Illegal U.S. immigrants outnumber legals

The Washington Times (UPI Breaking News) ^ | June 14, 2005 | United Press International

[Convert from ECUSA]

Washington, DC, Jun. 14 (UPI) -- The number of illegal migrants arriving in the United States has exceeded the number of new legal immigrants, a Pew Hispanic Center report finds. In recent years some 700,000 unauthorized migrants have arrived annually, compared with about 610,000 legal immigrants. "Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics" was prepared by Jeffrey Passel, a veteran demographer and senior research associate at the center. The report estimates the number of people living in families in which the head of the household or the spouse is an illegal alien at 13.9 million as of March 2004, including 4.7 million children. The report also said at least 6.3 million unauthorized workers were employed as of March 2004, comprising 4.3 percent of the civilian labor force. Overall, illegal migrants are less educated than other sectors of the population, with 49 percent not having completed high school, compared with 9 percent of the native-born and 25 percent of legal immigrants.

[backtothestreets]

Here's what really riles me with the proposals for a border fence, and/or maintaining a large contingent of border patrol personnel. It's punishing our citizens for the actions of others.

If I owned on a parcel of land, built a house upon it, where my family and I lived in peace, and neighboring members of another family began trespassing upon it, and occasionally assaulted my family members, action is required. I'm not going to move my family. I'm not going to take money from my family to erect a fence either. I'm going straight to the neighbors confronting them, and making them want to curb their behaviors.

That's exactly how I see the border protection proposals being touted. They punish our citizens with more taxes to build and maintain these proposed walls and/or border patrols. I'd just as well issue an ultimatum to Mexico that if another our her citizens trespasses upon our property, we're going in with the military to take their government out. Force them to deal with the issue, not our citizens. I'm very concerned a lot of people calling themselves conservative see no problem with us having to spend taxpayer dollars to slow the behavior of our neighbor, but never stop it. It's a limp wrist approach when we need hard nose action.

Very high on my agenda would be to capture and prosecute all the fugitives that have committed crimes here then slipped back across the border.

Under our control, the regions that are now Mexico wouldn't be a welfare state, unless that's what we allowed. It would be our call, not theirs. Mexico has vast resources, such as oil, silver, coal and farm land. Mexico has all the resources to have been a great nation. That Mexico has never came close to reaching that level, while the lands we took from Mexico have flourished is proof of what can be accomplished under our Constitution.

Allow our prevailing wages, and taxes to apply to those regions, but strictly limit Social Security benefits initially. They can be eased in, if the system even survives, over a period of 20 to 40 years. We have an example to follow. My parents, aunts and uncles were all part of the generation termed "Notch Kids". They paid fully into Social Security, but were not allowed full benefits.

Next, once our Constitution is the prevailing law of the land, there would be such an economic boom of expansion in those areas that it would hit historic proportions. That would bring a migration south. The people of Mexico are very industrious when given the opportunity.

Make these regions territories and allow statehood after strict requirements are met.

[backtothestreets]

I like your profile page too. One thing from your profile page, "neither reside nor work here lawfully", this may surprise you, but it is not against the law to rent housing to illegal immigrants. If it were against the law, and under penalty of property forfeiture, it would reverse and end the problem. These people couldn't survive among us without housing. Sure people could offer them jobs under the table, but without someplace to live, that money would be worthless.

[La Enchiladita]

What I mean is that their presence here is unlawful, regardless of whether they rent, share or buy housing.

Sadly, it does not surprise me at all that there are no penalties for renting to foreign trespassers. That is one little freedom of property rights that owners have. I know this because, starting in the early 1980s, I watched the area I grew up in transform from a quiet, clean, safe and sedate neighborhood into a raucous, filthy, crowded latin american ghetto. My mother remained, refusing to move because she was near her church. But they even threw rocks and broke the beautiful stained glass windows of the chapel.

Owners have the right to restrict the number of tenants per apartment, but apparently that is optional. Even restricting the number of tenants per unit would help. We never could figure out why that overcrowding was allowed. Aren't property owners supposed to care about property values?

[backtothestreets]

I thought that was what you meant where residency is concerned. I just thought I'd expand a bit beyond that.

You are right about property owners having a responsibility where property values are concerned. A few years back, in Albany, or some other community adjacent to Berkeley there was a case that won my favor. A property owner had started renting housing to people involved in illegal activities. I believe they were drug dealers. Anyway, the presence of those renters brought crime and blight upon the neighborhood. The owner of the rental property snubbed the other property owners when they tried to discuss the situation. Rather then flee their neighborhood, the other owners banded together, sued, and won a major judgment against the property owner. As I recall, the neighbors won ownership of the property, evicted the renters and restored their neighborhood.

That leads to another related subject. Victims of crimes by renter residents within their neighborhood should investigate the possibility of suing the property owner if there is sufficient proof the renter had a record of criminal behavior before they moved in. The owner of the rental has a responsibility to people in the community. This is already the case were property owners rent to known sexual predators. The owners are risking their property when they rent to them.

You are also right about the number of families allowed in single family dwellings. Most communities have housing codes that can be enforced, but they require citizens to make the proper authorities aware of the situation. Too many people are downright afraid to get involved.

I may sound a little hard-nosed on these matters, and I see it as neither conservative or liberal because of the soft and moderate solutions those two camps offer, but I think being very firm is the only way to solve many of our ills.

