Men disguised as police officers are ringing the doorbells of immigrant families in East Boston, Chelsea and Everett and then robbing the households -- assuming that undocumented workers would be too frightened to report the crimes.
A Globe story says that, "...at least a dozen times in the last four months, the man with the chipped tooth and his partner with the mustache have used their bogus status as authority figures to gain entry into a home, push everyone into a room, and go from room to room pocketing jewelry, cash, and ATM cards."
46 comments:
America is no longer safe for illegal immigrants... what is this world coming to?
If and when the perpetrators of these crimes are found, they should prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. While incarcerated the federal authorities would be wise to enlist their expertise to ferret out illegals. Then we can go back to the good old days when citizens and legal residents were the only ones being targeted.
Points of interest: Massachusetts' average per pupil expenditure for 2004-2005: $11,600. Source - NCES
Avg. Eastie Single Family Tax Bill: $2436.00 Boston.com
East Boston Crimes against individuals (1/2007 - 9/2007): 435 (doesn't include larceny, 511, or vehicle theft, 154) BPD.
While no one should be victimized (and I do believe that these folks should be thrown in jail), I ask whether the children of East Boston are being robbed of education resources as well?
John R,
Actually the average tax bill you cite is the Massachusetts average. Boston's is almost $3000 (see FY08 Property Tax Facts and Figures report from the City of Boston's Assessing webpage). Also, Boston's per pupil expenditure is more than $16,000 (go to the Mass Dept of Education website and search for FY07 Preliminary Expenditures - you can download the report).
If you look into it, there is a tenuous relationship between average property tax bills and per pupil expenditures. Cambridge spends almost $27,000 per pupil in its schools and its average tax bill is half of Boston's.
In 2002 the GAO did an analysis of urban versus suburban spending on education. Boston's higher spending is largely related to the higher teacher salaries, the lower average class sizes, and larger student support staffs.
Among the many interesting findings, the report went on to say that Boston did not allocate the appropriate amount of resources for students with special needs, like English language learners and special education students. In fact, given that low income students are such a large population in our schools, Boston does not allocate enough money to serve this population either. So, Boston spends a lot of money, but doesn't exactly put that money where education experts would say it is most needed.
So, even if you wanted to make the argument that fewer undocumented children or citizen children of undocumented parents in our local schools would somehow make things better (although you still need to define better and better for whom), it doesn't appear that Boston schools put enough money into these kinds of students to make much of a difference. It appears that if every single undocumented student or citizen child of undocumented parents left tomorrow, it would not change the cost of public schools in Boston nor would it necessarily increase academic achievement.
So we agree... except you believe that we should spend more per student (and figure out a better way to spend the money) and I believe that we could save the money now being spent on illegals and their anchor-babies. I do happen to be in favor of anchor-babies becoming citizens.
But we agree that American tax dollars should be spent wisely on American children. That's a great starting point. I'll take it!
I'm curious though, I've often heard that smaller class sizes would benefit academic achievement. If you believe this, then you would have to concede that if illegals and their anchor-babies left tomorrow, American children would benefit, would you not?
"I do happen to be in favor of anchor-babies becoming citizens." --John R.
Well, they already are citizens by virtue of being born here. The term itself -- "anchor babies" -- seems a bit pejorative, no? We're talking about people here, and in this instance, little children.
Speaking more broadly on this issue: We are going to spin our wheels as long as a significant number of Americans perceive immigration as an US vs. THEM situation.
The facts are these: (1) People have migrated toward better conditions (more food, better climate, more jobs, etc.) throughout history and there is no way to stop them. (2) It's logistically impossible to round up 12 million people and send them back. (3) Even if we could, our economy would collapse without them. (4) When wealthy, powerful countries exploit the resources of poorer, weaker countries, people from the latter are forced to migrate to the former. (5) I'd rather educate the kids of immigrants than not educate them, just as I'd rather have immigrant drivers licensed than not.
OK, I put the bullseye shirt on. Fire away.
I would say that we agree in part but I am not sure I would say we agree overall. The underlying premise of your argument is that there is a direct and positive causal relationship between the existence and number of undocumented immigrants, the size of property taxes, and the size of school expenditures. This just isn't the case. Property taxes are largely the result of assessments of the property value. If you want to blame anyone for assessments going up, you can blame all of your neighbors who cashed in on the real estate bubble that recently popped.
The research on class sizes is contradictory but most of the recent research I've seen has found the class size is much less important than the experience of the teacher, the support teacher's have, and of course, parental involvement. In the same GAO report, this was given as one of the reasons why urban schools do not do as well as suburban schools even when spending more money. We may have small class sizes, but we have inexperienced and largely unsupported teachers and children who live in complicated situations that prevent positive parental involvement even among parents who really value education.
But even if I were to go along with the argument that reducing the number of undocumented children in our public schools would make more money available to system, it would not change anything. There are an estimated 400-500 undocumented children in our public schools in the entire state. This is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total number of children in our schools. Removing these children will not change in any way the school funding/school achievement challenges we face.
I do agree that a better way to address our public schools is to look at how the money is allocated. But it isn't that simple either. It is as much about the content as it is about the money. The two are intertwined, but dealing with the issues of content is more difficult and requires a different approach. More money would be great and is needed. But throwing more money at programs that don't work or that don't address the underlying needs of students won't change anything. And this is the case regardless of the existence or number of immigrant children, documented or not.
Keep in mind too that an individual's civil status is much more complicated than the terms "legal" and "illegal" imply. My mother was, for about 2 weeks, undocumented when the former INS decided to require all green card holders to get the new "security enhanced" pink card by some arbitrarily set deadline. Even though she submitted all of her paperwork when she received the notice months ahead of time, her new card arrived a little more than 2 weeks after the federal deadline for having one passed. Technically, she shouldn't even have been working because she didn't have the documents to prove she had permission to work.
Just recently, a significant number of Central Americans were technically without papers because Congress was slow to figure out what to do about people who have been living here basically as refugees for the better part of 20 years. Most of those people would have applied for citizenship, but were unable to under the law and got caught in the government's inability to make decent immigration policy.
