Deport All Illegals?

by Tanya Golash-Boza / November 30th, 2009

Without fail, when I write or read an opinion piece or news story on the deportation of non-citizens from the United States, there are comments below the post that suggest that we should “deport all illegals.” It does not matter if we are talking about straight-A student Rigo Padilla or a convicted murder, the rhetoric is the same — deport them; they are illegal. In an attempt to pre-empt that comment below this post, I’d like to explore it.

First of all, not all “illegals” are the same. For example, many asylum-seekers enter the US illegally, then apply for asylum. After applying, they are no longer undocumented, but documented asylum-seekers. Later, they can become U.S. citizens. Some people enter the US with visas, and then overstay, going from documented visitors to undocumented migrants.

Because “illegality” is a status one can move in and out of, it is not accurate to refer to people as “illegals.” There are about twelve million people who lack authorization to remain in the US. Some of these people are in the process of legalizing; others are waiting for a key life event that will permit them to legalize, and still others will never be able to gain legal status, because of more than one illegal entry, immigration fraud, or a host of other legal infractions.

“Deport all illegals,” then, is a rallying cry to not permit those who presently qualify, or may qualify in the future, to attain legal status — to go through the process of legalization. Why are some people in favor of stopping this process? Why not, instead, use the resources available to speed up the legalization process? The end result would be fewer people without authorization to remain in the United States.

“Deport all illegals” is a cry to expel immediately all persons in the US without authorization. The idea that all undocumented migrants should be deported is based on the assumption that there should be no judicial process to evaluate who should be deported and who should be allowed to stay. People in the US lack authorization to remain in the US either because they entered illegally, because their visa has expired, because they violated the conditions of their visa, or because their visa application has been denied. Their crime, then, is either “entry without inspection,” “visa overstay,” or ignoring a deportation order. These legal infractions are about as serious as driving without a license, jaywalking, tax evasion, or failure to report to jury duty, depending on the sort of comparison you wish to draw. In contrast, people accused of the most heinous crimes — murder, rape, child abuse, human trafficking — are afforded a trial with a full judicial process. Why, then, do people advocate for the immediate deportation of all “illegals” without any judicial process? Are illegal entry and overstaying a visa more heinous crimes than murder or rape?

Perhaps it has to do with national sovereignty. “Illegals” lack permission to be here, so kick them out. However, if the question is simply one of national sovereignty and not criminality, why does the discourse center around illegality — the breaking of laws — and criminality? Furthermore, since the primary focus is on legal infractions, why suggest eliding the judicial process? Why not, instead, restore due process to deportation proceedings, and ensure that people are given a fair trial before being removed from the United States?

Instead of commenting below this post “deport all illegals,” I urge you to explain to me why the USA, which holds the Constitution so dear, should eliminate the judicial process and “deport all illegals.”

Tanya Golash-Boza is on the faculty at the University of Kansas. Read other articles by Tanya, or visit Tanya's website.

This article was posted on Monday, November 30th, 2009 at 9:01am and is filed under Human Rights, Justice, Legal/Constitutional.

38 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Ray said on November 30th, 2009 at 10:29am #

    People who want to do something positive –
    http://www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com – Channel your energies in a
    positive way. Here are some suggestions, build a web page,
    phone your congressman, attend meetings in your local area
    with like minded people to form or support freedom coalitions,
    email your local representatives, call Washington, have group
    viewings videos that have verified information pertaining to
    amendment rights… http://www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com

  2. John White said on November 30th, 2009 at 12:35pm #

    There is no moral imperative to allow people to come here illegally for their own economic benefit. If you want to help people of other countries improve their lot, there are ways to do that that don’t require breaking US laws. If there is any moral imperative regarding illegal immigration, it is not advantage those who jumped the line over those who followed the rules to come here. How do you explain to someone who waited years to immigrate here legally that we look the other way while millions gain jobs and possibly citizenship by slipping over the border? That’s the outrage here.

  3. duaner said on November 30th, 2009 at 12:38pm #

    The answer is simplicity itself: of those who would advocate the immediate deportation of all illegals, many likely see it as a simple solution to a simple problem. You have problems with an “illegal aliens”? Deport them – no more problem.

    Careful analysis that reveals the full complexity of the issue is exasperating to those who prefer simplicity. For one thing, you generally cannot fit this sort of thing on a bumper sticker: “Honk if you support restoring due process to deportation proceedings!” would require an illegibly small font.

    The real issue is this pernicious preference for simplicity, even in the face of massive evidence that most issues are complex. So, how do you get people to acknowledge the complexity of a given issue? A high-quality post-secondary education should do it, but there appears to be abundant evidence to the contrary – Anne Coulter, Alan Dershowitz, and George W. Bush to name a few would seem to refute the assertion that a good education produces a mind capable of handling complexity.

    I guess all you can do is try to engage people, as you have, and point out the complexities in a given issue in the hopes that your interlocutor will take your point and spread it around. That’s the simple solution, and it might have some effect. The more complex solution would likely require some sort of cultural revolution, where a fine analysis of a complex issue will produce the same sort of admiration as a well-thrown touchdown pass.

    Another way to look at it: the prevailing hero-image in the states is a warrior-king, not a philosopher-king. Swift and decisive action is valued, along with steely-eyed resolve. In other words, act fast and never back down. You can see how this is incompatible with the kind of intellectual grappling you need to perform in order to resolve complex social issues.

    Replace the warrior-king with the philosopher-king, and you’re a long way on the road to producing a society that can do more than knee-jerk reaction. Of course, you’ll also need to curtail the influence of the corporations-behind-the-throne, but that’s another issue for another day. Ask the current president about that one…

  4. b99 said on November 30th, 2009 at 1:16pm #

    John White – The ‘illegals’ are here because the US wants them here. They are here because the multitudes of Chambers of Congress want them here, they’re here because consumers want cheap goods and services, they’re here because capitalists don’t want to raise wages to levels that Americans would take the jobs – that would cut into profits. The US wants them here for economic reasons but you blame the immigrants for coming for economic reasons. You’ve put the cart before the horse.

