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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:33 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: 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: 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 - 05:07 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Sorcha
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM

Or stupid fences. Jeeze, what a dumb idea.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:26 AM

"World War II"

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: 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)