[Charles Martel]

"Illegal migrants' a new term. I would like to know who came up with it not just the author of the base article

I'm surprised it still has the "illegal" tacked on; it's becoming more common to see far more euphemistic B.S.-speak than this example. One that I've noticed recently: "Entrants". Makes it sound like the media is talking about a damned beauty contest.

[johnb838]

Well, we could start by appropriating Iraqi oil to pay for our expenses there, and using appropriate force to bring the damn "insurgency" for lack of a more accurate term to an end.

This "Mr. Nice Guy" thing has GOT to stop, it just does.

[backtothestreets]

I agree with you. The nice guy approach is a spineless approach. I hope no one misunderstands me. I think most of the Mexican population are a very good people, and very industrious. I want to forever crush what has kept them from finding happiness within their own country. There's no room for negotiation with the Mexican government. An ultimatum is warranted.

Since you mentioned Iraq, I see a similar situation there. We need to tell the neighbors of Iraq to control their borders and keep anyone from entering across their border. If they continue to pour over the border, we need to expand our military operation into whatever country is allowing the insurgents into Iraq. There's nothing to negotiate.

[johnb838]

We jusat need to do the things that need to be done. Trying to do things halfway and appease the opposition is more hurtful. Real men used to understand that you pull the tooth fast and get the pain over and it hurts less than prying it out slowly. That ethos has been lost and we pussy-foot around and more and more people get hurt unnecessarily to appease the deathrats.

I have compassion for the people that die in the desert too. If they weren't encouraged to come, they wouldn't meet a horrible end in the desert. You don't see the ACLU out there giving THEM aid and comfort. No, the only ones that ever help them is people like the minutemen who are out there to stop them, but end up helping and saving them too.

Frickin' lib-leninists make me so mad, some times I'd like to walk up to one and say "you can't understand this" and slap him and walk away, to paraphrase the NY councilman who wanted to do that to a random white person.

[hosepipe]

Wonder how many Legals are not Legal.?..

[backtothestreets]

"slap him and walk away..."

That's a fairly mild way of describing how I feel towards our citizens that are touting border fence building or increased patrols.  It would be comparable to me having neighbor kids coming onto my property, stealing from my family and hurting me children.  Am I supposed to tell my family, "Hey listen, I'm going to take some of the money we've set aside for your upbringing and college and build a fence to possibly limit some of the activities of the neighbor kids."?  HELL NO!  I'm taking this up with the neighbor, and will make it perfectly clear how I will retaliate if anything else happens, and if they want to stay safe, they need to control their kids, and build a fence if necessary to contain them.  I've been down this road in real life, and the neighbors always view me with a cautious eye after, and suddenly think they may need the police to protect them, but there was never another problem of any sort.

If we have to spend any more tax dollars because of the border problems, let it be on the military with the sole purpose of destroying their government, ending their corruption, and finally allowing their people to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that comes with our Constitution.  The vast majority of Mexican people would relish an opportunity to head back home,  reunite with their families and enjoy the way of life they come here seeking.

There may be a few elected office holders that would be willing to take such a bold step, but for the most part I see the Democrats like a whimpering dog afraid of its own shadow, and the Republicans like a guard dog that's got all bark and no bite.  Me, I'm like the junkyard dog ready to fight for all that is mine, and all that is mine to protect.  The two major parties, and all the smaller ones need to understand there's nothing to negotiate.

I'm banging my drum alone now, but hope others will bang their drums too when they realize taking the remainder of Mexico is the solution to the problem.  Mexico can come peacefully by dissolving their government and becoming US Territories so we can send in as many US Marshals as needed to establish law and order, or we exercise the military option and forcibly take it before sending in the Marshals.

Two other things are really bothering me.  Back to the wall, what happened to the citizens that grew up hating the Berlin Wall?  A border wall will not only serve to keep Mexicans out, but could easily be used to keep Americans in.  Stalin would be rolling in his grave with laughter hearing this proposal.  The other piss poor idea is requiring a national ID.  That's only going to apply to people within the law.  Does anyone really think criminals outside the law would do this simply because it's the law?  This suggestion is meant to control law abiding citizens further. To prove my point, who bothers registering guns right now, is it the law abiding citizen, the criminals, or both? It's only the law abiding citizen.

[Types_with_Fist]

Either you want them in Iraq, or you want them to protect our Mexican border.

Okay, I'll bite. What the hell good are the troops even doing in Iraq if our borders are wide open for every Tom, Dick and Terrorist to pass across? We should have sealed them the day after 911 and assured they were completely secure before venturing out to guard Iraq's borders.

[SandyB]

Either you want them in Iraq, or you want them to protect our Mexican border.

Okay, I'll bite. What the hell good are the troops even doing in Iraq if our borders are wide open for every Tom, Dick and Terrorist to pass across? We should have sealed them the day after 911 and assured they were completely secure before venturing out to guard Iraq's borders.

YOu got me there partner. I cant answer that. I would have thought to have our army secure our own borders first, before we send them away, but then, I didnt study military strategy at West Point.

Isnt bush's Iraq policy of sending our army away without protecting our border first, out of some "B" western where the apaches get the soldiers in the fort to all leave on a wild goose chase so they can then attack the fort which is no longer defended?