Essay talk:On Illegal Immigrants

As a Brit, I have no vested interest in US Immigration. One point that always strikes me regarding the paying of taxes etc by illegal imnmigrants is that someone is paying them, if that someone is not an American Citizen, then go one step further up the chain,. At some point you will find an anti-immigrant funding immigrants, whether by paying cash in hand for gardening work or buying cheap goods from markets. Without this funding illegal immigration wouldn't be worth the aggravation. 13:02, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * (BTW, wasn't the USA built on illegal i.e. not government backed, immigration?) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That is a vaild point, the first people to the United States (save for the Natives) were Illegal Immigrants. But must I remind you that the Natives didn't fight back to the extent they could have, and look at where they are now, the poorest, least educated minority in the United States, barely scratching a living while their lands are raped by Casinos. Must I compare it to the current Regimes placitity to Illegal Immigrants? Javascap 13:08, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that american citizens should take actions more strident than ripping the scalps off people while they're still alive in order to discourage illegal immigration? And the casinos on reservations are generally owned by the natives or put a portion of their profit into educational funds etc for their children... more prostitution than rape.

Also, if anyone came into my house, did my laundry, vacuumed, tidied my room etc, hell yes I'd feed them. I'd offer them the couch to sleep on... or the bed, if they were hot... :D Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 13:12, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm, but would you be fine with them insisting on you caring for them if they got injured, giving them food out of your own kitchen, providing care for them, speaking THEIR language, and if you refused to do ANY of the above, you are automaticall a bigoted racist? Javascap 14:59, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Aren't these people merely keeping up the American Tradition by moving in and improving their lot. If the US had the population density of much of Europe then I could sympathise, but you've so much room over there that the population of England could move in and be lost within hours. 13:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That was actually tried once, in 1983. 13:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


 * One of your antecedents was an immigrant? Unless you are living on a native American reservation then I would suggest that pretty much all of your family were descended from immigrants. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis   14:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm an immigrant :)  ħ uman  01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Cheap shot
Immigrants, legal or otherwise, probably take care to spell correctly, or at least preview their essays before submitting them. 14:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

I am still in the process of getting down Proper (British) spelling. The ou before R is jsut the way it is done in British spelling, and I am still getting down the other sublimities. Javascap 15:00, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * um, "diffirance" is spelled "difference" in all versions of English - Britlish, Americlish, Australish, Canehdialish, Kiwish, etc....  ħ uman  01:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * OK, you fixed that. I'll leave you on your own to fix the rest of the glaring spelling errors.  I think they actually improve the "tone" of your essay, though.  ħ uman  15:27, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Ramos & Compean
See the Department of Justice's refutation of the myths surrounding their prosecution. Of course Worldnet Daily will always have a different take on it, that's why it is so often used as a source at CP. Genghis   14:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * DOJ's refutation here 15:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

legal vs. "illegal"
You sayest: "The diffirance between my Great Grandfather and that alien down the street is simple and easy to point out."

When your great grandfather came to the USA, there was no distinction. US immigration laws and quotas are a racist artifact of the 20th century, IIRC.  ħ uman  01:01, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Not the 19th? That's when the US imported a lot of Chinese to build railroads and stock brothels. --Gulik 00:47, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Slightly irrelevant side question
Where did those boxes at the bottom come from? Not template:essay, they aren't in the code for the essay itself... what's the deal, oh fellow rationalwikigentlemenz and rationalwikiladiepersonz and rationalwikiotherz?  ħ uman  01:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Apparently, they're from Category:Essays. Don't know why they show up here, doesn't seem to be happening with other Essays. -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 06:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * On a second look, it's probably because the category was added as a template rather than a normal category. -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 06:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Interesting. Ah, I see now.  Whether it was intentional or not, the text over at the category has been transcluded.  It actually seems like an interesting thing to do, doesn't it? (except the link to "all essays" isn't a link)  ħ uman  14:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Mission Template
Technically, I don't think we can put a Mission template on an essay. Now a DELETE template; that's an altogether different matter. 13:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I put it on because it explores crank ideas without refuting them Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 13:54, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * We actually made a new template recently for essays we aren't deleting but find somewhat embarrassing to host. Now, what in the dickens was it called?  ħ uman  14:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Found it! 14:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Can't we just comment the whole thing out? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 14:50, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Templating at all
Technically, this is not a "drive by" - it's author is here, struggling to defend his POV expressed in his essay - something we actually enjoin and invite people to do on our main page - he is trying to edit and improve it, also. Now, many of us may disagree with parts of what he has written, but that has been the case with many essays here, which did not result in their deletion, templation (!), or the banning of the editor in question. The author also, in my opinion, is not a "drive by" artiste, having contributed elsewhere on the wiki in a perfectly useful manner.

