What Can You Do To Stop Illegal Immigration?

50 thoughts on What Can You Do To Stop Illegal Immigration?

1. Hmm. I would agree to embargo wells Fargo, but that’s because they treat their customers, both white and brown, like shit. Or at least their customers who are white, male and me. But then most banks are like that I guess.

   Fuck commerce.

2. who are boycotting Wells Fargo because they have the audacity to not ask about the legal status of brown people applying for home loans.

   Is it a crime to give a home loan to an illegal immigrant?

3. hmmm, i’m conflicted. i was thinking of rolling over my Citibank balance to another bank because it’s headquartered in S. Dakota. i’m trying to boycott all SD businesses because, well, you know WHY. (also based in SD; Land O’Lakes butter [yes, they use products from local dairy farmers, but the corp. headquarters is located in SD], JeldWen doors & windows).

4. Why do you assume that opposition to illegal immigration is about “brown people”? Isn’t it possible for someone to be pissed off because they (the immigrants) are illegal, rather than because they’re brown?

5. Fuck commerce.

   Yes, especially the commerce that allowed you to purchase the computer that you used to post this comment.

6. Why do you assume that opposition to illegal immigration is about “brown people”?

   Maybe it’s because nobody has ever proposed building a fence along the Canadian border.

   Did anyone see that episode of 30 Days (Morgan Spurlock’s show on fX) about illegal immigration? They had a Minuteman live with a family of illegal immigrants for a month, and it was pretty damned interesting. I think the biggest light bulb moment for him was when he went to Mexico and saw the conditions in which the family had been living and in which their relatives were still living. He didn’t do a 180 or anything on his views about illegal immigration, but he did see that the issue is much more complex than just “well, they’re here illegally, that’s wrong, therefore they are criminals and should be kicked out.” He at least became much more sympathetic to the people involved (namely, he saw them as people trying to do the best for their families, not just as criminals or illegal immigrants).

7. Legal Positivism is doing well today, I see.

8. What can you do to stop illegal immigration? Make all immigration legal. Duh. Why shouldn’t anyone who wants to live here live here?

9. Why do you assume that opposition to illegal immigration is about “brown people”? Isn’t it possible for someone to be pissed off because they (the immigrants) are illegal, rather than because they’re brown?

   Well, it’s possible, but I’d point to the entire history of immigration law in this country as counter-evidence. I can understand not being a huge fan of illegal activity, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the people who are most vocal about “illegals” aren’t simply offended because individuals are crossing the border unlawfully. They’re offended because those individuals don’t look, speak, or live exactly like them. It’s not a new story.

10. Maybe it’s because nobody has ever proposed building a fence along the Canadian border.

    You don’t need a fence to keep us out. It’s a nice place to visit…

    But seriously, how many illegal Canadian immigrants are estimated to be living in the US?

11. “Why do you assume that opposition to illegal immigration is about “brown people”?”

    Weeellll, that is fucking easy dude, just ask Pat Buchannan.

    By the way Rex, you white? How many kids you have man? You doing your part in the baby race?

    Don’t let Pat down now ya hear. He is sweating dying a minority in this country.

12. There are tons of illegal Irish immigrants in Boston and New York, and curiously, nobody ever makes much of a stink about them.

13. raging red Says:
    Maybe it’s because nobody has ever proposed building a fence along the Canadian border.

    That’s probably because we don’t have hundreds of thousands of illegal Canadian immigrants, ya think? Maybe? And because Canada isn’t setting up illegal immigration as good, and people aren’t flooding in, and…?

    Nice sound bite, bad metaphor.

    # Jill Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Well, it’s possible [that immigration isn’t about skin color], but I’d point to the entire history of immigration law in this country as counter-evidence. I can understand not being a huge fan of illegal activity, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the people who are most vocal about “illegals” aren’t simply offended because individuals are crossing the border unlawfully. They’re offended because those individuals don’t look, speak, or live exactly like them. It’s not a new story.

    Don’t smear us all with such a broad brush.

    Yes, some people who are against mass illegal immigration are, indeed, racist. That is unfortunate.

    But MANY people are against it for nonracist reasons. Work skills, education level; national economics; general legal theory… there are plenty of reasons to dislike illegal immigrants. And BTW, of the things you listed (“look, speak, or live”) only ONE of those is racist.

    So when you conflate the three in the same list, it’s as if you’re trying to say that concern over someone’s language or habits is racist. And while that’s a common tactic among the pro-illegal-immigration set, it’s not actually true.

    Also, not incidentally, your “entire history of immigration law” doesn’t look so good.

    Take Italians, for example. They were one of the largest and most hated immigrant groups. They were also white. So were Jews, who were widely discriminated against in WW II. In fact, if anything the history supports the OPPOSITE conclusion: Any large-scale immigration of an identifiable group will generate resentment, irrespective of their skin color. That’s politics, not racism.

