it. This information is documented.

Our Constitution and laws are supposedly a reflection of our national morality. They codify what we believe to be the right way to live and treat others, our land, our workers, and so on. Our Declaration of Independence says We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Notice that is says all men and not all white men that are American citizens. The Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, which applies to all people in this country and not just people born in this country, says 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". These documents, and this action cause me to ask a couple of questions:

Where did the terrorists who killed 3500+ people sneak into the country from? Canada. Anyone talking about building a fence on the Canadian border? No. Why? My opinion is that it is racism pure and simple. There is a huge difference in scope and practice between folks that sneak in seeking to destroy our way of life, and folks sneaking in to simply give their kids a better life. Anyone of you that are Irish, Polish, Italian, etc should realize that this is how and why your ancxestors came.

What was it that these thugs masqueraiding as Federal Agents thought they would face that they had to come in dressed in black with automatic weapons, cuff and detain folks when they were simply looking for immigration violations? You would have thought they were going into an Al Qaeda stronghold against armed terrorists instead of simply checking the documents of workers in a plant. On the grand scale of it all, a violation of these documentation rules is probably worse than a traffic ticket, but infinitely less important than armed robbery or worse. Yet they went in like these were the most dangerous criminals on earth.

Forget for a minute the ethnicity and immigration issue. If your daughter or wife came home and said that they were detained, and to go to the bathroom they had to do so in front of an armed man, and the man had to pull down their pants so they could go. Your reaction would be ??????

Read the Fourth Amendment language quoted above and tell me how this isn't unconstitutional? Give me a justification for this breach of our most sacred document on this issue. Imagine that there is a shoplifting epidemic in your town. Imagine if the local constabulary decided the best way to find the thiefs was to encircle the town, and conduct house by house searches and patdowns, detaining you in cuffs while they searched for 4 to 5 hours. This was all done in order to catch the thieves. This is why the Fourth Amendment require one to have evidence of wrongdoing to conduct a search. This is prevented by the Amendment. Yet it is condoned in this case? How is our "Homeland Security" enhanced by such crude violations of the Constitution? And in the end result, less than 4% were found to be working without appropriate documentation. 96% of the folks that went through this horror were legal workers, citizens, or legal resident aliens.

I would hope you would get the distinction between searching out terrorists, and this ridiculous attitude towards folks just trying to earn a living. I keep hearing they are taking American jobs. But the American jobless rate isn't rising. And these packing houses are always hiring.

These things are all a part of the atmosphere of fear being created. And it is a feeble attempt to somehow link the fight against terrorist acts in this country with a group of people doing as generations before have done. And that is to get into this country, work hard, and live the American dream.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: MMario
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 12:38 PM

yeah - the worst part is that such behavior is no new thing. It's been going on at least since the early '80s; which is when I had to watch armed (and flak-jacketed) immigration officials handcuff and remove several employees at a restaurant I was working at on suspicion of being illegal. They would not allow either to change out of their uniforms into civies in private - depite the fact that the locker rooms had no windows or doors other then the one.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 01:32 PM

Send everyone back where the came from. The country'd be better off without any humans at all in it anyway.

Mick, when and where did this happen?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 01:49 PM

I read Mick's post on the other thread. I just read it again and it's just as sickening as the first time I read it. Jack-booted thugs with guns and covered faces... sweet *****, what next?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 02:04 PM

Big Mick, please send your post ver batim to Senator Harry Reid 528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 at the United States Senate and to Nancy Pelosi 2371 Rayburn House Office Building.

Somehow this madness has to be stopped.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 02:11 PM

And John Stewart's "The Daily Show" at the Comedy Network.... I'd bet he would love to crawl up there collective, ah, ummm, er, alleys, yeah, alleys. Stephen Colbert too.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 02:23 PM

Yes, to what Ebbie and gnu suggest. I am really glad you've started a separate thread for this, Mick.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: SharonA
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 02:46 PM

I did a bit of Googling after reading this, because the story sounded familiar but dated. The results indicate that this happened last December. I found news reports from December 12, 2006 that ICE had raided six Swift & Co. plants in Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Iowa and Minnesota.

I'm confused about Mick's post, though, since most of it is italicized. I may be wrong, but this doesn't sound like Mick's Mudcat "voice" (i.e. writing style) to me. Mick, is this your account or did you copy-and-paste someone else's account? Where it says, "I was present", what does that mean? Doesn't sound like you were there during the raid. And why this 8-month delay?

By the way, in one of the articles from last December that I found, it says: "Federal immigration officials on Wednesday [Dec. 13, 2006] claimed that Swift & Co. allowed hundreds of illegal employees to avoid deportation by firing them before Tuesday's massive raid [Dec. 12]. But Swift disagreed, saying immigration officials gave permission to the meatpacking company to question employees, some of whom then quit when confronted about their documentation. The dispute came to a head Wednesday, one day after immigration raids at six Swift & Co. plants netted 1,282 suspects. Federal immigration officials claimed the meat processor fired the employees without their [ICE's] permission after Swift learned of the federal probe." (Reference: RockyMountainNews.com)

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 02:57 PM

In case you haven't noticed, the terrorists have won.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 03:33 PM

Well, I found out that Homeland Security has an Entertainment Division...maybe this was it?

I don't care HOW old it is, it is CRIMINAL!!!!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: SharonA
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 03:53 PM

Sorcha: Morally wrong, yes. Absolutely. Unconstitutional? Depends on the interpretation, but most probably. But "criminal" signifies that laws were broken, and unfortunately laws have been passed that allow this sort of thing to happen. Until those laws are declared unconstitutional by a Supreme Court that is not composed of the toadies of the administration that wanted those laws passed, we can expect far more of the same sort of thing.

I'm afraid that more than the standard "alert the media" and "write to your congressman" strategy is required here if we want to effect change.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: kendall
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 04:09 PM

Goering was right

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 04:18 PM

Sharon, and that is what SUCKS! As Janis said...'Freedom's just another word, for nothing left to lose'

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: jeffp
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 04:30 PM

Actually, Kris said it; Janis just repeated it.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 05:01 PM

SharonA, from what I saw in the other thread, the whole thing is Mick posting from personal experience as a union organizer. It is the voice we used to hear a lot from him and I welcome its appearance here, again.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:11 PM

It is, indeed, my voice. I was at a national conference in which these workers from Grand Island, NE, Worthington, MN, and others related their experiences. The ICE has denied these things occurred but I spoke with 20 or so workers, and had you been there you would agree that Almost without exception, they were credible.

This madness, in the name of "Homeland Security" (does that whole name conjure up wrong images for anyone else?), has got to stop.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:25 PM

Are you alluding to za Fatherland, Herr Lane? Surely you know vee have vays to make you feel saver, eh?

Sorry if... not a joking matter, but, hey, I am me.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: GUEST,the unemployed psychic
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:32 PM

The propogation of fear for control is indeed old.

I once saw an old CIA memo proposing that a public prosecution and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenburg would have the additional benefit of spreading fear and obedience throughout the American Jewish community.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:53 PM

Western governments have been drifting to the far right for some time while much of Latin America and the 'third world' have swung to the left. My feeling is that citizens of western democracies should start using their votes to create the fear-free society they would like. If there isn't a political party that you would vote for - start one.

Don't wait around until it's too late. If our leaders are allowed to get away with acting like despots, despotism is what you'll get. Just ask the Germans.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM

So true. History, eh?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:37 PM

A few items:

1) Smithfield (and Swift and Tyson) had voluntarily participated in employment verification programs set up by the government to vet new hires.

2) You ain't seen nothin' yet. Under new rules, scheduled to take effect next month, businesses with workers whose Social Security numbers don't match their names could face criminal charges and hefty fines. Growers, for instance, will have to decide whether to shut down, move operations somewhere with a steady supply of legal workers--why does Mexico come to mind?--or pay illegals off the books and hope they're not raided.

Likely outcomes--more people working off the books entirely--many have families here and thus can't easily return to "country of origin"-- ( in the facile phrase of the restrictionists)--and thus more vulnerable than ever to exploitation.

And crops rotting in the fields.

And as has been noted, as far as we know no jihadist has been turned up by these raids.


3) NB, this--pressure on employers--is what many have suggested as the solution to the illegal immigration problem----- many, including, unfortunately, some Mudcatters.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 11:18 PM

Ron, I have said something of the sort but only to say that if they/we are serious about keeping illegal immigrants out, that is the way to go. If we shut down a business down for 30 days every time an illegal immigrant was found there- WalMart comes to mind - business would quickly decide that hiring undocumented workers is not cost effective. And if an illegal immigrant couldn't find work he and she wouldn't come.

Mind you, I am NOT in favor of it. For one thing I have a big problem with the whole idea of borders. As in: This is mine. That is yours.

And the division of ownership is completely dependent on the luck of the draw.

Borders are artificial; human beings are equal.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 12:07 AM

Mick - I am surprised that you are spreading gossip! This is a myth that was de-bunked, long ago. I am amazed that people in the U.S. still believe this lie.

"Where did the terrorists who killed 3500+ people sneak into the country from? Canada."

As far as I'm concerned, that statement makes this whole, entire thread bogus.

"The mistaken belief about the 9-11 terrorists persists in the United States, despite all evidence to the contrary. U.S. officials and the commission that studied the attacks have pointed out the inaccuracy.

High-profile U.S. conservative Newt Gingrich apologized to Canadians last spring after telling Fox News: "Far more of the 9-11 terrorists came across from Canada than from Mexico."

In fact, none of the terrorists entered the United States from either country."

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051220/w122094.html

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 12:30 AM

I don't know weither or not what dianavan sayss is true but that's no reason to write off treatment like that.
Thanks Mick for letting on about this, it causes me to wonder about the raids that we're hearing about here in the northeast. We hear about the raids but not the aftermath. There was one situation where Sens Kennedy & Kerry had to intercide because of dentanies (illegal???) being treated like wild animals & being kept from their children.
This is a action that will come to haunt us as it terrorfies workers of color nation wide.


Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 01:12 AM

dianavan,

Mick may have wrong information about how the 9/11 terrorists got into the country. Now that you have pointed that out to him, I know Mick well enough to be sure he will follow your link and make any needed corrections to the facts. That does not, however, warrant labeling the the whole sad, frightening tale bogus. I don't speak Spanish so I don't work directly with the hispanic migrants that are a significant minority in my area. I do, however, work with Anglo women married to hispanic (mostly Mexican) migrants. In most, but all circumstances, their partners are here legally, and have been here for years and years. They are living in ever increasing fear. Legal migrants with wives and children who are US citizens are living with justifiable fear that one misstep, a simple traffic violation for example, will lead to their deportation. Or simply that a beaurocratic screw-up or simple computer glitch will rip apart their families forever.

Their fears are justified. A very simple example that I know is factual, simply because I attempted to intervene, unsuccessfully, on behalf of the family. Legal Mexican immigrant , legally married to my Anglo client for 15 years. Two children, ages 10 & 6. Long term, permanent employment on a local tobacco farm. Got a DWI two years ago. Quit drinking, got into treatment, dealt with the substance abuse issue. Never got the money together to pay the considerable fines and court costs to get his drivers license back. So he didn't drive. She drove him back and forth to work. But the fines were still not paid. Last October, he was contacted by the local INS (federal agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service) that he needed to come in to sign some paperwork to renew his Green Card (documentaltion that he is a legal alien). It was a trick. When he didn't come home that night, she started making phone calls. The next day she called INS when they opened. His papers were in order and current. They had lured him in and detained him in order to deport him for failure to pay the fines. Neither she or their children were allowed to see or talk to him before he was sent back to Mexico. It is almost a year later. He is in Mexico and can not return to his family. The family is now on welfare. The kids are absolutely bewildered as to what happened to their Dad. (really, so is Mom.) If Mom and kids could find the means to go to Mexico to join him, he could not support them there. And besides, Mom is anglo and the kids have been born and raised in the USA. This is their country, their home. It had become his home too.

We hve become a fascist state.

It isn't just immigrants or other minorities folks. They are coming after you and me next.

I wish I could attibute that to paranoid thinking on my part. But it is not. It is a realistic assessment of the current state, and future direction of our country. These gestapo tactics with devalued immigrants are simply a dress rehearsal for what you and I, most of us White, can expect to experience in this brave new world in which we live.

dont' think for one minute that you are safe.http://wunc.org/tsot Don't be fooled into believing that Big Brother is not watching.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bee
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 06:10 AM

I also think the actions described are horrifying, but again, the inclusion of that old, persistent lie about the 9/11 terrorists coming from Canada made me sceptical of the whole thing.

Big Mick, my husband belongs to a large union which operates in both Canada and the US. If this lie is being passed around among his union brothers and sisters in the US, it is not a good thing.

That lie is in some small part responsible for the insane changes made to our border crossings, for the almost fifty percent drop in US tourism to Canada over the past few years, and for increasing suspicion and division between our two countries.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: kendall
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 06:49 AM

Calling an illegal alien a "Undocumented worker" is like calling a drug pusher an "Unlicensed pharmacist"

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:19 AM

I certainly will follow that link, and I apologize for the mistatement. Quite frankly I thought that was the case. But it is idiotic, dianavan to think that this invalidates the whole thread.   I am not attacking Canada, my many friends there know I hold our northern neighbor in the highest esteem. The point isn't that they came in from Canada, it is the notion that somehow the Mexican border represents a real threat, yet there is no comparable concern about the Canadian border. And I maintain it is cultural racism that causes that.I maintain that because these friends from Mexico are brown skinned and speak a different language, there is a different set of rules that cause folks to overlook these outrages, or even justify them.

But the thread isn't about the border with Canada. It is about the treatment of neighbors as if they were sub human. It is about thugs using any excuse to dress up like commandoes and scare people, treat them in inhumane manner, and violate the Constitution. It is about being concerned about neighbors and their children. It is about getting Joe and Jane Average to open their eyes and see that this is not the democracy which folks have died to defend. It is about children who don't know where there folks are, being traumatized, and when they grow up with a chip on their shoulders and hate the USA, we wonder why.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:53 AM

And it wasn't very long ago that the NRA warned us about jack-booted government thugs coming to take our guns!

I am starting to be concerned about jack-booted government thugs in general. Well, actually, I always have been, but this sort of thing reinforces it.

I recently entered and returned from Canada. Going in, the Customs agent said to us, "Be sure to sign your passports [they were brand new] or they won't let you back into the US." Coming back, with signed passports, we were asked what we were bringing in with us (mostly books) and how much liquor we had (1 liter of 151 proof rum). I guess a white, over-60, couple in a Honda Element are about as much of a threat to US security as, oh, the average Canadian or Mexican or Irishman or Icelander or Nigerian or Arab or Thai or Japanese.

Mick, I agree about the racism thing.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bee
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:47 AM

"I certainly will follow that link, and I apologize for the mistatement. Quite frankly I thought that was the case. But it is idiotic, dianavan to think that this invalidates the whole thread.   I am not attacking Canada, my many friends there know I hold our northern neighbor in the highest esteem. The point isn't that they came in from Canada, it is the notion that somehow the Mexican border represents a real threat, yet there is no comparable concern about the Canadian border. And I maintain it is cultural racism that causes that.I maintain that because these friends from Mexico are brown skinned and speak a different language, there is a different set of rules that cause folks to overlook these outrages, or even justify them.
" - Big Mick

Big Mick, you may have missed my previous post. I know in this quote you are addressing dianavan, but I share her POV here. Because your original post contains this hurtful lie, it is easy to dismiss the rest of it as probably yet more lies, or at least unfounded or exaggerated stories. And that hurts your cause.

Speaking from North of the border, I agree it looks like cultural racism is involved in the rantings we read about the Mexican border, not just beacuse of race, but because most Mexican border crossers are also poor - there is classism involved.

If you check around, by the way, you'll find there are plenty of Americans ranting about the Canadian border (mostly because of that lie), and a few of them actually sitting out, Minuteman like, in lawn chairs watching for illegals.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:19 AM

Bee, I didn't miss your post. This isn't being passed around by a union. It was my statement. I don't speak for a union, I am a union organizer who is bearing witness to what I have seen.