Based on these reasons, I propose that the "drive-by" template be removed. Please try to avoid HCM while discussing :)  ħ uman  17:11, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It is totally off mission and anathema to many here: He's not trying to defend his POV - he's baiting us (IMHO). DELETE! 17:16, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Doesn't every essay on this wiki defend its point of view? I for one object somewhat to the "Why Religion is Bullshit" but I am not clamouring for its deletion, in fact, I took the time to read it. Even though I believe there is a God, it is everyones right to believe there is no God. By the same logic, I believe Illegal Immigrants are criminals and should be deported, and it is just as much your right to believe whatever it is you believe about this topic. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to my death your right to say it." Can that not apply with this essay? Javascap 08:13, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, uh, you can say it, just don't say it here. This is, after all, Rationalwiki. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 08:18, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Thank you, Wazza. By the way, I stole some of your templates, they were too nice to resist. Javascap 08:49, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I created a new template for situations like this. Suitable? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:04, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Deletion and restoration
Since this was all deleted without any real discussion, I have restored it. The "drive-by" template covers the "we really don't like this" issue, I think? We can also refute it here in talk or in another essay/article quite easily. Argument by deletion is a weak response, IMHO. However, if the mob (not just one or two people) thinks I'm wrong, feel free to chime in.  ħ uman  15:25, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Taxes
"Illegal Immigrants, unlike U.S. citizens, do not pay taxes because they are unregistered, and therefore, recieve, without even having to pay for it, free Social Security."

This is completely wrong. Any wages paid "legally" (via payroll check, etc.) have to have 15% deposited with Uncle Sam as the "employee"'s and employers matching FICA deduction. If they used a fake SSN, the govt keeps it. Illegal immigrants can't get real SSNs or accounts, and so can never get paid Social Security.

"You read that right, Illegal Aliens, for the most part, do not pay taxes. You might wonder, how does this happen? The method is relatively simple, be paid “off the books”. The criminals congregate at a “Day Labourer Hiring Point”, have some scrub pick them up and take them to do a job, and get paid in cash."

In the example of paying cash, the employer is equally breaking the law, except for very small one-time jobs.  ħ uman  15:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yup! see my comment right @ the top. 15:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Gotcha, yup. You said it better, though.  Since at least the early 80's an employer in the US has been required to verify ID of a new employee, so either the "illegal" has a fake, or the employer (and the regulators) turn a blind eye.  ħ uman  15:52, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I've told it to eff off to M******a anyhow. - With a bit of luck we'll not see the racist back. (I still think we should delete it!} 15:57, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Can we calm down with the personal attacks please? I understand completly if you are angry, Susan, but please, calm down. As for deleting this essay, why? Is it illegal for me to have a different opinion about a certain topic than what you have? If I wrote this essay as nothing but an attack against every immigrant, saying that anyone who come to this country came for nothing but the get rich quickly, THAT would merit deletion, but that is not what this article is about. Javascap 16:57, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Illegals don't get all the stuff we pay taxes _for_--no unemployment insurance, no Social Security, and if they call a policeman, it's likely to get THEM put in jail. But they do pay sales tax. That ought to count for something. --Gulik 00:52, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Re: My essay
Looking over the comments and feedback on the Talk Page, it seems that this is almost regarded as Humour (Yes, but it's a wank?). I was wondering if you would be kind enough to point out what is wrong with the essay, so I can see if I am able to fix it. Javascap 15:28, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The only way to fix it would be to delete it, but first look at: Essay:On_Illegal_Immigrants/Ramos_and_Compean. 15:32, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Uh, Susan? Try not to eat the newbies :)
 * No offence, Java. 15:35, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey, don't worry, we are all n00bs at one point or another, and I am not easily offended. And to SusanG, you are saying, in essence, that the only section that needs a patch job is the "Ramos and Compean" section? If that is the only "Incorrect" section, than I highly doubt the entire article is a "Drive By". Javascap 15:41, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * ADD ON TO ABOVE: I did skim over a bit of the Ramos and Compean section, and I got to the part about the Fourth Ammendment. It says, in essence, Search and Seizure only with a Warrant (Bush should really read that...) and it protects the PEOPLE. From the top of the Constitution, We the People seems to apply to U.S. Citizens, leaving me confused as to how that Ammendment defends Illegal Immigrants... Javascap 15:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Some of us (apparently) are newbs at LIFE. I'm not going to continue a discussion with a racist who would be better off at metapedia . 15:45, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That does seem a bit unfair... where did racism come into this argument? To me, it doesn't matter what country the Immigrant comes from, Legal is Legal, Illegal is Illegal, not just Mexicans. Javascap 15:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The essay does seem to pretty much focus on immigration from Mexico.  ħ uman  15:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * To the best of my knowledge, most illegal immigration these days is from Mexico, so that's what showed in the essay. If I wrote this essay back in the 20's, I probabally would have focused on Italian illegal immigration, or if I decided to write it back in the 1862, I probabally would have written about African-Americans fleeing North from the Civil War. I simply wrote my opinion on a controversial topic. My question still remains up and standing, aside from the section on Ramos and Compean, and now the question of why you bought racism in, remains unanswered. Javascap 16:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Shut the fuck up, and go learn some more about how the world turns. Come back in ten years when you've grown up. Your opinion is bigoted at least and racist in the "not like us" sense. Without those illegal prior migrants the US wouldn't be half the country it is today (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). America is built TOTALLY on immigration and illegal seizure of land from the indigenous population, as are most countries if you go back far enough. - I give up. 16:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Please, if you're going to tell an American how his own country was founded and became great, do us a favor and read up on American history. Your bold statements there are TOTALLY incorrect. See below. 23:17, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Blacks fleeing to the North in the Civil War was illegal? Really, now?  ħ uman  16:11, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, to Human, no, blacks fleeing to the North was not "Illegal", and looking back on history, blacks did not (For the most case) come here illegally, they were kidnapped and forced to come here (the slavery era and the rise of Cotton as a cash crop fueled this.) When the Civil War started (I am not entirely sure how to state this), Blacks did use the chaos to flee north, a practice frowned upon (Technically, at that time, the Confederacy and the Union were two seperate states, even though the Confederacy was never offically recognised by any Country Government. Being two seperate nations, by technacialities, it was Illegal. I am placing my views as back in various time periods using it as an example. Javascap 16:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * To SusanG, please, calm down, just calm down. If I am a racist, please explain to me why I took Italian for 4 years in High School, and why I perfer the Spanish deli down the street over the "American" one right next to my home. Personally, I believe that Diversity is not a crime, but illegal immigration is. Javascap 16:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

