Friday Fun Forwarded E-Mail

Minuteman Project heartthrob Jim Gilchrist is looking for a few good crippled ethnic gals:

Dear Americans,

I am searching for any American-Mexicans or Latinos/Latinas, American-Africans, American-Asians, etc. who will volunteer their time to appear on TV with me from time to time. Also, any severely physically disabled person is wanted.

The percentage of non-whites in the pro immigration law enforcement movement appears to be only about 10%. I want to encourage more non-whites to join our ranks and at the same time resolve once and for all that the pro immigration law enforcement movement is not about "a bunch of brawny white guys". We have plenty of women in our groups, but we are still a bit lacking in non-white participation.

I can't imagine why. Forwarded to me by the California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

Comments

Ruthless | July 15, 2005, 8:37pm | #

Reminds me of the comic book adventures of
AngelFood McSpade.
I currently have the "R. Crumb Handbook" checked out from the library.
Seems AngelFood escaped INS screwtiny by being dropped into Amurika by a flying saucer. It's unclear where the saucer first beamed her lucious black ass up.

sidereal | July 15, 2005, 9:00pm | #

What's up with 'American-Africans'? I assume it's another case of jackassing around with the language (homicide bombers!) to make a point about how we're all Americans first or something, but semantically it seems to imply that they're less American. American being used a modifier of the identifying noun phrase 'African', as opposed to the usual construction where you're an American intrinsically, and African is a modifier. But then again, it's unlikely he's thought about it that much.

sheesh kabobby | July 15, 2005, 9:08pm | #

I thought maybe he was asking specifically for naturalized American citizens from those places, to be like, even immigrants agree with me, etc, if not that's just really annoying, I mean, normally I think I would shrug it off, but right now it just really annoys me.

Ruthless | July 15, 2005, 9:21pm | #

sheesh kabobby,
Immigrants hate more recent immigrants. It's the lifeboat syndrome.

Warren | July 15, 2005, 9:24pm | #

The percentage of non-whites in the pro immigration law enforcement movement appears to be only about 10%.

10% really? You wouldn't be fudging that a bit would you? Say by about 9%?

Kevin Carson | July 15, 2005, 9:24pm | #

He needs to get James Watt as his diversity cop.

The Wine Commonsewer | July 15, 2005, 9:25pm | #

Surprisingly enough, there are many (insert the politically correct term that means Americans of Latin American descent here) who aren't particulary happy with illegal immigration. They invariably cite the same reasons as everyone else does. Doesn't mean I agree, just an observation. But, the big difference is the perception of racist motivation.

That said, LoneWacko will smell this thread and be here soon.

Saw a great picture on a friend's blog. He won't much like the post on borders (the picture of the bridge is cool) but he'll love this.

There is something screwy with the blog right now. At first the links appear blank. They're not. Click the link, then scroll down a bit.

Ruthless | July 15, 2005, 9:43pm | #

sidereal,
In addition to African-Americans, there are also Hideously-Birth-Marked-Americans.

So, what's your point?

sidereal | July 15, 2005, 10:13pm | #

Is a hideous birthmark a severe physical disability? If not, I don't think Jim's interested.

TWC | July 15, 2005, 10:20pm | #

To clarify my comment: I meant that Lone Wacko won't like the post on borders but he'll love the other link.

Oh shut up old man. Got get some wine 'cause yer just gettin' in deeper.

Stevo Darkly | July 15, 2005, 10:23pm | #

I think sidereal's point was that, instead of saying "African-Americans," Gilchrist said "American-Africans." Gilchrist obviously meant to emphasize that they are "American's first," but grammatically it implies they are the reverse -- Africans of American descent, since we usually put the modifier first.

phocion | July 15, 2005, 10:26pm | #

sidereal,

I don't know if that's a case of jackassery or ignorance. On the other end of the spectrum, I was listening to News and Notes ("the black show") last week on NPR and a panel of guests kept referring to themselves as just "African" even though they were clearly American-bred. Is that just shorthand or more political manipulation of language?

I think it's pretty funny the Minutemen are using affirmative action. Might be fun to go drop this bomb on some conservative blogs.

Varangy | July 15, 2005, 10:33pm | #

I can't imagine why.

I am not sure I can get past the inherent snarkines of this comment. I'd respect you more if you would have just came out and written:

I can't imagine why...you fuckin' racist bastard!