This thread isn't about Canada/US relations. It is about the reprehensible actions of an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. It is about treating human beings as if they were sub human. It is about a elderly veteran of the Korean War, detained in this raid simply because he looked Hispanic. When he stepped to the microphone he simply said, "This isn't what I fought for, I want my rights back!!!" and then took his seat. It is about a 7 1/2 month pregnant, at the time, woman sobbing at the microphone as she recalled the fear and humiliation that she might soil herself because they wouldn't let her go to the bathroom. It is about the American born citizens of this country being presumed guilty because of the color of their skin and being handcuffed for hours on end. It is about the black guy that had worked in the plant for 20+ years being told that he was being held because "southern mexicans get pretty dark". It is about this country, due to the color of someones skin and the language they speak, rationalizing that it is OK to violate the 4th Amendment principles laid out in our most important document, the principles that we have constructed our society on. It is about forgetting that we are a "City upon a hill..." and that the world, including those that would see us disappear, note these things and use them against our way of life. It is about remembering that our challenge is to "lift up the lamp beside the golden door" not just for those of European extraction, but for all "yearning to be free" not just from the hardship of tyrannical leaders, but also from the tyranny of economic hardship.

We will not get bogged down in this conversation by an unfortunate mistatement on my part. I have apologized for that statement, now I would appreciate getting back to the discussion I intended in this thread. Thanks for cooperating.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bee
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 12:09 PM

I am sorry that you are missing my point.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 04:06 PM

This incident and the reaction to it are symptoms of a huge problem: the American people do not speak with a unified voice on most of the important issue we face: abortion, illegal immigration, gun ownership, universal health care, etc.

We cannot take definitive actions when we do not agree what those actions should be.

A few of points. Illegal immigration effectively ends any chance of universal health care because everyone entering the country illegally will be treated at any hospital they visit. That is the law. Over 1200 hospitals in the southwestern US have driven to insolvency after being flooded by illegals from Mexico who don't pay for their care. We need a finite population so we can build the right number of hospitals and train the medical personnel needed. Note that the 32 million Mexicans who snuck into the US included no doctors.

In Mexico, gun ownership is illegal hence these people have no history of responsible handling of firearms. LA and Phoenix not sound like war zones do to Mexican gang violence and firearm abuse.

The raid on the Swift factory is quite in line with the statement of politicians like Diane Feinstein who have always called for employer sanctions instead of stopping people at the border. The raid reminds me of Janet Reno's jack-booted attack on the house where Illian Gonzales was staying.

We need to decide what problems need to be addressed and how to fix them. Once decided, we need to speak with a unified voice or we will surely lose this country.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM

"Over 1200 hospitals in the southwestern US have (been?) driven to insolvency after being flooded by illegals from Mexico who don't pay for their care" pdq

Documentation, please.

snopes.com


"Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.

"The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for by local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations the births are covered through Medicaid because the children automatically become American citizens."

And the provision of automatic citizenship for anyone born here goes W A Y back.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 05:40 PM

"Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes..." ~ Ebbie

Nice job of deception by you and Snopes as the subject is illegal immigration. Of course most of the legal immigrants have jobs. It is part of the process, along with learning the language and studying the US Constitution. Nobody raided the Swift Co. factory looking for people who have followed the laws and obeyed the rules.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 05:46 PM

If you read the link, pdq, you'd see that it is talking about illegal AND legal immigrants.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 05:54 PM

Ebbie,

Rather than discuss each point, please answer the following two questions:

                Are you in favor of the huge migration of illegal aliens into the US?

                If you do not want this migration to continue, what do you feel should be done to stop it.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 07:53 PM

The day the announcement was made that our fair nation was going to grow a Homeland Security branch I nearly wept. There was no special reason other than the traditional use of the word "Homeland" with the brutal duplicities of the U.S.S.R. at its worst. It reeked of the kind of language used by ugly fascism.

Seems my gut instinct was not far off. According to Patti Davis in Newsweek this week, "...now even a frown or grimace can get you into trouble with The Man.

"Specially trained security personnel" will be watching passengers for "micro-expressions" that will reveal treacherous agendas and insidious intentions at airports around the country. These agents, who may literally hold your fate in their hands have been given a lofty, Orwellian name: "Behavior Detection Officers."

Did anyone ever doubt that George Orwell's prophecies in "1984" would arrive? In that novel, he wrote, "You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

In the study of "micro-expressions"—yes, it is actually a field of study and there are some who are arrogant enough to call it a science—it has been decided that when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. These experts have determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception.

Let's see, fear and disgust in an airport? I'm frightened and disgusted weeks before I have to show up at an airport. In fact, I've pretty much sworn off the whole idea of going anywhere by airplane. It's bad enough that I might be trapped in a crowded plane with no food or water and nonworking toilets for hours; now there are security agents interpreting our facial expressions. The face police, in place at more than a dozen U.S. airports already, aren't identified as such. But the watcher could be at curbside baggage, the ticket counter or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 Behavior Detection Officers on the job by the end of 2008.

But what about the woman who is getting on a plane to see a dying relative? Or the man who is traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist in a last bid for extending his life? What about the guy who just had a fight with his spouse and now worries that a plane crash would mean their last words were in anger? We've all had the experience of having a bad day, being in a rotten mood—especially at the airport, which has become a modern-day chamber or horrors. On those days, doesn't it seem like everyone we meet looks sour and unpleasant? The opposite is also true. When we're happy and joyful, we look at others and see happiness in them. Or even if we don't, we look at them kindly and with compassion. It's human nature to look at others through the lens of our own reality.

Here's where it gets really absurd. Apparently, these Behavior Detection Officers work in pairs. One scenario is that an officer might move in to "help" a passenger retrieve their belongings after they've been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger's reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer's well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Let's be really clear here. If a stranger moved in on me like that, I'd tell that person to go to hell, throw in a few other expletives for good measure and probably give them the finger as I stomped off. Of course, I wouldn't be stomping very far.

So while TSA employees are confiscating our scissors and water bottles, they're going to secretly be staring at us, looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose? Who knows what? In the end, the Behavior Detection Officers are the ones who are really acting suspicious. Which is the truth of the matter anyway."

(Excerpted from Newsweek 8-16-07)

...

Orwell was prophetic, and what is far worse, he was acurate in kind, if not yet in degree. Doubletalk, thoughtcrime, face crime, a version of a Ministry of Truth, doublethink, have all arrived in spades in America under the compassionate conservatism of Rovian Bushery,

Rove's own vision of permanent majority for his kind is reminiscent of these words from the leader of the Party:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

– Part III, chapter III, 1984

---

Kinda puts me in the mood for a two-minute hate, ya know?


A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 08:04 PM

"except in darkness, every movement scrutinized"

... but technology has now overtaken that too...\

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM

"Nobody raided the Swift Co. factory looking for people who have followed the laws and obeyed the rules."
"Are you in favor of the huge migration of illegal aliens into the US?
If you do not want this migration to continue, what do you feel should be done to stop it?"

The impression you're giving, pdq, is that you think we should freely brutalize, terrorize, and humiliate every hispanic-appearing person in this country if that is what is necessary to apprehend any possible illegal aamong them.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:34 PM

frogprince,

The pernicious misunderstanding you have done seems to be based on an inability to focus you thoughts and answer two simple questions.

Is it that you cannot answer the questions or do you think twisting what I said will make those questions go away?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:54 PM

The indians must be kicking themselves that they didn't think of having an Immigration and Naturalistion Service when the colonists stepped ashore back in the 1600s....

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:57 PM

pdq--

It's you who have questions to answer. Specifically: what exactly did you mean by "we will surely lose this country"?

And exactly why are your ideas not squarely in the long--and not exactly honorable-- US tradition of nativism--from the Know-Nothings to the KKK--and beyond.

If you want to fight the statistics battle, fine--and I guarantee you will lose. And if you do so, please be good enough to give exact source and date for any figures you cite.

Thank you so much.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:58 PM

Brutalization is not the answer.

Better processes at the borders is.

Above all, a reversion to a nation founded on human compassion would be a good starting place.


A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:01 PM

pdq,

Your questions are twisted, and you know it. Leading questions always are.

Janie

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:08 PM

Pardon me. Not leading questions. Trick questions. Manipulative questions.

PDQ's questions remind me of the rdiculously biased 'surveys' I get a few times a year from the Democratic Party (to which I belong).

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:18 PM

My two questions are not 'trick' or 'twisted'. I am asking people to search their hearts and find what they actually believe.

Here they are again:

                Are you in favor of the huge migration of illegal aliens into the US?

                If you do not want this migration to continue, what do you feel should be done to stop it?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:19 PM

Amen to that, Amos. Although this nation has always limited to whom that compassion should be extended, often based on racial or ethnic characteristics. That is, to a certain extent human nature, and it is not surprising that governments reflect human nature.

No matter what one thinks about illegal immigration, it is in one's enlighted self-interest to be appalled by, and to oppose unprovoked brutality practiced by those in authority.

Janie

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:28 PM

1. Neither in favor nor opposed. It is a bogus issue, a granfaloon invented by politicians, and highly undemocratic in origin. Naming the CORRECT problem would be a good start.

2. In light of 1, no answer required.


A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:02 PM

Glad your world is so simple, pdq. My world, and my views are much more nuanced and complex. Sometimes I envy people like you, for whom everything is so simple, so back-or-white, so either-or.   

May I also suggest, and I am serious, that you contemplate the difference between thinking and feeling. Feelings matter, they belong on the bus, but they don't belong in the driver's seat on the road to forming our views and opinions. Feelings are important but very non-specific signals about ourselves. If a person is having disturbed or upset feelings, it is a signal that something, somewhere, is awry. But the feeling gives no indication whatsoever about where something is awry. Something may be awry internally, externally, or both. It will take thinking, unclouded by the emotion, to sort that out. But first, one has to learn to tell the difference between their cognitions and their 'feelings.'

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:03 PM

Again, Amos, AMEN.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:18 PM

Reguardless of what questions are asked or answered, there is absolutly no cause that can warrant this type of SS Action. You can agree or disagree on present US policy, it's a nice piece of work to divide up a nation on but you cannot agree with this type of action weither it be legal or not. You can cast aside these actions by saying what you want about the Mexican or Canadian borders but you cannot hear of this type of treatment & then cast it aside without shading yourselves & knowingly you're bording the 'dark side'. Next will the department of Homeland Scandles be interning all Latino & Mexican-Americans, Porto Ricans, Cubans & other light/shaded skinned peoples, might as well get started of the darker skinned people too, from there we can intern those of yellow & red skin until we have a pure white skined, blue eye, blonde population, "It can't happen here". This has been tried before & we're heading down the same road again.
This is a vicious & delibrate act against an innocent part of our population, our citizenery & it is to install fear & to ride rough shod against a class & an ethnic group & care for whose a citizen, an illegal, a documented worker is of no concern, there is not even the concern if any are even human. It is the same treatment that the Japanesse Americans recieved during WWII, the same as the Native Americans recieved when the white man 1st drove them into the dust, the same as the black slave who was treated worst than a beast of burden. This is not even the way one would treat a mule working in the field, after a days work even they would be fed & given water, a rub down & a brush, a little walk in the sun light. These people were treated worst & they that caused these violations should have their shame put to their faces, from them that acted to those that commanded these actions to take place. We now have unjustly OK'd torture not only on our enemies but now on our own citizens & our own workers. Is this how we want to see our government degrade its self, to have it ride on the backbone of it's champions with a whip in it's hand?
Amos, I to feel disgust & fear when I arrive at an airport but my disgust runs far deeper & my anger is much hotter when I see people who only want to earn a living treated like over ripe & rotted fruit good for nothing but the compost pile.

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:27 PM

IMO this is the same a terrorists walking into a Mosque, rounding up those that were praying & binding them, & terrorizing them for hours & putting them in a state of fear that they could never imagined.
This is a form of torture!

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:53 PM

pdq, it seems to me that you wouldn't be asking those questions if you didn't have answers that disturb you a good deal. In other words, I'm pretty sure I know what your own answer is and that you recognize it is not a pretty one.

My answer, going a bit around the park: Human beings, when it comes down to it, are very realistic. As a representative of the species, I think that when we are faced with need we are not going to give more than a cursory thought to the legalities bent in meeting that need.

If I am hungry or freezing or drowning I am not going to spend long moments wondering if taking a loaf of bread or someone's extra coat or the life ring hanging on a hook is stealing and therefore making me a criminal.

There is a long time-honored expectation in Alaska that when a person in need comes to a cabin in the wilderness or along the shore that the person helps him or herself to whatever meets that need. There is also an expectation that one will do the same for the next person in line.

All this to say that when a better life for me and my family is right across the border and all I have to do to reach it is to put myself into danger and subject myself to an arduous trek as well as dodge officials and vigilantes who are trying to catch me I'm goin'.

As I said before, borders are manmade.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 12:51 AM

I don't think you can compare Canadians and Mexicans and then accuse the U.S. of racism. Illegal Canadians are not a problem. Illegal Mexicans are a big problem. Yes, the employer must be heavily fined for employing illegals. That will probably involve raids.

It is the way the raid was conducted that was wrong. Nobody, regardless of colour, should be treated that way. If Canadians were sneaking into the U.S. to work, they would probably be treated the same way. That means anyone working for low wages (black or white) is in danger of being caught in a dragnet. I see this more as classism than racism.

Its just more heavy-handed, political grandstanding to show the U.S. public that Bush is in charge. Its his style that trickles down to the goons on the ground. Some of those goons are probably racists but to call the effort to stem the tide of illegals, racist, is whistling in the wind. You either raid the place of employment or you build a wall and hire thugs to guard it. What other solution is there unless you are advocating open borders?

I hope the people who were illegally detained, have attorneys who will fight for their rights. I would also like to know what kind of fine the employer is facing for hiring those who were illegal. I'm sure that with a little investigation, most of the inconvenience to those who were legally employed could have been avoided.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 03:23 AM

D.
The artical stated almost 1300 people were netted & held under these conditions & less than 4% were illegal.

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 04:20 AM

"My world, and my views are much more nuanced and complex." {meaning "than yours"}   ~   Janie

Santimonious blather. Bordering on NPD, a form of mental disorder. Get help.

" Illegal Mexicans are a big problem. Yes, the employer must be heavily fined for employing illegals. That will probably involve raids."   ~   dianavan

Congratulations, that shows some courage as well as intellectual integrity.

Most of the other responses dodge the issue. Most start the usual name-calling and blame-laying.

Reality check time for the US. Do we have a problem or do we not have a problem? If we do, how do we fix it? Put your energy there instead of putting it into spitting on your fellow Americans who don't want to see this country dissolve into a Third World slum with all the hopelessness, ignorance and violence that entails.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 04:23 AM

"Bullying & harrasment is a small price to pay, for being allowed to remain in the land of the free"   Montgomery Burns (The Simpsons)

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 04:42 AM

Which is why we will never set foot in the USA again, which is a great pity, but Argentina has so much more to offer.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Metchosin
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 05:18 AM

Dianavan, while I sympathize with US citizens who are upset about jackboot police behavior within their own borders and agree that this is probably heavy handed political grandstanding, I think before we do any cross border criticizing, we should demand some clean up of the "jackbooting" that is happening on this side of the border first.

"The Quebec provincial police acknowledged in a statement Thursday that their agents had infiltrated protesters demonstrating during the recent North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que. but denied that they acted as "agent provocateurs" to instigate violence." CN

More about the incident is available HERE and includes the Youtube video of the incident, where a Union organizor demanded that the "three black bandana clad police provocateurs" put their rocks down. The three were finally "arrested" (yeah, right) to the applause of the peaceful demonstrators.

It is beyond me how the Quebec police can claim that their "police agents" were not trying to instigate something and not behaving in a provocative manner. Perhaps they think that wearing a black bandana over their face and carrying a large rock during a demonstration is just an example of poor fashion sense on the part of the officers who were just trying to "fit in". LOL I'd at least agree there, these turkeys stuck out like sore thumbs.