    Everybody wants the immigrants here – they just don’t want to see them.

  5. Adam said on November 30th, 2009 at 2:14pm #

    The right-wing/conservative view point = blame the victims, absolve the bosses. A working class right-wing/conservative = lackey of the bourgeoisie.

    There’s a bumper sticker.

  6. Synic3 said on November 30th, 2009 at 3:40pm #

    Illgeal immigration coupled with off-shoring jobs to cheaper labor countries are destroying the working class and the unions.
    Although I consider myself a populist and left of center, nothing infuriates me more than those so called progressives who are defending illegal immigration instead of defending the jobs of their fellow citizen from this endless stream of cheap and initimidated labor that compete with them at every corner.
    The ruling elites support illegal immigration because it provides them with contiuous stream of cheap and intimidated labor who work almost for nothing without benefits.
    The irony is that the conservatives who benefit from illegal immigration blame the liberals who are hurt by illegal immigrations for all the problems resulting from illegal immigration.
    And the bigger irony is that the liberal support illegal immigration which are against the interests of the working class and benefits the business class which is mostly Republicans and Conservatives. Funny Ha!!

  7. Charlie said on November 30th, 2009 at 4:28pm #

    There is a difference between Constitutional rights and human rights. Like it or not, the Constitution does not grant to non-citizens the same rights afforded to US citizens. Some people may be outraged by that situation, but–right or wrong–it is a fact of law and life.

    That said, it is important to note that due process is currently afforded to those who enter this country illegally. The process of deportation is part of the US judicial system, and a number of cases have gone to the highest courts, including the Supreme Court. It’s a bit cavalier of Ms.Golash-Boza to suggest that due process isn’t being given to undocumented people facing deportation from the US or won’t continue to be given to them.

    She writes, “I urge you to explain to me why the USA, which holds the Constitution so dear, should eliminate the judicial process and ‘deport all illegals.'” To my knowledge, the USA has no plans to eliminate the judicial process for deportation, so there is little cause for alarm on that front. Our energy might be better spent helping non-citizens understand their legal circumstances and their courses of action.

    In turn, I would urge Ms. Golash-Boza to explain why those who have knowingly shown nothing but contempt for the Constitution and this nation’s laws should be seen as victims. Moreover, why is it the responsibility of the US to handle the problem by itself? People in this country illegally have often broken the laws of two countries: the US and the country where they are citizens. Why doesn’t Mexico, for example, do more to stem the flow of illegals? And if judicial process is so important, why not deport illegals to stand trial in their home country? If Mexico had to pony up and accept some responsibility for the actions of its citizens, then I guarantee that the problem would diminish. And if Mexico doesn’t have a Constitution that protects the rights of its citizens, then perhaps the problem isn’t with the US but a little further south.

    I am not as unsympathetic as I may sound here. But I am weary of writers such as Ms. Golash-Boza who give liberalism a bad name by automatically sympathizing with those who break the law; constructing paper tigers from shrill, unsubstantiated rhetoric about some impending catastrophe; and launching tirades against the big, bad government that are long on self-absorbed, pretentious wailing and short on facts.

  8. B99 said on November 30th, 2009 at 5:58pm #

    synic – The best thing that can be done to help the American worker is to raise minimum wages and for cities to pass ‘living wage’ laws. Wages in the US have fallen abysmally over the decades (to the capitalist’s delight). Many jobs now done by foreign labor – legal or illegal – would be taken by Americans if the wages were right. As it stands, its easier for a person to get by on a spouse’s wage rather than accept the little remunerative return on time and labor of a low-wage job.

    Charlie – The US is not divorced from the political economy of Mexico. At the behest of the US and under intense political pressure, Mexico folded its public employment tent and slowly (or rapidly some might say) privatized its economy – AND opened up its economy to goods previously kept out (like US corn). As a result, the massive and highly paid public sector dumped its workers, especially those in PEMEX the government owned petroleum company, and screwed its corn farmers by lifting subsidies to let American corn in. Average wages in Mexico have been on the decline ever since, replaced by maquiladora wages and conditions near the US border. Mexico’s economic progress was halted in its tracks and Mexican workers have been streaming in ever since. There’s a bit of just-deserts in all of this.

  9. lichen said on November 30th, 2009 at 6:06pm #

    The only way to get full employment with living wages at democratic workplaces for all is to pursue that directly. Racist rhetoric about immigrants doesn’t help achieve that at all; there would still be mass unemployment without them here. So either change the problem at it’s cause, or shutup. No one is illegal.

  10. Ruth MG said on November 30th, 2009 at 8:10pm #

    Thanks Dr. Golash-Boza for challenging the widespread idea that “illegal is illegal.” I would like to push the discussion even further to the left and ask (synic3) why we should draw national boundaries around the working class? Are borders, created by wars of conquest, somehow more permanent, natural, or legitimate ways to categorize people than, say, race? Gender? Sexual orientation? Are workers in Mexico (or India or Poland or Tanzania) less deserving of jobs than Americans? Should necessary resources, like the ability to make a living and feed your children, be subject to national boundaries? Particularly in an era in which the U.S. has “persuaded” countries like Mexico to adopt its economic policies that make it impossible for many people to make a living where they are from?
    Like all law, U.S. immigration policy is social policy that is codified and sanctioned by the state. Like all law it is subject to change. And error. I believe that policies that unconscionably plunder the labor of undocumented people and eagerly take their tax dollars while hypocritically denying them claims to rights is unjust. And I believe that unjust laws should be broken. The working class has no borders.

  11. Rachel Heuman said on December 1st, 2009 at 5:31am #

    Charlie — who is not as unsympathetic as he sounds above but who is just weary of weary of writers who give liberalism a bad name —

    should read the 14th amendment which, like it or not, gives “persons”
    not “citizens” the rights so painstakingly denoted in the Constitution;
    and the newspapers and judges’ and lawyers’ frusutration and anger over the LACK of due process in deportation proceedings.