By the way, you should know that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that if you are born in the U.S., you are a US citizen.
In Massachusetts, almost half of school funding comes from the state. If tax revenues decline, as every economic analysis predicts would happen if all undocumented immigrants left tomorrow, you can expect even greater financial strains on schools and our cities and towns overall.
Would you agree that there needs to be some sensible reform to our immigration policy? Maybe something that allows people who have been living here for some time, are productive members of society, to obtain residency and maybe even become citizens?
To N. Starluna, Illegal means to break the law! So if someone is here illegal then they should be removed from this country. Just wondering would it be ok to steal or commit fraud or even kill? All those above are illegal so why shouldn't someone that is here illegal be jailed? Again, you can't deny the word Illegal.
Just to clarify - are you saying that people who have been here for 20 years as refugees (these would be "legals" in your view of the world) should be summarily sent back to the war ravaged countries they came from (wars started, by the way, by the US) because Congress let a deadline pass which turned them into "illegals"? People who were turned into "illegals" because of the inaction of Congress? People who entered and stayed here with all of the legal permits needed for 20 years, who have started businesses, bought homes, and have families and were not allowed to become permanent residents or citizens? Is this what you are saying? I just want to make sure this is what you mean.
To N. Starluna; are you saying that if someone committed a horrific crime twenty years ago all should be forgotten? Illegal is illegal! what's so hard to understand?
By the way if you don't like this country or want to bash it I suggest that you move.
Thanks Jimbo for this blog
I'm sorry, can you clarify: what crime was committed 20 years ago?
Are you suggesting that people who are here as refugees are here illegally? I just want to make sure I understand where you are coming from.
Are you serious?? Do you mean to tell me that those little children don't have to head down to the Tip O'Neil building to file a claim for citizenship immediately. This country is getting soft.
I suppose there's a difference in our frames of reference. You see I believe that the child is a person before it comes out of the womb. Hence, since it already is, it becomes, by virtue of its birth, a citizen. Because, as I'm sure you understand, if an illegal immigrant were deported one day before giving birth, her child would not become a citizen.
"Anchor-baby" is an extremely perjorative term and it is meant as such. The reason is that it is argued that those of us who are in favor of deporting people who are here illegally with citizen children are imposing a cruel and unusual punishment upon them. That is, pro-crimmigrants argue that by virtue of giving birth to a child the parents of that child have some enhanced claim to stay here as citizens or otherwise, thereby "anchoring" the parents.
On your points, Jim:
(1) People inexorably migrate to better standards of living. I agree. (Or create them where they live).
(2) Logistics - I agree, but a round-up isn't necessary, no jobs, no school, no housing, no license (see no. 1)
(3) Economic Strife - Potentially, if they all dissappeared in one day...
(4) Not necessarily - see numbers 1 & 2
(5) I couldn't disagree more - see no. 2
Illegal immigration adversely affects nearly all aspects of the working class's standard of living. We all participate in various economic markets: employment, housing, medical care, education, etc. The cost, availability and quality of the resources available in these markets is a function of the law of supply and demand. Simply put: as supply goes up vs. demand, cost goes down and as demand goes up vs. supply, cost goes up. When you apply this rule to the aforementioned markets you can predict the result.
Jobs: If there are more people (supply is up) applying for the same job, the salary offered goes down (cost goes down).
Housing: If there are more people (higher demand) in need of housing the price goes up.
Education: More people in need of education (more demand) the quality suffers, larger class-sizes, less money spent on needed specialties
Medical Care: More people without insurance, cost goes up.
This is an extremely simplified view of the marketplace but it still works. How has this manifested itself? Before this country was flooded with illegal immigrants, a man could go to the produce market in Chelsea and get a job that would allow him to rent an apartment that would accommodate his family of five. Because he worked at unskilled labor perhaps he didn't have health insurance he and his kids could go to the clinic and get reduced rates for health care and didn't have to wait for 4-5 hours to be seen. His kids were in smaller classes at the P.J. Kennedy school. That reality has changed. The produce market hires hundreds of illegals at low paying jobs. 2-3 families now live in that same apartment. Those families now consume more health care, education and other social services. This is the reality of legal working class families in our neck of the woods and from what I read its the same in other border towns (yes, Eastie has become a border town). Now I know you can (and probably will) cite studies that say whatever it is you want them to say. I know what I see with my own two eyes and like gravity, the law of supply and demand is irrefutable.
Legal immigration, on the other hand is responsible for having made this country the best the planet has ever seen - see prior posts for explanation of this vague concept.
NS.
When you hold out the exception, administrative mistakes that cause a person's status to temporarily become illegal, as the rule, you erode your argument. There is an epidemic that needs to be dealt with and the fastest easiest way to deal with an epidemic is either quarantine (can't deport em all) or targeted treatment in areas where severe outbreaks are underway along with preventative measures in unaffected or minimally affected areas. I would bet my house that if we were to place ICE agents at the door of every school in East Boston tomorrow, there would be at least 500 students absent.
Please apply the economic principal discussed earlier to your hypothesis that tax revenues will decline if all illegals were to leave tomorrow. People with low-paying jobs pay less taxes and consume more resources. As we have both pointed out, for every one fewer illegal alien child, there would be $16,000 more available in Boston. Lets use a figure of $10/hr or, given 52 weeks (no vacation) and an average of 50 hours a week an anuual salary of $26,000/yr. The state taxes at a rate of 5.95% would be $1,547. I haven't even added in health care. You also mistakenly assert that "almost half of the school funding comes from the state". This is false. All of the school funding comes from you and me. Take a look at your most recent paystub. The state has no money. It is my money, your money and your neighbor's money. The quicker we all realize this the better off we will be. I believe that liberals know this already and that they first create and then reinforce the concepts of State money vs. local money to mis-direct people. It works because, you often hear people say, "Well, that will be paid by the State" as if there is some magical money making machine just cranking out the dough somewhere. (Please don't give us a lecture on monetary policy... it would just be more misdirection). Bottom line: all public money comes out of our pockets.
