• Your cart is currently empty.
Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Life Issues > Education > Federal judge “compels” Department of Homeland Security to honor original agreement with Texas university

Federal judge “compels” Department of Homeland Security to honor original agreement with Texas university

LatinaLista — As the nation gets ready to celebrate the 4th of July this week, Texans along the U.S.-Mexico border are defending their property rights in the face of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) scooping up land to construct the mandated border wall.

Dr. Juliet Garcia, president of UTB/TSC speaks to reporters after the judge’s ruling at today’s hearing.
(Source: UTB.edu)

One of the biggest and most controversial cases involves The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College and The University of Texas System.
Scholars, lawyers, teachers, students and other Valley residents remain perplexed at the insistence of the DHS to construct a portion of the border wall through the campus of The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College cutting 180 acres that the university needs to expand in the future.
Back in March, the federal court ruled that DHS had to sit down with school officials and reach a mutual solution.
Yet, DHS was prepared to ignore the ruling and seize the land through eminent domain. That blatant disregard for the previous ruling prompted school officials to file a motion with the federal government to compel DHS to comply with the previous ruling.
Well, the federal court in Brownsville ruled today and, though they don’t like it, DHS is going to have to sit down with school officials and try to reach an agreement.
Since the school has never encountered a problem with undocumented residents trespassing on the school campus, one has to wonder and the media should be asking why is DHS so intent on bypassing federal laws to construct a barrier that the majority of people along the border do not want?
For now, this is a bittersweet victory that is important because, especially this week, it commemorates that when it comes to the government and its people — the people’s rights prevail against unjust acts.
After all, it’s the American way and not the first time in our history that the people had to remind a government that a government is for and by the people, and not to represent the wishes of an elite few.

Related posts

Comment(28)

  • Horace
    July 1, 2008 at 5:34 am

    “Since the school has never encountered a problem with undocumented residents trespassing on the school campus, one has to wonder and the media should be asking why is DHS so intent on bypassing federal laws to construct a barrier that the majority of people along the border do not want?”
    Perhaps because it would be the easiest way to cross, considering the adjacent properties would have a fence, i.e. it would be a hole? Actually, the majority of citizens in the COUNTRY do think a fence is necessary.

  • Frank
    July 1, 2008 at 7:22 am

    Right, it is supposed to be a government by the people…the majority of the people! Those living along the border are not the majority in this country. The majority of Americans want our borders secured and that is in the interests of ALL Americans including those who live along the border. This isn’t just about illegal aliens seeking work, it is also about those who enter to do us harm. If you leave a loophole for any of them to enter through such as the campus property, that would be one of the most likely places they would try to enter in the future. How can anything be more important than the security of our nation?

  • Texano78704
    July 1, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    OMG! Tweedledee and tweedledum in tandem tell us it is about “border security,” but cannot come with an explanation as to why there as much a lack of fervor to NOT secure our northern border as there is a salivating fervor to the south. Could the simple explanation be that it really has nothing to do with “security?”

  • laura
    July 1, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    As you pointed out in an earlier post, Marisa, DHS managed to avoid the properties of country clubs and of millionaires with their plans for the fence/wall. Instead, they want to route it through a university campus.
    The mastermind is Michael “Katrina” Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. Three years ago, at the end of the week in which Katrina struck New Orleans, he did not know of the thousands of people stranded in the Superdome.
    Why did he not know this?
    My guess: it was not just incompetence. It was total indifference to the lives of people who are not rich and not white.
    The same indifference to life and death of non-rich, non-white people is at work in DHS border fence/wall policy, and in ICE. That is why people are dying on the border, and that is why people are dying in ICE prisons.
    Last question: Why did Barack Obama vote for the wall/fence?

  • laura
    July 1, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    I’m sorry, Marisa: one last point.
    The idea of “securing the border” is ridiculous.
    I saw the Iron Curtain border when it was still up: a broad strip of mined ground between rows of high barbed wire, towers every 500 yards or so with guards who had orders to shoot to kill, the ground raked so footsteps were clearly visible, guards with dogs on foot patrol.
    Yet people crossed that border. Some people died trying to cross it.
    That Iron Curtain border was not 100% effective.
    There is not a single country in the world with “secure borders”.
    Not to mention the fact that if there was, the regime that built them would fall as inevitably as the Russian and Easter European regimes fell.

  • Grandma
    July 1, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    From the article: “After all, it’s the American way and not the first time in our history that the people had to remind a government that a government is for and by the people, and not to represent the wishes of an elite few.”
    Damn right. Just like a year ago when the people of this country had to remind the government we did not want amnesty! Crashed the phones lines too!

