Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment Illegal Immigration and Appropriate Penalties

Nor has NAFTA benefited the average American.

First of all, The problem with this statement is that it makes it sound as if these agreements are democratic and allow public input.

Secondly, the "corporate elite" who engineer these free trade agreements in secret do not represent the Mexican people or the American people. They represent the same corporate interests.

Neoliberal policies which allow first world corporations to flood third world economies with cheap, subsidized products such as foodstuffs that drive local producers out of production are another reason for the desperate poverty in the third world. Because of the ‘race to the bottom’ brought about by the transition to neoliberalism in the world economy which allows corporations to move effortlessly from one country to another in search of lower and lower wages, forcing third world countries to lift laws offering any protection to labor or the environment in an attempt to entice employers, wages in many countries do not meet subsistence levels for the laborer.

So when you say that Mexico implemented these agreements, you are advocating a very incomplete analysis at best, and a dishonest analysis at worst.

What factor(s) do you Ranters believe led the Pew Study to believe that "most [respondents] are believed to lack the authorization to work in the U.S." aka illegal immigrants?

Just curious...

Rick: That study also says that migrants (and the December study is an economic study of migrants) believe that language is the major cause of prejudicial behavior against them. I'd agree.

All I've ever said on this basis is that the language you hear someone speak does not prove a good indicator of their legal status. I visit an ESL classroom on a regular basis, and I can tell you that when they're on break, any two students with a common native language will speak that native language. It's easier. And in that classroom I'm thinking that most are probably legal.

How do I know? I don't. But I can take a guess by the kind of work they do, the companies they work for, their willingness to talk about themselves. In some cases, I've seen their paperwork.

I can guarantee that these students, in the grocery with their families, speak Spanish until it's their turn at the checkout stand.

I can also tell you that one of these students was in an accident, hit by a local woman (the local woman was at fault.) The at-fault driver laughed when asked for insurance papers, saying "what are you going to do, call the cops?" The student said, yes, in fact, I am, and did so. The at-fault driver was stunned to find out that the driver who spoke thickly-accented, poor English, was in fact here legally and had no problem with calling the police.

What I'm saying is that if you judge individuals by statistics you will be doing both the individual and yourself a disfavor.

It may be appropriate to say that a Mexican immigrant new to the country is unlikely to speak English. But that does NOT mean that someone speaking Spanish is likely to be an illegal immigrant. It doesn't work in reverse.

Mellow, what factor(s) do you believe led the Pew Study to believe that "most [respondents] are believed to lack the authorization to work in the U.S." aka illegal immigrants?

According to the study - it's very appropriate.

The study reports that only 16% of Mexican citizens residing in the United States today are legal U.S. residents.

I can't say about other Spanish-speaking countries as I have no data. If the statistic for Mexican nationals holds true, I'm going to say that as one goes further south, the legality of those citizens in the U.S. goes down even further.

How is that relevant? It by definition says nothing about US citizens born elsewhere.

At this juncture, given the posts presented thus far, I wish to re-visit and argue for the statement: most. Some Ranters take issue with "most" because it doesn't recognize the individual.

However, for the sake of expediency, "most" is more efficient than dealing with the individual. We simply can not argue on a case-by-case situation the merits of the individual.

Take the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology and mathematics. These fields use "trends" (nearly all, most, etc) to predict outcomes.

Various models developed within these disciplines are very accurate and spot on.

Simply because one individual out of 100 doesn't fit the model, doesn't make the model incorrect or wrong - ergo generalization can be applied.

...and the definition doesn't have to apply to every US citizen.

The study cited only dealt with Mexican nationals. Therefore, we can infer that if 16% of Mexican nationals living in the U.S. are legal immigrants (according to the study); 84% percent of Mexican nationals living in the U.S. are illegal immigrants.

Therefore, one can state with certainty: Most Mexican nationals living inside of the United States are illegal immigrants.

Granting that seems plausible, I still don't see the point.