# They Just Want a Better Life



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As we are constantly told, the illegals streaming into the US do it because they just want a better life. They are good people, hard working people.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070619-121814-2527r.htm



> U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.
> The wildfires have destroyed valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according to federal law-enforcement authorities and others.
> In the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, with 60 miles of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Forest Service firefighters sent in to battle fires or clear wild-land fire areas are required to be escorted by armed law-enforcement officers.
> Armed smugglers of aliens and drugs have walked through the middle of active firefighting operations, the authorities said.


Glad to see this sort of thing is getting some national attention. A few weeks ago, and I am kicking myself for not getting a picture of the sign, but I was off-roading near Gun Sight Pass. There is a large sign warning it is an "illegal crossing" area and that fire arms are recommended. Reminded me of that recent movie, Children of Men. Civilization is starting to become frayed at the seams.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

- - - - and Bush and the Democrats STILL won't secure the border.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

With that in mind, I do believe that the majority of immigrants are looking for a better life/ higher income. Lets remember that their numbers are in the millions...
However, the problem is not so much to secure the boarder (which by itself is not a bad thing) but to cancel the incentives which bring them here. Instead of keeping a whole army by the boarder, the government should enforce the laws in working places. No hiring of undocumented workers is permitted. Bringing a few hundred employers to trial with big media coverage will be more effective then a whole army plying hide and seek with immigrants at the boarder. 
The problem is that no politician (democrat or republican) is ready to "harm the business".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mikeber said:


> With that in mind, I do believe that the majority of immigrants are looking for a better life/ higher income. Lets remember that their numbers are in the millions...
> However, the problem is not so much to secure the boarder (which by itself is not a bad thing) but to cancel the incentives which bring them here. Instead of keeping a whole army by the boarder, the government should enforce the laws in working places. No hiring of undocumented workers is permitted. Bringing a few hundred employers to trial with big media coverage will be more effective then a whole army plying hide and seek with immigrants at the boarder.
> The problem is that no politician (democrat or republican) is ready to "harm the business".


I am in agreement about targetting employers. The thing is, it needs to be targetted to employers that knowingly, or through egregiously lax screening, hire a significant percent of their labour pool, on a regular basis, in this way. The Federal clearinghouse that organizations use to verify SS#'s is very bad in helping screen out any but the most stupid impersonators. I am sure any organization in the SouthWest, with more than 100 FTEs, with a need for low skill/low age workers, has at least one illegal in the mix, as it is increasingly hard to screen them out.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

We all came here (some leagally, some illegally and asked to leave) for the same reason. We wanted more than what the country we left offered us. At least when most of us came here, we came through an Island on the east coast and it was harder to "sneak" in. We need to secure our borders and make those who want to join our group go through the proper steps.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

LOL. Face it *Wayfarer* your grandchildren will be like me - Latino and Asian.

The Asian part makes me smart, the Latino part makes me handsome :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> LOL. Face it *Wayfarer* your grandchildren will be like me - Latino and Asian.
> 
> The Asian part makes me smart, the Latino part makes me handsome :icon_smile_big:
> 
> M8


But neither of "you" know how to dress well... At least my Italian side grants me some style sense. =)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> LOL. Face it *Wayfarer* your grandchildren will be like me - Latino and Asian.
> 
> The Asian part makes me smart, the Latino part makes me handsome :icon_smile_big:
> 
> M8


If we have kids, they'll be Asian and Scottish (with a tad of mutt). It just don't get any better than that. Descendants of Genghis AND Somersled.

But we'll all be here legally


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> As we are constantly told, the illegals streaming into the US do it because they just want a better life. They are good people, hard working people.


They're just burning the forests that Americans won't burn....


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> As we are constantly told, the illegals streaming into the US do it because they just want a better life. They are good people, hard working people.


This is about as artful a rationalization as Sean Hannity would make 

Did you read the quote?

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> This is about as artful a rationalization as Sean Hannity would make
> 
> Did you read the quote?
> 
> -spence


Well that totally stopped the destruction of sensitive habitat by drug runners and coyotes. Glad you cleared that up, I know how important sensitive ecosystems are to you lefties.

So tell me Spence, how many times have you been into the contested areas of the southern Arizona border living up here in RI? Let us hear your first hand experience with this.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I'll make an assumption that we both believe there are a lot of illegals coming here for a better life.

Do you think the people wishing to enter the US for a better life are setting the fires?