  • Evelyn
    July 2, 2008 at 5:41 am

    To: The United States of America
    From: The Foreign Policy Therapist
    Dear United States,
    In psychological circles, we call your problem “denial.” You cannot face your real problem, so you deny that it exists and create instead a different problem that you try to solve.
    Meanwhile, the real problem, denied and ignored, becomes more and more serious. In your case, your real problem is simply the way that millions and millions of people around the world feel about you.
    Who are these people? They share the world with you – one single world, which works as a unified mechanism. These people are the ones for whom the mechanism’s current way of working – call it the status quo – offers a life of anguish and servitude. They’re well aware that this status quo, which for them is a prison, is for you (or for the privileged among you), on the contrary, so close to a paradise that you will never allow their life to change.
    These millions of people are in many cases uneducated – to you they seem unsophisticated – and yet they still somehow know that you have played an enormous role in keeping this status quo in place. And so they know you as the enemy.
    They feel they have to fight you. Some of them hate you. And some will gladly die in order to hurt you – in order to stop you.
    They know where the fruits of the planet, the oil and the spices, are going. And when your actions cause grief in some new corner of the world, they know about it. And when you kill people who are poor and desperate, no matter what explanation you give for what you’ve done, their anger against you grows. You can’t kill all these millions of people, but almost any one of them, in some way, some place or some degree, can cause damage to you.
    But here’s a strange fact about these people whom you consider unsophisticated: most of the situations in the world in which they perceive “injustice” are actually ones in which you yourself would see injustice if you yourself weren’t deeply involved. Even though they may dress differently and live differently, their standards of justice seem oddly similar to yours.
    Your problem, ultimately, can only be solved over decades, through a radical readjustment of the way you think and behave. If the denial persists, you are sure to continue killing more poor and desperate people, causing the hatred against you to grow, until at a certain point there will be no hope for you. But it’s not too late.
    Yes, there are some among your current enemies who can no longer be reached by reason. Yes, there are some who are crazy. But most are not. Most people are not insane. If you do change, it is inevitable that over time people will know that you have changed, and their feeling about you will also change, and the safety you seek will become a possibility.
    Wallace Shawn

  • Frank
    July 2, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Texano, the reason our southern border should be a priority in securing is because we didn’t have 20 million illegal aliens enter from our northern border. We don’t have near the drug trafficking problem up there either. Of course, you know that but are trying to play the race card. If I had my way we would be securing both borders because of possible terrorist entry from both borders.

  • Evelyn
    July 2, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Texano and Laura
    You are correct. It has nothing to do with securing America. It has everything to do with racism.
    When Obama is president and most of the remaining bigots are voted out of Washington, CIR will pass.
    Shutting down the phone lines wont help. Yur gonna have to git yur gun granny an shoot up the white house. LOL!

  • Jesus B. Ochoa/
    July 2, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Why did Obama vote for the wall? Well, he’s had time to think about it. A few days ago, on a one-on-one interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision, the Senator stated that the wall had its uses: for example, in Arizona, it had saved the lives of some of those who were not able to cross.
    Be still, my heart.

  • Evelyn
    July 3, 2008 at 12:32 am

    How can anything be more important than the security of our nation?
    Posted by Frank
    Frank :
    Texano, the reason our southern border should be a priority in securing is because we didn’t have 20 million illegal aliens enter from our northern border.
    Oh well heck yeah, it’s very important to stop the dish washers and nannies. Heck the terrorists that can come through the northern border only want us dead. LOL!
    Do any of the racists know what common sence and logic are?

