JS>I hate to weigh into this but I feel I must.
JS>Mike, I agree with Robert. In this one area of discussion, your persona
JS>experiences have influenced your thought process to the point where you
JS>rationality is at a loss.
JS>With the sole exceptions of Mexicans and Canadians, any other alien who
JS>enters the United States without inspection (ie. they come across the l
JS>border surreptitiously) had to do so either THRU Mexico or Canada.
JS>If they are seeking refuge from political turmoil, why is it that they 
JS>didn't stop at the first country they came to rather than continue to t
JS>United States? Could it be that they are using the claim of asylum as a
JS>excuse?
 
       While political turmoil, in the case of many Salvadorans, as
well as some Nicaraguans and Guatemalans, is a legitimate claim, the
prime motive of these and other immigrants is not political asylmn, but
ecconomic asylmn.  I do not subscribe to the proposition that freedom
from political oppression is their motive, but freedom from ecconomic
oppression, which can be even more cruel and more enduring than any
form of political oppression ever devised.
       Mexico, in many ways, is itself a wealthy nation compared to
others such as Honduras which ranks only behind Hati as the poorest
nation in the western hemisphere and, as a result, Mexico does asorb
far more immigrants than the numbers of those who migrate from Mexico.
This is something we ourselves choose to ignore.
        Still, Mexico, compared to the United States, is itself an
impoverished nation and the brighter promise of the United States far
outshines that of any other nation in this hemisphere.  many of those
that come to this land also are aided by family, many "illegal"
themselves, and others who became "legal" after decades of suffering
the experience of "illegality".  
        It is hope which drives these immigrants, a hope denied them by
the shear circumstance of their existance in their homelands.  The
harassment, the constant fear of arrest, the prospect of deportation
being separated from their families and posessions without recourse,
the enormous, life and death, dangers of entry, and the understanding
they will live without rights, without protection of the law, and
without any modicum of personal security, all, in comparison, pales to
the consequences of remaining trapped in their former state.
         Yes, without question, in many cases the claim of political
asylumn is an excuse, but faced with the alternative of immediate
denial of hope, any human being will fight to keep hope alive.  For
these individuals this is a deperate, life or death, battle.  Sure,
they will do whatever they can do, will use whatever means is available
to them, just to not be denied the right to work, raise their families,
and live in ways you and I accept as irrevokable.
JS>I've had the experience of interviewing thousands of people from around
JS>world who have filed for asylum only to be told that they did so ONLY 
JS>because it gave them an opportunity to get an employment authorization 
JS>document for a period of time and that their asylum application was 
JS>frivilous and therefore perjurious. 
 
         I do not question this.  It is a struggle on their part.  They
stand alone against the amassed powers of the cold, calculated, and
insensitivity of the state.  These are not numbers, they are people. 
They have lives, dreams, and hopes just like all of us.  
          Just like you and I they will struggle to keep those dreams
alive.
JS>I find it disconcerting that there are people who believe that the only
JS>to get ahead is to abandon their homeland and come here rather than try
JS>to improve conditions at home. Where would we be now if the original 
JS>settlers of this country decided that it was too tough to stand up to t
JS>British and instead, just fled to another patch of ground?
 
       Where would we be now if they had taken your advice and stayed
home, never comming to this country?
       Those that stood up the the British had the willpower and the
vision to defy the laws of the time, in the name of human liberty,
because those laws were unjust.  Yes I admire them.  Just as I admire
any man who, in the name of liberty, defies injustice.  
        It is not liberty defended these laws represent, but liberty
denied.  I, like our forefathers, choose to take the side of liberty.
JS>Lastly, the defense of justification that you are raising, ie. "it's OK
JS>these people to violate our law because their intent is to merely make 
JS>better life for themselves" is fraught with problems. Do we extend this
JS>defense to someone who steals, if the reason for stealing is to "make a
JS>better life" for themselves?
 
      If you are unable to distinguish between the exercise of liberty
and theft, then I understand your delima.  It is, however, unfortunate
that we have so degenerated as a people as to make such a distinction
difficult for ourselves.
      A man wishing to come to a nation and work, to build a better
life for himself and for his family is an honorable man.  He is a man
who, through his own energies, will build not only a better life for
himself for for us all and, in that process, make this a stronger
nation.  A man who steals is a man who denies another that which is
rightfully his and therefore a criminal.  I may also point out,
whether one steals the television of another, or the liberty of
another, the act of criminality remains the same.
JS>What about foricble theft, ie robbery? What about embezzlement? At what
JS>point do we say that a person is responsible for their actions?
 
     All individuals are, or at least ought to be, responsibile for
their own actions.  When those actions violate the liberties or the
properties of another they should be held individually accountable for
those actions.
JS>I can understand the reason why someone would do this, come to this cou
JS>illegally. However, unlike you, I don't have the luxury of condoning it
JS>Nor would I even if I didn't work for INS. As I said, I understand the 
JS>reason, I just don't accept it as a justification. 
 
        And I, as you know, do not subscribe to the concept of an
illegal human being.  As we have discussed this for years, I remain
opposed to immigration restrictions, remain dedicated to the
proposition of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all men, and
reject the notion that our nation has anything at all to gain by this
relatively new policy.
JS>Besides, a quick census of the Federal and State prisons show that the 
JS>inmate population is somewhere around 35% foreign born, ie. alien. All 
JS>were trying to do Mike is "make a better life for themselves". By selli
JS>drugs or committing some other crime. 
 
         I can think of examples where a very similar line of reasoning
was used against the Jews in pre-war Germany.  You deny a man the right
to work, make him an outlaw by his very existance, deny him the ability
to legally drive a vehicle, make him an outcast from the society in
which he lives, and when charged with a crime he has no ability to post
bail, no wealth to hire an adequate defense, and is subjected to a
trial under the laws of a nation in which he cannot vote and by a jury
of which neither he nor others like him may be pernitted to serve, and
then, after all of this, the number of those in his condition in prison
is held up as an example of why all of the above injustices should be
maintained and even more added to them.
          Any argument, I suppose, can be sustained if one is willing
to accept the premise upon which it rests.  Yet we are left with the
same question...is that premise a just one?
JS>May I remind you that entering this country illegally, and now under th
JS>new law, remaining beyond a period of authorized stay, is a CRIME. A 
JS>federal crime. This isn't a matter of morality. It is a matter of legal
 
      In 1858 flight from slavery was a crime.  Aiding slaves in that
flight was a crime, and harboring escaped slaves in non-slave states
was also a federal crime.  Those supporting the institution of slavery
argued the very points you now argue.  Those opposing it held,
regardless of law, the question was indeed a moral one.  
       The question, in substance, remains the same and it remains a
moral question.   
 
                                                Mike Angwin
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------