Not cuz this guy is racist. He's not. But cuz that's what you were thinking when you wrote it.

Hakluyt | July 15, 2005, 10:39pm | #

Has anyone looked at the MMP's website? Its nativist clap-trap.

To quote:

Historians will write about how a lax America let its unique and coveted form of government and society sink into a quagmire of mutual acrimony among the various sub-nations that will comprise the new self-destructing America.

http://www.minutemanhq.com/project/AboutMMP.html

thoreau | July 15, 2005, 10:50pm | #

the pro immigration law enforcement movement

OK, I'm dumb, at first I was confused by that label and thought he meant law enforcement officers who are pro-immigration. And I was trying to figure out why there wouldn't be more than 10% minorities in that camp, and I was even more confused that nobody posting in this thread was confused.

Then I actually read it instead of skimming it and got the Minuteman reference. Today's lesson? Learn how to friggin read!


Hakluyt-

Interesting find.

Matt Welch | July 15, 2005, 10:51pm | #

Varangy -- Thanks for the mind-reading job. I actually don't have any opinion on whether Gilchrist is a racist; I don't know him or much about him. I *do* have the opinion that racism, xenophobia, white nationalism, and weirdo paranoia are almost always present in any anti-immigration activist group (including anti-*illegal*-immigration activist group) larger than 100 members. I could of course be wrong about that, and in fact I'm looking forward to hanging out with Gilchrist, the Minutepeople-of-color, and other activists over the summer and fall.

As for snark, if you can't see the humor in an close-the-border-from-the-hordes type putting out a want-ad for some minority cripples, then I really can't help you. It'd be funny if the same appeal came from a leader of the (famously white) Green Party, or any other fringe political party or movement (probably most of them) that weren't overwhelmingly Caucasian.

Akira MacKenzie | July 15, 2005, 11:34pm | #

I want to encourage more non-whites to join our ranks and at the same time resolve once and for all that the pro immigration law enforcement movement is not about "a bunch of brawny white guys"...

So, will this mean that the Klan will start an affirmative action policy now?

joe | July 15, 2005, 11:51pm | #

"the pro immigration law enforcement movement"

There are a couple of Camodian cops in my town. Maybe he meant them.

I mean, Cambodian-Americans. Er, American-Cambodians. That is, Ameribodians.

Cambodiamericans. That's it.

Stevo Darkly | July 16, 2005, 12:33am | #

Americambodians?

Tom Crick | July 16, 2005, 12:36am | #

Meribodian Abicab!

TWC | July 16, 2005, 12:39am | #

Sorry about the bad link. It was working when I checked it in preview.

Here it is, the picture that Lone Wacko will love:

Tom Crick | July 16, 2005, 12:43am | #

Thanks for the updated link TWC. ...But it worked for me the first time.

Oh, and Stevo. ...You owe me eight minuites of my life back for that Emo Philips video. ; )

dead_elvis | July 16, 2005, 3:04am | #

As my Costa Rican-born-now-American-citizen wife were moving to San Diego and driving along the border in Arizona and California on I-8 (and got searched for plants, but not by the border patrol), we had a conversation about the minutemen. She has rather mixed feelings about illegal immigration- while she recongnizes the benefits of immigration, there is a feeling that since she ponied up the thousands of dollars and spent many early mornings getting treated badly jumping through all the hoops at the INS office, why should other people get away with coming illegally. So while she's not about to sign up with them, there is some sympathy for the idea of enforcing the rules that apply to everyone equally.

Matt Welch | July 16, 2005, 4:16am | #

dead elvis -- And my green card-holding wife is much harsher on the line-skipping, no-assimilatin' hordes (and the bureaucracy that mishandles them) than I. Still, she can't help burst out laughing every time Lou Dobbs comes on the tellie.

Jennifer | July 16, 2005, 10:14am | #

Matt Welch--
I remember reading something about this, but when did we stop giving automatic citizenship to spouses of American citizens? Is your wife trying to become a citizen? Does being married to you let her move to the front of the line or anything, or does the INS see no difference between her and an unattached green-card holder who just got off the plane yesterday?

mccleary | July 16, 2005, 10:53am | #

You have to wonder whether Gilchrist would also use "American-Christians" to indicate that Christians should also be Americans first, with a corresponding deference for the Constitution over the Bible?