  • Evelyn
    July 3, 2008 at 12:57 am

    Jesus B Ochoa
    I watched that interview.
    Read what he said about the wall carefully and why he wants it.
    Interview with the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States:
    Jorge Ramos – El Mercurio
    Translation: Machetera
    DENVER – Barack Obama arrived in no hurry and with the absolute conviction that he can become the first African-American president in the history of the United States.
    I had tested him on two prior occasions, during the presidential debates, and therefore the impression he gave me of being imperturbable, centered, with an internal equilibrium, no longer surprised me.
    He always gives the impression that before speaking, he thinks things over a fraction of a second longer than all the other politicians.
    There are politicians who hide their weaknesses and pretend to appear stronger than they are. Obama, no. He accepts his vulnerabilities. This quality is what allows him to connect with the people and the voters, especially the youngest ones.
    When I asked him if his wife, Michelle, believed that he was running a risk in the electoral campaign, he acknowledged without hesitation the power she has over him. “(Obviously I think that at first,) she’d have vetoed my entry in this presidential contest,” he told me. “I think everyone is worried at the beginning, but I believe that the Secret Service protection is excellent.”
    The objective of this 20 minute interview with the candidate was to see how much he knew about Hispanics in the United States and throughout Latin America. And without a doubt, Obama’s done his homework.
    He stated that one of the first things he would change should he arrive at the White House would be the subject of raids and deportations of undocumented immigrants.
    “I don’t believe that apprehending a mother, separating her from her child and deporting her, without taking the consequences into account, is the North American way of doing things,” he said.
    Obama didn’t want to commit himself, as Hillary Clinton proposed, to sending an immigration reform bill to Congress during his first 100 days in the White House. It’s not realistic when he first has to resolve the war in Iraq and the current economic crisis. However, he indicated, “What I can guarantee is an immigration reform proposal within the first year.”
    Obama has never been to Latin America in his 46 years. He doesn’t support the Free Trade Agreement that the United States and Colombia have negotiated, and perhaps he would suspend or renegotiate the trade agreement that has existed since 1994 with Mexico. But his foreign policy for the region goes much farther. “There’s a natural connection between the United States and Latin America,” he said.
    “When the war in Iraq is finished we may return to focus our attention (on Latin America),” he emphasized. And then he pulled out a long list of things that he wanted to do in order to not forget the region (as President George Bush did after September 11th, 2001).
    “I would initiate discussions with our enemies in Cuba and Venezuela…I would cancel the travel restrictions for those who have family in Cuba…I want to join with countries like Brazil to look for cleaner forms of energy…I will approve the Free Trade Agreement with Peru, but I oppose that of Colombia until I have confidence that union leaders are not being killed there…this kind of paramilitary activity has to stop,” said Barack Obama.
    And Hugo Chávez? Is he a threat to the national security of the United States and the rest of the continent, I asked?
    “Yes, I believe he’s a threat, but a manageable one,” he answered. “We know for example, that he may have been involved in supporting the FARC, harming a neighbor. This is not the kind of neighbor we want. I believe that it’s important, through the Organization of American States (OAS) or the United Nations, to initiate sanctions that say that this behavior is unacceptable. What I’ve said is that we should have direct diplomacy with Venezuela and all the countries in the world.”
    Obama studied Spanish in high school and two years in college. “My Spanish used to be okay,” he acknowledged. But now he’s almost completely forgotten it. “Yo hablo un poquito español, pero no es very good,” he dared to say in both languages.
    During his recent speech about Cuba, the only Spanish word he said was “libertad” [freedom]. And with the aid of a teleprompter he recorded a commercial in Spanish for Puerto Rico.
    In his presentations the phrase “Si, se puede” [Yes, we can] is dropped. But Obama is aware that speaking a few words in bad Spanish is not enough to gain the ten million Latino votes in the November presidential elections and the goodwill of 550 million Latin Americans.
    And in order to demonstrate that he would be a president of action, he wants to make his first trip to Latin America very soon: “I’d love to go…before November.”
    It would be his first step towards the south.
    “There are areas in which a wall makes sense.”
    The scarce, inefficient and improvised efforts of Obama’s campaign among Hispanics would explain the the meager results for the senator among these voters. In fact, Senator Hillary Clinton obtained more Latino votes than he did during the primaries, in all states. But some believe that this is a result of the tension that has existed between African-Americans and Latinos, for decades.
    “I think it just has to do with the fact that Latinos know me less well than they know Senator Clinton,” he explained. The don’t know, he added, that he has worked with the Latino community in Chicago, that he supported efforts to legalize those without documents and improve educational programs.
    But what many do know is that, as a senator, he voted in favor of building a 700 mile fence on the border with Mexico, to thwart illegal immigration.
    If he becomes president, would he stop the wall’s construction?
    “I want to know first if it’s working…”
    But does a wall work?
    “I still don’t know.”
    But you already voted to build a wall.
    “I understand. I voted to begin construction of a wall in certain areas along the border. I believe that there are areas where it makes sense and can save lives, if we prevent people from crossing desert areas that are very dangerous.” (It’s calculated that some 400 people die on this border every year.)
    Despite the fact that his declarations about Venezuela and Cuba (”I doubt that Fidel wrote his most recent editorial. I believe he’s too sick to do it.”) are those which have generated the most news, the relationship with Mexico is the first that Obama wants to repair. “It’s very important to approach the Mexican government, in a way that this administration (that of George W. Bush) hasn’t done, in order to discover what they need on the other side of the border to promote economic development and job creation,” he commented. “More work there means less undocumented people coming to the United States,” he emphasized.
    So far this year, more than a thousand people have died in Mexico as a consequence of the war between the drug cartels. Obama knows this and believes that consumption in the United States is, also, part of the problem. “I would not legalize marijuana,” he said, “but yes, I think we have to reduce the quantity (of drugs) in the United States.”
    Jorge Ramos is the Mexican anchor of Noticiero Univisión, which is seen in the United States and 13 countries of Latin America. The Mexican journalist has won several Emmy awards and has written six books, among them “The Other Face of America,” “Crossing Borders,” “The Latin Wave,” “Dying in the Attempt,” and most recently, “The Gift of Time.” He was named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Hispanics in the United States

  • Frank
    July 3, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    As Obama says, it makes sense to construct a fence in certain places. We have over 2,000 miles of border to our south and even more to our north yet we are only talking about constructing about 700 miles of fencing. Those who are opposing it are making their real agenda pretty clear.