It seems that your geo-political view of the world can be boiled down to: "America Bad!!!" But I'll indulge you, If someone comes here legally and attains legal permanent residency and through some administrative snafu becomes illegal, that person should not be shipped anywhere. But that was a tricky question... almost got me... again you're using an exception to justify the rule... stick to the common case.
I do believe that our immigration system needs to be overhauled. But I don't believe that people who have come and/or stayed here illegally should have any path to citizenship other than to return to their country and get in line.
I apologize for consuming so much "ink" but it seems that when I gloss over a concept, I am challenged on the depth of my knowledge.
Illegal Immigration is a binary issue, a person is here legally or not. There will be exceptions and cases that need to be considered as they come up but it is safe and wise to adhere to the 80/20 rule. Which is to take the simplest course of action that will solve 80% of the problem. Then attack the other 20%. I would be happy with an 80% reduction in illegal immigration.
To Starluna: your being ridicolous and callous. You know exactly what I mean illegal is illegal.
By the way why didn't you respond when I said if you don't like this country then you should move.
I have the answer because you know this is the best country in the world.
First, if you read starluna's question instead of responding with venom, you'll see that she is making a good point.
Secondly, the argument that one has to agree with the government's policies in order to live here is utterly foolish, completely ignorant and totally un-American.
Finally, define what you mean by "best country in the world." Without specific reference points, the statement is meaningless.
To Jimbo: What do I mean the United States of America is the best country in the world? Are you kidding me? That is so ignorant, I'm lost for words.
Jim, this is simple if you and Starluna don't like it here than move, go away because true americans don't like what you two stand for.
This great country has giving you the oppurtunity to have a blog and say what you want. Would you be able to do that in Russia or China?
I'm sure you won't print this because it puts you now in the forefront of criticism.
Jimbo, let me ask you a question. Do you have any children?
If I had to guess I would say no. There is no way you can be blessed to have them.
P.S. If you really feel that we have the right to speech you would post this!
Jim, you are sickening! I'm glad I saw the last post because by the end of tommorow I will have an anti Hubster Blog up and running. We will have fun at your expense.
Correale
My argument on what makes America the greatest country in the world is immigration. People vote with their feet. More people have immigrated to America than to any other country. Sure we can go the way of the Netherlands, keep everyone out, tax everyone at a high rate, and provide all types of government services. But diversity on every level is what makes this country strong. (By the way - on a per capita basis, one could argue that people also vote pretty strongly for Canada.) Regardless, getting back to the topic at hand, the fact that people would prey on immigrants (whether here legally or not) is an absolute travesty and makes me sick to my stomach. In regards to immigrants here illegally, we need to provide them a path to citizenship. In my mind, it will only make our country stronger.
John,
We disagree on several fundamental points and there are a number of inaccurate assumptions that underly your argument.
Immigration is not a binary issue. It certainly cannot be if you appeal to history to justify your positions. Immigration is a historico-political-economic issue on the one hand, and a basic human activity on the other.
First, you cannot appeal to historic migration patterns and history as justification for today's treatment or view of migrants. A good book on this subject is by Mae M Ngai titled "Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America". In it you will learn that there was no such designation of legal or illegal migrant before 1924. There were rules for migration, however a great book on the subject of the Italian migration printed in 1904, "Imported Americans," illustrates the myriad of ways that migrants regularly bypassed those rules and effectively entered the U.S. illegally. By the way, the full text of this book is available on books.google.com. For a quick read, I recommend chapters 7-9. On the subject of "anchor babies" I would draw your attention to a quote on page 120: "If I can save twenty more lire, the next one will be born in Pittsburg, praise the Holy Mother".
Between 1924 and 1965, the immigration system was effectively racist. The laws were structured to limit as much as possible migration by Italians, Eastern Europeans, and Asians. Asians had always been targeted, so that was nothing new. Any difficulty your forbears may have had in coming to this country during that time period, and even after, you could lay at the feet of a xenophobic and racist immigration policy. And of course, creative migrants found innumerable ways around those laws to enter the country legally, semi-legally, and illegally.
You are correct to say that your economic analysis is simplified, which is its major flaw. You have to realize that the labor conditions for working class labor jobs, like what you describe, are driven less and less by local supply and demand conditions, and more by a globalized economic trend of vertical disintegration. Basically, this is the outsourcing of major aspects of production and distribution, allowing those at the top of the corporate ladder to make more profit by divesting itself of employees for whom it would have to pay taxes and benefits. If the Chelsea produce center is like other similar food operations that I have read about, the wages of the workers have less to do with their civil status and willingness to take less money and more to do with the business model that characterizes our modern food distribution system. If you look at similar operations in parts of the US where the workers are all US born, you will see that they are making the same non-living wages.
Also, a major flaw in your analysis is that low income people use more resources than high income people. Every comprehensive economic analysis on this subject comes to the opposite conclusion. Higher income people do pay more in taxes, however they pay a smaller proportion of their income in taxes and they get more in benefits and subsidies. This is also true for immigrants, regardless of civil status.
Another incorrect assumption you make is that undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes. In fact, they do. At the most superficial level, they pay the same sales taxes that everyone else does. If they own a car and it is registered in Boston, they pay the same excise taxes that everyone has to. If they own property, they pay property taxes, like every other property owner. If they are renters, a portion of their rent goes towards the property tax owed on the property, unless the landlord is so generous that he/she pays the tax out of his own pocket - hardly likely. Removing these people will have the same effect as any large out-migration from a place: lower tax revenue overall. So, even if you remove all undocumented migrants and their children, not only will it not change the cost of providing basic services, it will remove much needed revenue to maintain those services.
Most of the analyses on the subject of the taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants has found that immigrants pay much more in taxes than they receive. You can find these studies from the Urban Institute and the Pew Hispanic Center. In addition, undocumented workers are actually contributing more to the social security system than they will ever have a chance to use. Although a large amount of undocumented work is "off the books" (although there is much more off-the-book labor in the native born workforce than in the migrant workforce) a significant amount are paying their payroll taxes like everyone else. But because they are unlikely to be eligible for it, that money eventually becomes part of the system. The Social Security Administration estimates somewhere between $6 and $7 billion a year comes into Social Security and Medicare from undocumented immigrants - benefits that most will never likely have access to.