To show Gilchrist that I'm on-board with his phraseology, I'll happily self-identify as an American-Atheist, and swear with one hand on the Constitution that my worship of no god will not outrank my allegiance to America.

joe | July 16, 2005, 12:43pm | #

So, when you're writing an ad for "crippled ethnic gals," and you're listing your turn ons, you should probably leave out "long walks on the beach," right?

Matt Welch | July 16, 2005, 12:48pm | #

Jennifer -- There's no automatic citizenship for spouses, and I'm not sure that there ever has been (though I don't know). The policy makes sense to me -- shouldn't you make non-babies go *after* the brass ring a bit?

As for ma femme, she hasn't initiated the process yet. Three harrowing years of living at the whims of the dreadful INS were plenty enough, and besides, she wasn't sure she wanted it. That may change, as she gets more and more eager to vote.

As for the "front of the line," however, that is where her anger begins & where I empathize strongly with Jim Gilchrist & the wheelchair American-Latino cripples of his dreams. If you obey the law and do everything right, legal immigration -- just the ability to not live in fear that some overzealous border guard will deport your ass, for sport -- is a *bitch*, especially if you live in an immigrant town like Los Angeles. As I said, it took us three years, cost us $500 in lawyer fees (it's nearly inconceivable without a lawyer; the whole process can go back to square one if you make an error like including the wrong size of photo), and during the process each time she visited home we had to shell out something like $95 for the charmingly named "advanced parole," which you might get in three days, or four months, depending on nothing at all. Each re-entry was a horror-show of nerves, thanks to the anti-terrorism act of 1996.

So, this is more like the *back* of the line, especially when compared to those who just swim across a river, or climb in the back of a truck, and who don't speak the language & aren't at least married into the culture. The good news is that marriage gets lifts you out of the quota system, and so is definitely useful if you aren't a refugess & come from a lousy country. But the upshot is that you can easily develop a deep hostility to the INS (now ICE), and resent the line-jumpers.

That's more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.

Warren | July 16, 2005, 1:11pm | #

"But the upshot is that you can easily develop a deep hostility to the INS (now ICE), and resent the line-jumpers."

I'm totally on board with the hostility, but I can't support the resentment. The fact that the ones who work within the system get screwed and some others who bypass the system don't, is a good reason to despise the system. However, resenting those that succeeded in shortcutting their immigration strikes me as similar to resenting those that inherited their wealth, or win the lottery. They didn't make your life hell by skipping the red tape, and the fact that they made it here and are participating in our culture and economy is a good thing. I agree that it's unfair, but please, keep your ire directed at the proper target.

Akira MacKenzie | July 16, 2005, 1:26pm | #

"I'll happily self-identify as an American-Atheist, and swear with one hand on the Constitution that my worship of no god will not outrank my allegiance to America."

Ahhhh... but atheists can't be American citizens. Bush Sr. said so, and I'm pretty sure that Jim "white-trash-pile-of-shit" Gilchrist would agree.

dead_elvis | July 16, 2005, 1:31pm | #

That's more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.

I think it's important that people know how hard it is, since the general public has the impression that it's so easy. There is a certain Darwinian process to both the legal and illegal type, that maybe anti-immigration people don't realize. We certainly are getting the most highly motivated and persistent people from other countries. Anybody who's lazy and un-resourceful would never make it through either the legal or illegal process.

The marriage=automatic green card or citizenship is a very common misperception that I got asked about a lot. Even the green card was not automatic; you still have to have a probationary period while you prove that you aren't just married for the green card. In the final citizenship meeting, the INS yahoo required her to submit *further* proof of the legitimacy of our marriage (by this point we'd been married 5 years), despite the fact that it wasn't on the list of stuff she was supposed to bring. They get to just make shit up right up until the last minute, and you just have to do it.

Weezle | July 16, 2005, 1:35pm | #

Warren. You are an idiot.
Why do we have laws? I will assume you are a crack smoking child molesting gay leftist, but since you are participating in our cultural economy - it's a good thing.

Matt Welch | July 16, 2005, 1:42pm | #

Warren -- I'm not *supporting* the resentment, I'm just identifying it. I *do*, however, support an irrational & general resentment of inherited wealth. At least until I can inherit me some of it.

phocion | July 16, 2005, 3:37pm | #

Why do we have laws?