    Truly, I regret having made this comment somewhat personal, but I am SO weary of uninformed and misinformed responses like these, often presented in the guise of facts. And for the record, though it’s not a point Charlie touched upon, but a flag that is often raised by others who, but for the grace of God, could have been born into an economy that would force THEM to seek a way to give their families a decent life:
    “Americans have the right to sovereignty over their borders.” Exactly
    what immigration reform would provide — a system of admissions put into LAW that is workable, unlike the present broken system, that would regulate the flow of immigrants according to the needs of US labor — in case anyone would actually like to read about that, it’s referred to as “future flow.”

  12. Rachel Heuman said on December 1st, 2009 at 5:33am #

    No, the above is not a duplicate comment — I have never responded here in the past.

  13. Carmen said on December 1st, 2009 at 10:50am #

    I can’t believe there are people walking around like Golash-Boza and writing articles for newspapers! Good grief!
    I am Hispanic, I came to the U.S. as a legal immigrant and I am a naturalized U.S. citizen. Calling illegal aliens euphemisms like “non-citizens, undocumented, illegal immigrants,” etc. is a slap in the face to those of us who came to the U.S. by respecting the law.
    I live in California, ground zero and the welfare state for illegal aliens. According to a report by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, member of the State Budget Committee, it costs Californians $10.5 Billion a year to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens. Illegal aliens don’t pay income tas and the few that do, report such low salaries that they get money back. We have a state deficit of #$18 Billion with no relief on sight. I am on a fixed income and if California succeeds in raising property taxes, I stand to lose my home.
    The only thing that illegal aliens have coming to them is DEPORTATION. End of story.
    Carmen

  14. b99 said on December 1st, 2009 at 11:41am #

    Carmen – Anglos who don’t like illegal immigrants usually don’t like legal immigrants either. Anglos resent the Hispanicization of California and the US. So that resentment includes you. That’s why cops round up all Hispanics – even citizens – and ask questions later.

    In return for the cost of educating, medicating and incarcerating Latinos, we get our veggies picked cheaply, our cars washed, our roofs retiled, our food delivered, our dishes washed, our lawns mowed, our yard shaped-up, and our children watched. Sounds fair to me. Such a bargain they they get money back on their taxes.

  15. S.L. Toddard said on December 1st, 2009 at 11:53am #

    “Why not, instead, use the resources available to speed up the legalization process?”

    Because Americans did not invite them into our country, and do not want them here. The problem Americans have isn’t so much that they’re illegal – it’s that they’re HERE with neither leave nor right to be here. We have enough poor people in this country without importing millions more of them from the 3rd world. Desiring that all illegal aliens are deported is entirely reasonable, humane and consistent with the rule of law in a constitutional republic such as ours. I don’t personally hold that view, but that doesn’t make it any less valid. In my opinion we should deport whatever illegal aliens show up in criminal court, seal the southern border with a border wall and penalize companies that hire illegal aliens. For the rest, deny them employment etc until they elect to leave. I’d also recommend a moratorium on legal immigration as well, as we had between 1924 and 1965, to help assimilate the cultural aliens here already.

  16. S.L. Toddard said on December 1st, 2009 at 11:59am #

    “Instead of commenting below this post “deport all illegals,” I urge you to explain to me why the USA, which holds the Constitution so dear, should eliminate the judicial process and “deport all illegals.”

    This is a valid argument – what powers does the Constitution grant the federal government to deport illegals? Of course, it’s not valid *to make* the argument unless it is being made by someone who is a consistent constitutionalist, and who recognizes that nearly the whole of the modern welfare state is unconstitutional in itself. One cannot become a strict constructionist merely when it is convenient.

  17. S.L. Toddard said on December 1st, 2009 at 12:04pm #

    “Carmen – Anglos who don’t like illegal immigrants usually don’t like legal immigrants either. Anglos resent the Hispanicization of California and the US”

    Absolutely. What American wouldn’t resent the de-Americanization of America? Much as I would expect a Mexican to resent the de-Mexicanization of Mexico. Ethnic groups – whether ethnic Americans (meaning the descendants of the original Anglo settlers and those who came after that assimilated into their culture to the extent that they are now culturally indistinguishable from the descendants of those Anglo settlers in that region) or otherwise – do not generally get excited about being displaced and disempowered, and having large swaths of their country becoming the property of alien foreigners.

  18. b99 said on December 1st, 2009 at 12:32pm #

    Toddard – “Original Anglo settlers’??? Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Las Vegas, California, Colorado, San Bernadino, Santa Barabara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Palo Alto, Nevada, Pueblo, St. Augustine, Galveston, Sierra Nevada, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Alamos, Alamogordo, San Anyonio, El Paso, Amarillo, San Marcos, Texas, Laredo, Rio Grande….

    Did the Anglos give these places Spanish-language names? Or just maybe these people were there before you. There is NO TIME in the last 450 years that these lands were not inhabited by non-Anglos. And at no time were any of these lands ceded to the Anglos as a friendly gesture. They are just reclaiming demographically what was taken politically.

    PS to Carmen – See? Toddard doesn’t want Hispanics here, legal or not.

  19. S.L. Toddard said on December 1st, 2009 at 12:43pm #

    “Did the Anglos give these places Spanish-language names?”

    Of course not. I did not write, nor did I imply, that *those areas* were settled by Anglos. I was defining what an ethnic American is.

    “There is NO TIME in the last 450 years that these lands were not inhabited by non-Anglos.”

    I fail to see how that is relevant.

    “And at no time were any of these lands ceded to the Anglos as a friendly gesture. They are just reclaiming demographically what was taken politically.”

    They have no legal right to do so, fortunately. The laws enacted by the American people, through their representatives in Congress, rule here, independent of the ancient cultural grievances and sour grapes of foreign peoples.

    “PS to Carmen – See? Toddard doesn’t want Hispanics here, legal or not.”

    Also not true. I am perfectly happy to have all Hispanics here legally become Americans and stay in perpetuity. What I have called for is a moritorium on *all* immigration, from Mexico, Anglo-land, Sweden and elsewhere. Leave it to a grievance hustler to resort to PC thuggery to distort my (very clearly and honestly laid out) position. Such tactics usually imply an inability to make one’s arguments honestly, on its own merits.