While the incident was not as frightening as the American one, as a Canadian, I found this recent event disturbing and insidious, although not surprising.

My apologies Mick, for getting a bit sidetracked regarding our own goons.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 11:42 AM

Nice to see your comment, Metch.

As to legal action, dianavan, we are considering doing just such a thing on behalf of our members who were detained without cause. The whole idea that it is OK, with a very vaguely worded warrant, to check every person who looks hispanic at gunpoint and while in cuffs, never mind that no one had done anything to suggest that either measure was necessary, runs counter to everything this country SUPPOSEDLY stands for. Those of African descent were outraged at the issue of racial profiling a few years back. Where is the outrage now?

pdq, unfortunately, represents a view that we see to often. They let their biases about an issue allow them to rationalize actions that run counter to what this land stands for. In the mid 1800's the Nativists/No Nothings had the same attitude toward the Irish and German Catholic. And Bill the Butcher is alive and well in the USA today.

Your questions, pdq, are loaded. You are trying to establish a predicate for your arguments which insure your success in the debate. Apparently you have so little respect for the intelligence of your fellow 'Catters that you believe they won't see through this rather amateurish tactic.

I reduce the argument to different questions. 1) Suppose I agree that illegal immigration is a problem that needs addressing (I do, by the way). What is it about this that justifies rounding up 1300 people, detaining them for hours, and in some cases, days at gunpoint, and terrorizing them? 2)Forget the immigration issue. Suppose your daughter or wife were refused bathroom privileges, and then made to go with a door open and an agent watching. 3) What is it among folks like you that causes you to justify the actions of Homeland Security that clearly fly in the face of what we stand for, of the 4th Amendment of our own Constitution? Would you like Freedom of Speech to be the next to go? How about limiting songwriters to songs that only support the efforts of the government so we don't incite citizens? It is, after all, in support of our security?

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 12:16 PM

Big Mick:

I don't rationalise the actions of the actions of these jack-booted thugs anymore than you do. Don't put words ot people's mouths.This is part of your usual dishonest style of arguing.

You say "Suppose I agree that illegal immigration is a problem that needs addressing "

There is absolutely no conviction in that statement. You also do not propose any answers.

Another point. It is often union boys who want these raids because the illegals keep the labor costs down by expanding the pool of available workers. Any proof these raids were not at the request of union organizers?

Also, Democrats are the ones who always call for employer sanctions. Part of this is a appeal to those who tend to hate business in general.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 12:44 PM

I agree, Metchosin. The recent actions of the Quebec police (infiltrating a peaceful demonstration to provoke a riot) was sleazy if not dishonest. They must be called to task for endangering those who were there to peacefully (and legally) protest. I am disgusted by the tactic and I hope some heads will roll.

Yes, Mick, the tactics employed in the raid in the U.S. are appalling.

This is North America. We have rights and those rights include not being subjected to undue harassment. Neither of the incidents were warranted. In fact, innocent people were being harassed by an overzealous police force at the request of our governments.

If we don't demand an end to this and protect our freedom, we will find ourselves with nothing to protect.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 12:48 PM

Now, suppose you take the statement in whole, here it is:

Suppose I agree that illegal immigration is a problem that needs addressing (I do, by the way).

Who is being dishonest now? And you aren't good enough to read my mind, never mind my words. I agreed that there is a problem.

As to answers, it is simple. Follow the Constitution and laws of this country. Stop the raids which attempt to cast too broad a net, and in the process end up victimizing honest, hard working citizens. Your racism is showing, there. I notice you chose not to address the fact that over 90% of those detained were citizens or legal resident aliens, many veterans or long term employees. You choose to ignore the real problem, which is an erosion of civil liberties. You choose to allow these buffoons, in the name of Homeland Security, to victimize your fellow citizens, when there is not one shred of evidence that any of this has to do with that issue. It is a ploy that was hatched to take the focus away from legitimate Homeland Security items like harbor security, where the Department is wholly ineffective. This is probably due to lack of funding because our budget is being wasted on another boondoggle. So instead we choose to violate the constitutional rights of another whole segment of our society, but ...... hey ..... it's OK because they are just Mexican Americans...... and they are taking all of our jobs.... right?

Your use of the term "union boys" shows that you have been stung and don't like it. You attempt to demean because you lack the intellectual gravitas to take an issue on head up.

And why shouldn't business be held accountable. You are so quick to hold the poor folks "longing to be free" acountable, when it is the businesses, especially seasonal ones, that openly advocate HAM (acronym they use which stand for Hire A Mexican)and take advantage of these folks. But to go after them takes work that ICE doesn't want to do. So what do they do? Go to the concentrated areas of Latinos at Swift, and detain 1300 folks and end up with 4%. Put on a good show, dress up like an extra in a Rambo movie, brandish weapons, impress the unthinking populace. Never mind that you terrorized whole groups of folks that simply went to work. What if it were you, hot shot? How would you feel that it happened for no other reason than your ethnicity or what you looked like?

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 01:57 PM

This action makes it look as if the government is doing something about illegal immagration, pure & simple, IT IS NOT, it puts the focus on the Latino community & espically the Mexican/American as an ethnic group but tosses in any Latino in the process (this is how the republicans win the Latinio vote???) & use them as the scapegoat because it wants to blame illegal immigration for it's poor economics, it's poor health care system, it's poor educational system & espically it's poor economic growth & it wants to control them as a labor pool. Blame the Mexicans, Hitler (& our bastards are no better than the SS's) did this with the Jews. We are not doing anything about illegal immagration except blame them for our own faults nor do we intend to do anything aside from building fences for show & raiding some companies like vikings. Homeland Security, bullshit! We want & need these immagrants they support our economy & we can't do without them but they are also a problem in the eyes of the public only because of the spin that's put on the situation, THEY PRESENT NO HARM to our economy, they actually help it, to their own costs. We could do more & do better but that would not suit our wants, disires & profit margins nor would it do us good to give them any say or voting rights that would give them a say in how their lives are led. If you take the politics & big business issues out of the immagration equation the issue would become a whole lot simpler & clearer. If we need workers & they are willing to work, wait & prove themselves & contruibte then let them become citizens, easy, but not when you start thinking about where they're votes might fall & how they won't be as easily taken advantage of anymore, then it starts getting difficult.

As far as I'm concerned these are human & civil rights violations, not only of our own laws but also of international law, as well as laws pertaining to torture. Who the fuck does this government think they are to violate our Constitution, our Amendments & our Bill of Rights like this. This is a crime against all of us, it affects all of us, those are OUR RIGHTS that they are in violation of NO MATTER WHAT EXCUSE THEY USE, or who they are focusing on, they belong to US. DON'T TREAD ON ME!

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 06:43 PM

Thanks Mick and Barry. That was the point I was trying to make in my late night post early on in the thread with a scrambled insomniac brain. These tactics endanger the rights and freedoms of all of us.

Janie

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 07:05 PM

The core issue is not whether these people are here properly or are here improperly. The core question is whether or not they are people, in the sense of common civility and the spirit of inclusion defined by the self-evident beliefs enumerated in the Declaration of independence.

If they are, in fact, human beings in that sense, they have been treated unconscionably by other people who, had they been acting privately, would have been actionable as criminal thugs. That they should instead be representative of the United States government is an insult, in my opinion, to me and to each of us who honors human inclusion, recognition and mutual respect as a basic principle of civilization.

To deny the fundamental humanity of individuals because one is in some legalistic adversarial posture in relation to them is essentially a psychotic answer to a problem -- the kind of psychosis that typifies Rovian political manuvers and Bushian faux-leadership in the service of selected interests.

A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 09:14 PM

In my last post I said:

Stop the raids which attempt to cast too broad a net, and in the process end up victimizing honest, hard working citizens. Your racism is showing, there.

I then left and went out to work on laying subfloor in my barn. Hard work is a good time for reflection, and I found myself pondering my response to pdq. And it became clear to me that while pdq and I are going to disagree mightily on this subject, there is absolutely nothing s/he has said that would justify my suggesting that s/he is a racist. I am embarassed that I let my passion get away from me, and I hope that my sincere apology for that statement is accepted. It is offered without reservation and sincerely.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. Now, ..... back to the discussion.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 09:21 PM

Exactly, Amos, and that is a distinction that many of our mentally lazy brethren and sistren fail to consider. One of the downsides of American life is that we want everything fast and easy. And so many of the right wingers, champions of simplistic "right or wrong" thinking, want to talk about the Founding Fathers and what they envisioned. But when the words that the founding Fathers get in they way of their oversimplified sense of right and wrong, they quickly obfuscate and slip off into phony predicates with a red herring appetizer.

"We hold these truths to be self evident......"

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:04 PM

Big Mick:

I am a he and have made that clear many times so you can knock off the gender baiting, big guy.

I was not here to answer your response because I was grading a lot where I hope to build a spec house next year. My tractor is a full-sized Case, big enough to pick Bobert's Kubota up and dump it in the river (I would not do that, of course, because I am a conservationist and don't like pollution).

Every time I fail to parrot the DNC talking points I expect to be compared to Hitler, called a rascist or be accused of being an intellectual lightweight. I could care less about such childish name-calling.

I have a degree in the hard sciences and 9 units toward a masters degree. I want to hear people discuss facts, not make then up.

My entire point on this thread has been to make people think about the Mexican illegal immigration and see if they really want it to stop. If so, what is the best way to proceed.

Some people like Joe Offer want a completely open border with Mexico and don't mind if we take care of all their problems at US government expense. He is entitled to his opinion and is honest enough to share it. It is people with hidden agendas who need a swift kick in the butt.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Well? Free? Who? Where? Let's just knock down Lady Liberty as she means nothing anymore for anyone.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:34 PM

pdq--

So, if we do not "speak with one voice"--(why do I have the suspicion that voice is to be yours?)--"you will lose this country"--"see this country dissolve into a 3rd world slum".

Rather apocalyptic, I'd say. The country will "dissolve into a 3rd world slum" due to illegal immigration. Nothing like a bit of hyperbole to liven up a post. Congratulations.

It sounds for all the world like "Before September 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".

Same degree of truth and relevance to listeners' problems. Same goal--to panic the listeners and give them a scapegoat.

Now I realize that as a stalwart Bush supporter you respond primarily to hate and fear--(and probably imagine others do too)-- especially fear of "the other"--that is, anybody different from you.

But actually some people respond to other arguments, logic for instance. At some point you might want to try it.

And on this topic (immigration), not even Mr. Bush is with you. Fortunately, you have another mighty leader to look to for inspiration: Mr. Tancredo, who is busily splitting the Republican party and leading it on this issue---down the drain. As a registered Republican, I can't say this is exactly a happy prospect, but since Republicans at the national level since Ike or maybe Dole--a good man, but surrounded by Neanderthals-- have not stood for anything a sentient being would support, I suppose it's all to the good.

But perhaps you'd like to give us more details of just how immigration will make us a 3rd world country. ( Funny how very similar things were said of the Irish in New York City--which did at one point have some of the worst slums in the world. That well-known bigot, Walt Whitman, argued in 1842 that city Democrats should not submit to a "coarse unshaven, filthy Irish rabble". And I'm sure the rest of the 1840's did not make him happy.)

So exactly how is this dire fate to befall the US? I'm sure you can be entertaining, if not informative.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:47 PM

Dear "Ronbo" Davies:

Nothing in your post has anything to do with me. Nothing to do with anything I have said and nothing to do with anything I believe.

You are very dishonest in your style of arguing and everyone but you knows that to be a fact.

When you want to be civil and rational, let people know. Until then, go blow goats.

Your wife Jan married down, bigtime.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:58 PM

Whatever you say, pdq. After all, you've always been right about everything so far. I note with interest your patented subtlety and willingness to always give direct answers to questions.

But we're still standing by to be entertained by your picture of the US in chaos as a result of immigration. Please don't disappoint your fans.

Not that anybody would want to characterize your posts so far on the topic as incendiary drivel. Which somebody might be tempted to do if you can't provide any facts.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:59 PM

First off, the apology stands and was offered sincerely. Whether you are gracious enough to accept it is on you.

As to your charge of baiting, I know you will find this hard to understand and accept, but I honestly don't have time to remember every detail of every person. The use of "s/he" is not a bait. It is a polite way of not assuming, when one is not sure, that a poster is male or female. I honestly couldn't remember if you were a male or female. Obviously that offends your delicate sensibilities. See a pro about that.

As to your sterling education, congratulations. I am sure your Mother is very proud. What the hell does that have to do with the discussion? BTW, in my life I have seen a great many folks that had great educations, alway liked to trumpet them, usually as a cover for the fact that they didn't know what the hell to do with said education. I don't know if that fits you but FYI, as it has as much relevance to the discussion as your point.

And what arrogance lead you to believe that the folks in this thread weren't thinking about illegal immigration? It is a central facet to the discussion.

Finally, you still haven't answered the questions posed. Let me try again. Dropping for the moment all the discussion of race, ethnicity, or the 4th Amendment...... what justification was there, when all they were doing was checking documentation, for coming in like they were raiding a terrorist training camp? And even if they caught some astounding number of undocumented folks, how does this make our "homeland" more secure from terrorists? Can you produce any links to terrorism from the illegal immigration problem? C'mon MISTER pdq. Wrap all that education you are parading out around that one, please. And I would think that a person claiming a background in hard science would be loaded with data and not very likely to make gratuitous assertions.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 11:51 PM

PDQ:

Given even that some of the people targeted by this raid came into the United States without correct process and approval from those already here, why does that justify violence and brutal treatment? Where's the explanation or defense for the kind of behaviour that should be reserved for hardened criminals if that? Do you justify this kind of procedure in a "raid""?

A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 25 Aug 07 - 01:03 AM

Every time I fail to parrot the DNC talking points I expect to be compared to Hitler, called a rascist or be accused of being an intellectual lightweight. I could care less about such childish name-calling. from pdq.

If you often find yourself compared to Hitler, et. al.,, you always have the option of examining why you choose to communicate in ways that are deliberately designed to provoke such reactions.

My entire point on this thread has been to make people think about the Mexican illegal immigration and see if they really want it to stop. If so, what is the best way to proceed.

Which leads us to wonder, if that is indeed your intent, why you don't clearly, and with intellectual integrity, state that to begin with.

I have a degree in the hard sciences and 9 units toward a masters degree. I want to hear people discuss facts, not make then up

What is your point in sharing that little tidbit of information? If you have some particular expertise or academic knowledge about immigration that would contribute to any or all of us arriving at a more informed opinion about immigration policy, or the use or misuse of officially sanctioned power and authority, please share it. I, for one, greatly value hearing from people who have particular expertise about a topic under discussion.



Janie

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Janie
Date: 25 Aug 07 - 01:30 AM

Amos,

In an earlier post, addressed to Mick, pdq does say I don't rationalise the actions of the actions of these jack-booted thugs anymore than you do.

I don't think he is advocating or condoning brutal treatment.

As I read back through the thread, he actually seems just to be trolling. Pretty good at it, too. Oh well. Live and learn. I'll know better than to bite in the future.

It's sad, though. Such a waste of a degree in hard science and 9 hours towards a masters.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 25 Aug 07 - 08:58 AM

In his 12:48 post, Big Mick said "you lack the intellectual gravitas to take an issue on head up."

Hence the explanation of my eductional background.

As far as this thread and my contributions to it, I simply asked people to be honest and tell others whether they are in favor of the illegal immigration from Mexico or not

If they consider it to be a problem, what are prepared to do about it.

Trying to blame me for problems the Irish had 150 years ago, suggesting that I favor the tactics used in the Swift Co. raids is absurd. You are inventing that crap, probably because you can't answer the question.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 25 Aug 07 - 09:29 AM

To anyone who is reading this thread, please go back to my first post and see what I really said. It is: 23 Aug 07 - 04:06

In it is: "The raid reminds me of Janet Reno's jack-booted attack on the house where Illian Gonzales was staying."