It is also incorrect to assert that there is some large influx of migration into the US in recent years. The Cato Institute did a great analysis on this subject a few years ago. In short, the number of migrants (documented and not) today is just barely getting to the same level as in the late 19th and early 20th century. However, the proportion of migrants is well below historic standard. The number of migrants as a proportion of the total population is less than a third of what it was at the end of the 19th century, which was the peak of the Italian migration.
Finally, as someone who studies the law and the processes that create laws, I can safely assert that there is is nothing simple about it. Outside of a few universal moral codes (prohibitions against murder, incest, etc), there is nothing that is intrinsically illegal. Illegality is a social construction; people make up rules and ways to enforce them. Laws do not exist outside of human action. As Ngai details in her book, there were few rules relating to permission to migrate before 1924 (except for Asians). The same legal and political processes that created the designation "illegal migrant" could just as easily do away with that designation or create more reasonable and humane processes to be a "legal migrant."
By the way, I don't think I have a particular geo-political viewpoint because I do not see the world and the way it works in such black and white terms. I am much more interested in the normative evaluation of our laws and policies. My interest is more about whether our society is structured in a way that protects and promotes public health and community well-being (very broadly conceived), and respects human rights and human dignity. There are some policies in the US that do this and other policies that don't. We have the right to a basic education in this country, but the uneven allocation of resources to make that right meaningful calls into question the commitment towards it. Modern day Cuba has a poor record on political rights but they do a much better job of providing a much better education to their residents. It is not that one country is better than another, and certainly not the case that the US is inherently better. We do some things well, in my view, and still need to work on other things.
"What do I mean the United States of America is the best country in the world? Are you kidding me? That is so ignorant, I'm lost for words."
So, you have no idea what you mean?
"...if you ... don't like it here than move..."
Show me where I said I didn't like it here. There are some things I'd like to improve. You don't agree with that sentiment?
"True Americans don't like what you two stand for."
I didn't realize that there is a test to be a "true American." I stand for liberty, compassion, equality, justice, fairness, honor, beauty, humor and truth. You don't?
I do find it interesting that the assertion that "if you don't like it here, then move" is often made in response to people pointing out opportunities to improve this country and make its actions closer to its asserted principles.
It also implies that all of your parents and grandparents who migrated here in the last century and a half didn't like where they came from. My landlord and I have had this conversation before. He came here as a teenager with his family from Italy in the mid-1970s. Given the frequency with which his father and older siblings return to Italy (the patriarch spends as much as 9 months a year there), they appear to like it just fine. In fact, you might argue they are getting the best of both worlds: all of the benefits of US residency and citizenship and all of the benefits of having family and land back in their home country. Based on our conversations they moved here because of the the lack of opportunity in Italy at that time and the relatively greater economic opportunities here, not because they hated where they come from.
But, based on the same logic, I might argue that if you can't find a job, a good school, or good quality of life here in East Boston, then move. That's what your parents and grandparents did, if they came from someplace else.
I've read some history, some contemporary literature and other works. But I haven't read as much as you, NS. I can tell you that you've made unsupported assertions and that you cite left-leaning sources to support your positions. You're entitled but don't fool yourself into thinking that you've made a valid argument to allow illegals to stay.
The vertical-disintegration you mention is more of the same, supply and demand. I've been forced to "re-tool" more than once during my working life. Your examples don't invalidate my arguments, they actually support it.
Our local, state and federal governments are complicit in creating a black-market for labor which in turn has caused substandard living conditions in working class urban and rural communities. This creates a gap in the ladder of generational improvement.
At some point you have to descend from your ivory tower and get your hands dirty. You cannot solve all of the world's problems by spending all of your time in positing a eutopia and blaming the US for its failure to achieve it.
I believe that someone much more learned than me (go ahead tell me it should be "I"), once said something along the lines of the following: Lady Liberty holds aloft a torch. That torch is an invitation for all of the world to follow us in our quest for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In the last century, that torch has led the charge in ridding the world of Nazism and Communism. That torch has shone as a beacon of freedom throughout the world and is responsible for advancing the condition of freedom for more people than any other civilization in the history of the world. By the light of that torch you are also free to inspect Lady Liberty and notice all of her rust, cracks and peeling paint.
I choose to focus on the light and move forward.
I JUST GOT CURIOUS ,AND LOOKED UP THE WORD "ILLEGAL" IN MY DICTIONARY CALLED MERRIUM WEBSTERS THAT CAME WITH MY XP;
HERE IT IS WORD FOR WORD,BOTH AS AN ADJECTIVE ,AS WELL AS A NOUN;
Illegal "Adjective"
"Not According To,or Authorized ByLaw"
"Unlawful,Illicit,:
"Also Not Sanctioned ByOfficial Rules"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Illegal "Noun"
"An Illegal Immigrant"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thats exact word for word.
Cant wait for the never ending response from the star person.
Signed;
Merriam-Webster Dictionary !!!!!!!
john r...
It's fine to focus on the light, but we shouldn't deny that there are cracks, and we should muster our collective will to fix as many of them as possible. What's wrong with aiming for utopia? Of course, we are human and therefore it's likely impossible to create a perfect society, but why shouldn't we push and scream in order to get as close as possible?
Hi John. Sorry to be silent. I've had to prioritize my regular work, especially now that our spring break is ending.
To some of your points, I understand that your argument is that immigrants - and specifically undocumented immigrants - are the root cause of the high cost of our public schools and our high property tax bills. It's a fairly straightforward, and verifiable, economic argument. Every single comprehensive economic analysis on the economic impact of immigrants (documented or not) finds that the number or proportion of such immigrants has no bearing on these variables. In short, if you want to make the argument that all undocumented migrants should leave, you will not find any support in economics.
As far as my sources of information, I would like to point out that the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank (e.g. not liberal) and the Urban Institute and the Pew Hispanic Center are non-partisan. The Social Security Administration could probably be called a liberal institution, given that its entire purpose is social welfare support. But I doubt they would agree that the reporting of revenue streams could be characterized as having any political point of view. Ditto on the other government reports that I cite.