  20. b99 said on December 1st, 2009 at 1:19pm #

    Uh, Toddard – this is your quote: “Ethnic groups – whether ethnic Americans (meaning the descendants of the ORIGINAL Anglo settlers…” (caps mine – B99)

    There were no original Anglo settlers in these parts of the US with Spanish names. These lands were inhabited by Indians, and then Spanish speakers largely with Indian blood in them. The Anglos came later and stole the land through war and coercion (and had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO). And to be accurate, these people are no less American than you are – and in fact, given the ten to twelve thousand years they have been here – they are the most native people to the region of all.

    If you want to make the argument that the native natural people of the Americas can be excluded because the US has the military might to do so – that’s one thing. But you can’t make the argument that the Anglos were the original settlers – nor the argument of law. These lands were not won by law – they were won through violence under the ideology of “Manifest Destiny.” As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

    And it bears repeating that you said – in response to the notion of resentment of LEGAL Latino immigrants, “Absolutely. What American wouldn’t resent the de-Americanization of America?” So like I said, Carmen doesn’t realize that “Americans’ don’t want her here either. (As if you had a lock on what is American.)

  21. S.L. Toddard said on December 1st, 2009 at 1:33pm #

    b99 – I am apparently not making myself clear. I did not mean “the original Anglo settlers” of what later became California, New Mexico and Arizona. I meant the “original Anglo settlers” of the United States of America (the 13 colonies, specifically).

    “The Anglos came later and stole the land through war and coercion (and had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO)”

    The Treaty of Cahuenga and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo etc ceded said territories legally to the United States, and are recognized as such under international law (which is to say “legally”).

    Sorry.

    “Absolutely. What American wouldn’t resent the de-Americanization of America?”

    Indeed – what American wouldn’t?

    “So like I said, Carmen doesn’t realize that “Americans’ don’t want her here either.”

    *sigh*

    On the contrary, and as I have stated, I am happy to have Carmen here, and for legal Hispanic immigrants to stay in perpetuity and become Americans.

    “As if you had a lock on what is American”

    I don’t “have a lock” on anything. I’m merely noting what an ethnic (unhyphenated) American is. It is someone whose ethnicity is “American”, which is to say the descendants of the original Anglo settlers (of the United States! not of California) and those who came after that assimilated into their culture to the extent that they are now culturally indistinguishable from the descendants of those Anglo settlers in whatever region the reside. That’s a fairly uncontroversial statement, I think.

  22. b99 said on December 1st, 2009 at 2:15pm #

    Toddard – Those treaties are recognized as international law because the US was not to be denied. To the victor goes the spoils (just as it is the victor who rights the history). The reason those places had Spanish names is because it was Spanish, and then Mexican territory. There was no intention of ceding many hundreds of thousands of square miles to an expansionist United States. That land was won via a war by the US on Mexico. Therefore, no moral argument can be made that the land ‘rightfully’ belongs to the US. Only the legal argument can be made – but we know that even the legal argument is based in the arm-twisting of the defeated party.

    We should understand that from the day the Anglos first betrayed Native -Americans by reneging on treaties and promises, and from the day the Anglos first brought over boatloads of kidnapped Africans, all resort to this being rightfully an Anglo country was forfeited. In fact, all notions of what being an ‘American’ means was immediately forfeited as well. A Cuban in Little Havana is an American, so too is a French-Canadian in Maine, and a Salvadoran in California, and the descendent of Chinese corvee labor where ever she may be. There is no American in some 13-colonies sense. Even besides the enslaved Africans and vanquished Indians, this country began to change dramatically as soon as boatloads of Catholics from Ireland began to arrive. And then boatloads of Italian Catholics, and Jews, Slavic-language Catholics and Orthodox – and Greek Orthodox. And German and Scandinavian Lutherans. What the meaning of ‘American’ is has changed over time – and will continue to change. You cannot legislate it – and you can’t wall it out because this country – this economic system requires boatload after boatload of immigrants. So in the end, what you call consider Anglo, and what you consider to be an English-speaking land, are likely to be passing phases. If you go back more than 500 years all languages here were Native-American. Then you have the growth of Spanish speakers, then Dutch, Swedish, French and then – ONLY then – English speakers. Now the nation is English speaking with a large Spanish-speaking minority, and pockets of French and assorted other immigrant languages. Anglos and the English language have no historical or geographical guarantees.

    I’ll have to say it again – its the Hispanicization of the US you decried – “Absolutely” – you didn’t care if it was legal or not.

    It would seem that as you are oblivous to the non-white inhabitants (in very large numbers!) of what became the 13 original states your analysis of what American means has more to do with race than culture.

  23. S.L. Toddard said on December 1st, 2009 at 4:47pm #

    “Toddard – Those treaties are recognized as international law”

    Correct. So you agree with my statement that “They (Mexican citizens) have no legal right to do so (reclaim demographically what was taken politically).” As it would be impossible to undo all of history’s perceived injustices (entailing, as it would, shipping the English back to Germany, the Amerindians back to Asia, the French back to the steppes and the whole lot of us eventually back to Africa, ironically) what the civilized world has agreed to do is settle international differences of opinion (such as what “rights” certain peoples have to certain lands) before a world senate, which (I should add) has not awarded any land to the Mexican people via their elected representatives.

    “We should understand that from the day the Anglos first betrayed Native -Americans by reneging on treaties and promises, and from the day the Anglos first brought over boatloads of kidnapped Africans, all resort to this being rightfully an Anglo country was forfeited”

    Correct – it is not an “Anglo country”. My genetic ancestors were not English, but my cultural ancestors were. America is a country with citizens descended from many peoples. Still, American culture is an offshoot of English culture (and lucky for it, frankly). That’s what a people, or a nation, is, you know – a group who share a common culture. And is it not a man’s duty to maintain, cultivate and preserve his culture, and therefore people?

    “In fact, all notions of what being an ‘American’ means was immediately forfeited as well”

    I’m sorry, but that’s absurd. I am sorry for you, that you feel no attachment to a people – I imagine you are one of these poor, deracinated cosmopolites, placeless and alone. That is the wreck modern corporate/leftist culture has made of modern man – culturally nihilistic and suicidal.