  • Frank
    July 3, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    No one is allowed to enter our country without papers and that includes nannies and dishwashers. I never read anywhere in our immigration policies that they were excluded from entering the correct way.
    People from known terrorist countries are sneaking right in along with the nannies and dishwashers and so are the drug runners.

  • Frank
    July 3, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    When people break our laws, I don’t think they deserve a compliment. So-called lies, hatred and racism are irrelevant anyway. All that matters is that they are here in violation of our laws. Their character good or bad doesn’t mean squat to me in the grand scheme of things.
    Just as WE can see right through YOU and YOUR agenda, Evelyn. Which is to fill the country up with uneducated and poor immigrants in order to bring about your Socialist utopia which will utterly destroy what made this country exceptional. Which is, of course, what you and your ilk want. “Justice and equality” = Socialism in your mind. Since the ends justifies the means for people like you, you will pull every dirty trick in the book to get what you want, no matter what the cost–even accusing patriotic Americans of every vile motive in the book.
    Also, I’ve seen the inner workings of your mind in here and in the Hispanic Business Forum and the hostility you hold in your heart for what you consider “white America.” Yeah, we can see right through you also.

  • Evelyn
    July 3, 2008 at 10:57 pm

    6 reasons not to build a border fence
    It doesn’t work. Most experts say that physical fencing would not drastically decrease the number of illegal immigrants entering the country. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as much as 40-50 percent of the U.S.’s unauthorized migrant population entered the country through legal ports of entry, either with nonimmigrant visas that subsequently expired (known as “overstayers”) or by using a Border Crossing Card that allows for short visits to the border region. A fence spanning the border would not prevent their entry to the country. And there is little evidence that a fence would be a successful deterrent to other would-be border crossers. In a survey done by Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego, 90 percent of respondents who intended to migrate to the United States were aware that border crossing was “very dangerous,” but this failed to discourage them from their plans. Apprehensions by the border patrol do little to dissuade repeat border-crossing attempts. In Cornelius’ survey of migrants from the Mexican state of Oaxaca, 48 percent were apprehended on their most recent trip to the border. 96 percent of those migrants were able to enter eventually. Migrants intent on crossing the border will repeatedly try to do so–often successfully–no matter the obstacles in their way.
    It exacerbates the problem. Prior to the increase in border enforcement, many unauthorized migrants from Mexico followed a circulatory migration pattern, where mostly male migrants would spend part of the year in the United States, performing seasonal jobs or short-term work. They would often return for holidays, and their families tended to remain in Mexico. As border crossings have become more difficult, the rate of return among unauthorized migrants has decreased. Audrey Singer, an immigration expert with the Brookings Institution, explains that “more men are staying, women are coming and families are consolidating on this side of the border.” Also compounding this consolidation within the U.S. is the increased use of smugglers to facilitate border crossings. From 2005-2007, 80 percent of undocumented migrants used smugglers, known as “coyotes,” to help them across the border, according to Cornelius. With coyotes’ fees at several thousand dollars and growing, migrants are unlikely to make circular trips across the border using coyotes and are therefore more inclined to stay in the U.S. permanently. Douglas Massey, professor of sociology at Princeton University, sums it up: “The ultimate effect of the border fence policy is to increase the size [of the undocumented population] and to make it more permanent.”
    It’s inhumane. Major border enforcement operations have focused on urban areas, where border crossers have only a short distance to traverse. With increased enforcement, people have, according to Singer, abandoned these “institutionalized crossing patterns” and moved to places with “harsher climate, harsher terrain, and a greater likelihood of injury and death.” Deaths along the border have increased substantially since the mid-1990s–500 fatalities in 2007 alone. According to Cornelius, “women and children are overrepresented in fatalities, in proportion to their numbers among clandestine entrants. In several recent years, about 18 percent of the fatalities have been women and minors under 18.”
    It’s enormously costly. Though the exact figure is a matter of some dispute, there’s no disagreement that a fence would be a tremendous expense. The Congressional Budget Office predicts $3 million per mile in construction cost. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that the San Diego portion of the fence alone would cost $127 million for a length of 14 miles, roughly $9 million per mile. Factoring in repairs and maintenance, the Congressional Research Service estimates that a 25-year life span of a 700-mile fence (far short of the entire 1,952-mile border) would cost up to $49 billion.
    It’s environmentally damaging. The border region is an environmentally sensitive area, providing for numerous imperiled species. The fence proposed by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 would cross multiple protected federal lands. Biologists worry that jaguars, extremely rare in the United States, would see their cross-border migration patterns disrupted, threatening their survival. To see how a fence may negatively affect environmentally valuable land, one need only look to the state of limbo facing the Sabal Palm Audubon Center in Brownsville, Texas. If DHS has its way, a border fence constructed to the north of this bird sanctuary would essentially cede the land to Mexico, upsetting conservationists and ecotourism promoters alike. Michael Chertoff’s recent waiver of more than 30 environmental and land-management laws (see below for more on this) means that DHS will not have to examine in detail the fence’s effects on wildlife, water quality, and vegetation prior to construction.
    It’s legally dubious. Chertoff’s ability to waive those laws is derived from a 2005 law passed by Congress that allowed the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive “all legal requirements” in order to speed up the construction to the fence. The bill sharply limits judicial review to a single District judge; any appeal from that ruling can only go to the Supreme Court at the Court’s discretion. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a challenge from the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife. Both organizations, along with New York Times columnist Adam Liptak, argue that Congress’s voluntary delegation powers to the executive branch threatens the basic Constitutional principle of separation of powers. Oliver Bernstein, a spokesman for Sierra Club, told the Los Angeles Times that the Supreme Court’s hands-off approach “leaves one man–the secretary of the Homeland Security–with the extraordinary power to ignore any and all of the laws designed to protect the American people, our lands and our natural resources.”
    So, if not a fence, then what? Most experts on all sides of the immigration debate agree that the border fence is a political band-aid for a larger policy problem. Mark Krikorian of the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies believes that “politicians tend to over-emphasize the importance of fencing.” Cecilia Muñoz, of the Hispanic advocacy group National Council of La Raza calls the fence a “monument to Congress’s efforts to look like they’re doing something.” The enforcement-first approach of the Bush administration does nothing to deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants already in this country, or American employers’ demand for cheap immigrant labor, or the lack of a legal path for entry for future immigrants. Ways of dealing with this demand can–and should–be debated, but let’s cease to delude ourselves that this fence offers the answer