If I understand your quote correctly, there is a fundamental difference in the way we construct our perspectives. I think it largely has to do with how closely you and I tie our identities to our nationality. My identity is not so rigidly defined as yours appears to be. Perhaps this is because I am part of the first generation, at least on my mother's side. Perhaps it is because I could be accused of being an "anchor baby". Maybe it has to do with the fact that I've moved around a lot and have lived in many different places. It may also be because I see the sovereign state as simply a social construction - one with real consequences, but a social construction nonetheless. Regardless, because my identity is not so tied to the reputation or view of the U.S., my most important concern is the well-being of people. And not just a specific subset of people, but human beings generally. It is my view that my individual welfare is intimately tied to our collective welfare. I see myself, and you, as part of a community of human beings and not a community of strictly "Americans" or "legal residents".
But, since you are in a literary mood, how about a quote from a well known variously progressive source: "You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 22:21). Or perhaps a different spin with the same moral: "There, but for the grace of God, go I."
Every new immigrant group that has come to this country has faced persecution and oppression, very likely including your own ancestors. The question I have for you is will you participate in that all-too-American tradition of fear-mongering of the foreigners in our midst or will you reject that tradition and see that that our collective quality of life in this place is dependent on our upholding basic principles of human rights and human dignity. Remember that if we can define away the rights of certain human beings, we can define away the rights of any human being. American history is replete with examples of such action. And US participation in WWII does not excuse the contemporary treatment of immigrants. I remember a talk given by Elie Weisel (holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace prize winner, etc.) in which he stated that the first things the Nazi's did before the holocaust even began was to define Jews as "illegal". Are we not heading down a similar path with the way we talk about immigrants?
If you persist in dehumanizing undocumented immigrants, as you seem insistent to do considering your justification in the use of the term "anchor-baby", we really have no basis for discussion. We could not possibly have a conversation if you see an entire group of people, whose civil status is largely defined by racist and xenophobia laws that only serve corporate profiteering, as some sort of undifferentiated mass of badness.
To Starluna; I would love to know where you teach because I wouldn't want my children in your classroom. The reason is because everything that I learned from my family(which they came over from the old country) which included that they made sure to become Legal residents before they even thought of having children
They took pride in becoming citizens and people like you don't think that means anything.
I actually feel sorry for people like you who take full advantage of this country.
Once again, n.starluna offers fact-based, rational commentary in a respectful and intelligent manner. Whether I agree with what she says or not -- and generally I do -- I wish people would respond in the same fashion.
Notice that the comment posted at 4:15 pm never makes any statement or response or argument that deals directly with the thoughts or positions he or she seems to disagree with: "I would love to know where you teach because I wouldn't want my children in your classroom" and "[my family] took pride in becoming citizens and people like you don't think that means anything" and "I actually feel sorry for people like you who take full advantage of this country."
Instead of engaging in an interesting and thought-provoking dialogue, some posters wish only to end the free exchange of ideas, squashing it with a personal attack or nonsensical comments.
To Jimo; its not that I don't want to engage in a rational debate with Starluna. She loses me once that she down plays the integrity of being a Citizen. What's wrong with the idea of maybe wanting to be a legal citizen? After all its only the law!
Again, i'd love to have a wonderful, deep, articulate discussion but not when someone doesn't think that it is necessary to be here legal.Again, there is that word again Legal.
Jim,
The problem with seeking a eutopia is that the entire journey is spent by addressing all of the faults with the status quo and not by action. Additionally, when liberals seek to make change, they make two invalid assumtions: 1) They know what's best for the rest of us and 2) They know how best to spend our money.
NS,
Google "Cost of illegal immigration" and you can find whatever statistics you like. Remember, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics." You claim that the presence of illegal immigrants makes this country a better place. I disagree and as worldy as you are, you happen to be addressing an audience in and around East Boston. The impact of illegal immigration here is irrefutably negative. Twenty years ago: there were no 3-deckers that housed 30 people or more; you could be seen at the health center without having to wait at least 4 hours; and to a high school age kid, "tagging" meant that you held a job at Tello's or Rx down the square (neither of which is true now due to illegal immigration).
You label me an oppressor and a xenophobe because I seek to enforce the laws of this country, yet I have disparaged no one. I’ve even stated that I believe that legal immigration is what makes this country great. I don't believe that we need to forcibly deport most of them. I would even welcome them back were they to re-enter legally. I only request that they become American. Don't forget your heritage, don't leave behind your customs or rituals but integrate them into the melting pot that is America.
As a citizen of the larger human community, what country have you decided to live in and why? I am very proud of my country and my heritage, glad you picked up on that. My ancestors, who hailed from several European countries, decided that America was the best place to live and to raise a family just as yours did.
Why is it that if I decide not to pay for the education, healthcare or housing of an illegal immigrant that I am engaging in fear-mongering? Why do you make the assumption that I disregard their welfare altogether? Why do you continue to conflate legal and illegal immigration - and throw in a dose of holocaust for good measure? Stay on topic.
I too believe that our welfare, that of all humans, is closely interdependent. That still doesn't require that I pay their share.
You see, I have more faith in humanity than you do. I have more faith that the people of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Columbia and Brazil can actually influence their own lives in their own countries. I believe that we can help them to help themselves but how dare I suggest that they stay where they are and attempt to make a difference there?
No, I must be wrong (everyone knows that liberals are smarter than conservatives). The only way for these people to advance themselves is to come to this country... we are their only hope... how sad, that they must rely on this inferior nation... this nation of oppressors, of xenophobes (that's pretty vague isn't it, Jimbo - I mean doesn't it refer to all foreigners? – it’s convenient to paint with a broad brush when you want to attack America - but dare to praise her and you need specifics).
I take you at your word that you hope to improve the station of all people across this globe. I'd ask you to take into account from which of the many "social constructs" you've decided to make your mark. Identifying as broadly as you do with the rest of the world, even you haven't found a better place. The "anchor" remains firmly in place.