In my 24 Aug 07 - 12:16 post I said: "I don't rationalise the actions of the actions of these jack-booted thugs anymore than you do."

Still, there are probably 20 post saying that I liked the way the raid was handled.

The people attacking me either cannot read or have low comprehension skills.

Several people on Mudcat go into attack mode whenever the preceive a threat to their territory. After 4 1/2 years here, I know who most of them are and can anticipate, within limits, what they will say. Some here should learn to "start brain before throwing mouth in gear".

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 07 - 11:42 AM

PDQ--

I suggest you may want to examine whether there is some flavor in your editorial style that leads people to wrong conclusions about your thoughts. Did you notice that Jane already came to your defense?

I apologize for overlooking what you had said.

I think as far as the immigration issue is concerned that we need to examine exactly what real harm is being done, measured in real terms, rather than succumb to fiery jingoistic rhetoric. For example those who are fiercely opposed to the well-being of existing undocumented immigrants are quite certain, they say, that they are costing the country millions. But they do not mention that the majority of these people are paying taxes in the hopes it will help them become citizens. That is my understanding, anyway. I don't really have a hard head count either, and without some sort of metrics, we are are basically debating in a black hole.

A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 12:06 PM

pdq--

"...start brain before throwing mouth in gear"-- you must have been looking in the mirror--good observation, by the way. Perhaps you'd like to try it someday.

For instance---still no facts? That's disappointing, since without facts--with exact source and date, of course-- we may be forced to the conclusion that your only contribution to the debate on immigration is alarmist tripe--(e.g. "32 million Mexicans who snuck (sic) into the US".)   

And we wouldn't want to have that impression, I'm sure you agree--particularly from a person of such towering intellectual achievement as your good self.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 12:24 PM

To anyone who is stil interested in this thread, please note who throws gasoline on fires, who flames, trolls and who can't "let it go" like most grownups can. It must make him feel better to be Mudcat's most consistant jerk. He was also the most vocal attacker of Martin Gibson who must have made him feel small and inadequate. Unfortunately, he feels that way because it is simply true.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 12:28 PM

Still waiting for facts. And I, for one, don't WANT to do the jobs that most illegal immigrants do. Pick fruit, thin sugar beets, put the kids to work as soon as they are able to climb a ladder or hold a hoe.

Live in a shack with no running water, no toilet facilities...we ARE taking advantage of these people. If we ban them all, will our PhDs climb ladders and hoe beets in 100 F plus weather? A drink of water and a porta potty at the end of each row.

Then pack up the truck and move someplace else to pick something else. No permanent home, no real friends, no real school...tell me a choice they have.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 12:37 PM

pdq--

So sorry you miss "Martin Gibson". Obviously a soulmate of yours--you have traits almost as endearing as his--perhaps you can succeed him in our affections. But meanwhile, I sincerely hope you find him soon. At least you can commiserate about the unfairness of Mudcat--in whatever bathroom you find him.

Fascinating that you still have found precisely zero facts to back up your allegations about immigration. Perhaps when you do, the thread can actually progress.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 03:08 PM

I'm still waiting as well.............

No answers to the questions posed, no facts to back up the points. And when Ron, politely as best as I can tell, simply asks for those, he accused of being a flamethrower. I don't see any evidence of that either.

Ebbie also asked for a cite as I recall....

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 09:58 PM

Send him out here to chop beets for a month or so in 104F weather. He might decide he actually likes migrants/immigrants.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 10:46 PM

Ron, I have to say that your debating style remains as snide and condescending as ever. Your treatment of your rhetorical foes on this forum embarrasses me even on the fairly frequent occasions when I agree with you about something. And I so often disagree with pdq... ;-)

I hope you are not that nasty in person, Ron.

As regards the debate, I tried to read this frikkin' thread and sort out all the arguments pro and con, but I started getting a headache after awhile, and decided it just ain't worth it.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 26 Aug 07 - 11:20 PM

Sorcha:

Your comment was both mean-spirited and completely irrelevant.

I hope you feel better now. Hate to think you would take your frustrations out on your dogs, your husband or your children.

Yes, a stranger make a much better punching bag. Give it your best shot. Glad I could help.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 01:32 AM

Imo, to focus on pdq or Ron Davies or Sorcha or Big Mick or Little Hawk or whether any other poster is mean spirited or righteous or not is to sight of the main concern of this thread. It seems to me that that is not the point of this thread!

It seems to me that our focus should be on the meanspirited and meanly done actions of those who targeted those persons who they thought were illegally in the United States. It also seems to me that our focus should also be on what we UnitedStaters should be doing about that kind of mean behavior, a behavior which should not only not be the norm, but should not ever happen in the United States or elsewhere, and definitely not happen at the command of those representing in any way, the United States.

Amos' post of 24 Aug 07 - 07:05 PM focuses on that mean behavior. When Mick spoke of the possiblilty of the union suing on behalf of some of these persons that addresses the "what should we do about this" point.

Another action statement is throwing the bums out in 2008 and as much as possible thereafter, cleaning house and being vigilent thereafter to be sure that our house stays clean.

Anybody else have any more action statements?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 01:36 AM

I suppose that you may have figured out that I neglected to type one important word in the first sentence of my last post. But just in case you didn't here it is:

"Imo, to focus on pdq or Ron Davies or Sorcha or Big Mick or Little Hawk or whether any other poster is mean spirited or righteous or not is to lose sight of the main concern of this thread."

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 03:15 AM

Yes, I agree with you about where the main focus should be, Azizi. Definitely. Legal action should be taken by the union, and the Bush administration should be booted out of office for the insane things it's done in the past 7 years.

I can't resist, however, pointing out the toxic habits of some of Mudcat's passive-aggressive bullies when they are indulging themselves in dumping their bile on someone, even if I happen to agree with their political or social views and to disagree with that someone on that occasion...which is not relevant one way or another to the bullying issue. (and that comment, Azizi, is not directed at you in any way whatsoever, I hope you understand)

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:25 AM

LH--

Perhaps you're not aware of your own pontificating style--and the effect it may have on other posters. It may in fact be described as bullying.

You and I, as you know, have had a little run-in recently--which may influence your view of my style. Or perhaps not.

I have told you that I respect your historical knowledge deeply--not said sarcastically in the least. And I've learned a lot from you, especially about World War !!.

It's also clear to me, as I said earlier on this thread , that Bush supporters do in fact respond primarily to apppeals to hate and fear. And it works. And this is how the Bush regime got the US into the current disastrous involvement in Iraq. And how Bush got elected in 2004--not voting machine conspiracy but manipulation of a fearful electorate. And I am thoroughly disgusted.

And I see it continuing in the immigration issue-- with Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Dobbs leading this time, not Mr. Bush. Hate and fear of "the other"--anybody different from the speaker--in the long--and disgraceful-- US tradition from the Know-Nothings to the KKK--and beyond. And I will not sit by without comment.

As for bullying, no one is bullied verbally--certainly on the Net--unless they permit it. I never use bad language on a fellow poster--in contrast to some here. Nor do I attack their marriages or make unlikely anatomical suggestions, as the "bullying victim" here has done on this thread--(poor boy). That sort of thing is the resort of someone who is bankrupt of ideas and cannot express himself. By the way, I am not complaining in the least-every poster has his or her own style. Anybody who has command of the language can defend himself or herself. I can easily defend myself.

2 other items:

1) I actually posted on this thread before the alleged "bullying victim"--and I posted straightforwardly and factually. I always stand ready to provide source--which in my case is usually the Wall St Journal.

2) The "bullying victim" is always free to actually provide some facts--with exact source and date--to back up his argument--as others have also suggested. I'm sorry if he doesn't feel capable of defending himself against me--which appears to be the case. It is also clear that if he does not provide facts on immigration, his contribution to the discussion may be, as I have suggested, only alarmist tripe--as it seems to be so far.


As others do, I will continue to "call it as I see it"--on the Left and Right.

As Walter used to say, that's the way it is.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:26 AM

"World War II"

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:56 AM

Oh, I agree with you most enthusiastically about the Bush administration's uses of fear and hatred to manipulate the electorate, Ron, and I'm equally disgusted with it.

What I would rather see you do, though, is attack pdq's argument than attack him personally, if you see what I mean. What use does it serve to use superficially polite but at the same time very sarcastic and demeaning language to insult the intelligence and character of another person with whom you disagree about some political issue?

And if they have used strong language on you....doesn't that give you a certain delight in establishing your utter superiority to them? I get the impression that it does. I think you really enjoy it. It gives you a chance to respond by treating them in an equally nasty way...but much more subtly, without any bad words, which shows how great you are and what a useless piece of crap they are... ;-)

Without such people in the world, Ron, people who perhaps lack your and my urbane way of expressing ourselves, I think you might not get to have so much fun in a certain respect...it's nice to have someone less articulate than oneself to look down on, after all, isn't it? You know, I think we all tend to do that at times. We all become bullies at times, specially on the Net, because it's safe. We wouldn't do it nearly so casually in 3-D life. Too risky!

But I'm just theorizing...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 03:54 PM

pdq, I'm sorry if you saw that as 'attacking'. I was actually suggesting that you 'walk a mile in their shoes' before getting on a High Horse.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 04:25 PM

By the time you walk a mile in a High Horse's shoes, you need to get on, 'cuz your feet will be unfit for walking.

But if you're talking about another person's shoes, that's different. That way, when you get on your High Horse, you'll be a mile away and they won't have any shoes. Great head start, eh?



A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 04:58 PM

Amos, I'm dropping the whole thing. pdq either can't understand or doesn't want to understand. Illegals are 'illegal' for reasons he can't seem to understand, or doesn't want to understand.

pdq...you 'win'. I quit. NO MORE PMs.

Me, I'll let em in. I'll even put them up in my home. Where did YOUR ancestors come from? How 'legal' were they?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:04 PM

My ancestors came from another planet, but when I say that here people want me to wear a tin-foil hat. So, I keep it to myself.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:05 PM

Well, what ever you say about the jackbooted thugs - one thing's for certain.....they wank with either their right hand or their left hand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:09 PM

Yours too, eh, Peace? Man, I just hate getting that "tinfoil hat" crap from people, don't you? ;-) There are a lot of know-it-alls out there, that's for sure.

101!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:09 PM

Sorcha says:

"Me, I'll let em in. I'll even put them up in my home."

At last, someone has returned to the topic and given an honest answer.

Anyone else care to answer the question?

It is important because illegal immigration will not stop unless the majority of citizens want it stopped. If the majority says "Let 'em in", that is what will happen. Think of the money we can save on ugly Border Patrol uniforms.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM

Or stupid fences. Jeeze, what a dumb idea.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:44 PM

Any rich country that is next to an impoverished country and has an easily accessible border is going to experience a flood of unwanted immigration (in addition to normal, desirable, controllable immigration). It's inevitable. Thanks why I am quite relieved that Canada is not right next to Mexico at this juncture in human affairs. How's that for honesty?

Not that I don't like Mexicans. I like them about as well as I like anyone else. I'm just a realist, that's all. Too much uncontrolled immigration can really cause big trouble in any society.

I sympathize with the immigrant who is searching for a better life. I sympathize with the person who wants the character of his own country's society not to be damaged by a huge influx of unwanted immigration. I sympathize with all of them. (I don't sympathize with government goons who terrorize people, I might add...)

But........one has to be realistic about what's actually happening in any given situation.

When floods of displaced "barbarians" (as they were called at the time) descended on the Western Roman Empire...they were not welcomed. Wars were fought. Hundreds of thousands died on both sides. Entire nations were destroyed in the process. This does not change the fact that I can sympathize with the plight of the barbarians (who had been displaced by the Huns or some other invasion from the East)...and I can sympathize with the Romans for fighting to protect what they had from being taken over by someone else.

Like I say, I would sympathize with all of them. They all had legitimate concerns. The same is true of Mexicans, other Latinos, and Americans.

I don't see any easy answers to the problem...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:52 PM

I hadn't been following this thread, so I'm glad pdq spoke up for me and noted that I favor completely open borders. Border enforcement just isn't working - and I say this after 25 years of investigating employees of the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and visiting countless INS and Borter Patrol facilities and detention centers. It doesn't seem to work well anywhere in the world. The boundaries of nations are too vast to allow for any effective control. The only really effective border controls have to be on the level of the Berlin Wall. The United States held the Berlin Wall up as a symbol of oppression for so long - and now we want to build our very own Berlin Wall to protect our wealth from jobless Mexicans.

Like it or not, we have a global economy. Goods pass almost as easily from nation to nation, as they do from city to city within a country. In general, goods go where there's a demand for them. Certainly, we have to have some controls on goods to ensure product safety - but we don't build walls to keep goods out. Workers are also part of our global economy - and no matter how hard we try to control them, they will go where there is a demand. Maybe we need to find economic measures to direct a reasonable flow of goods and workers, instead of resorting to the repressive, ineffective, and wasteful restriction and enforcement tactics we use now.

But what I really wanted to talk about was teminology. I'd like to Big Mick's uneasiness about the term "Homeland Security" - it seems to me that there's something wrong with the philosophy behind that term. Most of the "homeland security" functions were performed by the Department of Justice until the formation of this separate "Department of Homeland Security," and the Department of Justice seems to be the logical place for these functions. Now, I will readily admit that Justice has not always beeen Just in its activities, but there is a philosophical undertone that implies that the Department of Justice is supposed to both enforce and follow the law, and that it is obliged to adhere to the Bill of Rights. The Department of Justice has always been closely tied to the courts, and has often been restricted by those courts. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security give the implication that our internal security is somehow more important than the Bill of Rights and should be beyond the control of the courts. Oh, no, it's not a complete denial of the courts or the Bill of Rights - but the Homeland Security act and especially the "USA Patriot Act" (another term I hate) are certainly a move away from the controls set by the Constitution.

And Kendall, I see you don't like the term "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal alien." I guess I don't like either term, because both have an unfortunate "spin" to them. The first is patronizingly euphemistic. The second has a hateful undertone to it. Both of them change people into objects. They're just people - some are bad, and some are good - but the fact of the matter is that they need to survive and will do whatever they need to do to survive.

So, I think we need to do radical rethinking of the issue of immigration, and we need to come up with a solution that doesn't keep pouring money down the drain into impossible enforcement efforts. Same with healthcare - we're wasting money, trying to avoid paying for healthcare that people need. Same with a lot of other things - we need to rethink things. And if we do, I think we can provide for the needs of people at a far lower cost than we expend keeping them away from jobs and healthcare and education and whatnot.

If we can't serve the needy of the world out of a sense of justice, perhaps we can do it out of self-interest. If we provide people with their basic needs, wherever they are in the world, we will help them become assets instead of drains on our global economy. Instead of wasting money protecting ourselves from problems by enforcement, we need to do some radical rethinking and actually solve the problems. It's not only just - it makes good economic sense. Instead of spending all this money protecting the wasteful status quo, we need to fix what's wrong with our world.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:30 PM

Well, if we are going to have an open border with Mexico, here are a few (of many) questions come to mind:

   * If the children of Mexican citizens automatically become US citizens (think Social Security benefits, Medicare, etc.) if born inside US, is it not reasonable for Mexico to provide an easy method for US citizens to become citizens of Mexico?

   * Labor unions require a small finite labor pool in order to force up the price of their 'product'. I mentioned this earlier but chaos ensued. Isn't an 'open border' a death knell for the labor movement?

   * Land ownership. US citizens are not allowed to own land in Mexico. Mexican nationals are one of the largest buying groups of US property in the Southwest. Isn't this a problem that needs some thought?

{Just asking}

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:51 PM

PDQ, there's no question that many aspects of the Mexican government are absurd and corrupt and unjust. Are you suggesting that we follow their example? Does that make it sensible for us to respond in kind?

In a global economy, why have citizenship at all? Citizenship just serves to exclude. We're all human beings, all struggling to survive. Why should some have the privileges of citizenship, and others not?