(undent) "Being two seperate nations, by technacialities, it was Illegal", no, only if specifically outlawed. Can you please address your feelings about the Irish immigrants and their status? (You also might want to study up on the history of US immigration law, and the economic effects of NAFTA in Mexico, too)  ħ uman  16:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I will admit, off the bat, that I am not as versed in the effects of Italian Illegal Immigration. I do know that the main method of gaining entry to the United States consisted of either coming in to visit a relative, and staying afterwards, or paying someone to smuggles you into the U.S. (Both of which, to my knowledge, are practiced by Illegal Immigrants today). If my knowledge holds true about the Roaring 20's, Crime Rates did see an increase, mostly due to the effects of the 19th Ammendment (subsequently ended by the 21st). From the somewhat limited reading I have had, unlike the Illegals of today demanding recognition of their rights, the Illegal Italians focused on hiding from Immigration Officals. As for the NAFTA, I reccomend that, while I verse myself on that subject, that you touch base on the NAU, the plan to make Canada, Mexico, and the United States, essentially, into the European Union of the West. Now... you introduced me to something I did not know much about, so excuse me while I read up on some new information... Javascap 16:41, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Moved here to de-polute my talk page. 16:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Get Large Brush, Dip in Tar, Apply Liberally
The problem with this essay is that, yes, there are, undoubtedly, illegal immigrants who fit the description that the essay states. For those, I wholeheartedly agree - they should be plonked right back where they came from ASAP. However, there are plenty of illegal immigrants, quite possibly the majority of illegal immigrants, who move to the US because there are better job opportunities in the US, and the only reason they cannot do so legally is because they cannot afford it. (This is discounting people who, for example, are fooled into buying their way into the US, illegally, and are then sold as sex slaves, etc.) This essay says, 'so what?'  Well, so do I, but with a different emphasis. Why should it be the case that people are barred from working because, essentially, they cannot afford to legally work in a particular place? Surely it would be best for both employer and employee to have the best person for that job, regardless of nationality? If you argue it on moral grounds, well, as far as I can see, there is no moral argument against it. If you argue it on 'market forces' grounds, well, you cannot then complain if an illegal immigrant 'steals' your job because your employer can get away with paying him less. That is also 'market forces'. As for the various rants about exploiting the loopholes in the hospital systems, Social Security, taxes, etc, even if I were to ignore the total absence of evidence, and accept it is possible for illegal immigrants to do all these things, purely on this essay's say-so, well, apart from agreeing that those who do exploit these systems in this way are wrong to do so, I have to again point out that this essay tars every illegal immigrant with the same brush. Just because one person does it, does not mean all do. Zmidponk 16:14, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

By technicalities, one should not have to worry about an Illegal Immigrant stealing ones job because... frankly, Illegal Immigrants are not supposed to have jobs.