  • Evelyn
    July 3, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    Frank :
    No one is allowed to enter our country without papers and that includes nannies and dishwashers. I never read anywhere in our immigration policies that they were excluded from entering the correct way.
    Can you please tell me ‘exactly’ what is the correct way? Word for word. Because I cannot figure what you refer to as ‘the correct way’

  • Evelyn
    July 4, 2008 at 7:14 am

    When people break our laws, I don’t think they deserve a compliment.
    Evelyn Responds
    I dont see you demonizing murderers, rapists, you say nothing negative about child molesters, or serial killers.
    I’ve never once heard you lambaste or attack burglars or dirty cops.
    On a daily bases I do see you attack, demonize and lie about Mexicans and Hispanic immigrants using, misinformation, rhetoric, and out right Bull Crap.
    Your puny defence about law breakers not deserving a compliment isn’t gonna fly.
    Your motives for this nonstop demonetization of Mexicans and Hispanic immigrants is flat out in your face RACISM Yes, it’s that obvious!
    ~
    So-called lies, hatred and racism are irrelevant anyway. All that matters is that they are here in violation of our laws. Their character good or bad doesn’t mean squat to me in the grand scheme of things.
    Evelyn Responds
    Yes, it shows.
    SOCIOPATHY
    A manual used for diagnosing mental disorders, defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
    1. Failure to conform to social norms as indicated by showing respect to others and respect for laws, repeatedly preforming acts that are grounds for arrest
    2. Lack of compassion, show of indifference to suffering of others
    show no active desire to alleviate another’s suffering, fear or sorrow
    3.Reckless disregard of self or others
    4.Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, conning others for profit or pleasure
    5. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another or witnessed others commit these acts without acting to stop this behavior
    Racism is a tool of “Divide to Conquor”. Sociopathic families have used this one for many slavery, then with wage slavery. The KKK was supported by elites in each district, generously funded, politically protected. Between WWI and WWII the KKK made a major upsurge in America. The eugenicists put into effect immigration laws to restrict the so called inferior races.
    Jews would pay with their lives when the nazis came to take them to the slave camps and death camps. Jews were as unwelcome in KKK territory as the blacks or catholics. The door to America was slammed shut in their faces
    ~
    Just as WE can see right through YOU and YOUR agenda, Evelyn. Which is to fill the country up with uneducated and poor immigrants in order to bring about your Socialist utopia which will utterly destroy what made this country exceptional. Which is, of course, what you and your ilk want. “Justice and equality” = Socialism in your mind. Since the ends justifies the means for people like you, you will pull every dirty trick in the book to get what you want, no matter what the cost–even accusing patriotic Americans of every vile motive in the book.
    Also, I’ve seen the inner workings of your mind in here and in the Hispanic Business Forum and the hostility you hold in your heart for what you consider “white America.” Yeah, we can see right through you also.
    Posted by Frank
    Evelyn responds
    Even if my agenda is what you claim, (which is more BS refocus and smear) at least I am doing something good for these uneducated and poor immigrants who have proved they are one thousand times more deserving of a hand up then all the lazy spoiled Americans that want everything handed to them in a silver platter! What I am truly grateful for, is that my show of compassion and empathy for immigrants suffering whether they are Irish, Guatemalan, Chinese, etc means I show none of the characteristics that racists do.
    After reading the evidence I provided everyone will have a much better view of the inner workings of the mind of a racist.