    “A Cuban in Little Havana is an American, so too is a French-Canadian in Maine, and a Salvadoran in California, and the descendent of Chinese corvee labor where ever she may be”

    Hahaha. Seriously though, there’s a distinction between American citizenship and an American cultural identity. Much as there is between French citizenship and French cultural identity (a French citizen is not necessarily a Frenchman). If I were to become an Ethiopian citizen tomorrow, that would not make me an Ethiopian. Honestly what are you doing arguing about anything if you don’t understand that? Obviously a middle-aged Swiss mountaineer who has received citizenship that morning isn’t a cultural American. He would, if he had any sense, be horrified at the notion. He is Swiss – what is the plural of that? Switzerman? He is a Swiss (?) who is an American citizen.

    “Even besides the enslaved Africans and vanquished Indians, this country began to change dramatically as soon as boatloads of Catholics from Ireland began to arrive. And then boatloads of Italian Catholics, and Jews, Slavic-language Catholics and Orthodox – and Greek Orthodox. And German and Scandinavian Lutherans. What the meaning of ‘American’ is has changed over time – and will continue to change”

    Not really. American culture was certainly affected by their arrival and their assimilation into American culture, but that doesn’t contradict what I’ve written: an American is and has always been a descendant of the original Anglo settlers (of the United States! not of California) and those who came after that assimilated into their culture to the extent that they were then culturally indistinguishable from the descendants of those Anglo settlers). That the culture of the people I’ve described (descendants of the original Anglo settlers *and those who came after that assimilated into their culture*) has been changed by immigration is a given. All cultures experience change, of course.

    “So in the end, what you call consider Anglo, and what you consider to be an English-speaking land, are likely to be passing phases”

    Haha. I won’t argue with you there!

    “I’ll have to say it again – its the Hispanicization of the US you decried – “Absolutely” – you didn’t care if it was legal or not”

    Yes – I decry the replacement of the American people. I do not, as I’ve stated, object to immigration out of hand. I do not wish to deport the immigrants we’ve taken in. I do believe, however, that immigrants to a land should become part of the people who have taken them in rather than construct an insular cultural faction, and that the extremely high amount of immigrants we’ve taken in, in tandem with the perpetuity of the influx and the extremely high percentage that come from cultural backgrounds more similar to each other than they are to ours, makes said assimilation more difficult. A moratorium on legal (and obviously illegal, via a border-wall) immigration is in order for the socioeconomic reason I mentioned. Once we have assimilated the legal immigrants (and in all likelyhood the illegals as well) we can reassess whether economic (we are in the worst depression since the Great one, our service-based industry will be going belly-up and we our not the sort of industrial powerhouse – bursting with factory work for low skilled immigrants – we once were) and cultural (corporate culture is homogenizing, cheapening and stifling American culture, doing violence to its maintenance and cultivation) conditions warrant new immigration.

    “It would seem that as you are oblivous to the non-white inhabitants (in very large numbers!) of what became the 13 original states your analysis of what American means has more to do with race than culture.”

    I’m not really sure what you’re referring to. I am not at all oblivious to Amerindian tribes or African slaves, or anyone else. I’m quite intimate with early American history, actually. And I can assure you that the Indian tribes, who fought so long for their land and liberty, did not think of themselves as “Americans” – the idea would insult most of them, I should guess. And to imply that American blacks do not have their own culture is, frankly, scandalous.

  24. B99 said on December 1st, 2009 at 7:44pm #

    Toddard – you left out the ‘because’ part. What that means is that you can make your argument in other circles, but for people who understand the history of the making of America – that’s a hollow argument – as in the Nazis making the French sign a peace treaty when they conquered France. The difference is the Nazis were eventually repelled so it’s no longer valid.

    But hey – I’m not suggesting anybody be sent back anywhere – just that you can’t refer to those treaties as if god signed them and secondly, YOU DO want to send ‘illegals’ back, so don’t make it out to be me that’s trying to deport people. The Mexico-US border is not going to change anytime soon, but these people – legal and illegal – are here at America’s behest, but your solutions are kick ’em out and build an Apartheid wall.

    English culture is not even English culture any more. The national cuisine of England is Indian food – the fastest growing religion is Islam. The US has been separating itself from English culture even before the Declaration of Independence, it has had a huge African component since day one and for that reason alone (never mind the process of ethnically cleansing the native population) it cannot be considered and offshoot of English culture.

    My attachment is TO the people of this country – not to some obsolete notion of an unchanging Anglo-America or some silly melting pot ideal where no matter what country you come from you should become this mythological Anglo. You don’t get it do you – this is a country increasing in diversity with each passing day. There are sections of this country where English is almost never spoken. There are sections of this country where Anglos won’t even go. There are cultural identities in America that have NOTHING to do with being Anglo. That Cuban and Salvadoran and Chinese and Frenchman did not arrive here yesterday they’ve now been here for years, maybe decades – and they are America too. And in fact, America cannot and will not do without them.

    What you think of as immigrants having acculturated to their Anglo spiritual ancestors is precisely the opposite. The Anglos of this country have acculturated to all those cultures that have come after.

    Building a wall is fascist. That America is becoming increasingly Latino is a result of a first-world nation being juxtaposed to a third world nation and NEEDING their labor in a capitalist environment. There will be no major moratorium on immigration because America will come to a halt without them.

    And yes, you are oblivious of the fact that large portions of the southern 13 colonies were up to 50% African, and that Native Americans thoroughly inhabited the East Coast before they were ethnically cleansed. That means the US was IN FACT, always a hybrid culture – and that the Anglos immediately forfeited any moral high ground on establishing an Anglo culture. So with the arrival of millions of Latinos to the US – the Indians have returned in force. A just due.

  25. Al said on December 1st, 2009 at 10:35pm #

    “There is NO TIME in the last 450 years that these lands were not inhabited by non-Anglos.”

    I fail to see how that is relevant.

    WHY? So you can conveniently ignore the fact that you stole their land?