NStar - I'm sorry, but you called it wrong with John R. I know him very well, don't agree with him always, but he is by no means guilty of fear mongering or being a xenophobe.
His own extended family portrait resembles a snapshot from the latest gathering of the United Nations. He is first generation on one side as well and he is more liberal than any republican would EVER admit.
I enjoy the intelligent exchanges that are fostered by Jimbos discussion items and that is even more true when posters work to stay on topic and refrain from anything that might be construed as a personal attack.
I still wouldn't rule out coffee!
E.G.
To Eastie Girl; Are you saying that you are related to John R? Now that wouldn't be fair seeing that if you are related then it would be almost impossible for you to disagree with him at least puclicly. Although I do respect that you are honest about it doesn't take away the fact that you'd have a hard time disagreeing with him.
Jimo, does provide the forum for discussion and if you disagree with John R just be truthful to yourself and i'm sure he would understand.
Anon @ 10:50 AM
Funny how you draw that conclusion. Don't you know any people that you are not related to?
I will say that an interesting thing about us is that I'm not so far left and he's not so far right that we are not able to agree on some fundamental things.
He is very well read and typically speaks from some kind of foundation. Although, as we all know, everything - even cold hard data, can be interpreted or presented to support pretty much any desired point of view.
That being said, even given my close relationship with John R., I have no problem screaming from the rooftops when I am convinced that he's wrong, or even on those occasions when I'm just kind'a sure.
Does that answer your question Anon?
All My Best,
E.G.
P.S. But imagine the fortune of a family to have two such different, intelligent, articulate and not to mention - good looking people in their gene pool?
To Eastie girl; First of all you seemed to have a bowl of yourself this morning. I was only pointing out the fact that you seem to come to the rescue when Starluna questions John R. on certain points. I'm not looking to debate you on this rather the debate should be on the issues.
Hey Jimbo, what about those T-shirts?
P.S Did I ruffle someone's feathers this morning?
Anon @ 10:10 - 2 bowls!
I'm all about the issues, but I also have a sense of humor. This is a blog, not a senate hearing.
I know John R. and I have no problem going head to head with him on this blog or anywhere else. I do have a problem when ANYONE is attacked. Knowing that I cannot solve 'world hunger', I save my defensive responses for subjects and people I actually know something about.
To date, I have defended John R., because he is not a bigot and I felt that the commentary was going down that path. I have defended myself - no need to explain there. Also, I have defended Joe Mason, a person I do not know however someone that I have to give credit to for signing his name and holding steadfast to his principles in the face of those that seem to target him for nothing more than sport.
I enjoy the opportunity to discuss different topics and points of view and have enough of a sense of humor to laugh at myself when I start to take things too seriously.
Folks, it's a
blog. Talk, discuss, have fun, but keep it in perspective.
Jimbo, thanks for keeping this all going. It is both informative and entertaining.
OK, I'm off to work now. Have a great day!
To Eastie Girl: I take my hat off to you for your response. that being siad, you can't have it both ways. You want this blog to be a fair, fun discussing issue based blog but you can't be fair when you are defending someone when they could be wrong.
Stay well and have fun at work. Bye now
Thanks Anon - I guess I won't get wound up about you calling my character into question.
I'm just sorry that this serious topic got derailed.
Jimbo - maybe you should have a 'special edition' discussion topic: "The secret lives of Hubster Bloggers, people they defend and may be related to".
To Eastie girl; you know what gets me upset? I've been reading this blog from almost day one and think that Jimbo has done a great job getting info out there to our community. This blog becomes a disservice when 2 or more people team up on something or someone just because they are related or know each other.
I happen to be a real fan of this Blog and take exception when people like you are sarcastic. Again, I'm pointing out a fact that you Cannot be truthful when you are defending someone just because you know them, its outrageous, so please don't think Jimbo's TRUE bloggers appreciate your dishonesty with real problematic situations. Enough is enough and play fair!
Sorry Jimbo for sounding off but some of us truly enjoy your blog and don't want to see it belittled.
To the person who suggested HUBSTER T-shirts, I am all for it. Do I get a complimentary one?
Anon - seems as though you are part of the problem in that you are taking the focus off of the topics to attack me.
I think Jimbo can tell that I enjoy and appreciate his efforts and have done my share to interject thoughtful commentary here. Although I have been participating for quite some time, I have not until recently given my posts a dedicated handle. If that makes me a target - that's fine.
I reserve my sarcasm to respond to posts that attack me without any real provocation or value add.
As of late, the only value that our discussion has added is that of entertaining some of the bloggers that enjoy seeing strangers jump down each other's throats.
Ok, back to work!
Jimbo, we are dead serious. Would you consider getting T-shirts?
To Eastie Girl, first of all Jimbo let me say that i'm sorry that we aren't sticking to the issues of the day. This will be my last post regarding this matter.
Eastie Girl, what i'm trying to get ascross for the last time is that we can't have a fair and balanced debate when two or more family members are jumping on one topic or one person. This is the basis of my frustration with you and hope you will refrain from doing so anymore.
Back to work for me too.
Jimbo get those T-shirts
John R,
First, let me clarify. I did not assert that you were a racist or xenophobe. I stated that the US immigration laws are racist and xenophobic.
I did state that your argument has no basis in fact. You are right that people can lie with statistics. However, you can lie much more easily without them. That isn't to say that personal experience isn't relevant. I myself conducted 6 months of research on the relationship between weight and diabetes among Latinos on the basis of my personal experience being contrary to the "scientific consensus". The difference is that I sought to verify whether my experience was simply a fluke, part of the natural variation of human life, or whether the scientific consensus was in fact flawed.
And again, you are asserting relationships that do not even logically have a relationship to immigration. As someone who has been an administrator in a community health care facility in East LA, I can tell you that long wait times have nothing to do with the patient population and everything to do with the operations of the facility and the health care financing system generally. The walk-in clinic in my health center in East LA did not have anywhere near 4 hour wait times (except occasionally during a bad flu season) and I can assure you that we had a much larger population of undocumented patients than the East Boston Health Center has and a much smaller budget.