That's a question a lot of libertarians have. Especially laws about things like "crack smoking" and being "gay."

Tim Cavanaugh | July 16, 2005, 3:40pm | #

Matt,

You wasted that $500. Any honest immigration lawyer will tell you that immigration lawyers are worth doodlysquat. I've got a brother in law who paid thousands to one of those shysters only to be told that the visa program he'd been applying for over a three-year period had just been eliminated. We did the whole process without a lawyer, and the only drawback was that we had to do the paperwork ourselves—and even if you hire a lawyer you'll still have to do the paperwork, just in the lawyer's presence. DON'T HIRE AN IMMIGRATION LAWYER!

The Green Card is the hump. If she's over that, citizenship is mostly a matter of filing the paperwork. They don't pull any shit with green card holders; you just have to take the test, which a retard could pass. It's a couple years, but you really don't have to do much during those years, so it's better to start it as soon as you can.

She'll have to swear that she renounces foreign princes and potentates, but they don't make her officially give up her French citizenship or anything, so she really should file the citizenship papers as soon as possible. There is no reason to spend one more minute being a greencard holder than you have to.

thoreau | July 16, 2005, 3:44pm | #

One can dislike the system but still understand resentment of line jumpers. There are plenty of processes that people go through in life, and it's always tempting for those who have cleared the hurdles to bitch when the hurdles are removed for others. "Dammit, I had to go through this shit, why shouldn't you?!?!?!"

Hence many physics departments require grad students to take a Classical Mechanics class using Goldstein's book, which does little to prepare one for field theory (unless your prof actually gets to the last chapter, which they never do) and nothing to prepare you for research.

Not that I'm bitter or anything. But, dammit, I had to take that class to get my Ph.D., so should everybody else!!! ;)

(To be serious, I actually think the curriculum should be changed. Maybe that's one of the things that distinguishes a libertarian from everybody else: Nobody likes The System while they're going through it, but after it's over some people learn to love The System while others want to change The System.)

Pilgrim Perry | July 16, 2005, 4:05pm | #

As we all know, the way to curb illegal immigration is not to swat them away like mosquitos, but to dump the stagnant water, which is the Welfare State. The argument used against border patrolling is that "your ancestors immigrated here too". There is a big difference between immigrants pre-FDR and those after. Pre-FDR immigrants came here knowing America was a place they can try to build a new life on their own, free from the oppression and poverty they came from. Post-FDR immigrants are coming here looking for the free health care, welfare, etc. (yes, I know. Not all are doing this) If we end the Welfare State, we will end up with those immigrants who want to come to America to make a difference and be proud of their individual freedom.

Jennifer | July 16, 2005, 4:17pm | #

Matt Welch--

I wouldn't bet the farm on this or anything, but I'm pretty sure that at one time spouses of citizens DID get automatic citizenship. I seem to recall hearing at some point in the past few years that this was being rescinded for various reasons; I also recall reading an article once, as a kid, about detectives whose job it was to weed out the fake citizenship-only marriages from the real ones; they'd put spouses in different rooms and ask them questions like "How many bathrooms are in your house?" or "how do you get from your bedroom to the kitchen?" to determine if they were living together or not.

Of course, it's possible I'm recalling an article about green-card fraud, too. Do spouses of citizens at least get automatic green cards?

dead_elvis | July 16, 2005, 4:37pm | #

We did the whole process without a lawyer, and the only drawback was that we had to do the paperwork ourselves—and even if you hire a lawyer you'll still have to do the paperwork, just in the lawyer's presence. DON'T HIRE AN IMMIGRATION LAWYER!

We did the green card application ourselves, but it was somewhat nerve racking wondering if we filled it out correctly. There is a certain amount of comfort in having somebody who should know what they're doing checking your paperwork. Screw up one little thing and the process drags out and you have to spend more money.

My wife says she recommends a lawyer for an H1-B, but not for a green card, *if* your spouse is American. Just our 2 cents.

joe | July 16, 2005, 4:44pm | #

Pilgrim Perry,

The problem with that theory is that the vast majority of immigrants don't go on welfare, but instead work like dogs to build a decent life for themselves. Immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to go on welfare.

Rhywun | July 16, 2005, 4:54pm | #

As we all know, the way to curb illegal immigration is not to swat them away like mosquitos, but to dump the stagnant water, which is the Welfare State.