You're right that artificial trade and immigration barriers can serve to drive up wages and prices - but they also tend to create waste and inefficient busywork employment that is demeaning to workers. Labor unions can be very wasteful and inefficient - but they don't have to be. We need to seek economic policies that are both efficient and just. Labor unions have a real place in serving as a voice for labor in our quest for economic balance - unions are misused when all they do is preserve the wasteful status quo. Labor must have a strong voice in our economy, to ensure that the economy serves both capital and labor.

I know there are restrictions on foreigners owning land in Mexico, but I don't believe it's impossible. It's my understanding that many Americans live in luxury along the coastlines of Mexico, with a far higher standard of living than the locals have. An open border might result in a land-grab that would give wealthy Americans all the best parts of Mexico. That's a problem we need to resolve. California has laws that give the public access to almost the entire coastline of the state - perhaps Mexico needs something similar, to protect the public interest over the desires of the wealthy.

Yes, there are all sorts of problems associated with open borders. I suggest that we need to resolve those problems, instead of continuing to build bigger walls to try to keep the problems out. I lived inside the circle of the Berlin Wall for two years - I don't want another Berlin wall built to protect America from imagined evil. And if we build a wall to the south, then maybe we'd better build a wall to the north to keep out all those illegal Canadians - and their marauding mooses, too. You people just don't seem to realize the threat to Homeland Security posed by terrorist Canadian mooses.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:09 PM

Our Canadian beavers are even more dangerous, Joe, despite their much smaller size...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:37 PM

Here's some related news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6879307,00.html

"Attorneys representing illegal immigrant children detained with their families at a former Texas prison have reached a proposed settlement with the federal government that avoids a trial on their lawsuit, officials said Monday.

The deal, announced as the trial was set to open in the case, focuses on avoiding long-term detentions and adds improvements such as a full-time pediatrician and privacy curtains around toilets.

The lawsuit sought release of the immigrants and improved conditions at the T. Don Hutto family residential facility in Taylor. The proposed settlement is expected to be approved by a federal judge.

Hutto houses some 400 illegal immigrants and asylum seekers - half of them children. None have criminal records or violent histories, but the American Civil Liberties Union and the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic sued this year on behalf of 26 young detainees and former detainees, alleging they have been held in prison-like conditions. The family of one plaintiff had been at the facility for close to a year.

Under the deal, families who have some recourse to contest deportation - such as an asylum claim - could be placed at Hutto only if there is no other space available. Families in expedited removal proceedings - where no hearing is necessary for deportation - could be placed at Hutto, but all families' cases would be reviewed every 30 days to determine if they could be transferred or released.

Other changes include a policy allowing children over 12 to move freely within Hutto and periodic reviews of the facility by a federal magistrate.

Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, said she is happy with the deal.

"But the fact remains that our government should not be locking up innocent children - period," Graybill said. "That is not what America is about. It is time for Congress to intervene and end the policy of family detention."

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which operates the facility, said in a statement that the reviews will help improve communication about the facility and end any misconceptions about the Hutto facility.

"The Hutto facility is a safe and healthy environment for children and adults. All its residents are treated with dignity and respect," ICE said.

Families living within Hutto'seat, shower and turn in on schedule and undergo a head count four times a day. They live in cells with bunk beds and a toilet. After lights out, a system alerts staff in the control room if anyone leaves a cell.

The lawsuit contended that conditions at Hutto violate an agreement that called for immigration authorities to house children in nonsecure, licensed programs such as shelters or foster homes.

Advocates say children at Hutto's walls received inadequate classroom instruction and had limited access to health care. Uniformed, handcuff-toting correctional officers called "counselors" threatened children with separating them from their families, advocates say."

-snip-

More information about & comments regarding this settlement & the prior conditions at the detention center can be found at:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/27/171227/249


Here's some excerpts from that diary:

"The settlement is the result of extensive litigation and mediation in consolidated lawsuits filed earlier this year against Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and six officials from ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] on behalf of 26 immigrant children. The children are between the ages of 1 and 17, and were detained at Hutto with their parents who, in almost all cases, were awaiting determinations on their asylum claims. The ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic, and the international law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP brought the lawsuits. "

-snip-

[As a result of that settlement]

"Children no longer have to wear prison uniforms.

Children are allowed more time outdoors.

More education for the children is now being provided.

Guards are no longer allowed to discipline children by threatening to separate them from their parents.

Additional improvements ICE will be required to make as a result of the settlement include allowing children over the age of 12 to move freely about the facility; providing a full-time, on-site pediatrician; eliminating the count system so that families are not forced to stay in their cells 12 hours a day; installing privacy curtains around toilets; offering field trip opportunities to children; supplying more toys and age-and language-appropriate books; and improving the nutritional value of food.

ICE must also allow regular legal orientation presentations by local immigrants' rights organizations; allow family and friends to visit Hutto detainees seven days a week; and allow children to keep paper and pens in their rooms.

ICE's compliance with each of these reforms, as well as other conditions reforms, will be subject to external oversight to ensure their permanence."

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:54 PM

"alleging they have been held in prison-like conditions. The family of one plaintiff had been at the facility for close to a year."

Pity this game hasn't been made to work in Australia... some 'detainees' - held 'without charge' - have been held muuch longer than a year.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 08:09 PM

IT's to our shame that we have a government that needs to be sued in order to make things a bit better for children rather than a government that would consider these things prior taking inhumane actions. But it is what we are all about.

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 10:30 PM

Open borders--(no borders) is not going to happen anytime soon. I still have heard no sensible argument, backed by logic, as to why all illegal immigrants shouldn't have a clear path to citizenship, as I and others have advocated on other threads. Not on a silver platter--it would require command of English and certification of no criminal record--except for the act of illegal entry itself--and it would mean getting behind all legal immigrants.

But there would be no fine as part of the process, and no necessity for "touchback". If the illegal immigrant has incurred fines for other reasons, they should be paid--but not used as an excuse to toss the immigrant out of the US--as in Janie's example.

Also, legal means of entry should be expanded--and this should be coupled with a sizable rise in the minimum wage (already started). Anything else is punitive, mean-spirited---and wrong for the US economy.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:13 PM

You can't really have completely open borders until you establish relatively equal levels of economic and social well-being all across the world. That can't be done in a purely competitive system based on self-interest.

It's not going to happen in our lifetimes. It may happen in some distant future. If you believe in reincarnation, then cross your fingers and hope it does. If not, resign yourself to the fact that it ain't gonna happen in the world as we know it.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Metchosin
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:51 AM

So I'll add my two bits worth too, because in theory as a Canadian it could affect me, if I ever decide to travel stateside again.

Perhaps a start in the right direction might be the granting of the same rights to all who enter America. If I or any other Canadian citizen enters the US, even for a short visit as a tourist, as a Canadian citizen and a visitor, I have absolutely no protection under the US Constitution or your Declaration of Independence to any of the rights and protections afforded to you, as a US citizens within your own country.

Conversely, under Canadian law, a tourist or anyone entering Canada is automatically extended the protections of our rights and freedoms under our Charter, unless there has been some very recent change of which I am unaware.

I discovered this about 3 or 4 years ago, when I was doing a bit of research regarding what was termed here as "boat people" or refugees seeking asylum and entering through the back door here, so to speak.

Since the advent of "US homeland security", it has crossed my mind that confining my tourism to within my own country, rather than crossing the border, might be a better idea. A few years ago, any uneasy thoughts regarding a trip to the US would never have crossed my mind and now I think I would be very much aware that as a Canadian I would be entering a foreign land.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:01 AM

Darn right. I have NO wish to venture into the USA these days, and it is precisely because of what you have just alluded to, Metchosin.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:09 AM

Absolutely right--and it's due to the reign of fear instituted by our Chickenhawk in Chief. I suspect that shortly after January 2009, there will be marked improvement.

Jan has remarked on the same thing--and she's a UK citizen--that is, citizen of the country which according to Mr. Bush is our #1 ally in the (eternal) WAR AGAINST TERROR--and now has a green card. Coming back into the US by herself is not exactly unmitigated joy for her with the treatment she gets from the Neanderthals who staff "Homeland Security"--that classic Orwellian term--who frequently themselves barely speak English--certainly not close to as well as she does. (Whereas they never give me any grief.)

Bush has been an unqualified disaster for the entire world--and I'm afraid I don't have too awful much patience for anybody who doesn't recognize that.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Metchosin
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:55 AM

Ron, I'm pretty certain that the lack of protection for others, to which I referred has been the case way before Bush's term of office. But you are correct that events as the result of his Presidency have raised my level of unease considerably.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:10 PM

The way I remember the Blaine border crossing (US-Canada), the US officials were polite and reasonable but many of the Canadians acted like nasty little thugs who wished they had guns.

Have there been any incidents of Canadians being unreasonably detained in recent years? I'm not aware of any.

What toasts my skittles is many TSA employees who rudely treat US citizens travelling domestically, as if they wish THEY had guns. They trash my suitcase frequently. Twice now I have asked them to speak in a civil manner. They really can't do much but slow you down and call for cops. I know a frequent flyer (rhetoric professor) who makes an almost full time hobby of taking them to task. The cops now know him and ask him to go easy on the TSA people.

With all that said: Yes, it seems the Bush administration blunders a lot in inhibiting tourists and daily border crossers. I look forward to better days (late) next year.

heric

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 02:00 PM

You know, I suspect all these cries for "open borders" and 'fair' treatment for those 'just seeking a better life' would dissolve into loud complaints of "trespassing!" if the issue were a tad more personal and immediate.
   If you had a nice house & garden, and some shady trees, while your neighbors on your street had less charming property and too many kids and no real skills at home renovation and gardening....would you feel as generous and welcoming if they started popping over to forage in your garden, sleep on your porch, have picnics under your trees and send their kids to beg for food at your door...and expected YOU to give them medical attention while they are there?
    If no one would help you keep this traffic OFF your lawn, might you be tempted to build a fence?

Is this a totally accurate analogy? No (YOU could move...the USA can't)...but analogies can't be perfect...they can just point out reasoning patterns and similar attitudes.

   Still, I think it CAN be said that your (probable) reluctance to feed and provide a refuge for your neighbors in YOUR yard, just because "your place looks better" does indicate some of the underlying awkwardness of substituting compassion for 'fairness'.

   I see the value of trying to help those less fortunate than myself....but if I am in a lifeboat, and there are others in the water, there IS some limit to how many more I can allow to climb into the boat before the boat is of little use to anyone.

If "open borders" were made the policy, I see no end to the stream of immegrants...until saturation points were reached and this country was little better than any other....and by that time, Canada WOULD begin to have the same set of problems.

One way of expressing the dilemma is: "If one group is to try to help another, they MUST have the freedom and resources to do it in such a way that the 'helper group' is not dragged down in the process".

(Why do I have these images of old ladies discovered in smelly houses with 147 cats, dead & alive, scattered about?)

Are my dire predictions off the wall and extreme? Yeah...so far...but Google a bit about the Anasazi Indian culture and how it is so easy for conditions to swamp an entire culture...kind of a microcosm to comtemplate.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Metchosin
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 02:33 PM

I completely agree with your analogy Bill, but by the same token, just because they have tresspassed, doesn't mean I am entitled to kick them or inhumanely imprison their children in my basement. If they do tresspass and I "use" them to provide services to me for my personal benefit or my country's economy, I think perhaps I might owe them something besides a few pesos under the table.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 02:56 PM

This thread isn't about open borders. That is another whole discussion. This thread is about how the ICE, and the federal government Department of Homeland Security, is using its mandate to "secure the homeland" to conduct raids on US citizens, and legal resident aliens, with brown skin of latino (specifically Mexican) origins, in the process violating their constitutional rights. It is about shameful tactics, and it is about my countrymen's tendency to rationalize racist and fascist tactics because "there is a problem". I am asking folks to come to their senses. So we can agree that there is an illegal immigration problem, yes? Does that justify using commando tactics to check papers? Does that justify inhuman treatment of US citizens and law abiding workers to catch 4% of them that are lawbreakers? Forget the immigration issue for a moment. We also have a drug problem in certain areas. If you live in that area, is it justified to detain everyone who lives in that area and force them to be tested? We have a problem with identity theft in this country. Is it legitimate to round up all computer users until we have the time to screen all computers for illegal usage?

And Bill, are you suggesting that the latino population of this country causes the problems? There is a problem on the border and in the southwest States. The problem is a whole economy built on the backs of disenfranchised people. There are whole industries that depend on hiring undocumented folks because they can get them cheap. These folks are trying to get a start for their families, and take these jobs just to survive. I am in these trenches every day, buddy. I am the one that used the terms you chose to quote about folks just trying to support their families. The question remanins. Can you not get the distinction between folks just trying to make a better life and the so called "war on terror"? Nothing in that implies that we don't have a problem with illegal immigration. What it does say is that an administration run amok, with a Department that has few checks on it, is using these poor folks as a tool to give legitimacy for a policy that is the biggest threat to our constitution in my lifetime. We, the American populace, are empowering them with our lack of vigilance in speaking out about what it means to be American. We need an immigration policy.... fine. Does that justify treating working folks, 96% of which were doing nothing more than getting up, dropping their kids at school or daycare, and going to work, as if they had some guilt because of how they look and where their ancestors came from?

As usual, the conversation takes its own path, but I will continue to try and pull it back from a general discussion of immigration to a discussion about why we give a pass to policies that are racist and wrong.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:47 PM

"...but if I am in a lifeboat, and there are others in the water..." Bill D

Bill, we all have heard of ship disasters where lifeboat occupants beat off with oars others who wished to be picked up- even when the boat wasn't near capacity. Most people wouldn't do that but there may be some in every incident. Or in any nation. :)

Mick, I know you'd like to get this discussion back to its original premise- and I understand that, but we seem to have said about everything that can be said about it.

On a much milder scale I experienced something of the same mindset.

I was traveling by train from Vancouver, BC, into Washington state. A few miles into the state the train stopped and Immigration officials swarmed in, complete with black clothing, handguns and dogs straining at the leash.

It was other worldly. None of the five or so officials smiled or acknowledged the humanity of the passengers. They were not impolite- although such behavior cannot be called polite - but they were brusqe and silent.

There are not many people more law abiding than I, by nature, but it really made me feel like doing something outrageous.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:02 PM

We are not even close to having said all that can be said, Ebbie. The problem on the forum is the same as the one on the streets. We say, "that's terrible, but if you lived next door....or if you are in a lifeboat......" and then walk away from the problem. I talk to folks in the heartland, neighbors of these good people that simply went to work, and there answers are, "yep, that's too bad, but we have an immigration problem..." and then move on to "I know a guy who can't get a decent job because all these mexicans are working for nothing...". I point out to them, and you, that is an untrue characterization, and the hunch their shoulders. I ask if they are not troubled by the fact that the Constitution is being set aside, and they make some comment about 9-11.

We are in crisis and don't even know it. The fact that it is Hispanic rights being violated seems to be the rationale for why it's alright.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM

Here are the

TOP TWENTY countries

by population:

1 China - 1,306,313,812
2 India - 1,080,264,388
3 United States - 295,734,134
4 Indonesia - 241,973,879
5 Brazil - 186,112,794
6 Pakistan - 162,419,946
7 Russia - 143,782,338
8 Bangladesh - 141,340,476
9 Nigeria - 137,253,500
10 Japan - 127,417,200

11 Mexico - 102,026,691
12 Germany - 82,081,365
13 Philippines - 80,961,430
14 Vietnam - 78,349,503
15 Egypt - 68,494,584
16 Turkey - 66,620,120
17 Iran - 65,865,302
18 Thailand - 61,163,833
19 Ethiopia - 60,967,436
20 United Kingdom - 59,247,439


note: In 1916, Mexico had only 16 million people.

note: Mexico is easily one of the Top Ten countries in wealth.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Metchosin
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:21 PM

Heric, when one is a "suit" one generally expects and has no problem at the border. However, if one is a younger indy musician with instrument in hand, expect delays or outright refusals, from both sides.

Officials from both countries, on the line, can be very arbitrary. Canadian's won't let adults across if they have been charged with criminal mischief when young. These are instances with which I am more intimately familiar.