With regards to tagging, you assert that there is a relationship between the proliferation of tagging and undocumented immigrants. As it turns out, most serial taggers are white men in their 20s and early 30s. I didn't know this until recently myself. It happens that one of the Salem police officers who was involved in arresting the tagger Speck is one of my husband's students. We saw him at the mall recently and he told me that the taggers that do the most damage are young, generally white, men who live in the suburbs, have jobs and do this as a hobby. Closer to home, they are also dealing with this in Chelsea and the police there have found that much of the tagging recently is being done by middle school-aged kids of all ethnic backgrounds who see it as a competition; basically a problem of pre-teens acting stupid.
But assertions like the ones you are making are dangerous not just because they are wrong but because they associate criminality and lowered quality life with immigrants. You may think that the statement that "I have no problem with legal migration" and "legal migration is good" somehow mitigates the association, but does not. Can you tell the difference between a legal permanent resident and an unauthorized migrant? If I put a lineup of people right in front of you, would you be able to tell which ones are US citizens, people have overstayed their visas, or legal permanent residents? No one can. You must have some incredible mental power to be able to tell the difference between a migrant with papers and one without papers. Since most people can't do this, the kinds of associations that you assert here simply end up creating fear of and hostility to all migrants.
East Boston already has a history of this. Exactly 25 years, two 10 year old boys set fire to the triple decker next to the Trinity House. They were targeting the South East Asian families that lived there. Today we would call this an arson-hate crime. But the more important issue is: where do you think those 10 year old boys learned that South East Asians were bad? Did it make a difference that those people were refugees? Clearly not.
If there is a problem with migration it is with the law. Today, there are few realistic "legal" paths to migration to the US. The average length of time it takes to get a visa to bring a spouse or minor child to the US from anywhere in the world is 6 years. For people migrating from the Philippines or Mexico, it can take up to 25 years to get a visa for an adult child or adult sibling (it's 6 years if they are coming from Europe or Africa). And our green card system supposedly prioritizes family reunification. This doesn't even get into the issues of cost. The application for a green card for a spouse or minor child will set you back $1500. And this doesn't include the lawyer's fees when you have to appeal because your application was unlawfully rejected. And these applications "get lost" with disturbing frequency.
Your ancestors did not have these roadblocks to migrating to the U.S. They didn't have to wait for the FBI to complete background checks. The sponsorship requirements were few, loose and loosely attended to. The former director of the (former) INS has stated that less than 2% of migrants who made it to Ellis Island pre-1924 were sent back to their country of origin. That number is even smaller from other ports of entry.
So, first, you simply cannot compare past migration to the immigration in the modern era because the laws are different. There were no real legal barriers to migration in the past. Not only is legal migration today incredibly difficult but it is incredibly expensive. Can you really blame someone for not wanting to wait six years to rejoin their children or spouse. That is simply inhumane. What kind of system forces an older migrant to have to wait 20 years for their adult child to come here to take care of them in their old age? It is simply cruel to forcibly separate children from their parents for no other reason than to "punish" people for violating what most everyone else in the world recognizes are outdated and racist laws.
Second, you cannot assert a relationship between crime, taxes, or general quality of life and migrants because it would not be accurate and all you end up doing is smearing all migrants. And there is no doubt that there is a racial undertone to the debate around modern immigration. I do not believe that you, John, are a racist. But you cannot divorce your comments from the larger debate around immigration, which is centered around Latin American migration. All of sudden people want requirements to become US citizens and for them to go back to their country of origin to wait in a line that shouldn't even exist. Here's a question: would your requirement to become a US citizen apply to the 33% of Italian migrants who live in East Boston who have not become citizens? Or the 27% of Eastie Irish migrants who still have not obtained citizenship. Or are they exempt because there were no laws for them to break when they entered the US?
It is my view that the focus should be on crafting an immigration system that is realistic and humane. My preference is to allow people to work and be protected from exploitation without regard to civil status. My preference is to keep children in school rather than cooped up at home where they are not learning anything or running around on the streets and vulnerable to gangs. Seeing immigrants as simply criminals does not get us any closer to lower property taxes, better schools, a good health care system, or a good quality of life. It simply creates an marginalized group of people vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
You know what I'm talking about when I mention tagging but you really depend heavily on your research background to create a smokescreen. Lookup, MS13, 18th Street and Latin Kings. The only area where you appear to be pragmatic is when it comes to the plight of illegal immigrants.
The basics of my plan have nothing to do with skin color, country of origin, language, time in country, or whether a person crossed an ocean or a river to get here. Simply: require proof of citizenship for any type of public aid and proof of legal residency to attend school and to work. The reverse osmosis will commence. This is where we start here in Boston, Mass.
If an arson fire 25 years ago speaks to the attitudes of Americans vs. immigrants today, what does the recent stabbing of a firefighter in Day Square say about the attitudes of immigrants vs. Americans today? I believe that they are both outliers and should be dealt with as the crimes that they are but invoked by either side of the argument, they impune more broadly than is appropriate.
If I understand your argument, it is that we should allow illegals to stay because it would be inhumane and racist to force them to leave; also that legal immigration avenues are hard to navigate. I recognize that there are problems with legal immigration that need to be fixed as well. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take any action until they are all addressed. If there is no "line" for them to get into, there is no country. Would you like the U.S. to be more like Mexico or more like the U.S.? No need to answer, because if you felt that Mexico were a better "social construct", you'd be there - and I'm not suggesting you leave.
I am happy to hear that East LA has figured out how to service their illegal aliens ("undocumented patients", that's rich, I mean even you must see the absurdity in that phrase), no doubt its at the expense of those here legally. Illegal immigration directly and negatively impacts East Boston and its surrounds, Q.E.D.
I recognize that there are those who are racist and do make a distinction between European and Latino immigrants; you seem to believe (or want to convey) that this group makes up the majority of the people who are opposed to illegal immigration. This is the convenient tactic of the left and it is your last best hope to short circuit the discussion.
Illegal immigration costs us in more ways than one and it needs to be stopped.
The floor is yours.
"Illegal immigration directly and negatively impacts East Boston and its surrounds, Q.E.D."