 * So their choice is starve in Mexico (or wherever) or starve in the US? Zmidponk 14:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, there are better job oppourtunities in the U.S. then in Mexico, but why is the United States the breadbasket in this case? The simple fact remains the President Fox (the Mexican President) and all of his predecessours, and not to mention the legislative bodies have failed to pass a minimum wage act. This allows companies to get away with horrific wages.


 * What has that got to do with anything? Think about it - the companies who hire illegal immigrants are already in breach of law.  Why do you think they'll give a rat's ass about the minimum wage?  The reason that the US is the 'breadbasket' is simply because there are more opportunities in the US.  The way you're going on, you seem to be trying to make out it's horribly wrong for people to actually do work and get paid for it, if they happen to...well...not be American, basically. Zmidponk 14:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, the United States is a better place to get a job, but why should the United States have to pick up the slack of other countries? (From this statement, I do not mean to exclude most Asian countries (which also lack a minimum wage act), nor do I mean to forget the fact that, (I actually hear this in a trip to Mexico) that the people there seem to believe the streets in the United States are paved with gold. This sheer optimism, not meaning to crush hopes, leads to people placing their faith in multiple countries, rather than just the one, their homeland.)


 * Why should the US pick up other countries' slack? Well, why not?  If the US has the jobs, and Mexico, or wherever has the workers, what's the problem with the jobs being filled by those workers? Zmidponk 14:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I further belive that Illegal Immigration is not just an issue the United States has to deal with. While I am not as well versed as with the case of East and West Europe (Still recovering from the effects of Communism), I hear Illegal Immigration is a problem in Germany. Every country has issues, I have written my opinion on one, now take it for what you believe it's worth. Javascap 08:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Well, I don't believe it can be worth very much, as you now appear to be trying to argue pretty much the exact opposite of what you were arguing in the essay - in the essay, you were arguing we shouldn't accept illegal immigrants, as they are only here to sponge off us, and here you're arguing we shouldn't accept them, as they're here to...well...work. Zmidponk 14:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


 * We tried to take it for what we believe it's worth, but we got argued down from deleting it.

Basically, we think you should show that there is some problem with having undocumented immigrants before arguing that they're a bad thing. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:21, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

In context advertising works
Image at the bottom of this page: 17:06, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Some of my perspective
First, I have admit some legalistic sympathy for the "illegal" argument - but really, only on its surface.

Here are some of my random thoughts on this issue:


 * First and foremost, the Law is an Ass, and needs to be reformed. Whatever reform there is will likely be a compromise, and as such piss off almost everyone, but if, for instance, every undoc. was to be expelled tomorrow, the American economy would collapse.


 * Secondly, American immigration law has often displayed a tendency towards racism and xenophobia. Prior to a 1920 law passed to stem the tide of Italian immigrants, there basically was no law restricting immigration.


 * Thirdly, it bothers me that (especially since NAFTA), it has been easier for money to cross the border(s) than people.


 * Fourthly, the problem here is that the US was not strong enough to annex ''all' of Mexico after defeating the war that ensued after the annexation of the Republic of Texas.


 * (I am partly focusing on Mexican immigration issues here because they apparently constitute over 50% of undocs these days, and a fair number of the remainder also come here via the Mexican border)


 * Fifthly, I personally welcome our Mexican brothers here, and I wish the two countries had much closer ties. As it is, one of the reasons we don't is that the US can exploit Mexico as long as our laws don't apply there (like our minimum wage, workplace safety rules, for two quick examples)


 * Sixthly, the country as it is constituted almost entirely of the descendants of undocumented immigrants (as are most of the world's countries, of course...). No one bothered to get visa from the First Nations when they landed on the east and west and Caribbean coasts and set up settlements.  Or even check into local laws on the subject.

In closing, I wish to reiterate that I think it is the Law itself that is the travesty, not the breaking of it. After all, most Americans break the law on a daily basis (usually by speeding), and we are not calling for a massive crackdown on them. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Here's my perspective: this essay reminds me a lot of Asimov's description of Heinlein's libertarianism: "I want the freedom to be rich, and you can have the freedom to go starve." Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)


 * for instance, every undoc. was to be expelled tomorrow, the American economy would collapse.
 * Ever hear of a movie called (IIRC) "A Day Without A Mexican"? It's a satire in which every Mexican in California suddenly vanishes.
 * Which is why I want to see the screws put on people who _hire_ illegals. It's the same logic as I'd apply to the War On Some Drugs--get rid of the demand, and the supply's not an issue.
 * Conversely, if Mexico was less of a shithole, nobody from there would risk life and limb just for the chance to do backbreaking labor in the US for pennies. --Gulik 00:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Welfare, policies, etc.
Welfare is for citizens who have a small moment of poor luck, and need someone to help them get out of a hole.

