I liked this letter. Many people forget that those who came here before 1965
legally, had to make it without a safety net. There was no welfare, no cookies
at the border. Almost one third returned home, unable to make the change. We have let the special interest groups ruin our immigration laws.
So, this story is getting old, DesNews. We've heard the "my family of
immigrants were hard working, amazing people while all the current group of
immigrants are lazy, good-for-nothings" proclamations far too often. This
argument is tired, worn-out, and demonstrably untrue. I'd like
to challenge Ms. Pike to "change her attitude about immigration" by
visiting local restaurants, construction companies, yard service companies, maid
services, farms, ranches, or pretty much anything else that has to do with
manual labor. She'll find extremely hard-working immigrants make up a
majority of the most difficult, physically demanding jobs in our society and
that attitudes like hers have perpetrated a cast system wherein a large part of
the current slate of immigrants put in long hours in manually taxing jobs for
low pay and they have little to no chance of advancement in their respective
profession. If conservatives want to see a more productive society
with immigrants they can start by treating everyone as equal human beings.
So, immigrants "immediately assume this country will provide everything at
all times" ??Who are the immigrants who make that assumption?
People who came from Finland at least had enough money to pay ship passage, had
friendlier immigration laws and had people waiting here to sponsor them. People
coming from Mexico, with none of these advantages, simply cross the border to
find low-paying jobs to support their families. If they waited until they could
come legally, their families would starve.
Stalwart Sentinel,I think what she was trying to say is... We have no
problem with "Immigration", but "ILLEGAL" Immigration... is a
different story.Why does that concept cause the Left to bristle so
2bits - That may be your interpretation but I find nothing to suggest the letter
writer is making that distinction among current immigrants. In fact, I find the
letter writer has taken a stance of lumping every immigrant into a single
category, evidenced by the statement "[i]mmigrants can find living in the
U.S. a lot better than from where many of them come. However, I can't help
but think that they immediately assume this country will provide everything at
all times." If the latter isn't a blanket statement about an entire
class of people, I don't know what is. Further, liberals
don't have a problem with the concept you lay out. We simply have a
problem with the parameters that are currently in place to distinguish between
illegal and legal. Indeed, the difference truly boils down to the fact that we,
as liberals, don't see the American Dream as a zero sum game and
proactively work to afford as many people as possible with the opportunity to
succeed. The better off my neighbors are, the better off I am within a
successful society. Unfortunately, the opposite is true of conservatives.
My #1 pet peeve with conservatives over immigration policy is their whining
about the 14th Amendment [i.e., trampling THE Constitution].Like it
or NOT, babies born in the United States ARE U.S. citizens, period.And, as for the implied "lazy illegals"...I want this
letter writer to pay full price for everything she's getting on the
cheap.Food, Clothing, Shelter, messy, ugly, dirty, labor
jobs - no one else wants, and no one else is willing to PAY for!Companies and Businessmen are the source and reason for illegal immigration.
Stalwart Sentinel,Of course it's MY interpretation?
That's all I can write is MY interpretation.Did you READ the
article? When talking about her relatives who immigrated way back when, She
stated, "Both sets came from Finland in the early 1900s. They followed the
entrance regulations". So yes I think she was contrasting those
relatives who came way back when (legally) and the wave of ILLEGAL immigration
we have going on today.And some people on the left DO get up tight
when you differentiate between legal and ILLEGAL immigration. I can give
examples if you need them. But your angered response was a good one. No
offense should have been taken IF you differentiate between "legal" and
"ILLEGAL" immigration and not push for law to make ILLEGAL immigration
into LEGAL immigration.LDS Liberal,Who said anything about
"lazy illegals"? I think that was you reading more into it than
was intended.She said her relatives who settled here legally had to work
hard. I don't think that means she's calling ILLEGAL
immigrant's "Lazy Immigrants". Let's not put words not said
into people's mouths.
@2bits So when you make an assumption its simply an
"interpretation" but when LDS liberal does the same thing its
"reading more into it than was intended"?
@2bits"I try not to get into commenting on people's
comments, or adjusting my thoughts/comments in response to what's already
been said (but I always fail)."
Illegal migrants are not immigrants. There is a difference and until we and the
media stop trying to make them the same there will be confusion when discussing
immigration. Once again,...immigrants stand in line, pay the fees, wait their
turn, assimilate into the country, and become citizens. Illegal migrants do
Why have laws when they are not enforced? There is a huge difference between
legal and illegal. Multiple felonies come to mind. Mexico has the
13th best economy in the world and food programs. Allowing extended families
cause the long lines. Go back to just immediate families and the lines will be
cut in half. Legal immigration numbers should never be set by those
coming here illegally. They should be set to what's best for the country.