Also if one has ever had any brush the law, a wake up call is in order. Americans won't accept Canadian pardons or anyone who has ever been fingerprinted for an offense, even if the case was thrown out of court or sumarily dismissed.

My problem is not dealing with border officials, as I have stated, but the general unease I feel when in the US.

When US citizens are getting hammered, with supposed rights in place against such harassment, imagine how some Canadians might feel, when even those crumbling protections, would be of absolutely no use to them if circumstancesever warranted.

I hope that brings my statements back into the fold, Mick.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:28 PM

What's your point, pdq? Not asking to be hostile, just asking...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:53 PM

I have no idea what his post means. Or what it has to do with the actions of Homeland Security/ICE. Or what it has to do with the illegal detention of US citizens who happen to have brown skin. Or what it has to do with reasonable cause for detention.

?????

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:07 PM

Ok, Mick...I can agree that no problem justifies some of the jackbooted tactics being used by some of the 'enforcers'. It is insane, besides being inhumane, to act like storm troopers in order to check some IDs...and I do NOT like the idea of harassing legal citizens of those with cards just because they 'look' suspicious.

I don't know all the answers...but I am not willing to back away from an honest and complete assessment to the problem....and I'm not willing to ignore the problem when I can see how it's growing.

In some ways, a fence would keep a lot of those other problems from becoming so acute...if a fence would really work. I'm not sure it will work.

I can write scripts about solving the problem....like making Mexico and other places better places to stay with increased technology and reduced population.....fat chance, huh?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:13 PM

Yeah, fat chance. That's the sad part.

Everyone wants to tinker with the symptoms, but no one has the will to actually take on the disease...(poverty and gross inequity in the Third World's standard of living as compared to the more developed countries)

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:22 PM

and several of the things you note, Mick, deserve better replies. I'm not sure I can cover them all easily (you KNOW how I can't write a short answer to save my neck!) but..

"And Bill, are you suggesting that the latino population of this country causes the problems?" No..of course not. Many of them cause NO problems...but others do various things like hiding illegal friends & relatives. I don't think this is right, but it's not like robbing banks, either. What DO we do about this? How DO we deal with the strain on social services and schools?...and how DO we decide when the 'lifeboat' is too full?

You simply cannot pretend there is no problem, just because some of the attempts to deal with it are too heavy handed?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:33 PM

My point is being made by the answers to the posts. The whole thread is about a threat to YOUR constitutional rights, and the responses are "OK, but we need an honest yada yada.....". I am not attacking Bill, but this whole thread shows exactly the problem in our society. We have allowed ourselves to become so philosophical about this stuff, that we almost look for ways to disassociate. THE THREAD ISN'T ABOUT IMMIGRATION. It's about people being detained without cause. It's about judgements and rationalizations being made for no other reason than looks, surnames, or the language being spoken in the home. You want to talk about immigration, I understand. What are you going to do about a whole group of people being profiled and persecuted? Instead of Ebbie's "we seem to have said about everything that can be said about it" response, my question is "why aren't you in the streets on this one?". This isn't some academic exercise, it is real life and it has ramifications for each one of you. This isn't just about some internet forum and showing each other how bright we are. It is real and happening. We will spend untold amounts of energy debating with wacko's over how the WTC fell down, but won't walk out our front doors and put the kind of pressure on politicians that needs to be put on them. We aren't going down the street to the neighbors and taking an unpopular stance about this, because they will twist it into a "well, we gotta do something about these illegal Mexicans....." and we lack the fortitude to show them that it is about much more. And we lack the fortitude to say "these Mexicans are our neighbors" and what happens to them could happen to us". Good people doing nothing is why lynchings went on for so long in this country, because, after all, it was those black folks.

Immigration......OK. Let me try and answer pdq's questions. 1) No. 2) Not a valid question, as I don't accept that the condition exists. There is a problem, it is not the problem you make it out to be.

Now.............. answer my questions as posed several times, pdq. You continue to make these suggestions, and post things without telling us what your point is. Answer the questions I, Ebbie, and Ron have posed. See if you can do it without nasty names.

As Bee said to me, I now say to you. I am sorry you miss the entire point of the thread.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:45 PM

"THE THREAD ISN'T ABOUT IMMIGRATION"

Common sense suggests the following:

          no illegals means no ICE raid

          no ICE raid means no brutality

You are correct in way: the subject is illegal immigration, not immigration.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:50 PM

Bill D -others do various things like hiding illegal friends & relatives. How many others, Bill? And others do things like hide illegal drugs in there homes for their friends. Perhaps that would make it OK to detain all folks that live in drug areas and search their homes without cause. As to social services, the numbers I see show that indigent folks that are born here are more of a strain on the system than the immigrant population. Ebbie gave you a link above to a snopes piece that debunked much of what is said.

Immigration problems could be settled with a decent immigration policy, and by putting appropriate pressures on the Mexican government. Let me give you an example that would have solved much of the problem, if folks had had the wherewithal and resolve to force the hand of business and government. There already was a program that was supposed to help the problem. It involved creating zones (does maquilladora ring a bell? how about NAFTA?). These trade zones were supposed to create an uplift in the Mexican standard of living, provide decent jobs, and keep the folks in Mexico. But we allowed smooth talking pol's, many of them Democrats, to take all the protections that would forbid the capitalists from just taking advantage of poor people. We refused to put environmental protections in the Act which would have not allowed smokestack gases and chemicals in the groundwater on the Mexican side. We refused to insist on certain labor provisions which would have given the workers the right to organize. We used the excuse that we couldn't mettle in the affairs of another country. What a crock that was. Of course we could, as we were negotiating the treaty. But Big Busines and their pals in the two parties really didn't give a shit about the internal affairs of that country. What they wanted was a free hand to take advantage of cheap Mexican labor, and the ability to not have to worry about the environment. The effect all these years later is that this treaty has done nothing to enhance Mexican life, and folks still want to come here because they recognize the sham that NAFTA was and is. And now we extended it to Central America, again with no protections.

This isn't about holding government accountable, if it was, folks would be outraged. But they focus on brown skin and say "we have a problem". Yeah, the problem is that we are a bunch of saps, and the big boys love to see us argue about a bunch of Mexican folks instead of seeing the real issues. And they are separate issues. One is an erosion of your Constitutional rights, and the other is about how you have been duped into supporting the destruction of yours and others economies.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 06:00 PM

So, you still won't answer the questions. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you are either an intellectual lightweight who can't argue your points if you can't set the premise, or, you are just dishonest and have serious issues. A third possibility is that you are just a troll, and really don't give a shit about any of the points being made. In any case, you are not worth anymore of my time, but I will continue to make my case with people of good character and intent, such as Bill, Ebbie, and Ron, and press on.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 06:03 PM

"It's about people being detained without cause. It's about judgements and rationalizations being made for no other reason than looks, surnames, or the language being spoken in the home. "

Ok, Mick...I'll vote for Democrats, so that these brutal & stupid practices are more likely to be stopped.

Then I'll start a thread on immigration and see if it gets any attention.

I spent my time "in the streets" during the 60s....I can't do that any more. I can write my congressman, and try to be decent to MY next door neighbors..who ARE Latino, and not setting a very good example as neighbors...I am not harassing them, and I am trying to help them cope as much as I can.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 06:52 PM

"This isn't just about some internet forum and showing each other how bright we are." (Big Mick)

WHOA!!!!!!!! You're cuttin' close to the bone now, Mick. You may just scare a lot of people off this here thread permanently with that sort of talk, old buddy....whaddya think we all log in here every day for? Hmmmm? To change the world? Or to show each other how bright we are?

Tell you one thing, my friend...you have a serious problem down there with Homeland Security. If I was in the USA, I'd be very worried about the whole danged situation. I've even worried about living next door to it.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 06:57 PM

Security? What effin security? Read Bush's Ecexutive Orders. Then tell me about security in the USA. It's secure until Bush implements a few EOs, and then you can kiss it goodbye.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:00 PM

Well, Mick - I think that much of our problem with inhumane border enforcement, stems from our philosophy of immigration. So, it would seem that including that in our discussion is inevitable.
Now, Bill likens "illegal immigrants" to people trespassing on private property - but these people are generally going onto public property, with no violation of private property rights. Oh, I suppose you could say that access to public property within a nation, can be controlled by that nation. I have to admit that there is some truth to that, but then I would question the legitimacy of our right to control that access. After all, their ancestors controlled the western U.S. before our ancestors took it by force.

Mick, I have to say I have some question about your claims of widespread abusive treatment of U.S. citizens in Border Patrol raids. Sure, there's some abuse - but in general, the Border Patrol does a pretty good job of doing what they're supposed to do. It's not their fault that what they're supposed to do, shouldn't be done. On the Mexican border, almost all Border Patrol agents have a high level of fluency in Spanish; and with that fluency comes a good level of cultural sensitivity. Border Patrol agents are predominantly white males, but a surprisingly large number are married to Hispanics or to foreign nationals from other third-world countries.

If the Border Patrol gets a report of undocumented workers at a location, they may conduct a raid. They go to the workplace, check papers, and arrest workers who do not have proper documentation. The arrestees are taken to a local holding cell, where they are held for (usually) less than 8 hours. I'm most familiar with the local holding cell at Bakersfield - lunch was a baloney sandwich on white bread, chips, a piece of fruit, and something to drink - purchased from the kitchen at the Kern County Jail (I occasionally got to eat a leftover sandwich).

I have to say that there was one detention officer in one Border Patrol station who was excessively harsh, and it bothered me to see how he dealt with people. He wasn't physically abusive, and supervisors were working to deal with his problem. The other 15 or so employees in the office seemed to do a good, respectful job - but every detainee had to spend time under the eye of this abusive employee, since he was the guard of the holding cell. He wasn't bright enough to be a Border Patrol Agent. Once or twice a day, a bus would drive down the Central Valley of California, picking up detainees at the Border Patrol stations and delivering them to a deportation center inthe San Diego area. Then they were bussed or flown across the border, usually less than two days after they were apprehended. Most of this was a pretty matter-of-fact procedure - people got caught, detained until the bus came, and then shipped back across the border. It's not the process that's particularly cruel - it's the idea that working people are taken off the job and abruptly shipped back home. Then they pay a commission to a "coyote" to help them bet back across to the U.S., and the cycle starts over again.

The process on the wild spaces of the border is far harsher. Some people find ways to sneak through at border checkpoints, and there often are immigrants running across the lanes of Interstate 5 in San Diego to avoid apprehension. Lots of pedestrian deaths in the process. Most of the U.S. - Mexico border is a bleak desert. In the summer of 1996, I had to work for three weeks at the Immigration Detention Center at El Centro and the Border Patrol station at Calexico (on the border, halfway between San Diego and Yuma, Arizona). The weather was very humid from irrigation, and the temperature got to 115 degrees F. Immigrants cross the border on foot - at night, if they can. Border Patrol agents chase them down in SUVs. The immigrants doen't want to get caught, so there are often injuries in the process, and some drownings in irrigation canals. The Border Patrol agents don't try to be abusive, but it's a rough process. Of course, there are publicity-seeking governors who send National Guard units to beef up border protection, and there are the vigilantes who like to think they're helping - Border Patrol agents I talked to, didn't apprecate the "help." The "help" often made their job far more dangerous.

The Immigration Detention Centers are for people who can't be deported right away because of hearings, criminal charges, or other delays. The guards at the center are probably 80 percent hispanic, as opposed to almost 80% anglo in the Border Patrol. The detention center seemed more-or-less like a jail. It wasn't awful, but it certainly wasn't nice. Aliens who are convicted of felonies are sent to state prison - and there are lots of prisons in the desolate border areas of California.

In general, detainees are kept in clean facilities, eat reasonable food, and treated in a businesslike manner. Usually, the process of apprehension, detention, and deportation takes less than two days.

In general, my observation is that the process itself is reasonably humane, although there are many exceptions. To my mind, what's wrong is the idea of stopping these people who just want to work. Why not set up a system that allows people to cross the border more freely if there's work for them in the U.S.?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:03 PM

Hawk, take the para as a whole, to get the point. I am attempting to show folks that they are being duped by the administration. I have asked pdq specific questions for a specific reason. These folks pull these raids, make a big splash, violate rights, just so we do argue about the problem of "illegal immigrants". They hassle and wrangle up a bunch of folks, detain them, treat them inhumanely, because they know the discussion will degenerate into a discussion of "those lawbreakers". They know the bleeding heart liberals and the pseudo intellectuals will focus on the poor person yearning to be free, instead of the larger issue, that being their usurpation of our Constitutional rights. They also don't want you to focus on these trade agreements in too much detail, because you will see that they don't have much to do with your well being, but they line the pockets of the richest among us. And while we are all busy focusing on "those Mexicans" or "the illegal immigrant problem", they merrily go on their way, stacking the laws to create a whole new underclass. And along the way, decent folks families are split up, they are detained and scared though they have done nothing wrong, and no one is standing up and telling them to stop. It is just so easy to intellectualize it all away.

You all love to sing Woody Guthrie songs. I suggest you listen to the words, and ponder them, while you are singing them. There are real peoples lives at stake.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:10 PM

Joe, you are mixing departments. Border Patrol, when you were still on the job was a separate agency. They had a thankless job. I am speaking of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known by the acronym of ICE. Border Patrol and Customs have been rolled into this. The ICE raids on these plants was conducted using the tactics I have described to you. They continue to conduct these raids, using very loosely worded warrants, but I haven't heard about the tactics used in the latest ones yet. We have been putting a lot of pressure on them, and will continue to.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:22 PM

Joe, you remind me of the first time I saw signs along the Interstate in southern California depicting people running across the highway. Just like signs cautioning drivers against cattle on the open range. It was surreal. I remember how it affected my gut.

When I said, Mick, that about everything had been said it is because to my mind it had reached the point where so many things today end. What do we do about it? There are a lot of issues that to my mind call for the people taking to the streets and it never seems to happen.

It may, someday. Especially, perhaps, if the Republicans stay in power after 2008.

Here in Juneau, Alaska, we are the choir.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:34 PM

They're the same people, Mick - just different names. Yes, the Bush Administration has politicized border enforcement just like they've tried to tie everything else to their ideology - but the people doing the job still do it more-or-less the same.
It's not so much the execution of things that's haywire - it's the philosophy behind it. I suppose that it may be different in raids in large meat processing plants away from the border, where agents don't have experience in doing raids day after day - but my experience in California is that Border Patrol agents are pretty professional in the way they do things.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:45 PM

Can't agree, Joe. Surrounding a factory, holding the employees in detention and cuffed, denying them restroom facilities, and when you allow them to finally use them you watch, badgering folks that have worked there for 20+ years, confronting them in black with automatic weapons ...... it is all about the execution of things.

I would ask you, what I have asked pdq. If this is about checking for folks documentation, why the Rambo routine? Why automatic weapons and fiber cuffs? Why detention without charges, until the folks could prove they were citizens? Isn't that the process turned inside out? Shouldn't the feds have cause, in other words proof that someone isn't a citizen? It appears that the attitude is that illegal immigrants are Mexican, therefore we have the right to detain and harass all folks who look like Mexicans. Even if a mass checking of documents was justified, why not just come in and line these folks up and ask? Why all the scare tactics? If it was you being detained for no other reason than your ethnic background, even with your service time and history, how would you react? I repeat, less than 4% of the folks checked were undocumented, the rest were all law abiding folks just going to work. Can't buy it, Joe. No matter what your view of the illegal immigration problem is, you should be outraged at this. Isn't it funny that the big business right wingers, and the neo cons aren't concerned about the 4th Amendment rights of these folks? Of course not, because they take advantage of them.

Mick

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:19 PM

Here's an excerpt from an online website that is pertinent to this discussion:

"Religious, Labor and Civil Rights Organizations Call for an Immediate End to Immigration Raids


Statement
Philadelphia [January 3][2007] — The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) and more than 60 human rights organizations across the country urge President Bush to issue an executive order that declares an immediate moratorium on community and work site raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Our organizations, representing labor, religious and civil rights groups across the country, urge the administration to work with Congress to build humane, rational and fair immigration policies. We call for this action after witnessing the worksite raids that occurred at Swift meatpacking facilities in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas and Utah.