Hogwash - as others have also implied. If you really don't like immigants, you might as well do your best to drag down the American economy - because they are here to WORK.

thoreau | July 16, 2005, 5:03pm | #

To throw another unexpected element into the mix here, consider the effect of immigration on Social Security: Whatever one thinks about the morality, solvency, efficacy, etc. of Social Security, there's no denying that the system works best when the ratio of workers to retirees is as large as possible. (Some will no doubt insist that the ratio is approaching a value that will bankrupt the system, and joe will no doubt insist that they are wrong, but hopefully everybody could agree that the system is easier to maintain when there are more workers per retiree.)

Anyway, if immigration makes the Social Security system easier to maintain in its current form then, well, it's more likely to remain in its current form. Yes, I know, the issue of solvency is separate from the moral arguments against it, yadda yadda. My only point is that when something is easier to keep its less likely to be changed.

Of course, immigrants only pay into SS if they work in the regular market instead of under the table.

Anyway, just an interesting observation. Everybody knows my stance on immigration (in a nutshell, guaranteed work visas for anybody who goes to a legal border crossing and passes a background check against rosters of terrorists and other criminals), and I won't change that stance based on Social Security, but something to chew on when pondering the consequences of more liberal immigration laws.

Also, it throws a monkey wrench into the notion that immigrants are lured by the welfare state: It might be that at least one component of the welfare state actually requires immigration. Or at least benefits from immigration.

Matt Welch | July 16, 2005, 5:14pm | #

Tim -- We had friends who went through the process just before we did, and would arbitrarily lose a year by making some arcane mistake. Granted, my friends are almost as dumb as me. As for doing the citizenship thing, it's just a matter of when the desire swells up enough. (Same thing with me getting on that EU gravy train.)

Jennifer -- Nothing automatic about green cards for spouses; you still have to grind through the process. But as far as I know, you automatically *qualify*, pending various investigations & hoop-jumpings. On the other hand, it's easy as pie to get a Social Security number; they can't *wait* for you to pay into the system.

Pilgrim -- Welfare reform *did* roll back some or much of welfare available to immigrants. I'm out of my depth talking about it, but I think the main welfarish things immigrants can get are emergency health care, some free-clinic stuff, education for their kids, automatic citizenship for any kids born here, and (if I'm not mistaken) worker's comp in some states.... Granted, these ain't nothing. But you can't just show up and get on the dole anymore.

Pilgrim Perry | July 16, 2005, 5:24pm | #

I just remember the story recently of the mexican woman who was nine months pregnant and trying to cross the border "in time". She tried 6 times in five weeks.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/78400.php

We should foot the bill for this???

The Wine Commonsewer | July 16, 2005, 5:30pm | #

I really despise the INS, just because they are what they are. It pisses me off that I have to sit through traffic that backs up behind the checkpoints on both major freeways in So Cal (with no probable cause I might add) while these bastards take a hard look in the car as they wave you through. Not talking about crossing the border these checkpoints are 50 miles from the border.

It is particularly galling to latino-looking guys in business suits standing in the median next to their MBZ while some little shit in a puke green border patrol sedan gives them the third degree.

On another note, of course Pilgrim Perry is right. There are all sorts of illegals that make sure the baby is born on American soil because it is then an American. And let's not forget that welfare isn't for the parents it's for the minor child.

While it's true that the majority of illegals are here to work and are here without their families, and, as Joe said, it is also true that latinos, whether legal or illegal, avail themselves of the system at rates lower than anglos or blacks, that doesn't change the reality that there are huge costs associated with social welfare for illegals.

As I say to my friends who want to abolish welfare for anyone here illegally:

Great, and let's abolish it for everyone else too.

The Wine Commonsewer | July 16, 2005, 5:34pm | #

Good friend of mine has a habit of importing women from Thailand, who then get sick of his crap and divorce him. But I digress. In one of his earlier tries the INS demanded that he produce documents proving lots of things, including that he owned a home. The kicker was that these all had to be original documents, no copies, no certified copies, none of that. Then they permanently lost them all, including the deed to his house.

The Wine Commonsewer | July 16, 2005, 6:08pm | #

Matt's right, according to Reason's own Lisa Snell, getting on welfare is no longer a slam dunk. But it's still an issue, just less of one.

At once time Ca enacted a law that required residency before welfare benefits could be had. It was struck down as unconstitutional.

