|
|
Post by Tara on Mar 2, 2005 13:50:37 GMT -5
Check out this story: right hereThe Department of Homeland Security is experimenting with a controversial new method to keep better track of immigrants who are applying to remain in the United States. It is requiring aliens in eight cities to wear electronic monitors 24 hours a day.Talk about being strapped down by the government.  |
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 2, 2005 14:10:00 GMT -5
well if they don't like it then they can just go back to where they came from.
i'm sort of in favour of this sort of thing, it will prevent illegal immigrants using up resources that they are not entitled to (jobs, places to live etc.). don't think the UK could do it cos of all the European Union Laws, but if you have a problem with immigration then you might as well give it a shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomsPandora on Mar 3, 2005 3:24:30 GMT -5
I don't know how I feel about it, most of ya'll know I live in Texas, they say by 2030 that most of the state will be Hispanic.
How long before citizens have them. How long before it's a requirement? Am I the only one that's freaked out by it?
I can't fault the immigrants for wanting a better life over here. My ancestors had the same idea. But they learned English, because it's the official language here.(sorry, it just makes me aggravated, you can't even work in a hospital now without being bilingual) It's also not fair to the hospital staff to treat colds and things in the ER when there could be a serious case fixing to happen that needs priority.
On the other hand immigrants will do jobs most people don't want to..so I don't know how the country will feel about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 3, 2005 7:02:28 GMT -5
I think it's a horrible way to "welcome" people to our country. They're not cattle.
My view is that we should be more creative to come up with policies that accomplish what we need while still bearing in mind the dignity inherent in all people.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 3, 2005 10:18:42 GMT -5
I think it's a horrible way to "welcome" people to our country. They're not cattle. My view is that we should be more creative to come up with policies that accomplish what we need while still bearing in mind the dignity inherent in all people. that's why it wouldn't be allowed in the UK (or anywhere else in the EU) cos of the European human rights laws and stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Mar 3, 2005 14:04:31 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing diana said when I was listening to it on NPR. They were interviewing a guy who has been living in the U.S. for the past 5 years. He started off working as a dishwasher and was gradually promoted to being the manager of the store. The reporter asked all sorts of questions. He spoke of how he would have to cancel meetings having to do with work because he had a curfew of 6 'o clock at night. And couldn't leave his house any sooner than 6 in the morning. There were no excuses. And what made me even angrier while listening was that one of the people working to make sure the "immigrants are doing what they are supposed to" said that "they need to be taught a lesson". And the guy I'm speaking of had no criminal record whatsoever. He was denied becoming a full citizen basically for no reason according to the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 3, 2005 19:59:02 GMT -5
if the rules are too slack then too many people will get into the country illegally - i think that's the only think which can be said in favour of this sort of thing. i dunno what the situation's like in america, but in general i would say that if the current rules are unsatisfactory then it's worth trying something new  |
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 3, 2005 20:10:50 GMT -5
I suppose since they are illegal immigrants I can understand the "teach them a lesson comment"... but I still believe there's got to be a better way. It's a tough problem, though... no doubt about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomsPandora on Mar 4, 2005 5:25:27 GMT -5
I think from a basic human standpoint look where they're coming from. They come on rafts, in crowded vans over here...it's not as if they're out to get you. In their position...if a better life than what you have in the U.S right now, was available, then there's no doubt we'd strive to be in the better place, come heck or high water. That's like that teacher up north, that came here in the 90s from the Ivory Coast.(I want to think the guy's name is Obain) It was very dangerous there and he had to flee or he would be killed(apparently he was head of a teacher's union there that had a strong governmental opposition, something like that) . He came here for 10 years, taught in our school system as a math teacher and was great at it. He's tried to get to stay here but they're going to deport him.  But he can't go back to the Ivory Coast, because he's fearing that there will be people there that will take his life. What kinda ethical decision is that? Is that "teaching a lesson?" We should be so lucky that we're born here. The sad thing is they'll allow these bracelets because they want better for their families, even if that means sacrificing their privacy, their basic human rights. |
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 4, 2005 6:53:53 GMT -5
To be fair, those who take a hard line against illegal immigrants say they are thinking of their families too. Like you pointed out, when language becomes a barrier, services have a tendency to become sub-standard.