  26. S.L. Toddard said on December 2nd, 2009 at 5:52am #

    “Toddard – you left out the ‘because’ part. What that means is that you can make your argument in other circles, but for people who understand the history of the making of America – that’s a hollow argument – as in the Nazis making the French sign a peace treaty when they conquered France. The difference is the Nazis were eventually repelled so it’s no longer valid.”

    I literally have no idea what you’re talking about here, or what your point is.

    “But hey – I’m not suggesting anybody be sent back anywhere – just that you can’t refer to those treaties as if god signed them”

    I wasn’t – I was referring to them as if they are established international law, which they are.

    Sorry.

    “and secondly, YOU DO want to send ‘illegals’ back”

    Correct.

    “so don’t make it out to be me that’s trying to deport people.”

    But you are – you want to replace Americans with foreigners. You want to ethnically cleans large swaths of America and repopulate it with another people. In other words, you want to commit genocide.

    “the Mexico-US border is not going to change anytime soon, but these people – legal and illegal – are here at America’s behest”

    Actually the illegals are here against the wishes of the American people, as every poll on the subject – in addition to the laws enacted by the people’s Congress – will attest.

    Sorry.

    “but your solutions are kick ‘em out and build an Apartheid wall.”

    Absolutely. And I’m sorry, but that won’t work with me – I haven’t been fully brainwashed into recoiling from certain words, so I couldn’t care less what you call it. America has a border, the sovereign American people have the right – legal and moral – to say who can and who cannot come in. I propose building (and guarding) a wall across that border, and more American agree all the time.

    “English culture is not even English culture any more.”

    How absurd. While you’re absolutely wrong, I think it’s important to note what your silly arguments reveal. The charge is often made against the radical left that they are anti-American and anti-Western, and your “arguments” are proof of guilt. You have already eradicated the American (and now the English) people in your mind by denying their existence. You are, in a very real sense, attempting to commit genocide. Not that this bothers you – hate-filled bigotry and genocide go hand in hand, and always have.

    “The national cuisine of England is Indian food”

    That’s not true, really. The national cuisine of England is English food.

    “the fastest growing religion is Islam.”

    I know – what a horrible travesty.

    “The US has been separating itself from English culture even before the Declaration of Independence”

    That’s worded poorly. It has not been “separating itself”, which implies a conscious decision. It has been evolving independently from English culture, though from common roots.

    “it has had a huge African component since day one and for that reason alone (never mind the process of ethnically cleansing the native population) it cannot be considered and offshoot of English culture.”

    This is really idiotic. I understand that you would like to wipe the American people from the earth, but just saying we don’t exist does not make it so. That African slaves were owned by Americans – and I can’t believe I have to explain this – does not mean those Americans did not exist. Romans owned Gallic and Germanic slaves – that does not mean the Roman people, or Roman culture, did not exist.

    “My attachment is TO the people of this country”

    According to you there are no people of this country. You have committed mental genocide against them.

    “not to some obsolete notion of an unchanging Anglo-America or some silly melting pot ideal where no matter what country you come from you should become this mythological Anglo.”

    No, not an “Anglo”, an “American”. See above for the definition of what that is.

    “You don’t get it do you – this is a country increasing in diversity with each passing day.”

    Exactly – and that is something we need to begin to reverse if Americans wish to survive as a people.

    “There are sections of this country where English is almost never spoken. There are sections of this country where Anglos won’t even go. There are cultural identities in America that have NOTHING to do with being Anglo.”

    Correct. They also have nothing to do with being American. Again, being an American citizen and being an American are not the same thing. Again, if I were to become an Ethiopian citizen tomorrow, I would not be “an Ethiopian”. I’m sorry, but you simply cannot argue against that. You’re fighting a battle you have already lost.

    “That Cuban and Salvadoran and Chinese and Frenchman did not arrive here yesterday they’ve now been here for years, maybe decades – and they are America too. And in fact, America cannot and will not do without them.”

    Of course we can. We did without mass alien immigration for long stretches of our history, and it’s high time for another, frankly.

    “What you think of as immigrants having acculturated to their Anglo spiritual ancestors is precisely the opposite. The Anglos of this country have acculturated to all those cultures that have come after.”

    That statement is so silly as to almost not warrant a response. It’s quite obvious that, for instance, the Polish immigrants in the early 20th century assimilated into American culture and became Americans, as we Americans do not speak Polish or adhere to Polish cultural practices. Here’s what’s funny – you *know* that you have no argument. You can’t really argue that there is no such thing as an American, and that “American” is meaningless. It’s like arguing that there are no Frenchmen, that there are no Iranians etc. Which is to say that it’s profoundly silly and childish. It’s the equivalent of plugging your ears and yelling “Na na na I can’t hear you!”

    “Building a wall is fascist.”

    Really. Demonstrate that it is “fascist.” I sincerely doubt you understand what that word means.

    “That America is becoming increasingly Latino is a result of a first-world nation being juxtaposed to a third world nation and NEEDING their labor in a capitalist environment. There will be no major moratorium on immigration because America will come to a halt without them.”

    That’s really a ludicrous myth. And as the American economy crumbles, as China stops lending us money, and as our service-based industry disappears, Americans will need those jobs for themselves, and a majority of them will demand to be allowed to exercise their sovereignty in order to preserve their culture and people.

    “And yes, you are oblivious of the fact that large portions of the southern 13 colonies were up to 50% African”

    It is not I who have denied there were Africans here – it is YOU who deny there were (and are) Americans here. You deny our existence as a people – you are a hate-filled, racist, genocidal bigot.

    “and that Native Americans thoroughly inhabited the East Coast before they were ethnically cleansed.”

    Yes – that was sad. Still, history is chock-full of atrocities, and life is not fair.

    “That means the US was IN FACT, always a hybrid culture”

    You’re not very good at this. Because different peoples inhabit the same culture does not mean that they share the same culture. Sorry.

    “ and that the Anglos immediately forfeited any moral high ground on establishing an Anglo culture.”

    I couldn’t care less about “moral high ground.” I have already proven that Mexican citizens have no recognized “right” to American land, and you have failed miserably to refute it.