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> I'll make an assumption that we both believe there are a lot of illegals coming here for a better life.
> 
> Do you think the people wishing to enter the US for a better life are setting the fires?
> 
> -spence


I think the coyotes will happily do anything. If you ever walked into the ER after an SUV with 20 people packed into it and rolled over at 100mph, with a coyote at the wheel, you would know that. Not only have I been there, I'm one of the guys that has to figure out how you keep your place afloat when the unrecoupable costs hit your P&L.

Also, if you were to head off into the back country I am talking about, you would see the trashing of very sensitive areas. I have seen it many times, first hand, and it certainly is the crossers themselves doing it. They do also light bonfires, at night, that often destroy 200 year old saguaros. These cacti are so incredible and only grow here in the Sonoran desert. The old fellas are not replaceable.

No, they are not "treading lightly" through protected areas.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

What I don't understand is why so many of the illegals want to turn the US into Mexico when they arrive. If Mexico is so bad that they are forced to become refugees then why the desire to import such chaos and disorder with them?

By allowing unfettered Mexican illegal immigration we continue to enable Mexico's dysfunctional habits. If Mexico continues to have a safety valve and continues to earn billions in foreign remittances it will never begin to tackle the corruption that keeps it a third world country. 

Perhaps the real bigots are not those who are against illegal immigration but rather those who support the current system which keeps Mexico poor and corrupt.

Karl


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think the coyotes will happily do anything.


So is this the fault of those seeking a better life, or those seeking a quick profit at any expense?

I'm not saying that illegals don't cause harm, but there's a venom that should be carefully placed. The people coming across the border don't all share a common world view as you or I.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> So is this the fault of those seeking a better life, or those seeking a quick profit at any expense?


And the coyotes are the agents of the illegals, ergo there is a proximal cause linkage.



Spence said:


> The people coming across the border don't all share a common world view as you or I.
> 
> -spence


No argument there. I spent several thousand dollars in total and about two years to come to the US in a legal fashion.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Has it dawned on any of you how our government is unable to govern? I mean these are supposed to be pretty smart people with their Ivy League degrees and all, but they can't seem to solve this simple problem brought on by market forces. A problem I might add that has been festering for about thirty years. What a bunch of incompetent idiots!

M8


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

We keep putting them there. 

I honestly think this is a side product of the left-right gulf.

People are so concerned about advancing their side of the left-right thing that they will vote for anyone who appears to be a "true believer" no matter how incompetent they are.

Then, of course, in government, frequently promotion systems, etc. benefit who can best manipulate the system rather than putting the best administrators in power. (This seems to happen in large business organizations, too, to be fair.)


----------



## Fareau (Mar 8, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> By allowing unfettered Mexican illegal immigration we continue to enable Mexico's dysfunctional habits. If Mexico continues to have a safety valve and continues to earn billions in foreign remittances it will never begin to tackle the corruption that keeps it a third world country.
> 
> ...


I've often thought this myself. The pressure for sociopolitical change is constantly dissipated by the safety valve of illegal immigration. I don't doubt that individually, these people simply want a better life. But collectively, this situation is not improving the quality of life for the people of Mexico. It seems their government wants to maintain the status quo; in fact I remember reading about the president, Vincente Fox, at some point condoning illegal immigration to the north.

Additionally, I seem to recall reading about how strict the Mexicans are with blocking or expelling illegal immigrants from Central America trying to sneak into Mexico along their southern border. As I recall, there was little thought to amnesty for those people.....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does anyone else think the amnesty program proposed (and that is what it is folks) is being done with the thought of keeping SS and Medicare going? I think that is part of the rationale of those pushing this.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Fareau said:


> I've often thought this myself. The pressure for sociopolitical change is constantly dissipated by the safety valve of illegal immigration. I don't doubt that individually, these people simply want a better life. But collectively, this situation is not improving the quality of life for the people of Mexico. It seems their government wants to maintain the status quo; in fact I remember reading about the president, Vincente Fox, at some point condoning illegal immigration to the north.


Immigrants send a LOT of money back to their families in Mexico, which aids the Mexican economy when it's spent. I'm sure Mr Fox has absolutely no problem with that.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

VS,

You are absolutely correct. Foreign remittances constitute Mexico's single largest industry, even more than oil (bc Pemex the state oil company is badly managed.)

If we really wanted to stop illegal immigration one step would be needed is a simple requirement that one has to prove their immigration status (with a passport or Green Card) when using Western Union to send money abroad.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> VS,
> 
> You are absolutely correct. Foreign remittances constitute Mexico's single largest industry, even more than oil (bc Pemex the state oil company is badly managed.)
> 
> ...