    And of course, those were LEGAL immigrants. We don’t really have a direct comparison for ILLEGAL immigration other than mexico and neighboring countries: The only people who have the opportunity to be illegal immigrants en masse are canadians and mexicans, and canadians don’t seem to try much.

    But as it stands, comparing responses to legal mass imigration, and suggesting that they should mirror responses to illegal mass immigration is a bit of a stretch.

14. I’m a damn foreigner, but if I were American I’d be opposed to illegal immigration because it lets corporations exploit the poor brown immigrants by paying them illegally (not to mention immorally) low wages.

    Who would be taking these jobs if they paid at least the minimum wage? I’d hazard a guess that it would be mostly poor brown native-born people and poor brown legal immigrants.

    If I were Mexican, I’m sure I’d sneak across the border too.

    If I were American, I’d be opposed to the continued exploitation of brown people for the benefit of corporations and rich white people caused by illegal immigration.

    I think there’s a fair bit of racism on both sides of this issue.

15. Where’s Darleen when we need her, to argue that anyone who distinguishes between opposition to open borders is different from racism is either disingenuous or naive?

    Really. The two cannot be distinguished. Darleen didn’t just say so; she really, really insisted. And when challenged on it, she slinked back to her blog to write about how her opponents were evil or stupid. So, it must be true.

    Therefore, by edict of Darleen, all people who want to restrict immigration are virulent anti-Hispanic racists. Because, you know, some of them demonstrably are, and the racism of any part of one side of a policy debate is attributable to every person who agrees with the racist on anything. Because Darleen said so.

16. Sailorman, Italians and Jews have only recently been considered white. Prior to that — certainly during the waves of immigration that brought us a large number of Central, Eastern and Southern European immigrants — they were considered inferior to Northern Europeans and thus their immigration was opposed.

    Hell, the Irish — about the palest people going — weren’t considered white until relatively recently, either.

17. Sailorman’s true soul is revealed:

    there are plenty of reasons to dislike illegal immigrants.

    Not “there are plenty of reasons to crack down on violations of the immigration laws.” Not “there are plenty of reasons to protect our borders.” Not “there are plenty of reasons to punish those who hire illegal immigrants.” Not “there are plenty of reasons to work to salve the conditions that created this mass migration”

    Sailorman is defending disliking illegal immigrants.

    Even if you can make a case that it’s not racist — and given Sailorman’s posting history, I am not especially disinclined to grant the possibility that he IS racist – it’s still pretty fucked up.

18. Chris said it.

    I grew up in a Wells Fargo family. In the old days, they were based out of San Francisco (as was Bank of America), and my family kept their accounts with Wells for generations. I don’t bank at a major bank anymore, but I honor Wells for what they are doing here — and am sure that they aren’t alone.

19. I’m a damn foreigner, but if I were American I’d be opposed to illegal immigration because it lets corporations exploit the poor brown immigrants by paying them illegally (not to mention immorally) low wages.

    Why oppose the immigrants when it’s the corporations that are exploiting them?

    You’re calling racism on those who aren’t sufficiently full-throated about opposing illegal immigrants (as opposed to illegal immigration), yet you’re unwilling to put the onus to comply with the laws on the rich white corporate types who exploit the poor brown immigrants?

20. The other social issue in play here is that immigration bigotry is almost always if not always set off or exacerbated by some threat, preceived or real. Bad economy – it is the immigrants fault. Involved in a war, the people who talk funny are German spies (WWI) or Japanese spies (WWII).

    In Depression-era Colorado the good white folks blockaded the borders cuz you had to save any of the jobs for the only people who really deserved them.

    I once read a little history pamphlet on a lumber camp in CO (circa 1900 IIRC) The Mexican laborers company-owned shacks were made out of unfinished lumber. The white folks got finished lumber in their shacks.

21. No, Sailorman, Italians and Jews are now considered white, but around WWII they were not.

22. I have a hard time believing that Wells Fargo’s interests in offering home loans to potentially illegal immigrants is as altruistic as is being portrayed here. If it were, it would be in their commercials.

23. To be clear, I don’t think it’s altruistic at all. It’s probably a very cold business decision. I’m simply suggesting a counter to the xenophobes who are boycotting Wells Fargo because of this particular business decision.

24. Why oppose the immigrants when it’s the corporations that are exploiting them?

    Where did I say I oppose immigrants? I said I’d do the same thing; sneak into America in search of a better life for my family. I’m sure the vast majority are law abiding, hardworking people.

    You’re calling racism on those who aren’t sufficiently full-throated about opposing illegal immigrants

    Again, I never said that.

    I’m calling racism on those white people who benefit from illegal immigration at the expense of poor brown people. I thought I was pretty clear.

    yet you’re unwilling to put the onus to comply with the laws on the rich white corporate types who exploit the poor brown immigrants?