  27. S.L. Toddard said on December 2nd, 2009 at 6:26am #

    Sorry – this sentence “Because different peoples inhabit the same culture does not mean that they share the same culture” should read “Because different peoples inhabit the same geographical area does not mean that they share the same culture”. And it is a statement that is so obviously true as to hardly need articulation. I can assure you that the Indian tribes contemporary with the early Republic, who fought so long for their land and liberty, did not think of themselves as “Americans” – the idea would insult most of them, I should guess. And to imply that American blacks do not have their own culture is, frankly, scandalous. You have failed to refute any of these points. You have, in fact, failed even to address them. You simply keep repeating points I have already discredited.

  28. Annie said on December 2nd, 2009 at 7:28am #

    It is apparent that Toddard and B99 have derailed, and while all that exchanging of piss and vinegar is entertaining, it doesn’t really address the original issue. An excellent way to begin is to simply have a few translators in the immigration offices. For instance, in the main Dallas, Texas immigration office, there are loads of folks who are trying to become “legal”. They are given the run-down of all the paperwork and fees that are required, but most of them don’t speak English and there are NO translators! So literally, the information is lost on those who are seeking to do the right thing. That would be an inexpensive and effective start to solving a hugely complex problem.

  29. b99 said on December 2nd, 2009 at 7:31am #

    Toddard – Let’s get to the bottom line. Mass deportations -which you endorsed – are fascist. Walls, which you endorse, are fascist. The culture you admire so much – this Anglo culture, is fictional.

    This is a capitalist nation – it needs cheap labor badly – and it gets it right next door. As I said earlier: The ‘illegals’ are here because the US wants them here. They are here because the multitudes of Chambers of Congress want them here, they’re here because consumers want cheap goods and services, they’re here because capitalists don’t want to raise wages to levels that Americans would take the jobs – that would cut into profits. The US wants them here for economic reasons but you blame the immigrants for coming.
    The best thing that can be done to help the American worker is to raise minimum wages and for cities to pass ‘living wage’ laws. Wages in the US have fallen abysmally over the decades (to the capitalist’s delight). Many jobs now done by foreign labor – legal or illegal – would be taken by Americans if the wages were right. As it stands, its easier for a person to get by on a spouse’s wage rather than accept the little remunerative return on time and labor of a low-wage job.
    The US is not divorced from the political economy of Mexico. At the behest of the US and under intense political pressure, Mexico folded its public employment tent and slowly (or rapidly some might say) privatized its economy – AND opened up its economy to goods previously kept out (like US corn). As a result, the massive and highly paid public sector dumped its workers, especially those in PEMEX the government owned petroleum company, and screwed its corn farmers by lifting subsidies to let American corn in. Average wages in Mexico have been on the decline ever since, replaced by maquiladora wages and conditions near the US border. Mexico’s economic progress was halted in its tracks and Mexican workers have been streaming in ever since.
    The English did not settle in an empty pristine continent – they did not come in peace – and that original sin of ethnic cleansing precludes any talk of what is right or not coming from a supporter of these sins. It is futher complicated by the fact of enslavement and subjugation of corvee labor. On these grounds, the US has forfeited any right to the pretense of a static Anglo culture based in 19th century mythology.

  30. S.L. Toddard said on December 2nd, 2009 at 8:17am #

    “Mass deportations -which you endorsed – are fascist.”

    False. I did not “endorse” mass deportations. Either quote my “endorsement” or retract the allegation.

    “Walls, which you endorse, are fascist.”

    Walls are fascist! What about roofs? Are roofs fascist? Floors? Do you know what “fascist” means? It does not mean “anything the Left dislikes”. It has a very specific meaning, actually, and does not describe “walls”. Sorry.

    ” The culture you admire so much – this Anglo culture, is fictional”

    Sorry – Anglo culture is not “fictional”, it is indeed alive and well in England, much as American culture is alive and well in America, French culture is alive and well in France, German culture is alive and well in Germany etc. Because you wish it were not so – because you wish to commit genocide and erase the American people from existence – does not make it so. I am an American myself, and I assure you that I exist.

    “This is a capitalist nation – it needs cheap labor badly – and it gets it right next door. As I said earlier: The ‘illegals’ are here because the US wants them here.”

    Already refuted.

    “The US wants them here”

    Already refuted.

    “The best thing that can be done to help the American worker is to raise minimum wages and for cities to pass ‘living wage’ laws. Wages in the US have fallen abysmally over the decades (to the capitalist’s delight). Many jobs now done by foreign labor – legal or illegal – would be taken by Americans if the wages were right.”

    I agree with you to an extent. We need to severely penalize companies that hire illegal invaders, and remove them as an option. Then, companies will have to raise wages in order to attract actual Americans.

    “The US is not divorced from the political economy of Mexico. At the behest of the US and under intense political pressure, Mexico folded its public employment tent and slowly (or rapidly some might say) privatized its economy – AND opened up its economy to goods previously kept out (like US corn). As a result, the massive and highly paid public sector dumped its workers, especially those in PEMEX the government owned petroleum company, and screwed its corn farmers by lifting subsidies to let American corn in. Average wages in Mexico have been on the decline ever since, replaced by maquiladora wages and conditions near the US border. Mexico’s economic progress was halted in its tracks and Mexican workers have been streaming in ever since.”

    Entirely irrelevant. It is the sole right of the American citizenry to determine who may and may not enter our country. No treaty or trade alliance exists that allows Mexican citizens to claim US land, apart from those who have entered in accordance with the laws enacted by the American people through their elected representatives in Congress.

    “The English did not settle in an empty pristine continent – they did not come in peace – and that original sin of ethnic cleansing precludes any talk of what is right or not coming from a supporter of these sins.”

    I couldn’t care less about those “sins”. If anyone cares to settle grievances they are free to do so at the UN or elsewhere. To repeat: Mexican citizens have no recognized right to American land. Sorry – you can’t get around that *fact*.