Ruthless | July 16, 2005, 8:44pm | #

Jennifer,
Have you ever renounced a foreign prince or potentate? Did he stay renounced?

thoreau,
I'm thinking, even if there were no line-jumping, there would still be the lifeboat syndrome amongst immigrants. The little buggers aren't Reasonoids after all.

Rhywun,
Hogwash might be the very stagnant water that is the Welfare State. But you probably knew that.

The Lonewacko Blog | July 16, 2005, 10:23pm | #

What a fun link!

Now, for the serious link for grownups, see Mexico ties border security to massive illegal alien amnesty. I'll bet you didn't know that the U.S. was threatened by Mexico's former foreign secretary.

If you aren't a hardcore libertarian and you're a serious grownup who cares about things like U.S. sovereignty, I'd suggest finding a new ideology.

thoreau | July 16, 2005, 11:03pm | #

and you're a serious grownup who cares about things like U.S. sovereignty

Lonewacko-

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I propose giving a work visa to anybody who goes to a designated border crossing, pays a small processing fee, and waits for a background check against criminal and terrorist databases.

How would the admission of peaceful and hard-working people undermine our sovereignty?

dead_elvis | July 17, 2005, 2:27am | #

Hey, that blog has the carpet-humping man too!

All that "threatening" stuff is just diplo-babble. Heaven forbid that one country try to negotiate something they want with another country.

They want maximum dollars from our country. We want help with the "war" on terrorism. Let the negotiations begin. It isn't like we haven't already given free passes to countries that do things we don't like because they help us with the "war" on terrorism.

Jennifer | July 17, 2005, 8:15am | #

Ruthless-

I make it a point to renounce at least three foreign princes or potentates each morning before breakfast.

mediageek | July 17, 2005, 1:05pm | #

How would the admission of peaceful and hard-working people undermine our sovereignty?

For any sane human with actual job skills and work ethic? Nothing.

But go say that at an AFL-CIO get together and just try to get out of the room alive.

Tom Crick | July 17, 2005, 1:09pm | #

"If you aren't a hardcore libertarian and you're a serious grownup who cares about things like U.S. sovereignty, I'd suggest finding a new ideology."

Although I've asked you about this before--it's Ken S. here--it was in a roundabout way...

...What exactly is your ideology?

doleman | July 17, 2005, 2:02pm | #

Pilgrim Perry--I think you are inflating the tendency of immigrants--legal or illegal--to milk our welfare system. In ten years, off and on, working with scores of illegals and legals--roofing, painting, restaurant work--I never met one who did anything but work like a dog and pay into said welfare system through whatever social security number they'd manage to come up with. It is, as Joe says, natives who are far more likely to game the system. And even that tendency, once again, is not nearly as prevelant as is claimed, not relative to the way it's done at the corporate level anyway.

Pilgrim Perry | July 17, 2005, 2:15pm | #

I have no problem with open borders. I just think that eliminating the Welfare State within this country would end any question as to why people keep coming here. To have thousands of people coming here every day says as much about the benefits of America as it does about the corrupt governments of Mexico and other countries.

doleman | July 17, 2005, 2:50pm | #

Fair enough. But I think you are stretching things by trying to link immigration up with your argument for abolishing the welfare state. I doubt it would end this question at all. One quick comparison you could do is to see if the more generous welfare states of Europe have reduced the number of immigrants who choose to come here. I don't have stats on that, but I strongly doubt it. People still come here in droves. To put it crudely, maybe that means that we get better stock--those who are more ambitious and hardworking instead of obvious welfare candidates. Far from ending any question as to why people come here, I think that taking welfare out of the equation would only eliminate a tiny variable among many. I think the argument for or against various forms of the welfare state--which is always vaster and includes far more appropriate targets than the proverbial pregnant immigrant you trot out as an example--would be better left for another thread.

Pilgrim Perry | July 17, 2005, 3:37pm | #

I think there can be anoher debate on the lack of "ambition" by europeans due to the excessive government benefits they get. (i.e. 6 weeks vacation, collecting a pension while they still work). Unfortunately for them, they are choosing not to have children (providers of the future) yet expect to keep receiving the same luxurious benefits from the government.

daddy's li'l false claim felon | July 17, 2005, 3:56pm | #

Let's get something straight about "work". The absolutely most dishonest, thieving, cowardly pieces of shit are those that steal from and sabotage the hard work of others. Like slip and fall artists. Meritless, lazy, cowardly pieces of garbage.

joe | July 18, 2005, 9:41am | #

mediageek,

"But go say that at an AFL-CIO get together and just try to get out of the room alive."