  • Frank
    July 4, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Oh, for God’s sake! No one has any use for rapists and killers, etc. Does that have to be spelled out for you? The subject is illegal immigration and that is what we are discussing. I am glad that people like Charles Manson are behind bars. Does that make you happy now?
    You prove your own racism and bias with your own words by refering to Americans as “lazy, spoiled, undeserving, and having “everything handed to them on a silver platter.” That is utter BS! Some may have but not the majority!
    On the contrary, most Americans struggle to achieve any measure of success through hard work. American kids, especially the white variety without benefit of affirmative action and special race-based scholarships and grants, take out thousands of $$$ worth of loans to get through college even while working a couple of part time jobs. On the contrary, THEY are the ones paying the taxes so that your precious illegals can get their free hospital deliveries, WIC, food stamps, Section 8, and health care.

  • Evelyn
    July 5, 2008 at 4:42 am

    Oh, for God’s sake! No one has any use for rapists and killers, etc. Does that have to be spelled out for you? The subject is illegal immigration and that is what we are discussing. I am glad that people like Charles Manson are behind bars. Does that make you happy now?
    E Responds
    YES! Now go after a different criminal every day, instead of trying to make it look like Hispanic immigrants and Mexicans are criminals by lying about them.
    ~
    You prove your own racism and bias with your own words by refering to Americans as “lazy, spoiled, undeserving, and having “everything handed to them on a silver platter.” That is utter BS! Some may have but not the majority!
    E Responds
    I never used the word majority, you did. Quit trying SPIN!
    ~
    On the contrary, most Americans struggle to achieve any measure of success through hard work. American kids, especially the white variety without benefit of affirmative action and special race-based scholarships and grants, take out thousands of $$$ worth of loans to get through college even while working a couple of part time jobs. On the contrary, THEY are the ones paying the taxes so that your precious illegals can get their free hospital deliveries, WIC, food stamps, Section 8, and health care.
    E Responds
    LIE LIE LIE LIE
    You should be thanking immigrants for paying for your SS check every month.
    Immigrant Households and Businesses Generate Billions: In 2005, immigrant households and businesses paid approximately $300 billion in federal, state, and local taxes: $165 billion in federal income taxes, $85 billion in state and local income taxes, and $50 billion in business taxes.
    Immigrants Pay More in Taxes Than They Use in Services Over Their Lifetimes: Depending on skills and level of education, each immigrant pays, on average, between $20,000 and $80,000 more in taxes than he or she consumes in public benefits.
    Immigrants’ Relative Youth Contributes To Social Security’s Health: Current levels of immigration will provide a net benefit to the Social Security system of nearly $450 billion in taxes paid over benefits received during the 2006-2030 period–and almost $4.4 trillion during the 2006-2080 period. This is because 75 percent of immigrants arrive in the US when they are in their prime working years (age 18 to 65). But the share of native-born citizens in their prime working years now stands at only 60 percent, and will decline rapidly over the coming decades as the Baby Boomers retire.
    Immigrants Educated on Home Country’s Tab: The roughly 26 million immigrants now in the United States who arrived when they were over the age of 18–after their upbringing and basic education were paid for in their home countries–represent a windfall to American taxpayers of roughly $2.8 trillion. The US receives all of the tax payments made by these immigrants, while bearing almost none of the costs of raising and educating them.
    Several recent studies of the economic impact that immigration has at the state level have yielded similar findings:
    ARIZONA : A 2007 study by the University of Arizona ‘s Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy concluded that “the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.” Moreover, the “2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion ($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.”[1]
    ARKANSAS : A 2007 study by the Urban Institute found that ” Arkansas immigrants had an estimated total after-tax income of $2.7 billion in 2004. Approximately 20 percent of this was sent home to families abroad, saved, or used for interest payments. The remaining spending had a total impact on the state of $2.9 billion…” In addition, “without immigrant labor, the output of the state’s manufacturing industry would likely be lowered by about $1.4 billion-or about 8 percent of the industry’s $16.2 billion total contribution to the gross state product in 2004.”[2]
    FLORIDA : A 2007 study released by Florida International University found that the state’s “immigrant workers paid an estimated annual average of $10.49 billion in federal taxes and $4.5 billion in state and local taxes from 2002 to 2004.” The study concluded that “comparing taxes paid to assistance received shows that immigrants in Florida contribute nearly $1,500 per year more than they receive” in Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, disability income, veterans’ benefits, unemployment compensation, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, food stamps, housing subsidies, energy assistance, Medicare, and Medicaid.[3]
    NEVADA : A 2007 report from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada found that Hispanic immigrants in Nevada paid roughly $2.6 billion in federal taxes and $1.6 billion in state and local taxes (including $500 million in sales taxes) in 2005. According to the report, “the money that immigrants earn and spend in Nevada accounts for about 25% of the State’s Gross State Product” and “Hispanic immigrant employment, income and spending results in the creation of 108,380 jobs in Nevada .”[4]
    NEW YORK : A 2007 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute concludes that ” New York ‘s immigrants are responsible for $229 billion in economic output in New York State. That’s 22.4 percent of the total New York State GDP, a share slightly larger than immigrants’ share of population, and slightly smaller than their share of the workforce. Moreover, “immigrants in New York State are entrepreneurs, managers, and workers in jobs at all levels of the economy, from the lowest-paid day laborers to the highest-paid investment bankers.”[5]
    WASHINGTON, DC : A 2006 study by the Urban Institute found that immigrant households in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area “paid $9.8 billion or 17.7 percent of total taxes paid by metropolitan-area residents in 1999–2000 ($55.2 billion)…virtually the same as their share of the total population (17.4 percent)…” Approximately 72 percent of these tax payments went to the federal government.[6]
    The Immigration Policy Center also has published a survey of local- and state-level studies that examine the costs and contributions of immigrants in communities throughout the US.
    Endnotes[1] Judith Gans, Immigrants in Arizona : Fiscal and Economic Impacts ( Tucson, AZ : Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona , 2007), p. 3.[2] Randy Capps, et al., A Profile of Immigrants in Arkansas : Executive Summary ( Washington, DC : Urban Institute, April 2007), pp. 4-6.[3] Emily Eisenhauer, et al., Immigrants In Florida : Characteristics and Contributions ( Miami, FL : Research Institute for Social and Economic Policy, Florida International University , May 2007), pp. 7, 34.[4] Robert Ginsburg, Vital Beyond Belief: The Demographic and Economic Facts about Hispanic Immigrants in Nevada ( Las Vegas, NV : Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada , 2007), pp. 6-10.[5] Fiscal Policy Institute, Working for a Better Life: A Profile of Immigrants in the New York State Economy ( New York, NY : November 2007), p. 1.[6] Randy Capps, et al., Civic Contributions: Taxes Paid by Immigrants in the Washington, DC , Metropolitan Area ( Washington, DC : Urban Institute, May 2006), p. 5.