Does this mean that you believe only people who have a small amount of bad luck should get welfare? What about those huge numbers of people in poverty, born into poverty, who have had the world of bad luck? Don't they deserve support from the government as well?

Speaking of holes, do you support the current economic policies? This style of extremely lassaiz-faire capitalism is very similar to what you describe. Here's another quote:

We've dug ourselves into a pretty big hole right here, and I think the best to get us out is to just keep digging. 'Cuz eventually, we'll get to China, and that's where all our money is, he he he he he...


 * --from Jon Stewart immitating George W. Bush.

If you do support the current domestic policies, both social and economic, do you continue to support them even when the economy is in a recession and the unemployment/poverty rates are at all-time highs? 22:19, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Political correctness
I know this is rather PC-ish, but the proper term is undocumented immigrants. 22:44, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That's why I use the phrase "undoc"s, I think. Actually there is a War of Language here.  Some prefer to call them ILLEGAL immigrants, to make a point.  Others prefer to call them "undocumented".  I prefer the latter, since they are obviously welcome - as in, they can get jobs, whether from the smallest employer, the homeowner, the the largest, agribusiness.  Would either like to do without their steady source of underpaid or readily available and eager-to-work workers? It's not PC, it addresses the reality.  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, under the logic of Political correctness, should we call a Cocaine Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"? Should we call back alley abortion practitioners "Alternative Baby Outlets"? Are rapists suddenly "Surprise Engagers in Sex"? I don't follow politically correct, because, odds are, somebody is going to be offended by whatever you say, so I jsut offend whoever will be offended as is. Javascap 08:16, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, the difference is abortion isn't an alternative baby, cocaine isn't a pharmacy drug, and rape isn't sex, it's an act of violence with very specific body parts. On the other hand, both "Undocumented" and "Illegal" are correct descriptions of these immigrants, the difference being the emotional load of the words. Those who prefer undocumented are pointing out that these people aren't actually hurting american society and are in fact an important part of the american economy, and so their lack of proper documentation shouldn't make them the target of the same sort of hatred as people who perform other illegal acts. It's like stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family as opposed to raping a nine year old choirboy. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 08:23, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

On Basic American History
To address several historical inaccuracies above, here are some points.


 * 1) The settlers of the US were Englishmen, and the original thirteen colonies were founded on British culture. The Native Americans were mistreated, yes, but land was not "illegally" siezed from them. The classic British law of "Mistreat Natives, Domesticate/Kill Animals, and Sieze Land" was followed. The Native Americans did not believe in ownership of land, and were a largely nomadic people.
 * 2) America is a nation of immigrants, but not of illegal ones. Before the US covered coast-to-coast, there were large numbers of peoples already living there, who just became citizens when their state was admitted into the Union. As to the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of big business, that came from legal, documented immigrants who made up a workforce. Very few but the wealthy became part of management. The rise of entrepreneurship and corporations and investing came from non-immigrants.

