Wirehead Studios

If only it were that simple. People fleeing from all sorts of horrible, leaving everything they ever had behind in the process, only to be regarded as 'Criminal' first, 'Human being', second. Technically, I agree with you. Ethically, I don't - nor do I consider the law to be that absolute and powerful.

If one does not at all times carry around ID in the Netherlands, one is doing something illegal. Yet, regardless of what that law says, I do not consider the people refusing to submit to a bureaucratic and useless (not to mention frightening) rule like that to be Criminals.
But hey, it's my word against the word of those making the laws. ;]

The problem is, when you allow people to cross a border, undocumented, uninspected, you're inviting smugglers, terrorists, and every manner of bad guy across the border too.  Add to that the fact that every person who is illegally entering the country is screwing the people who are following the law and applying legally for citizenship.  Now let's take the immigrants who want to come in to make a better life for themselves, but do it the wrong way into consideration.  They're left with "undesirable" jobs, being paid less than a US citizen would be paid.  How does that help them?  Add to that the fact that every job taken by an illegal is one that a citizen is deprived of, and you can see why this benefits nobody - except the Mexican government who just wants to export its "undesirable" population and import money from the US that the migrants send back to support their families.

No, it's a lose-lose situation for all involved - except the Mexican government.  What I'm fed up with is the political BS that makes it somehow racist or "anti-immigration" to tell the truth and call a spade a spade.  "Good fences make good neighbors".  I remember a poet writing that, and it's held true for thousands of years.

Fully agreed, as long as it does not become a mindless case of rule-application. That is my biggest problem with the combination of a strict policy and something as undeniably laden as a term like 'criminal'. Indiscriminately applying the term to refugees, mp3-downloaders, wilfull serial killers and rapists just rubs me the wrong way.
So, I do think that an answer to the problem is required, but preferrably not one that considers immigrants to be terrorists by definition, so to speak. A good fence is important, but so is the way of treating those on either side of it.

I go with pho on this 1.

I'm share Tab's viewpoint on this.

Regards,

Yickle.

Maybe tab should live in california a few years.

Well, I have no problem applying the term criminal it to rapists and serial killers.  I apply much worse terms than that.  Criminal, by definition, just means someone who is breaking the law.  A jaywalker is a criminal.  Someone speeding is, by definition, a criminal.  It's not a stigma, it's just a fact.  MP3 downloaders, meh, the MPAA and RIAA have been suing grandmothers and 12 year old children for crying out loud.  That's not even criminal trial, that's a lawsuit so I have no sympathy for the MPAA or RIAA over their bully thug tactics.  They're not engaging in criminal prosecution, they're suing people knowing the individuals don't have the financial resources to fight back, in essense, making up for lost sales of crappy, substandard music, if it even deserves the title, by bullying people and extorting money from them.  That, to me, is criminal in and of itself, and the RIAA should be itself investigated and prosecuted for citizen harassment.

Now as far as refugees are concerned, the last I checked, Mexico was not at war with anybody, nor has suffered any kind of major disaster.  Calling an illegal immigrant a "refugee", to me, is dodging the issue.  People in Rwanda who fled the war are refugees.  People who fled New Orleans are refugees.  This is my opinion of course, you could probably call Mexico's situation a political disaster (otherwise why are people in a hurry to leave) but regardless of the human situation, the people crossing the border are doing so illegally.  They are, for all intents, burglarizing the United States, stealing from those who live here, and denying the rights of those who are seeking legal entry into the country.  That may not be their intent, but that is the end result.  Again, who knows if some Al Qaida operatives haven't smuggled some nasty stuff over the border as well.  Then there's the Mexican mafia who have conducted armed raids into US border towns and rumors of guerillas of some nature (or even the Mexican army from some reports I've heard) who have shot at US border patrol agents using automatic assault rifles, when the border patrol agents are armed with pistols.  Then you have a few hundred miles of open desert where people trying to get in illegally die from thirst and starvation and heat.  That's not doing them any favors.  A secure border will actually save their lives, and if "coming to America" no longer is the easy way to escape problems in Mexico, then people will begin looking inward toward their country and trying to figure out how to fix it, instead of how to flee it.  Perhaps El Presidente is afraid of the possibility of a little revolution, hmm?

I'm not saying it's wrong to want a better life, nor is it my intent to demonize people for wanting to live in America.  Illegal immigrants are just doing it the wrong way.  The sad part is they often become further victims by being preyed upon by those who will take advantage of them once they get here.  My problem is with someone like Mexico's president standing up and demanding that the US basically open the border to let Mexico's "problem" across, when the border already has more holes than a cheese grater.  What is needed is for the Mexican government to take responsibility for its people, and its own problems, and make Mexico as desirable a place to live as the United States is.  That is the real solution to illegal immigration in the US.  Fix Mexico, and the people won't feel the need to leave.  There's a reason people want to live in the US, and are willing to die trying to get here.  I will never, ever condemn someone for wanting a better life for themselves or their families.  I will, however, take issue with governments who fail to take responsibility for the people they are allowing to suffer under them.