    That’s exactly who I put the onus on. Plus the rich white politicians who do not enforce the laws regarding illegal employment practices.

    You seem to be making my point for me; there are many white racists (corporate and political) who favor illegal immigration, just as there are many white racists who oppose it.

    I don’t see how allowing this continued racist exploitation can be considered a liberal position.

25. zuzu/frumious:

    Jews classified as nonwhites? I checked with some of my Jewish relatives, they don’t seem to remember this. Or believe it. And yes, they were alive in WWII. I have never read about it in my history books. Can you give me a reliable source for this? It goes against all of my sources, but of course I could be wrong. (Note: I’m assuming the Nazis don’t count, as we’re talking about the U.S. in this dicsussion.)

    I think you’re trying too hard to fit any dislike of immigrants into “racism”, so you need to find some skin color justification. Yes, people hated Jews because they were “different”. But not because of their skin color.

    And Irish? As you noted: Irish are generally pretty damn pale. What, you think people thought they WEREN’T WHITE? That is, seriously, some kind of joke, right? Yes, I know people hated the Irish, abused them, discriminated against them… but “not white”? No.

    Again, you’re trying to confuse the issue. The Irish and the Jews were treated similarly to those who were not white. But that was because of their accent, religion, dress, etc etc. Not because of their race.

    Look unless you’re trying to say that people in the early days of the US could pick out Irish and Jews just by looking at their skin (I’d love to see that evidence, if you’ve got it….) how are you supporting this?

26. Sailorman, while I’m tempted to tell you to GIYDS (google it your damn self), I’ll help out:

    1. A collection of academic essays edited by two law professors, which addresses, among others, this question:

    Why did some immigrant groups, such as the Irish and Jews, start out as nonwhite and later become white?

    2. Or, there’s answers.com:

    In the United States, the term became more exclusive, coming to refer only to those of Anglo-Saxon heritage. Benjamin Franklin’s essay “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.” narrowly defined White to include only the English (Anglo-Saxons) and North Germans—Anglo-Saxons also originally North Germans, from Angeln and Lower Saxony—even then excluding nationalities such as the French, Irish and Swedes.

    And there are certainly some lovely individuals who still subscribe to this line of thought.

27. Again, you’re trying to confuse the issue. The Irish and the Jews were treated similarly to those who were not white. But that was because of their accent, religion, dress, etc etc. Not because of their race.

    Look unless you’re trying to say that people in the early days of the US could pick out Irish and Jews just by looking at their skin (I’d love to see that evidence, if you’ve got it….) how are you supporting this?

    Do you think you can pick out a person of any race just on sight? No, they identified them on their immigration forms, where certain racial groups were classified as non-White. That was used for legal discrimination in immigration policies. And they were classified as non-white because race isn’t a fixed category — it’s what we make it. However, racial categories have very real meaning in our daily lives, and how we classify certain groups often reflects their relative social power. When Irish, Italians and Jews transferred from “non-White” to “White,” it represented a power shift, as those groups became more integrated into society and less discriminated against. This was certainly aided by their sheer numbers, and by their physical appearance. But, point being, it wasn’t simply a reflection of what they looked like.

    And racism, by the way, is more complicated than discriminating against someone because of what they look like.

28. Sailorman, I’m Sicilian, and even now, in 2006, I get to listen to comment about how Sicilians are “half-n—-“, etc. “White” is a relative term; one that doesn’t really have a whole lot to do with skin color—a good example being the Irish. Look at newspapers from the 1920s and you’ll see plenty of “no Irish need apply” in the advertisements, and political cartoons that caricature Irish people as looking like monkeys, some complete with tail. That bigotry had nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with power dynamics. And remember, there are different “degrees” of whiteness; some people are “whiter” than others and it has nothing to do with skin tone.

    We don’t have hundreds of thousands of illegal Canadians in the U.S., but we sure as hell have thousands. Still, it’s disingenuous to use Canada as an example; the standard of living is higher than the U.S., not lower.

29. Hmmm, let’s see, the popular anti-Italian racial epithet was “wop” which was a acronym for “without papers” implying illegal immigration. Yet somehow the term was used to describe all Italians. Yep, no racism there.

    Oh, and Shankar, “Fuck commerce” is an Entourage reference. So yeah, fuck the commerce that allows me to watch HBO to make such a reference.

30. Sailorman seems to be arguing that race is some sort of intrinsic and physically determined characteristic of human beings.

    Which is of course a racist argument.

31. Also sailorman is ignorant that Judaism is a culture and ethnicity as well as a religion. That’s how come there exist secular synagogues. Ever heard of a secular church?