We call upon the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of the Inspector General of Homeland Security to immediately investigate allegations of civil rights violations, including the racial profiling of the more than 1,200 workers apprehended in the raids.

Strong-arm tactics and the excessive use of force in the raids were evident. Workers who appeared to be Latino were separated from non-Latino looking workers. Federal officials refused to provide timely information to family members, clergy or attorneys, and in some cases threatened to arrest those seeking information about their loved ones.

Some of those detained were relocated to Camp Dodge, a military detention facility. Attorneys and clergy were not allowed into the detention center for several days. The ICE national telephone inquiry line did not provide information to relatives or attorneys about the whereabouts of detainees for nearly 48 hours.

Workplace raids continue a campaign of terror that criminalizes workers who are only seeking jobs and a better life. They do nothing to fix the nation's broken immigration system and only serve to polarize how immigrants are perceived. They promote discrimination and racial profiling, and sow fear and uncertainty in the nation's immigrant communities. Such actions weaken the social and economic fabric of our community and threaten the basic civil and human rights of immigrant and non-immigrant communities alike.

The December 12 raids occurred on an important religious holiday for many families — a day to pay tribute to the Patroness of the Americas, Our Lady of Guadalupe. To target Latin American immigrants, many of whom are Catholic, on such an important religious holiday shows a grave disrespect for their religious beliefs.
With Congress poised to address immigration reform in the new year, if the administration is truly committed to a fair immigration policy and justice for the nation's families, workplace and community raids must be stopped now.

Campaign Endorsers
In the spirit of the season and our nation's commitment to justice for all, we urge the Bush administration to take immediate and decisive leadership to address this deplorable community crisis and inhumane action. We urge organizations and individuals alike to join us in this call for an immediate halt to immigration raids and to urge the Bush administration and Congressional leaders to take immediate actions that produce a constructive and fair policy resolution to the nation's immigration debate.


-snip-

Click http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/news/groups-call-for-end-to-raids.htm
for the list of this campaign's endorsers.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: curmudgeon
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:32 PM

While I read most political threads down here in the abyss, I rarely venture a comment, as I am unlikely to change anyone's mind , nor to have mine changed.

However, in this instance, I must plead with those here assembled to get back to Mick's main point, as I see it. The current administration and its goons are desecrating the Constitution and its intent by their very actions.

We're not talking about immigrants, legal or otherwise, but human beings who have the absolute right to be left alone unless they are blatently commiting an illegal act, for which act there must be some iota of evidence to demonstrate same.

I grew up in the 40s and 50s. One clear message I got from the TV programs of that time was that only in foreign despotic countries were citizens required to show their "papers" to the police. Such a practise was clearly "unamerican."

Now, when I need to go to the local IRS (they're all really nice helpful folks there) or to Social Security (my age), I try to leave most of the metal in my pockets in the car so as to make getting through the checkpoint easier. Of course with a pacemaker, I can't just wlk through the gate, but have to be "wanded" with due care. This of course, means that they forget to ask for an ID.

All this latter stuff aside, bear in mind -- when YOU have to produce "papers" for any official, it will be too late to change anything -- Tom

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

Egregious thread creep though it was and still is, the subject has been raised. Jan and I were talking and we admit pdq was right--she did marry down. But of course so do all Englishwomen who marry Americans--right, Kendall? But it's happening a lot, it seems--there are 2 other couples of that description right on our street. We have decided it must be the weather--though I wouldn't think DC summers are a big enticement. Still, mad dogs and Jan do go out in the midday sun--I think she just likes the sun. But she does have a lot of (really good) suggestions for improving life here in the howling wilderness--starting with a real pub. (End of unforgivable thread creep).



Back to topic: It's clear that the analogy of neighbors who don't take care of their place, then come and trash yours is completely off base. Au contraire, these neighbors have skills the neighborhood really needs. We'd be utter fools to try to get them out of the neighborhood.

The problem with limiting the discussion to the jackboot approach of "Homeland Security" is that everybody on all sides of the issue will say stormtrooper techniques are unacceptable. That does not address the core issue--which is illegal immigration itself.

As I and many others have said more than once, nobody is in favor of illegal immigration--not even the illegal immigrants. They would much rather be legal. So it seems obvious that what we have to do is increase the means of legal immigration.

We also do have to deal with the illegals now here. Again, it seems blazingly clear that the only ethical--and sensible--way to do it is to set them--all--on a path to citizenship. As I said earlier--not on a silver platter--but also not an absurdly burdensome list. No "touchback" for one. English competence, yes. Back of the line behind all legal immigrants, yes. Fines as part of the process, no. Etc. It should be possible to work out a reasonable procedure.

The lifeboat allegory doesn't fit. The idea that illegal immigration will make the US "a 3rd world slum" would be laughable--if it wasn't that some people actually seem ready to vote on that basis. It's interesting that absolutely no evidence has been yet introduced in this thread--of over 100--to back up the "3rd world slum" suggestion.

It would seem time for people who believe this sort of thing to come up with some evidence.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:35 PM

Something that may have been missed in this equation: The folks who are in your country illegally have found work (mostly honest, just like the rest of us), places to live and things to do to keep below the radar of your country's laws--else they'd BE discovered as illegal aliens. If the folks are already there and doin' OK, hell, they are enterprising and eager for work--something there ain't enough of in Mexico--and very much like any average American.

Someone I know (dead now) was asked as the last question on his citizenship test in Canada, "What's is the biggest river in Canada." His answer was, "The San-ta Laurenca." The reply from the exam officiator was, "Spoken like a true Canadian. Welcome to Canada!"

The two paragraphs relate somehow, I think.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:01 PM

wow...this is one of the few times in 11 years here that I have seemimgly gotten on the 'wrong' side of a debate with a number of people I usually agree with. I tried to offer a couple of analogies, but I guess I didn't hone them well, as they were either not understood, or were taken out of context to defend a point.

Joe...I did NOT suggest that "private property" was legally the same as US territory...merely that viewpoints change according, as they say, "to whose Ox is being gored".

but finally, I see something with meat on it that can BE discussed as a possible remedy, rather than just moral exhortations about sad treatment of disenfranchised people:

Joe Offer: "Why not set up a system that allows people to cross the border more freely if there's work for them in the U.S.?"

Ron Davies: "So it seems obvious that what we have to do is increase the means of legal immigration."

...now we are getting somewhere, but all is not roses.

Sure...it makes perfect sense to set up a system to allow people to cross the border in a legal, organized way to do jobs that we need them for. In fact, I believe that basic idea was suggested by several politicans recently.
   What I do not see is the answer to to the question of how to deal with those who do NOT wish to adhere to the official, legal system, and who do NOT intend to work at the jobs sanctioned, but simply wish to do as they are doing now, and exist on the fringes of society, taking illegal jobs, and testing the limits of the social services.

   Frankly, I don't remember reading in all the long posts from Mick, Joe, Ron or others, any clear answer to the issues of schools, medical treatment, language, taxes...etc.
   Folks...I am not against poor people OR Hispanic people...I see a growing problem, and I do not see simply pointing to obvious abuses OF these people by various authorities as answers....OF COURSE we should restrain the idiots who mistreat those they are told to arrest....now..what are we to do with them if we we get the authorities to treat them kindly & humanely?
   Should we or should we NOT be able to control the rate & type of immigration, so that everyone benefits under the system? *IF* you advocate no controls....that is, open, unrestricted immigration, I predict that you will eventually regret that opinion.

I submit that we would be doing no favor to ourselves OR the immigrants by allowing unlimited, uncontrolled border crossings...eventually, those who entered in 2001 will feel overwhelmed by those seeking to cross in 2027...etc.

(remember the signs & bumper stickers..."Don't Californicate Colorado"? It often DOES devolve to "Whose Ox is being gored"!)

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:38 AM

Hey, Mick, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said on this thread. I do get your point.

It just kind of jumped out at me when I read that one line you wrote:

"This isn't just about some internet forum and showing each other how bright we are..."

I thought, "Wow!...you don't hear the unvarnished truth like that very often!" It kind of got my funnybone. Because, frankly, I think that's one of the main if not the PRIMARY impulses driving a great many of the posts on this forum...precisely that impulse you named in that line. It ends up mostly being just a bunch of yakking people showing each other how bright they are, and trying to prove that the other person isn't nearly AS bright as they are or he would agree with them. That's exactly how the human ego tends to work. It wants to be "right" and it wants somebody else to be "wrong".

Most talk ends up being just talk.

Be that as it may, I DO get your point, I know this is very important to you, and I understand why. It speaks well for you.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:19 AM

Well, I guess I'm torn. I've always been torn on this issue. I've seen the Border Patrol/ICE agents at work many times, and I've investigated the on-duty and off-duty activities of many of them - and very few of them were bad apples. And yes, I heard reports similar to Mick's six years ago, when I was still working as an investigator - and it didn't jive with my considerable experience with the program.

I know of other aspects of the immigration program that were hoplessly fouled in bad morale and mismanagement, and I'd expect that anything could happen in those programs.

So, Mick, I hear what you say and I do respect your word, but what you say is foreign to my experience. I'd like to hear the other side of the story. How can U.S. law enforcement officers detain citizens without evidence of a crime? I'm sorry, but it just sounds too preposterous to believe. The Washington Post article about the raids says nothing about the detention of citizens. Same with the Rocky Mountain News although there is an implication that resident aliens may have been detained. There's another Washington Post article here, and here's the USA Today article. The Unitarian complaint against the raid also makes no mention of detention of citizens, but this union report seems to back up Mick's allegations, as does the article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune. And article in the Dallas News gives a lot of information. The Denver Post says that Swift sued ICE to try to prevent the raid before it happened. There's lots of infromation from a local perspective in the Greeley (Colorado) Tribune.

And while I hesitate to believe charges of widespread inhumane misconduct by agents in immigration raids, I disagree profoundly with our nation's immigration policy. I think the policy is unjust, racist, and demeaning - and unnecessary and wasteful. I think the fact that our government carried out these raids is appalling - but I see little evidence that the federal agents violated the law, failed to follow long-established proceduces, or acted inhumanely.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:15 AM

For some reason, the thought popped into my mind that we don't need vigilantes, What we need is to be vigilance to protect our-and other's human rights.

This article is related to that thought:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/ccjs/security-cjm-2007.html

"Security and Surveillance - calls for vigilance
Embargo: 00.01 hours, Tuesday 24th July 2007

Leading academics and practitioners raise a number of concerns about the extension of surveillance and security measures in the latest edition of Criminal Justice Matters, the quarterly magazine of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London.

The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, says 'we need to be more discriminating, more focused as to the purposes, the benefits, the raison d'etre for every piece of surveillance, whether its in the street or in shopping centres, cameras in stations and so on, before its actually deployed'. He says the 'jury is still out' on the role of CCTV cameras in the prevention of crime and also calls for the 'very tightest control framework' for techniques that attempt to predict the criminals of the future.

Professor David Lyon of Queen's University Ontario, one of the world's leading academics in the study of surveillance, warns that 'fear and suspicion' are being reinforced by new surveillance technologies and calls for 'alternatives that promote trust, inclusion, recognition and respect'.

Reporting on a study of children and young people's views of the government's new information sharing database 'ContactPoint' which will contain records of every child, researchers Zoe Hilton and Chris Mills highlight how concerns about the quality of data and how it might be used. The study concludes that the government needs to 'devise information sharing initiatives which will win the support of children and young people'.

Dr Basia Spalek of the University of Birmingham and Bob Lambert examine Muslim communities under surveillance arguing that anti-terrorism policies and increased police activity have alienated Muslims and failed to improve national security. They call for 'a more enlightened counter-terrorism policy that empowers all sections of Muslim communities, rather than one that empowers one section against another'.

Professor Mike Nellis of the University of Strathclyde, a leading expert on electronic monitoring assesses the effect of satellite technology on the supervision of offenders. He highlights its limitations noting that electronic monitoring 'merely facilitates data gathering about someone rather than knowledge of someone, and it entails a dyadic link between a single authority and a subject, rather than multiple links within a network'.

Professor Richard Ericson of the University of Toronto reviews the changing face of the law relating to security and surveillance. He concludes that 'when law and other democratic institutions are most threatened by seemingly intractable problems, the response is to devise new forms of counter-law that further threaten those institutions ... Security trumps justice, and insecurity prove itself'."

-snip-

I get the impression that Professor Ericson was not saying that "Security trumping justice, and insecurity proving itself" is an a condition or an outcome that he supported. Rather he was warning us about this.

**

Btw: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante a "vigilante is a person or persons who ignore due process of law after a crime has been committed, instead enacting their own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient."

This term actually doesn't fit the men in black who work for ICE [in the incident that is the focus of this thread, and probably other incidents} as 1} they weren't certain that a crime had been committed by all of those persons who they detained and treated so inhumanly and 2} these ICE officers were working as part of our USA government when they committed those heinous acts.

For shame!!!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:42 AM

I am not sure how you arrived at vigilantes, Azizi. There are vigilantes involved (a group known as The Minutemen, whom we confronted in Omaha) but no one is calling the ICE agents vigilantes. Am I missing something?

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:47 AM

See the next to the last sentence of my last post. I was not calling these ICE wokers vigilantes. However, by implication at least I meant that their alleged tactics and racial profiling reminded me of vigilantes such as the KKK.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:51 AM

Thanks.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:14 PM

It's not legal or illegal immigration that's the crux of the problem here, thought it is a related problem, it's the rights of citizens & non citizens. It's not about terrorism, it's about the type of erosion of our civil liberties, the constant knawing away at our freedoms, freedom of speach, the right to work without fear, the right to assembly, & our protections against the infringments on these rights. This is not about a group of people being targeted this is about an attack on the righs of all Americans. Soon we won't have the ability to protest these infringments if we stay on this path. This is only happening in the work place now but it will move & spread to other areas or our lives & it will start to become more inclusive or others rather than just Mexicans & Latinos. Fear of snakes is unreasonable but it's not unreasonable to fear the poisonious ones or the ones that would cursh you. One needs to know what it is that we need to fear & in this case it is that we are losing our rights, our freedoms & our way of life. This is not about border patrols or fences, it's not about immigration, it's not about terrorism but you can throw all those things into this to muddy the waters. This is about how this government treats it's people, ALL it's people. When you unjustly harm one of us it is an affront to us all. You cannot treat the symptoms, we need to seek the root of the problem & correct it, not with knee-jerk reactions like these raids & these are criminal actions. There was a time when we needed just cause, a warrant for reasonable cause to search or raid, this was not a coke factory.

My Brother-In -Law is Porto Rican, vice president of a very well to do bank, he looks as if he could be Mexican, his daughter, my niece does she now have to fear being rounded up in a raid on her work place. She does now if she's working with a lot of other Latinos. She has a justifyable fear now & so do I. They are citizens, they were born citizens, there parents were born citizens. This is a blow to the nation not just to those that aren't white. This is what we brings us to are knees, it's not immigration or terrorism we need to fear it's ourselves, we are our own worst enemy & that's a weakness anyone can exploite, espically from within, it has mostly been expolited from within.

I'm just plain dam sick & tired of this shit, were are the WMD when you realy need them.

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:20 PM

Their alleged tactics sound an awful lot like stuff I've seen in a vast number of Hollywood action movies. Is it surprising that young men in uniform will act out the popular macho fantasies of their culture when given the opportunity and the authority to? They always think they are the "good guys" and the people they're doing it to are the "bad guys"...and it's supposedly quite all right to mistreat "bad guys", isn't it? "I mean, hey...they do it in all the movies... What would Clint Eastwood do? What would Steven Segal do? What would Rambo do?"