    “It is futher complicated by the fact of enslavement and subjugation of corvee labor. On these grounds, the US has forfeited any right to the pretense of a static Anglo culture based in 19th century mythology”

    False. No court on earth recognizes this imaginary forfeiture of rights. Sorry again. Now, I have comprehensively annihilated every argument you have proffered, and you have failed to substantively counter my refutations, ergo they stand, inviolate and impregnable. The “rights” and “forfeiture” you carp about are entirely imaginary – fictional – and do not exist in the real world. Your attempt to deny the existence of my people – your denial of our very *right* to exist – is genocidal and obscene. You are a hate-filled bigot whose paltry “arguments” rest upon vague assertions of non-existent “rights” and ancient grievances that are entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

  31. Annie said on December 2nd, 2009 at 10:18am #

    Stoddard, take a breath!
    Most people who come to the US, from other countries, to look for work, would love to do so in a legal and proper fashion. The life that “illegals” lead in the this country is dismal, always flying beneath the radar, often mistreated and always underpaid. It is imperative that we allow people to become “legal” in and efficient and expedient way. Any kind of immigration to this country is a frickin’ pain in the ass. It is difficult at best to follow all the requirements, and that is with an education, money, a computer, and legal representation! Forget it if you are poor, don’t speak English and have no advocate in this country. No wonder there are so many “illegals”, the process is nearly impossible! I am not saying that becoming a citizen should come at no cost to an individual who wants to be here, but truly, we ARE a melting pot, that is what makes US unique.

  32. Annie said on December 2nd, 2009 at 10:18am #

    Sorry, Toddard.

  33. S.L. Toddard said on December 3rd, 2009 at 7:47am #

    That’s okay, Annie.

  34. chris said on December 6th, 2009 at 5:26am #

    Why must you be so retarded?.OBVIOUSLY THERE WOULD BE EXCEPTIONS,……….Do you know what a rallying cry is?….Some slogan ,brief,to the point!…..Imagine a protest and someone yells “deport all illegals,uhhh,except those with expired VISAS,and those that are applying for asylum,and uhhh those who are waiting for a life break,besides that,deport the rest”…….

    THERE WOULD BE EXCEPTIONS,if this fantasy were ever to come true./….but people are tired of it all,we cant afford it…HERE IS AN IDEA,GO HOME AND FIX YOUR OWN COUNTRY THAT HAS TONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES, A HUGE SWATH OF LAND WITH MOUNTAINS,DESERTS,JUNGLES THOUSANDS OF MILES OF PORT ACCESS TO 2,YES 2 DIFFERENT OCEANS,AND WHAT THE HELL HAS ANYONE EVER DONE????………..NOTHING!….WELL SOMEONE OUGHT TO ! IF as much effort was put into fixing Mexico,yes Mexico than was sneaking across the border to be exploited by greedy pigs,while at the same time breaking the back of tax payers,then there would be no need to come here. ……………….How bout this slogan…”deport all illegals to SOUTHERN MEXICO” 1,500 miles south…

  35. B99 said on December 6th, 2009 at 9:24am #

    Chris – See these place names below?? What do they have in common?

    Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Las Vegas, California, Colorado, San Bernadino, Santa Barabara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Palo Alto, Nevada, Pueblo, St. Augustine, Galveston, Sierra Nevada, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Alamos, Alamogordo, San Anyonio, El Paso, Amarillo, San Marcos, Texas, Laredo, Rio Grande….

    The folks are just coming home. Enjoy it.

  36. Daniel Herrera said on December 7th, 2009 at 9:22am #

    We all have the opportunity to complain , agree and or disagree. I feel that the problem remains embedded within our conscious cores as modern day “American” thinkers. As a free country at will, we stubbornly remain a self absorb society. A new change of rehab remains far from our contaminated roots of imperialistic believes. We as a nation are hypocrites quickly pointing fingers. Many can intellectually debate the issue on hand, but few will actually take responsibility for it. I can think of this metaphorical analogy so that it can clearly be understood by a mass population is…”If a mother is addicted to the a drug such as “crack” during her pregnancy, then most likely, that child by no fault will be birthed as an addict. Our defects as a young American society struggles to mature and to find this simply evaluation clear. I believe that when we willingly choice to take responsibility for our invisible upbringings and recognize that we have become infected by a viral mentality and choice not be addicts any longer, then we as a united nation will grow and begin to set an example. For example: How many of you living today are still “Slave Owners?”…

  37. Daniel Herrera said on December 7th, 2009 at 9:29am #

    • Daniel Herrera said on December 7th, 2009 at 9:22am #
    We all have the opportunity to complain, agree and or disagree. I feel that the problem remains embedded within our conscious cores as modern day “American” thinkers. As a free country at will, we stubbornly remain a self absorb society. A new change of rehab remains far from our contaminated roots of imperialistic believes. We as a nation are hypocrites quickly pointing fingers. Many can intellectually debate the issue on hand, but few will actually take responsibility for it. I can think of this metaphorical analogy so that it can clearly be understood by a mass population is…”If a mother is addicted to the drug such as “crack” during her pregnancy, then most likely, that child by no fault will be birthed as an addict. Our defect as a young American society struggles to mature and to find this simply evaluation clear. I believe that when we willingly choice to take responsibility for our invisible upbringings and recognize that we have become infected by a viral mentality and choice not are addicts any longer, then we as a united nation will grow and begin to set an example. For example: How many of you living today are still “Slave Owners?”…

  38. senior2010 said on December 7th, 2009 at 3:02pm #

    This conversation is irrational you cannot comment on why illegals should be deported …..! you dont even know half of the things that we go through, this is a great country but to trully let you know the racist like you assholes make this country look like complete shit to the other countries……! without a doubt americans that express themselves as a few who are worthy to live in this country should be the ones thrown out they are the ones that dont even bother to try and help out the country they slack off and dont work hard enough to keep their jobs…. dont get mad at those people who come to this country to try and work and try to succeed and try to thrive upon the left overs ofthose people who dont bother to try and give up because the work is to hard we at least come to this country to try and be a greater person…. we cannot be blamed for the incompetence of those people who dont have anything better to do them to pick on people that cannot defend themselves…..!