23:29, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The settlers of North America were French, English, and Spanish. Sieze is spelled "seize", en Anglais.  America is a nation of "undocumented immigrants" - ie, people who had no "papers", and of whom perhaps no "papers" were required.  It was basically an invasion.  Immigrants weren't actually documented, seriously, until about 1920.  Most "immigrants" to what became the US from 1500 to the mid 1800's were imported as slaves or indentured servants.  "The rise of entrepreneurship and corporations and investing came from non-immigrants" makes no sense at all.  Most of the entrepreneurs (awesome French word) in the colonies were happily subjects of their respective empires.
 * "Before the US covered coast-to-coast, there were large numbers of peoples already living there, who just became citizens when their state was admitted into the Union." WTF does that mean?  Actually, there were many people who did not become citizens when their states joined the union - First Nations people, and imported slaves and their descendants come to mind.  This is Basic American History.
 * Perhaps you need to research US immigration law a bit, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what your point is, which is a bit typical for me commenting on your comments, hehe. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It was a response to Susan's comment above that "America was founded on illegal sEIzure of land." Also, I hope you're not trying to dispute that the original Thirteen Colonies were British. 23:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * No one would dispute that the original 13 were British - but the fact that the colonisation of land in the New World was standard operating procedure and legal in the British books is pretty irrelevant. By what right - besides might - were they, and their descendants, entitled to set up shop on land where people already - with an entirely different but by no means inferior notion of entitlement - had created long-lasting and viable societies?PFoster 23:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That's an interesting moral question. Why do any empires form? Ask Napoleon, Mohammad, etc. 00:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That's not an answer. yes, the "13" were British.  At the time of the revolution, say, the middle third of the continent had been claimed and partly explored, and certainly exploited, by the French.  And the western 1/3 was settled by the Spanish - many of whose settlements predate British dreams, let alone surviving settlements (see the 16th century).  None of these groups qualify as "legal immigrants" in any sense of the term as we know it.  They were invasions, theft, appropriation.  Mexicans cross the border to the US, work and pay taxes.  If this "nouveau invasion" succeeds, well, how can it be wrong, historically?  (and sorry, I don't know how to Espanol the phrase "new invasion" - or even Frenchify it, I guess!) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "the original thirteen colonies" weren't so "original". The Spanish were setting up outposts on the West coast, etc., long before Jamestown and Plimoth.  They get their "awesome historical importance" because ended up becoming the United States.  They were still invaders without permission. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * To the original point, empires form because one man thinks he has a mandate to empirisize, giving his followers a sense of entitlement.
 * The other thing. How can one be invaded "with permission?" It's not possible.
 * We keep pushing the ball back and forth. It is undeniable that America is a nation of immigrants. Beyond that, let's agree to disagree. 00:35, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I will agree to disagree as long as you welcome the proposition that America (S & N) was invaded, not "settled". IE, the intrusion only had the legal justification of force and do-ability. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Let's not forget the clog-wearers. New York was originally New Amsterdam. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 01:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I recognize that the Native Americans were mistreated, and badly. However, an invasion was not what happened. It's not an invasion if a people does not own land; the Native Americans did not believe in ownership of land. The settlers did not steal land from them. Smallpox and disease and ill-treatment were the rule, but no land was stolen or invaded. Lyra Silvertongue 13:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Many Brits at the time were of the opinion that they were stealing land from the Native Americans. As for the idea that they did not believe in ownership of the land, that is true (in some cases) of the individual, but many groups did believe in a certain idea of collective ownership of land.  That is why they fought so hard against the expansion by the British/Americans.  (See: The Pequot War, Prince Phillip's War, Tecumseh.) Moreover, even US courts at the time occasionally ruled that their land was being taken against the law (See: Trail of Tears.  The Supreme Court ruled for the Cherokee, but Andrew Jackson refused to help them.)  It should also be remembered that one of the (admittedly, lesser) aggravations prior to the American Revolution was a decision by the British not to allow anyone to settle in "Indian territory" (meaning the British held lands west of the current colonies, like Kentucky or Ohio.)  Even after that, the US set up "Indian territory" (originally, Indiana, and then later Oklahoma) in order to pacify those they were constantly (illegally) moving off of their land.


 * As for the idea that most Native Americans were nomadic, that is plain untrue, and has been well-documented as such. The natives who kept the Pilgrims alive had to teach the English how to farm on this continent.  You can't farm well if you're nomadic.  The settlers of the southwest also were not nomadic; that's why they had Pueblo cities.  (In fact, the vast majority of "nomadic" tribes became so when they were pushed into the vast prairie after the US threw them off their farm land.  For example, it wasn't until the Lakota were expelled from the northern midwest that they discovered horses and created the nomadic lifestyle most people associate with them.) Researcher 13:48, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The ones that were in the original Northeast were, like the Iroqois. Lyra Silvertongue 14:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually, at the very least (I don't have time to look them all up), one of the nations of the Iroqouis, the Seneca, believed in ownership of land, with all of said land belonging to the women. They also farmed; you can't farm and be nomadic. They lived in towns and villages, like most Native Americans (and Europeans). Researcher 14:09, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Silvertongue - You're argument is weak. you can't blame the Natives for not having a concept of land ownership that was compatible with European notions of land ownership and then use that to justify European settlement on land that didn't belong to them. Why should European laws of ownership have been applicable in the Americas to begin with? PFoster 13:56, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Where is you're source for that ungrammatical claim? We are of different opinions, methinks. If you want to get technical, I suppose it was an invasion, but that seems to connote cruel, evil, misguided purpose, or whatnot, which I do not think it was. The original British settlers did not mistreat or steal land (the Pilgrims) and fled Europe from a "falling out between the King and the Quakers," also. Lyra Silvertongue 14:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * My source for the claim that British land ownership laws are irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not European settlers stole land in the Americas from the people who already lived here? Same source as your claim that such a thing should be taken into account: I pulled it out of my ass. What difference does it make that, according to British law, the Natives did not "own" the land? At what point did the laws backing up those claims start to apply away from British soil? PFoster 14:13, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You haven't addressed my point just now. Lyra Silvertongue 14:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, sorry - perhaps the original Pilgrims had good relationships with the locals - I don't know my early American history to well, so I'll concede that. Nonetheless, the violent westward expansion of the United States, culminating with the genocide of the Yuki in the late 19th century (too lazy to look up the date) fit all of the conditions that you lay out for invasion.PFoster 14:21, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That's true, I do think the Westward expansion was very much an invasion, only I was addressing the original settlement above. Lyra Silvertongue 15:06, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