So, it's not surprising. Neither, however, is it excusable or tolerable.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:29 PM

That is one of my main contentions, Barry. Folks keep justifying the actions of ICE, in conflict with the 4th Amendment, on the basis that we have a problem on the border, hence it is OK to violate the persons and rights to solve it. That isn't the rock upon which this country was built. Once you allow a government or an administration to do this, then the next step is but a moment away. It is why folks are misguided when they attack the ACLU. Civil liberties are a precious jewel, not to be carelessly tossed aside. And folks still haven't answered the question (although Bill started to) as to what exactly is the problem that is so pressing as to allow the 4th Amendment to be violated. He alludes to schools, hospitals, social services, but brings no facts to the table. If folks did, they would see that there is, indeed a problem, and one that needs addressing, but nothing that would justify automatic weapons, detention without cause/proof/justifiable suspician, fear, and inhumane treatment. And what really becomes apparent is that the administration and this Agency, is using the latent racist tendencies of the general public to misdirect their attention away from the real problem. It is easier for folks to point at "those people" than it is for them to realize that in their quest for low taxes, and no government involvement, and laws passed with no funding for enforcement of same, we have not only failed to improve the plight of the workers in Mexico, we have actually exacerbated the problem.

Sure we have to get control of the border, but let us not mix all this into one big stew. The same game they have played with Iraq (just saw the ad on TV this morning where a lady was linking 9-11 with victory in Iraq) on this issue. My wonderful Irish Gran used to tell me that when a man seemed a wee bit too cute and was trying to get ye to look to yer left, look right. These folks are trying to get you to look so carefully at the color of the skin, and throwing bogus, and specious, information out there, that you don't see that the real agenda.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:34 PM

For no reason that I can think of, this poem I learned some time ago, just came to me. I think it wants to be included in this thread. So here goes:

OUTWITTED
He drew a circle that shut me out--
Heretic, a rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!

Edwin Markham

http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/mark01.html

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:45 PM

"And folks still haven't answered the question (although Bill started to) as to what exactly is the problem that is so pressing as to allow the 4th Amendment to be violated. He alludes to schools, hospitals, social services, but brings no facts to the table. "

*sigh*...I was far too busy yesterday to bring precise quotes & web sites to support my worries....but I have heard TV interviews with politicians and social service administrators from various states explaining this very problem.
   And I'm 95% sure *I* posted something here a few months ago about a hospital near me..Holy Cross, in Silver Spring, MD. which was stating that they were either 'about to' or 'considering' quotas on emergency room services, because in the last few years they were under GREAT strain from increased demand by uninsured folks. I am trying to find the article or other information to see if they identified the groups by ethnicity..etc.

I would bet that 10 minutes on Google with some creative search terms would find enough 'facts' to cover the table. Social services in border states ARE struggling to deal with budgets, teacher shortages, textbook controversies, medical care crunches, prison population growth and other dire situations directly related to the rise of immigrant populations.
....I will see if I can find some of these statistics, but they are out there, whether you get the data from me, or from somewhere else.

I have no wish to see ANY child denied an education or medical care...but I think it IS reasonable to ask how we are supposed to give it to them in this state of chaos.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:51 PM

3 minutes in the Washington Post archives

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:52 PM

Bill, this is not an immigration problem, granted there is that problem though. This is a problem were our government is trampling of civil rights & liberties & they're walking over our Constutition to do it. There is no excuse for that. That's a different ball of wax & it's not that big of a problem. It can be dealt with but that's not what our government wants.

Barry

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:18 PM

"Bill, this is not an immigration problem, granted there is that problem though."
....well, Barry,this thread shows that the problems are intertwined. We cannot possibly discuss one without being aware of the other. If all people are saying to me is 'this thread is not the place to discuss 'X', when 'Y' is the issue, I must respectfully disagree...and others have posted about the whole scope of various sides of the issue.

If the government IS indeed " trampling of civil rights & liberties ", then of course we need to both protest and get it stopped!

Up above, I see Joe Offer saying he finds support for the worst of these accusations only in a couple places. Are some papers and websites ignoring the truth? Just how widespread IS this detaining of folks without warrent or judicial procedure?
   I am off to read more about the assertions....admitting up front that even one instance would be too many.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: DougR
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:12 PM

pdq: I am not surprised that you received so few responses to your two very simple questions that do not require a college degree to reply. Most of these folks just don't know how to reply without looking a bit er..ah..well, obtuse.

So rather than addressing your questions what do they do? What they always do, attack!

DougR

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:43 PM

Hi, DougR.

I plan to honor the thread-starter's request and not post to this thread again. He says it's not about immigration. Far be it for me to disagree.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:34 PM

DougR:

Nice to ee your gnarly hand on the threads, again. But I would like to point out that I did in fact answer PDQ's questions and even apologized when I was rude to him.

A

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:19 PM

Would it be crass of me to note that DougR has NOT answered pdq's questions himself?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:47 PM

Yes. Unbelievably crass. You're not supposed to make such embarrassing observations, Ebbie. It'll scare him away.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:52 PM

Bite me, Doug. I answered them a number of posts back. Do you suppose you could contribute in an intelligent manner, or are you just back to shill for the neo cons?

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:31 AM

Mick, if you are going to keep saying "Bite me!" to people on this thread, I wonder if you would be willing to say it to my dog? ;-) He just loves it when people say that...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:35 AM

LOL.... OK. But don't you just love folks that jump in, not to join the discussion, but to just beef about the folks they are opposed to.

Doug, did you bother to read the thread so far? Why don't you answer the questions posed by pdq, and myself? But you have to read them first.

Mick

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:59 AM

Well, it's one of those things that keeps happening isn't it? The problem with discussions here is...way too many participants...as in, "too many cooks spoil the broth".

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:38 AM

"To my mind, what's wrong is the idea of stopping these people who just want to work. Why not set up a system that allows people to cross the border more freely if there's work for them in the U.S.?"

Ah, then they would have to be paid a proper 'legal' wage, whereas if they are 'already illegal' then those crminal (already rich and powerful from these activities) thugs who love to sponge off the weak and disadvantaged can get a clear run...

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 06:02 PM

What I'd like to see is a string of manufacturing factories on the south side of the US/Mexico border, factories that pay well and therefore the jobs are vied for. Then, when the US needs workers for its jobs that are not being filled, the US industries will have to offer good wages to entice workers across the border.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: DougR
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:32 PM

My, my, my, the "lefties" are in good form aren't they? So kind, so considerate of the opinions of others. So crass. So insulting.

Mick: I didn't answer pdq's questions becauses he didn't pose them to me. However, I will be absolutely delighted to do so.

The questions: "Are you in favor of the huge migration of illegal aliens into the US? My answer: No! And I would venture to guess that that attitude reflects the majority of opinion of legal citizens of my state, Arizona.
"If you do not want this migration to continue, what do you feel should be done?" Secure our borders, and enforce our current laws related to immigration. Hold employers responsible for hiring those who break our laws and impose harsh penalties on them.

I shall pose myself an additional questiion. "Do I feel those migrants who are already here should be granted amnesty? Hell no! They should go back to their country of origin and apply for entry behind all of those who have been waiting years to enter our country legally.

DougR

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:39 PM

Just once, DougR, I wish you would surprise me.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:31 PM

Oh, those were the famous questions? Heh! My, my...how tough they are to answer. Let's see...

"Are you in favor of the huge migration of illegal aliens into the US?"

Duh!!! Why, of course! (grin) I'm also in favor of wife-beating, kicking dogs, stealing candy from babies, embezzlement, child abuse, sedition, rape, high treason, and violent pornography. What didja think? I am the godless liberal anarchist monster your momma warned you against when you were a little boy!


"If you do not want this migration to continue, what do you feel should be done?"

Well, the answer to that is simple really. Those damn wetbacks will NEVER stop coming here until we are as dirt poor and desperate as they are, and that ain't gonna happen. So the only real solution is to build a 20 high electrical wall along the entire US-Mexican border and fry them as they try to cross...or send out some B-52 squadrons down to Mexico and just nuke 'em all. Whichever is cheaper. The hot radiation belt in what was left of Mexico after that would keep the rest of the Latinos from coming north for a long time, so I think the nuclear attack is really the way to go.

Doug: I shall pose myself an additional questiion. "Do I feel those migrants who are already here should be granted amnesty?"

Hell no! Like I said...just kill 'em all.


There. You now have answers on the same dumbass, simple-headed, reactionary level as the original questions were.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:46 PM

Well, okay, to be fair.... ;-)

The FIRST of those 3 questions was the kind that deserved a totally flippant answer, because NO ONE is in favor of the "huge migration of illegal aliens into the US" except the employers who take advantage of their cheap labor...and the illegal aleins themselves.

It was therefore a completely pointless question to even ask.

As for the other two, they are worth some discussion all right, and I'm sure a lot of reasonable views could be offered in answering either one of them.

I just couldn't resist the opportunity for a little satire there, Doug. That first question was such a crass thing to ask anyone.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 11:25 PM

There is an element of homeland security in all of this. Many of us feel that unbridled human population growth will, in the not too distant future, destroy the entire planet.

                   In an effort to save the planet, maybe it would make sense for the Department of Agriculture to offer grants for farmers to mechanize their planting and harvesting techniques. That would reduce some of the unskilled jobs in America.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: DougR
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:27 AM

Well, I don't know, L.H., there are folks who favor "open borders" you know. Want to come to the US? Come on over!

DougR

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:34 AM

No country I know of has an "open border" policy, Doug. No country would dare to. The number of people favoring such a policy would, I think, be miniscule...and not worth worrying about.

I would favor open borders IF....and only if....ecomomic and social conditions were equalized around the world, and everyone had a decent, peaceful, and prosperous society to live in, without fear. Then there would be no problem with an open border policy, because most people would be happy to stay in the culture they were born in.

We are so far away from that that it could be centuries away...or millenia...or maybe never.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:03 AM

Now these:

1. Doug, did you bother to read the thread so far?
2. Do you suppose you could contribute in an intelligent manner,

in light of past experience, obviously must be rhetorical questions.

And this

3. Just once, DougR, I wish you would surprise me.

a forlorn hope, if ever there was one.

Its a constant source of wonder how some people can be kicked by a jackass time and time again and yet not learn to expect and anticipate it.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:01 PM

I am very proud of the organization I work for. I am proud because of this action. Sometimes, someone must do the right thing. I am posting the news release here of our action on behalf of American workers:

WORKERS SUE TO STOP MASS ARRESTS AND DETENTIONS BY FEDERAL AGENTS

UFCW suit challenges punitive immigration raids and claims violation of 4th Amendment rights

Washington, D.C. —The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), today, sought court intervention to protect the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and enjoin the government from illegally arresting and detaining workers including U.S. citizens and legal residents while at their workplace.

The lawsuit—filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as defendants. The suit calls for an injunction against the excessive, illegal and unnecessary worksite raids conducted by ICE agents.

"This lawsuit is about ensuring that workers are protected and that their constitutional rights are respected," said UFCW International President Joe Hansen at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. "It is unconscionable that our government would round up hundreds, sometimes thousands, of innocent workers in an effort to target a few select individuals."

More than 12,000 meatpacking workers—including citizens, legal residents and immigrants in the process of legalization—were swept up in ICE raids on December 12, 2006, at six meat packing plants across the country. The UFCW represents workers at five of the plants including Worthington, Minn.; Greeley, Colo.; Cactus, Tex.; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Grand Island, Neb. Despite this unprecedented, unwarranted and excessive use of force, only 65 workers were indicted for identity theft.

The legal complaint contends that during the December 12th raids workers were denied access to telephones, bathrooms and legal counsel. Citizens and legal residents also were deprived of the opportunity to retrieve documents to establish their legal status. Some workers were handcuffed. Others were shipped out on buses. Families, schools and daycare centers could not be contacted to make arrangements for the children of detained workers. Families were left divided and scared—not knowing where or when they might see a missing family member again.

"When I tried to report to the cafeteria during the raid, ICE agents accused me of trying to run away. They held me in handcuffs. I'm a U.S. Citizen, born in Iowa. My parents live in Mississippi. My government treated me like a criminal, and I didn't do anything wrong. I knew our rights were being violated. What they're doing in these raids is illegal," said Mike Graves, who has lived in the United States his entire life, works at the Marshalltown, Iowa, Swift and Company plant, and is a member of UFCW Local 1149.

Peter Schey, President of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the lead counsel in the UFCW litigation said, "The Department of Homeland Security routinely violates the Constitution and federal law when it conducts work place raids to detect undocumented workers by engaging in mass detentions of all workers without any basis for believing that they have violated any laws. Such mass detentions have long been considered unlawful by the U.S. courts. While the Department of Homeland Security has a legitimate function to perform enforcing the nation's immigration laws, it cannot do so by running roughshod over the well-established constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident workers. If DHS Secretary Chertoff is unwilling or unable to stop the unconstitutional conduct of his agents, then we are sure the federal courts will step in to do so."

The lawsuit also includes in its complaint that union lawyers and representatives were not given prompt access to UFCW members during and immediately after the raids. In many cases, union lawyers were denied access to UFCW members, a direct violation of a worker's right to legal counsel.

"Work is not a crime, and workers do not leave their constitutional rights at the plant gate," said Hansen. "To inflict this kind of enforcement on innocent workers—to arrest and illegally detain massive numbers of people against their will, to treat them as criminals—is not just unacceptable, it is un-American."

The UFCW expects members of the union, civil rights, religious, and immigrant rights communities to file amicus briefs on behalf of the UFCW suit.

In addition to the class-action lawsuit announced today, the UFCW will continue to hold field hearings across the country to investigate and expose these punitive actions against hardworking families. The UFCW also will press Congress to hold hearings into the issue and to renew its efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

The UFCW represents 1.3 million workers across the country, including 250,000 in the packing and food processing industries.

# # #

A copy of the lawsuit is available at www.ufcw.org

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:09 PM

While the Department of Homeland Security has a legitimate function to perform enforcing the nation's immigration laws, it cannot do so by running roughshod over the well-established constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident workers.

Amen!

And thank God for The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union!

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:32 PM

Most of the above posts concern actions of one or another of the agencies overseen by DHS, Department of Homeland Security.

The DHS oversees and combines the actions of 22 government agencies.
The reorganization and combination of government agencies is a major change from the days of the National Security Act (NSA) of 1947.

The purpose is safe-guarding the United States and its territories from terrorist acts, both from abroad and internally.

In order to carry out its responsibilities, whatever is deemed necessary to ensure protection is done.
Surveillance at home and abroad is a key part of the protective measures. This includes all communications.

Congressional action to form and empower the DHS was necessitated by the strike on the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, and terrorist actions against U. S. installations and personnel abroad.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:45 PM

Health and Human Services, Energy and Justice, U. S. Customs and Border Inspection, Immigration and Naturalization, are all under the DHS blanket.

The UFCW suit, mentioned above, failed in the courts. The workplace is not defensible against arrest by agencies of the DHS.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:53 PM

I don't understand what you are doing here. I don't want to read a 7 year old thread and then try to guess.

Have I missed something? If something has been deleted, would you mind if your reply to it went as well?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:54 PM

The previous post was addressed to Q.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:33 PM

I don't understand what you [Q] are doing here.

Easy.

What Q is doing is attempting to whitewash and excuse the abuses, violations of the Constitution and idiocies of the Department of Hopeless Stupidity.

That clear it up for you?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:45 PM

Its doesn't seem that way to me Greg. It looks like he is succinctly answering a post that we can't read. Thanks for the feedback, but I'll wait for his answer.

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

OK then, Jack - how about he's using the attack on the Twin Towers- thirteen years ago - to excuse anything the Department of Hopeless Stupidity chooses to do NOW - "whatever the Dept deems necessary" ( with minimal or no oversight), whether it violates the Constitution or not.

That better?

Subject: RE: Homeland Security??????? For shame!!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:08 PM

Jack, this thread was already in existence; I decided to use it rather than starting a new one. I wanted to outline the broad powers given to the DHS after reading yet another news item bemoaning the fact that they globally gather and sift all electronically transmitted correspondence.

Posts in this and other threads seemed to give a very limited outline of the Department's coverage (taking over security-oriented functions of 22 government departments).

If this is old news to you, disregard the thread.