  • Frank
    July 5, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    I haven’t lied about Mexican immigrants whether they be legal or illegal. What I have said is that some are criminals and some are not! That is just a fact, not a lie! Just like some citizens are criminals and some are not! Don’t you even get tired of your race card pulling?
    Trying to put a spin on your own spin now about your statement about lazy Americans? I am sure there are some but what has that to do with illegal immigration? You brought it up, not me.
    LOL! Illegal aliens are contributing to my SS check? Even if that were true, I don’t give a damn because it is about our laws, period! I don’t want the government giving me ANY money that wasn’t earned legally in this country.
    As far as the so-called benefits of having illegal aliens in this country, I believe it was liquidmicro that posted a link to a Calif. government office that dispelled any so-called benefits of having them here and in fact it was a net loss. If you don’t want to believe what a government office has to say about it, then I can’t help you. It is all about the rule of law to me anyway.

  • Evelyn
    July 7, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    ” It is all about the rule of law to me anyway.”
    E responds
    It is all about justice and equality and knowing right from wrong to me.
    Unjust laws must be made just to ensure the survival of our Constitution.
    REMARKS BY DEPUTY COMMERCE SECRETARY DAVID A. SAMPSON
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Observance
    Department of Commerce Auditorium
    Washington, D.C.
    January 19, 2006
    (As Prepared For Delivery)
    We are here to honor and celebrate the life of a transformational figure in American history. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was a transformational figure in American history because, as a quintessential American, he challenged America to fulfill her promise.
    He understood the power of words to transform. “I have a dream,” he said, “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'”
    With this speech, Dr. King penned one of the most eloquent defenses of the moral law: the law that formed the basis for his speech, for the civil rights movement itself, and for all laws for that matter.
    For Dr. King understood the transformational power of ideas.
    Charles Colson recently described that power, writing about the spring of 1963, when Dr. King was arrested for leading a series of massive, non-violent protests against the segregated lunch counters and discriminatory hiring practices in Birmingham, Alabama. While in jail, Dr. King received a letter from eight Alabama ministers. They agreed with his goals, but thought he should call off the demonstrations and obey the law.
    Dr. King explained why he disagreed in his famous “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.” “One may well ask, how can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer “. . . is found in the fact that there are two kinds of laws: just laws, and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws,” Dr. King said. “But conversely,” he said, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
    How does one determine whether the law is just or unjust? A just law, Dr. King wrote, “squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law . . . is out of harmony with the moral law.” Then Dr. King quotes Saint Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.” He also quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal or natural law.”
    This remains a great issue in today’s public square. Is the law rooted in truth? Is it transcendent, immutable, and morally binding? Or is it merely what each succeeding generation of culture says it is?
    Dr. King was a transformational figure in American history, not a transitory political personality. He was able to rise above the generally accepted cultural and political wisdom of the day, and dream of an America that lived in harmony with transcendent moral law.
    Our nation is stronger today because Dr. King chose to address the scourge of racial injustice. And he did so from a strong moral, theological and philosophical foundation.
    As Dr. King said in that same letter from Birmingham: “We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom.”
    We have not yet reached that goal fully. But Dr. King ultimately knew the power of faith. And by his example, we are inspired to continue moving forward to make his dream, and that of our forebears, a reality in our generation, and for posterity.
    Thank you very much.