 * I just came across this. Let me just say I was a fucking idiot. I presumed to know much, much more than I really did, and came across as pretentious and obtuse. I'd rip my own pointless ramblings and blatantly wrong accusations (see here, talk:communism, talk:aquatic ape hypothesis, and much more) to shreds, now, with vigor. I've since changed... hopefully. - 07:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Best comment of the day! And I don't mean because Lyra was once the stoopid, I mean because any one of us looked back a couple years and said "shit, I wrote that?"   07:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this here?
Excuse my naivety but, given the multitude of web sites devoted to discussing political questions why has Rationalwiki devoted any space to this argument? It doesn't present much in the way of lulz and it isn't a defense of rational thought over woo. I'm confused here. Silver Sloth 09:34, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * We tried to delete it, but the consensus was that that would be too much like Conservapedia. We'd like a refutation, if anyone's got the time, though. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

AFD?
Frankly, this is a hateful little piece of work and completely out of place on a site like rationalwiki.com. If it'd been posted at CP, it would have been wigo'd long ago and we'd all be having a laugh about it.

I'd happily see it gone. Just bad, bad, bad. Bondurant 09:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The point is that if we delete it, we're doing what Conservapedia does. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * By that argument, anybody could come and post something that wouldn't be out of place on Metapedia and be protected. Articles like this do not enhance the debate on illegal immigration, they are just flame bait. If it had something constructive to say, then yes, or even if it had a little humour. But it is nothing but an ill-thought and badly presented tirade. RW is not enhanced by an essay such as this. My 2p Bondurant 10:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * My 2p goes for deletion, not because of the views expressed - which would be the CP reason - but because RW is not meant as a platform for political debate. Mind you, I could be wrong, RW is an evolving entity and maybe it is becoming a political forum but that was not the rationale in the first place, nor the reason many of us came here. Silver Sloth 11:11, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * As much as I believe that this article is a loathsome piece of trash, the third article in our little mission statement reads "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" - which does imply allowing political debate. Hell - I ONLY ever talk politics here, as I pretty much tanked in high school science and never looked back. PFoster 11:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Beg to differ time - had Javascrap produced an essay about the views of Fundamentalist or Authoritarians regarding immigration then I would have no problem with it. This would indeed be an "Exploration of Fundamentalist or Authoritarians". However, his own personal view point is as unwelcome as mine (sandal wearing, muesli eating, Guardian reading lefty liberal). This is not about exploring our views, it's about exploring theirs. Silver Sloth 11:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Niceing it up
Hey, just dropping a line on this page to state that I am working on "Niceing" this essay up. When I wrote it as it is, I was literally writing my thoughts as I went on. Expect, by around Saturday, a better, less blunt, more factual essay. Javascap 09:56, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You can't polish a turd, javascap. Although I'd be happy if you prove me wrong. Bondurant 10:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Javascap - while you're off turd polishing, please get a handle on which words get capitalised in the English language. If you're going to rant about protecting America, at least learn how to write the language properly.PFoster 11:11, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Taxes paid
I take issue with the idea that most illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Many of them have 9-5 type jobs, and their employers are bound and determined that SOMEONE will be paying taxes on that income, and it's not going to be them. It is way too easy for a hotel or factory to be audited if they have someone being paid without taxes. In most cases, the money comes out of their paycheck, but the illegals have no means of contacting the IRS for a refund. (The IRS is actually setting up methods by which illegals can pay their taxes, with or without an SSN, just to keep identity fraud down.)