Or...and all the Dems should like this idea...tax money transfers abroad.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

VS said:


> Immigrants send a LOT of money back to their families in Mexico, which aids the Mexican economy when it's spent. I'm sure Mr Fox has absolutely no problem with that.


Current President is Felipe Calderón. Fox left in 2006.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> VS,
> 
> If we really wanted to stop illegal immigration one step would be needed is a simple requirement that one has to prove their immigration status (with a passport or Green Card) when using Western Union to send money abroad.
> 
> Karl


I'd hate for that to happen. When I travel in or outside the US, I use an ATM machine to move money from my local institution (most people do). I cannot imagine the dislocation following proof of immigration status to send/receive money. Yikes. That's a non-starter.

-who carries cash ?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> I'd hate for that to happen. When I travel in or outside the US, I use an ATM machine to move money from my local institution (most people do). I cannot imagine the dislocation following proof of immigration status to send/receive money. Yikes. That's a non-starter.
> 
> -who carries cash ?


You are comparing apples to oranges. Karl is not talking about *using an ATM* when abroad, he is talking about *sending money home* when abroad. Two completely opposite actions.

Besides, _Bank de Americano_ is planning to issue credit cards to illegals. No doubt they can just send an additional card home to make the transfers easier.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Two completely opposite actions.
> 
> Besides, _Bank de Americano_ is planning to issue credit cards to illegals. No doubt they can just send an additional card home to make the transfers easier.


I was referring to international money transfer.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> I was referring to international money transfer.


Not to belabour the point, but you specifically spoke of using an ATM while out of the country. Obtaining money for yourself while abroad is exactly the opposite flow of funds vs. the topic, which is sending money home while abroad. Not only that, one is a transaction that leaves a very well defined electronic trail with your personal information all over it. The current system of sending cash home, via Western Union, is much more anonymous.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

US Bank has a Secure Money Transfer card that allows senders to load money onto an ATM card. 
Designated family members or friends in Mexico can immediately pull the funds from one of more than 20k ATMs. Fees are minimal compared to wire transfers.

Edit: I used to work for this bank, and all one needs to open such an account is a Mexican Consular Matricula card.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I haven't travelled extensively, but I've never had to do a transfer to get my own money. I've always been able to do a withdraw and currency conversion. Every American Express office will do it for free and doesn't almost every businessman have an AMEX? I don't see any problem with clamping down on the Western Unions of the world which would be almost exclusively transient person-to-person transfers. No offense, but does anyone with a legit bank or credit account really use Western Union for anything? I've done a few commercial sub-$M wire transfers to buy airplanes; and they were subjected to vigorous scrutiny by the bank and broker. I hate to be an unsympathetic snob about it, but Western Union? I'll go with grey market transactions 99% of the time.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Tabasco,

I have lived overseas ans still travel internationally quite extensively. I don't know of any expat that uses Wesern Union to transfer money between accounts. But there is hardly a problem with Americans residing abroad illegally, and if showing your passport or residence permit when using Western Union is too much effort to make for national security than God help us.

Karl


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

Fact: there are illegal immigrants crossing the borders everyday.

Fact: there exist in the US, job opportunities that takes advantage of the labors of the illegal immigrants, be it produce harvesting in California or any of the constructions jobs that hires these people off the street corner.

I seriously doubt much reform will happen because business owners, small and big, would much prefer to pay cheaper wages, not have to deal with the unions, and count on an almost endless supply of the cheap workers, as compared to native Americans who cannot stoop so low as to pick strawberries, harvest artichokes, or put up plywalls.

My questions are, if we are truly able to eliminate the illegal immigrants from the low-paying job pool, are there any replacements? would the wages automatically go up? would this drive up the cost of running a business and thus the cost being passed along to consumers?

If the 1lb strawberry that I currently buy for $1.69 are picked by American hands, would they go to, say, $3?

Do Americans have the stomach, or wallet, to handle a huge rise in cost of living?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

lee_44106 said:


> ...My questions are, if we are truly able to eliminate the illegal immigrants from the low-paying job pool, are there any replacements?





> ... would the wages automatically go up? would this drive up the cost of running a business and thus the cost being passed along to consumers?


 Yes, but only if...



> If the 1lb strawberry that I currently buy for $1.69 are picked by American hands, would they go to, say, $3?


 Yes, but only if...



> Do Americans have the stomach, or wallet, to handle a huge rise in cost of living?


Yes, but only if...

...we eliminate easy credit. Think about it.

M8


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

tabasco said:


> I was referring to international money transfer.


transfer ? withdraw ? = symantics. In my case I was referring to moving US$ via ATM to Euro. And withdrawing same.