Sorry, but this statement, from my point of view, is not a slam dunk. Immigration, I believe, is a net good. Sure, there are some issues, but the country wouldn't be able to function without immigrants.
Those who grew up in East Boston, whether they are still here or have moved to the suburbs, look at the neighborhood and feel as though their culture has been forced out by Spanish-speaking immigrants. This is a mistake. In reality, these newcomers have filled a void left by those who've gone elsewhere.
Without immigrants, the population of this community would be dropping and storefronts in Maverick, Central and Day squares would be sporting FOR RENT signs.
Jim - you mean just like the For Rent signs that are found in Southie, Charlestown and the South End? No - if there were no illegal immigration, Eastie would more closely resemble those communities.
Apples and oranges, my friend.
The South End, by virtue of its location and brownstone building stock, attracted young professionals who've transformed the neighborhood into a desirable and cool place to be.
Those of Irish descent tend to be a bit slower to move away when they get the chance (stereotype? they do appear more clannish), so places like South Boston have held on to a larger percentage of its earlier wave of immigrants. Charlestown kept some, but again proved quite desirable for those who had some money to spend and wanted to be close to downtown.
Look at Dorchester, as the Globe did Sunday. Vietnamese immigrants moved to Dot Ave and environs in the past two decades as the Irish went back to Ireland, moved to the suburbs or died.
East Boston has few old, desirable brick buildings and no brownstones. It is, however, now becoming popular among young professionals and artsy, hipster types because of its relatively inexpensive housing and subway accessibility.
John R,
Heavens forbid we get confused by the facts or basic logic. You are right. I have this really bad habit of relying on research and facts to form many of my opinions. I find it more reliable than forming my opinions based on fear or ignorance. It works for me.
I also have a bad habit interpreting facts through a view of humanity that assumes that most people have good reasons for the residency choices they make. For example, I could argue that Latin Americans immigrants are much more devoted to America (as a sovereign nation) than East Boston European immigrants are. Why?
If we look at the number of non-citizen European immigrants in East Boston, 28% of those who are clearly eligible for citizenship (because they've been here for at least 20 years) have not been naturalized. Only 1% of non-citizen Latin Americans who may be eligible for citizenship (those with TPS are generally not eligible regardless of how long they've been here) are not naturalized. This means that a significantly larger portion of the eligible European immigrant population in East Boston choose not to become citizens than the Latin American population.
But since I see no meaningful relationship between citizenship status and devotion to place of residency (or criminality), I relieve myself of any burden to determine whether the people who've made the choice to live here and work here but not to become citizens deserve to live in our community.
By the way, I also believe that gang tagging would be a problem if it was done by the Crips, the Gaylords or the Nazi Low Riders (which are largely comprised of US citizens). The problem of gang tagging is the existence of gangs, not the residency status of the gang members. Also, you should know that the Latin Kings are a Puerto Rican gang. Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens.
I do agree that the artsy folks that have recently made inroads are a new dynamic that usually bodes well for a neighborhood.
What I know to have driven out businesses and home owners is a lack of code enforcement, which goes back to illegal immigration. How many Section 8 units, methodone clinics and halfway houses are there in Eastie? Add to that: restaurants, salons and shops that aren't inspected for licensing or other compliance issues and the social fabric has been eroded.
I work with many emmigrants from other countries and other parts of this country and I'm often asked about living in East Boston. I've even taken a few people on trips through the different neighborhoods to help them find places to live. When they eventually move to Charlestown, Southie or the South End, they cite the population density, grime and crime as the major reasons.
Don't tell me that Eagle Hill and Sumner/Webster Streets don't have some of the best brownstones in Boston and the victorians are nothing to sneeze at either.
I know we're off topic here but East Boston has been sacrificed as housing for cheap immigrant (legal and illegal)labor. I believe there is one road sign on Rte. 1a South for the exit into Day Sq. that even mentions Eastie. Winthrop, Revere and Chelsea signage is more prominent. Southie and Charlestown immigrant populations haven't been driven out because their pols have been more powerful than ours. Look at the Seaport District as proof. That was never supposed to be part of Southie, but Jimmy Kelly was able to force the issue. Now Southie gets mitigation money from every new hotel or office building thats built there.
You want to see a revival in East Boston, enforce existing codes and implement my illegal immigration enforcement plan: no citizenship/no public aid; no legal residency/no work or school.
Although this is a departure from the initial subject matter. It is related and recent posts from John R. and Jimbo provided a segue.
We, the citizens, landlords - absentee and otherwise, along with the community's civic organizations and infrastructure are collectively responsible for the current state of East Boston, no matter how you perceive it. By the conditions we encourage or enable to exist - we are responsible.
Because organizations like Zumix and other groups' undying devotion to the arts - East Boston has become attractive to artists and young hipsters alike.
Depending on the section of the city and the objective of landlords - East Boston is a prime place for young urban professionals to buy that first $500k home, or the ideal location for developers to come in and make a quick few mil at bargain rates. Meanwhile, some parts of town are lucky enough to be designated the perfect part of town where lucky immigrant families, illegal or otherwise, can find that perfect 2 bedroom apartment for their family of 8 or more within commuting distance to all of their minimum wage jobs.
We create the conditions that allow these circumstances to exist.
Now, how to affect all of these perceptions, conditions? First of all, I think that there should be ONE community forum where ALL zoning and development issues are discussed and they should be held after 6:00 so that more folks have the opportunity to attend. (Not sure if this is what the LUC already does?)
Secondly, at the highest level, I would think that zoning laws/regulations should be addressed.
Require that storefronts and property maintenace adhere to standards.
Require exhaustive investigations into the community value add proposed developments will bring.
It is easy to say that a new building looks nicer than some of the older buildings that have fallen into disrepair. However, serious discovery needs to be done to gauge the impact of what changing the physical landscape of the community will have.
Minimize the number of people that can live in a given apartment by developing a person to bedroom ratio.
Require landlords to ensure that the apartments are up to code, safe, clean and habitable and rents reasonable.
Again I realize that this commentary is a departure from the initial intended topic but it speaks to why East Boston is in the condition it is in and attractive to different types.
Post a Comment