Your perceptions are way out of date. The AFL-CIO and most other industrial, service, and public service unions are now solidly pro-immigration, having realized that they are never going to stop immigration, and that organizing immigrant employees is the best way to keep their numbers up.

Amy Phillips | July 18, 2005, 10:24am | #

Matt,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems sort of wacky for someone who is eligible for a green card to be resentful of people who are not eligible for a green card and thus risk their lives to come and live here illegally. Even if the process of getting a green card is impossibly long and arduous, no one else, especially people unlucky enough not to have an American spouse, is allowed to bypass that process, so while she may have to stand in line for eons, your wife is still at the front of the line.

Furthermore, the illegal immigrants aren't even waiting in the same line your wife is. Although I'm sure she had to spend more time filling out forms at the airport than she might have liked, she was then legally allowed to work, find housing, establish credit, apply for a driver's license, go to the hospital if she got sick, and do any one of the dozens of things that require proof of legal residence in the U.S. An immigrant who can't or won't wait his turn for a visa in his own country and hikes across a desert or hides in a shipping container for a month to get here has none of those advantages upon arrival. All he has is that fear that some overzealous law enforcement agent will find him and send him back. So yeah, it's a bitch to have to spend a ton of money and hassle and worry on getting your documents in order, but people who are attempting to live here without getting their documents in order are certainly not in an enviable position vis-a-vis those who are eligible for green cards.

I agree though, there has to be a better way.

Isaac Bartram | July 18, 2005, 10:47am | #

Jennifer

When I tried to bring my Canadian wife into the country nearly forty years ago it was a long involved process. To the best of my knowledge it has been so since the introduction of restrictive immigration laws early in the 20th century.

Many people have many misconceptions about US Citizenship and Immigation laws. Most of these are no doubt propagated by entertainment.

The only class of "automatic" citizen are those born in the US. Hell, even the foreign-born children of some US citizens are not citizens.

John | July 18, 2005, 11:26am | #

"waits for a background check against criminal and terrorist databases."

For $20 and a case of Corona, Mexican cops will say that I am the Virgin of Guadalupe.

I wonder if the Mexican immigration officials that rob, rape and murder Central Americans are looking for Guatemalans & Hondurans to join their ranks to provide diversity?

Jennifer | July 18, 2005, 12:09pm | #

Isaac-
I'm not doubting you, but how the HELL can the child of a citizen be a non-citizen? I thought that the only thing foreign-born kids of citizens couldn't do is run for president.

On a side note, my friends have adopted an orphan child from Guatemala--they got her when she was 11 months old, and she's now two. I occasionally nag her adopted father to try and get her citizenship now; I'm seriously afraid that if she goes through a wild phase in her teens, she might get deported from the only country she's ever known for smoking a joint or drinking underage, or something equaly harmless.

joe | July 18, 2005, 12:20pm | #

Wacko,

Since it is impossible to secure the border from organized, highly-paid coyote gangs so long as your preferred immigration restriction are in place, I really don't see the harm of the Mexican President's position.

Drug War:Drug Cartels::Anti-immigration policies:Coyote Gangs

Isaac Bartram | July 18, 2005, 12:50pm | #

I'm not doubting you, but how the HELL can the child of a citizen be a non-citizen? I thought that the only thing foreign-born kids of citizens couldn't do is run for president.

Your second sentence is incorrect. The foreign-born children of US citizens who qualify for citizenship are eligible to run for President. eg George Romney who was born in a Mormon colony in Mexico was considered a viable candidate for Prez in the '60s.

The children of a US citizen who marries a non-citizen are not citizens of the US if the US citizen did not reside in the US for 5 consecutive years after his/her 14th birthday. As I said citizenship law is complicated and sometimes irrational. I know not why this rule exists; it dates fom about 1940. Before that any child of an american citizen was automatically a citizen. Oh except that a few years before that it was only the children of male american citizens.

The children of those single-citizen do have a "fasttrack" to citizenship if they do so before the age of 18. I think it applies to adopted chidren also.