In the case of depositing cash (or a paycheck) and transferring via ATM to pesos, ain't it the same ?

Isn't it necessary to identify exactly WHAT is illegal here ? The person crossing the border or the money? Once you start making people identify with a passport a money transfer = watch commerce screech to a halt. We already have the Patriot Act that specifically identifies what is permissable and not. Passport ID is one acceptable ID to open the account, and getting money out in any size is very difficult.

I've got no problems with remittances per se... sort of reduces the crime rate (theft, homicide, etc.).

-northern border


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco:

One last attempt.

Person A goes to a foreign country. Person A uses his/her ATM card to withdraw funds from a local ATM. Money has *LEFT* Person A's home country and the identity trail is very clear.

Person B goes to a foreign country and earns money. Person B uses a rather anonymous method, namely Western Union, to do a cash transfer to person(s) back home. Money has *BEEN SENT TO* Person B's home country with a next to anonymous method.

I am sorry to sound so pedantic, but you continue to want to conflate two very different things.

The question is not what is legal and what is not, but rather how can we create disincentives to come to the US and work illegally with the purpose of sending money to one's home country. Hence the current conversation. We are not talking "commerce", yet another concept you are trying to conflate into this when not warranted.

--tired of shoddy rhetoric


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> The question is not what is legal and what is not, but rather how can we create disincentives to come to the US and work illegally...


I think if we take care of the former, the latter will take care of itself. I don't think the government has much business telling people what to do with their hard earned money as long as they are legally employed and pay taxes on it.



> ...with the purpose of sending money to one's home country.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

android said:


> I think if we take care of the former, the latter will take care of itself. I don't think the government has much business telling people what to do with their hard earned money as long as they are legally employed and pay taxes on it.


Really? Ever try leaving the country with more than 10k cash on your person? Deposit over 10k cash into a bank?

Of course too, we are not talking about people that are legally employed.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Really? Ever try leaving the country with more than 10k cash on your person? Deposit over 10k cash into a bank?
> 
> Of course too, we are not talking about people that are legally employed.


Oh man don't even get me started on the banking Gestapo we have here :devil:


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You are comparing apples to oranges. Karl is not talking about *using an ATM* when abroad, he is talking about *sending money home* when abroad. Two completely opposite actions.
> 
> Besides, _Bank de Americano_ is planning to issue credit cards to illegals. No doubt they can just send an additional card home to make the transfers easier.


So, *Banco de Americano*, and apparently others are doing this (https://209.85.165.104/search?q=cac...merican+++remittance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us). Looks to me exactly like international money transfer (aka withdrawal) (BTW, in the linked article, the term *ATM* is. used).

Of course, all this is predicated on legal identity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> So, *Banco de Americano*, and apparently others are doing this (https://209.85.165.104/search?q=cac...merican+++remittance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us). Looks to me exactly like international money transfer (aka withdrawal) (BTW, in the linked article, the term *ATM* is. used).
> 
> Of course, all this is predicated on legal identity.


Of course, this was only pointed out several posts ago, along with a boring and repeated explication on the differences between that and Western Union (by me).

Cheers


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

mikeber said:


> cancel the incentives which bring them here.


Most of these immigrants are coming from countries that are little better than open sewers, which is why living stacked 12 deep in a one bedroom efficiency apartment in the U.S. is an attractive incentive. As long as we keep taking in the best, brightest, and hardest working people from south of our border, those countries will remain, as Simon Bolivar described them, fertile lands for raising emigrants.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> Most of these immigrants are coming from countries that are little better than open sewers, which is why living stacked 12 deep in a one bedroom efficiency apartment in the U.S. is an attractive incentive. As long as we keep taking in the best, brightest, and hardest working people from south of our border, those countries will remain, as Simon Bolivar described them, fertile lands for raising emigrants.


I totally agree the practice of importing doctors and programmers from these companies runs counter to our stated goals. However, when we export work vs. import workers as with India, people complain about that too. I would note India is not a terrorist threat or vulnerability.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I totally agree the practice of importing doctors and programmers from these companies runs counter to our stated goals. However, when we export work vs. import workers as with India, people complain about that too. I would note India is not a terrorist threat or vulnerability.


Yes, India is well positioned to take advantage of the current state of education in the US. Lou Dobbs, albiet not my favorite populist, had an article on cnn.com this week and it cited only 25% of Detroit high school students matriculate (and you just know those 25% are, as a group, far from ready to attend a top university).


----------