Democrats use to care about our countries poor. In 1969, Chavez aled
a march to the Mexican border to protest illegal immigration, accompanied by
Sen. Walter Mondale and Ralph Abernathy, who was Martin Luther King's
successor as head of the Southern Leadership Conference. It's a sad world
when no one speaks for the citizens of the country. Business would
be forced to employ people full time, if it wasn't for all the cheap
illegal labor. Now many of us will feel the 29 hour, no insurance wave that is
coming with Obama care. A vote for amnesty is a vote against poor and middle
I will 100% guarantee that his Finnish grandparents never received welfare
payments for having children once they arrived here.
2bits - 1 - I was actually trying to be generous to you by
acknowledging your interpretation of things but given your response, perhaps you
should consider the fact that the letter notes that her ancestors followed the
rules and then she proceeds to lump all current immigrants into one group. She
does not distinguish between illegal and legal, hence my statement above about
"current immigrants." She distinguishes for her own family but then
does not do so for others, this bolsters my point from above - you actually fall
pray to the same inability to distinguish when you denote the "wave" of
illegals. In other words, your interpretation is incorrect. 2 - I
see no evidence my response was angered, please point out where I showed any
level of frustration. On the contrary, one would suggest that your use of all
caps when trying to make a point demonstrates frustrated emotion and
desperation.3 - I, like all liberals, differentiate between legal
and illegal. However, we recognize that the current laws in place are unjust
and incorrect which is why we are pushing to change them. And guess what?
We're going to win that fight eventually.
They followed the entrance regulations, were sponsored by relatives or friends
and settled in those areas. They quickly found jobs to get themselves on
their own feet financially, which was not an easy task. However, they persevered
and lived in the United States the rest of their lives.The only difference
I see between Marilyn’s grandparents, and current immigrants, is followed
entrance regulations.If Marilyn’s grandparents had to follow current
immigration policies, she may not live in this country, but Finland.When
my grandmother came over on a boat from Europe, it was hi, hello, and howdy.Now immigration is a bureaucratic mess.Why does it take years to become
a citizen?I have no problem with someone who wants to work hard, and take
care of their family.
The other point I want to make is, that there has always been groups in the
United States, opposed to any immigration.These are not new arguments.
They were used against the Chinese, Italians, Scotts, Irish, ect. and even those
from Finland.They are taking all our jobs these groups said. They are
dirty and non-desirable they said. They live off the public dole.Stop
immigration was their motto.Where would we be as a country? if we had
given into the anti-immigration movements in the 1800’s and 1900”s
Stalwart Sentinel,Is it possible that YOUR opinion is also based on YOUR
interpretation of what she was trying to say? At least I'm able to admit
that my opinion is based on my interpretation. Seems like you think YOUR
opinion is "Fact".She may have lumped them. She
didn't really say. I presume that since she pointed out that
her ancestors "followed the rules" when they immigrated to the US in the
early 1900s... that she recognized there is a difference when you follow the
rules and when you don't. Maybe she was saying that ALL immigrants are
the same. But I think that's YOUR interpretation.VIDAR,There's no "Anti-Immigration Movement".There's an
"Anti-Illegal-Immigration Movement".There's a BIG difference.
1880 to 1920 we allowed 500,000 annually. Now we give over a million a year
access, yet people complain our laws are to tough? They are more lenient now
than in the great wave. We also give out 3.2 million work visas,
with 20 million working part time, unable to find full time work.
2bits - At the risk of focusing too much on semantics, it is not my opinion that
the letter writer fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants,
that is a fact. Unless, of course, you are clairvoyant and have the ability to
explain which parts of the following excerpt were referring to legal and illegal
immigrants: "[i]mmigrants can find living in the U.S. a lot better than from
where many of them come. However, I can't help but think that they
immediately assume this country will provide everything at all times."
Indeed, those blanket, general statements are the only ones made about
immigrants other than the claims specifically referencing her own grandparents.
Sorry, you're wrong - no matter how many times you hit the caps lock. Further, when your purported "anti-illegal-immigration movement"
unduly imposes restrictions and incumbrances upon immigrant access to the US,
you become the "anti-immigration movement." Don't believe me?
Great, keep ignoring the realities of the situation, it only helps the
progressives win elections.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTThere's no
"Anti-Immigration Movement".There's an
"Anti-Illegal-Immigration Movement".There's a BIG
difference.so make all those in the country citizens who want to be.
Particularly the kids/young adults brought her by their parents.I do not
think those who are against the "illegal immigrants" are really for
immigration. that is just what they say, what they really want is protectionism
for their jobs, and handouts.I say if someone from mexico can come here,
and do your job better then you, then shame on you for not taking advanatage of
all the things this country has offered you. Americans should not be competing
with someone from mexico for the same job. Americans should be giving jobs to
people from mexico. The only group that has a right to complain is maybe
"The toleration of illegal immigration undermines all of our labor; it rips
at the social fabric. It's a race to the bottom. The one who plays by the
rules is penalized... a guest worker program guarantees wages will never go up,
and there is no way American citizens can compete with guest workers."
--Vernon Briggs, Cornell University labor economics professorVida:
give our jobs to Mexicans? You go first, we are right behind you.