  • Frank
    July 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Justice is what happens when a law breaker gets his just dues as punishement. Our laws say the punishment/justice for breaking our immigration laws is deportation!
    Illegal aliens are never equal to a citizen in any country and rightly so!

  • Frank
    July 8, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Immigration has nothing to do with “racial injustice.” It is about our laws. Dr. King was sticking up for Black citizens, not illegal aliens.

  • Horace
    July 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws,” Dr. King said. “But conversely,” he said, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
    Well, Evelyn, that leaves the door wide open for those who would arbitarily decide on their own as to which laws are just or unjust. Don’t like your relatives arrested for shoplifting, rant and whine and call it an unjust law and break them out of jail. Don’t like being arrested for driving without a driver’s license, curse our enforcement officers, and call it an unjust law. After all, there was a time when we they weren’t required, so they must’ve been enacted just to inconvenience you. Unfortunately for you, Evelyn, few people agree that our immigration laws are so manifestly bad that we’d abandon them all without an argument.
    The difference between the civil rights activists and the illegal alien advocates is that the former have the U.S. Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights as their shield, while the latter have nothing at all in the way of law to call upon to protect their friends an relatives from arrest and deportation. Of course, they enacted those nasty laws just to inconvenience you and your constituency.

  • Evelyn
    July 10, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Horace :
    “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws,” Dr. King said. “But conversely,” he said, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
    E responds
    Thank You Horace! I rest my case!
    Even the lacking in brain power know our immigration laws are unjust because they cannot be inforced the way they stand. To punish someone for violating a law that is uninforcable is unjust. CIR is needed.

  • Frank
    July 13, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Our immigration laws are quite enforceable. They always have been. Our borders weren’t secured and employers weren’t held accountable for hiring illegal aliens. Therefore it was the lack of security and enforcement that caused the failure not the laws themselves. Our immigration laws are not unjust either. They are in place to protect American citizens.

  • Evelyn Chavez
    August 9, 2008 at 1:46 am

    We see the lies about America’s immigration laws, now here is the truth!
    Which workers are ‘deserving’?
    U.S. immigration policy founded on racism
    By NathalieHrizi/BenBecker
    Bill Hackwell
    Capitalist politicians, far-right organizations and media pundits base their anti-immigrant arguments on the claim that undocumented workers—who they call “illegal aliens”—have broken law. They fail to mention that the law has changed, sometimes quite radically, to suit the needs of the capitalist system and in response to political struggles waged by U.S. workers, citizens and non-citizens.
    Immigration and citizenship law is not a fixed standard. It has always functioned both as a product of and a producer of institutional racism. It is a way to stigmatize a certain population as “socially undesirable” while at the same time satisfy big business’ need for cheap labor.
    Racism and citizenship
    The first U.S. citizenship regulation was the 1790 Nationality Act. It gave citizenship to “free white persons” who had resided in the country for two continuous years. Because indentured servants and the propertyless of European descent were not considered “free,” citizenship was highly limited—even for white people. Universal white male suffrage was only won on a state-by-state basis in the mid-19th century. White women did not win the right to vote until 1920.
    When the United States was formed, people of African descent had been brutally enslaved for over a century. Regardless of their status, freed or slave, they had no citizenship rights.
    This policy was upheld by the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which ruled that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were “beings of an inferior order” and were barred from ever becoming citizens.
    The Fourteenth Amendment, passed after the Civil War, formally expanded the right of citizenship to freed slaves and all people born on U.S. soil. In 1870, the Nationality Act expanded this right to include “persons of African nativity or descent.”
    Still, African-Americans did not truly win the rights spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
    Meanwhile, throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, Native Americans fought a determined struggle for sovereignty and survival against the expansionist U.S. government’s wars of extermination. The citizenship rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment did not include Native Americans born on tribal lands.
    Another significant population was the Mexican people, who were forcibly incorporated into the country by the U.S. war of aggression that stole half of Mexico. In the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848, U.S. forces conquered a wide expanse of Mexican territory, including the present U.S. states of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, California, Nevada and Utah.
    European immigrants who entered through Ellis Island received better treatment than Mexican and Asian immigrants.
    The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which formally ended the war, stipulated that Mexicans who remained in those areas for the next year would automatically become citizens of the United States. The U.S. government systematically violated this right, however.
    Read more…
    http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=637

Comments are closed.

28 Comments