But I disagree with the jobs argument ("they're taking our jobs!") -- I have yet to see an immigrant (illegal or legal) come here and take someone's job.
Here in KY, immigrants from South America are considered cheap farm labor. Truckloads of men come in the summer to harvest tobacco, then go back down south for the winter months. On the east coast, immigrants are in service roles (waiters/waitresses, cashiers, etc.) that don't really pay enough to live on in that area, so they work multiple jobs to make ends meet -- and most of them are in school, too. Is that how it is in TX?
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomsPandora on Mar 4, 2005 12:52:23 GMT -5
It's pretty much the same thing. Some work on farms, some as landscaping and roofers..you know, dangerous stuff that some wouldn't dare doing.
They're not taking jobs away from anybody, it's not their fault. Employees see cheap labor.. What's taking jobs away is big companies taking our jobs overseas. Factorys here close. People lose out.
The only thing I really resent is if someone uses governmental support but does not better themselves with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 4, 2005 22:07:06 GMT -5
some very interesting points here that i whole-heartedly agree with, for example: do you have a minimum wage in the US? in the UK the current minimum wage is something like £5 an hour for people over 21 and something like £4.50 per hour for 18-21 year olds, so in a sense there is no such thing as cheap labour in the UK - well, not so cheap that only immigrants accept. what i would say to that is: maybe there is no better way at the moment. some people say stuff like that to me when i tell them how the law works in extreme situations (eg. when i tell them that a 15 ft siberian tiger can be classed as a dog in certain situations) but that's because they don't understand how the law works or how it is drafted (i could explain, but i won't bother elaborating just now, it's not as exciting as you might think  ). it's not an ideal solution, i'll agree with you there, but the US Department of Homeland Security thinks it's worth experimenting with and they probably know more about the situation than anybody else. then again, maybe it's all part of a scheme to subtly transform your country into an extreme-right police-state ... |
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 4, 2005 23:27:05 GMT -5
do you have a minimum wage in the US? We do, but in most areas it is not high enough to support one person, much less a family. High school students may be willing to work for minimum wage to get some spending money, but anyone trying to support themselves only on their wages looks for work that pays more. I can't agree that treating people like cattle is the best way we can handle national security. My guess is that it is easier and cheaper to slap an anklet on people than to make an effort to keep track of them in less demeaning ways. ;D Nah... I think we're just lazy... and we too often let the dollar rule instead of our consciences... |
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Mar 5, 2005 14:48:02 GMT -5
diana is right. Minimum wage isn't what anyone can live on. You have to have like two people working overtime to support yourselves on minimum wage. And that's just for them. And minimum wage depends on the state, although there is a federal minimum wage (I don't remember what it is exactly), but I know in my state it's 7.10
|
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 5, 2005 15:11:43 GMT -5
$7.10 can't be far off £5 but i think it is possible to live off that in the UK (it might involve some over-time working and definitely a lot of budgeting), but that's not the issue here anyway ...
i can't really add anything more at the discussion, other than repeating what i've already said, but i will add that in the UK they're planning to introduce National ID cards which will allow instant access to all your personal details ... and Tony Blair's Labour Party is supposed to be left of centre ...
i suppose one aspect of these electronic anklets is this: slapping them on every immigrant is saying that they are presumed to be an illegal immigrant until their papers go through - in (european) law it's your basic human rights that you are innocent until proven guilty and here it is the other way round. but then, by making them fill in forms to apply to remain in the US, which has always been the case (hasn't it?), that's them being forced to prove their innocence or be deported.
so it's always been assumed that new immigrants are illegal immigrants until they can prove otherwise, so what's new about this way of thinking? or do you simply think that this has gone too far?
|
|
).