I have first hand experience with this, as a bank teller cashing paychecks for many immigrants, a good number of whom probably were illegal. Researcher 14:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Researcher. Good to see one of the top-five smartest people on RW is active again. In addition to your point above, don't forget the sales taxes and other consumption-based taxes that undocumented aliens pay.PFoster 14:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't say things like that, or I'll get a big head. But, yeah, totally forgot about consumption taxes.  Unless they are importing their daily necessities, then they are paying some taxes regardless.  I do find it interesting that one of the few arguments against illegal immigrants that I have much sympathy for (on an intellectual level) I didn't see addressed.  (Then again, I couldn't get through much of it.)  Many worry about the use of remittances, since they take liquid money out of the economy and send it to another one, and thus it is like importing labor and our trade-balance is screwed anyway.  (Of course, at the same time it could be that kind of capital that will be necessary to get the exporting countries up to where they no longer need to export PEOPLE.)  Researcher 14:45, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Capital - not an issue. If the "illegals" all documented themselves tomorrow, the net capital outflow wouldn't change one iota, as they would still have the same people to support back "home." And I seriously wonder how much of that capital would be created if the work in question was being done above-the-board by non-immigrant labour, as I imagine that most of the work being done by illegals would disappear if the employers had to pay competing American wages to get the jobs done.PFoster 14:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That's why I said I only had sympathy for it. However, it is actually easier for a legal immigrant to bring family over than an illegal one, meaning that legal immigrants (usually) have less reason to send remittances home.  In the end, of course, I'm a firm immigration fan, in just about all ways.  (I'm glad that, as far as I can tell, he didn't pull out the old "assimilation" canard.)  Researcher 14:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Just totally full of anathema to RW
This essay shows no valid rational thought. That's why I think that it doesn't deserve to remain here. It is a knee jerk reaction to information that has not been validly investigated. First, the Campean/Ramos issue has been dealt with in the most part. If those guys HAD just done their job, the $number_of_drug_dealer_arrests++, but no, they decided to let their own personal feelings get in the way.

The analogy to a house is not the same thing. We're not dealing with someone entering private property illegally, we're dealing with people entering public property illegally.

The supreme court has already held that "English requirements for work" cannot be enforced as it would show discrimination against national origin unless the use of English was absolutely necessary to adequately complete their job. I hate people who go on about "immigrants come over here and don't even speak our language", because language acquisition is known to be very difficult after the "critical period". There is a reason why older individuals cannot learn a second language very easily, even if surrounded by that language at all times. Typically, their acquisition of broken English is considered enough. Although, as a linguist, this whole language argument is just increasingly idiotic to me. Not to mention that I grew up in New Mexico, where actual US citizens exist that don't speak English natively. (That's born in the US to US parents, btw) Not to mention that Puerto Rican residents are just as valid US citizens as anyone else, and they typically do not speak English.

Illegal aliens cannot obtain social governmental benefits without a valid social security card. Plus, even if they were able to, IT WOULD MAKE THEM REALLY EASY TO FIND.

Hospitals are required to render life-saving service in all 50 states regardless of the person's ability to pay. Now, a question. Do you think those hospitals in California collapsed because of a few illegal immigrants getting care, or the 50-some-% of American citizens who are unable to pay? Yeah, I'm willing to bet that they collapsed because of our shitty health plan here in America for American citizens, without any significant impact from illegal immigrants. Now, let's hypothetically consider a world where hospitals are allowed to deny life-saving/stabilizing care based on the person's ability to pay. Congratulations! As an American citizen without the ability to pay for healthcare, plus your lack of healthcare plans, YOU DIE IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM! All because you can't pay. Grats.

This is a surprising thing, but 50% of illegal immigrants didn't travel over the border illegals. *GASP* They just stayed here longer than their visas allowed them to. So, now let's consider what that makes of your argument............ oh yeah, 50% of the people here illegally in the USA were here legally at some point. Let's say, I have a valid visa today, I go to work, everything is fine, everyone is happy. Tomorrow? My visa exires, now I'm not here legallly, but I go to work, no one knows, and everything seems fine, and everyone is happy. Illegality is often a matter of arbitrary rules rather than any specific actual realistic or rational factor.

Your essay requires vast improvement in order to bring it up to the point of "rational thought". I have no qualms about removing content from this wiki that does not consist of "rational though", in fact, I think that "irrational thought" by the very name of the wiki should be removed. I invite you to actually educate yourself and make a rational response against immigration, rather than making your irrational ravings, or we will seek some method of excising your irrationality ourselves. --<b style="color:#FF4488">Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Addition
I have added a note linking to the DOJ refutation into the essay. I did this because it was a completely wrong claim, and to find the refutation you had to look at the talkpage or look for subpages. Since it is obvious that the addition is not part of the essay, I think it was justified.
 * I reformatted it as a footnote, hope you don't mind. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:28, 5 December 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, I planned to rewrite this to make it more accurate and all sumewhatsuch, but real life caught up, and I have not had the time to make it less inflammatory and more informative. Give me another five years a few days, and I might be done.
 * Feel free to use the intercom to invite comments after you have improovd it. Updating essays is such a pain, but one also does not want to give the "mob" the wrong impression of one's thought processes... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

"hospitals going bankrupt owing to their inability to collect payment for services" rendered to illegal immigrants.
Example, please? TheoryOfPractice 13:34, 1 March 2009 (EST)