We agree on a simple fact, and disagree on the way to treat it and what to call it. I understand the problem and agree it requires a solution. (Nor do I see the need for Woodsman's pointless comment, but I guess we all had that one coming. ;p)

Not all immigrants are refugees, we are agreed on that aswell. I do not think, however, that always assuming the worst and acting upon it is warranted. Setting up good borders: good. Throwing people out of the country like so much dead meat: bad. Ofcourse it's a good idea to set up effective borders if it saves lives (although one must not pretend that is the actual main reason they are being set up, ofcourse ;]), and I don't disagree that it should be done. As long as prevention and deportation can be done in a humane fashion, they are defendable, at least. We may have gradually different opinions about what is justified in this matter, but I surely understand and agree with your reasoning there, Pho - I don't think that's the problem.

As I said, I do agree that technically speaking, anyone not following the law for 100 percent, is a criminal. No point in denying that, that's the technical definition of the actual word. However, I am not by nature a technical being, and do not interpret it free from folk-etymological and folk-psychological connotation. Here's the core of my argument: I'm not saying it is wrong to treat illegal immigrants the way (for instance) jaywalkers are treated, if that is meant by 'criminals'. I'm opposed to an aggressive knee-capping approach, nightsticks in hand, forcing people out of their 'homes' in the dead of night, denying them basic human rights, etc - like would be (somewhat, sometimes) more appropriate for armed and dangerous thugs.
When someone says 'criminal', I simply do not get images of people jaywalking or tossing litter on the sidewalk in my head - I get images of people pulling sidearms on storekeepers or smirky fat men running big companies and the like. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Point is: treating them like 'people who shouldn't be doing what they're doing', and: treating them like 'criminals', are simply not the same to me, in a non-technical sense. It would be fun for a change if we could just use the words that are factually correct to use, without them having a different meaning. However, I do not think we will see the light of that day, when it comes to some topics of discussion.


A last point of interest: the law decides who is an illegal immigrant and thus defines their status. The law here being the most powerful of the cultures or forces in the game. During colonial times, European leaders decidedly disagreed with the idea that searching your fortune in someone else's country could even be considered illegal - or even that destroying the actual society/culture in colonies was. Now, in my eyes (in the present day), that kind of thing is (and was) the act of a criminal, and no less with intent. Yet, if the law does not say anything on this topic, or disagrees with me, invaders are technically not criminals, nor are big companies, that milk poor countries, doing anything illegal. I just think the common person should take a little more time to think about the words that are chosen, that what is meant and what laws, government and legality actually are. But that is a side-issue and perhaps one of my pipe-dreams.

Being a somewhat single-minded creature, I do have a tendency to think in absolutes.  X means X, and Y means Y to me.  I realize that taxonomy can have cultural undertones, so your point is not lost on me.  Now as for "what to do with illegal immigrants", if the border were secure from the beginning, there would be no need for deportation because they would not be here in the first place.  So the root of the problem is in that.  The fact that many are here now is no reason to continue to leave the border wide open.

I also agree that clubbing people in the night is bad.  Elian Gonzales comes to mind.  What was done there was completely wrong, and was a definite case of the government acting in the role of a fascist state.  I don't see why you need armored police toting MP-5 submachineguns kicking a door in and hauling a small child away in that manner.  Was there public outcry?  Yes.  Was there action taken against the people in the current administration (Janet Reno, et all)? No.  That's the problem.  It's so easy for governments to beat up on citizens, but very hard for the citizens to do anything about corrupt or abusive governments.

Now in the case of the United States, the law is the supreme rule of the land.  Nothing and nobody is considered above the law, at least in theory, except the Creator (as noted in the Declaration of indepence).  In practice that's a whole other issue, and I won't be so naive as to assume that presidents, congressmen, and bureaucrats on the whole don't skirt the law repeatedly.  I do agree that some laws are more important than others, and should be prosecuted as such.  Murder should be zero tolerance, as rape, burglary, kidnapping, and grand theft of property.  I don't think illegal immigration is as trivial as jaywalking, but then the result of the action should be taken into account.  If a person swerves to avoid a jaywalker and cracks into a store front, the jaywalker is responsible for causing an accident through his or her negligence.  In that case jaywalking becomes a serious matter, but that's on a case-by-case basis.

I'll be the first to submit that justice is not as simple as a rulebook.  As a Christian, I understand the concept of mercy and forgiveness, and mercy should always exceed the dictates of the law, however responsibility and repentence are also prerequisites for mercy from my point of view.  I understand the desperation and need of people who come into the country illegally.  I'm not advocating they be hauled off to concentration camps.  Like I said, I want to see the problem solved, not in an inhumane way, but solved definitively so that those who want a better life have an option, and those who want a secure border also have an option.  The only people I want to see lose are terrorists, drug runners, gangs, and unscrupulous politicians who benefit from a porous border.