32. Sailorman… if Irish were considered white… then why were the always referred to as “ruddy colored”? What the hell kind of color is “ruddy” anyways? I think it’s a type of red but I’m not certain. *shrugs*

33. but, unfortunately, there are other reasons to stay away from wells fargo. one of which is their funding of mountain top removal coal mining in my home region, west virginia.

34. You seem to be making my point for me; there are many white racists (corporate and political) who favor illegal immigration, just as there are many white racists who oppose it.

    Your problem is that you’re assuming that the liberal position is pro-illegal immigration. It’s not. It’s pro-treating immigrants like humans, and it’s pro-reform of immigration laws, precisely to prevent the kind of exploitation you think that liberals are supporting. And, hey, it’s pro-enforcement of employer sanctions to prevent sweatshops.

35. Racism, ethnic chauvinism all the same animal. Race has no scientific foundation other than a general term regarding skin color, which unless you are a racist, has no bearing on anything then other melatonin content of one’s skin. Comparing skin color among people as a means to differentiate among them their traits is just as silly as using eye or hair color to determine one’s behavior and values.

    That said, any marker will work for a bigot, whether nose size, hair color, religion, house you live in, car you drive, language you speak. When the world is divided up into an exclusive duality of the has and the has-nots, it is in one’s best interest to know 1) which group you belong to 2) how to keep the power you have (keep the powerless there) 3) how to get the power you don’t have (get the powerful out).

    Cooperation for mutual benefit does not exist.

    Thus the view that the problem of illegal immigration is a wholesale takeover and power redistribution and end of ‘life as we know it’ comes only from those who see the good life as attainable only if the existing power structure remains in place.

    Which of course, means refusing to see the average American’s role in keeping Mexicans poor, powerless and hungry.

36. It’s actually not right to say that the Irish or Jews weren’t white. “White” was a legal category, and Irish people and Jews were always legally white. (There are a couple of instances of Italians’ whiteness being challenged, but they were generally held to be white, too.) During the era of segregation, Southern Jews went to white schools and could eat at all-white lunch counters. I’ve seen my mother’s high school yearbook. I know this is true.

    But a lot of historians have argued that there was still racism directed against Italians and Jews. It’s just that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had a different and slightly more-complicated concept of race than contemporary people do. They didn’t adhere to our current five-races taxonomy. Instead, they thought there were numerous sub-races within the five great racial families. So Irish people were white, but they were also racially Irish. They had certain characteristics that were innate and inherited. An Irish baby adopted and raised by an Anglo-American family would still be gregarious and emotional and prone to drunkenness and fighting. A Jewish baby raised by an Anglo-American family would still be greedy and conniving. Those things were thought to be racial characteristics.

    American immigration law reflected both the idea of white racial superiority and the idea of a racial hierarchy within whiteness. All white people were thought to be more suited for citizenship than non-white people. The 1924 immigration act favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe over immigrants for Southern and Eastern Europe, for racial reasons, but Southern and Eastern European immigration was not completely cut off. By contrast, the Act treated Asians as personae non grata, and Asian immigration was cut off completely. Asian immigrants were already barred from becoming naturalized citizens. Eastern and Southern Europeans were thought to be problematic citizens, but Asians were held to be incapable of exercising American citizenship at all.

    I do think that American immigration law has always reflected ideas about race in pretty sinister ways. But several other things have always shaped American immigration policy, including economic factors. And the racial and economic stuff have often interacted in complicated ways, so it’s not always easy to differentiate between the two.

37. “What can you do to stop illegal immigration? Make all immigration legal. Duh. Why shouldn’t anyone who wants to live here live here?”

    Because everyone wants to live here. If you think traffic and pollution are bad now, wait til there are 2 billion people living here.

    “. Race has no scientific foundation other than a general term regarding skin color,”

    You are completely wrong. Here’s one example out of thousands, on the difference in prostate cancer.
    “A black man’s odds of developing prostate cancer by age 55 are more than twice those of a white man”.
    http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060826/fob2.asp

38. Would that be Steve Sail[e]r[man], by any chance?

39. Your problem is that you’re assuming that the liberal position is pro-illegal immigration. It’s not.

    Then it seems we are both opposed to illegal immigration yet neither of us have anything against brown people.

    Apparently, we’re quite rare.

40. Pfft, this is nothing. Most illegal immigrants can’t afford a home anyway.

    The real culprits are the grocery stores. Can you belive they don’t require you to show proof of citizenship to buy a bag of doritos? No other business sector does so much to make it possible for illegals to live in this country. Clearly Kroger and it’s ilk are all about making Aztlan a reality.

    Oh, and p.s.

    So when you conflate the three in the same list, it’s as if you’re trying to say that concern over someone’s language or habits is racist. And while that’s a common tactic among the pro-illegal-immigration set, it’s not actually true.

    Oh, so according to you if I assume that anyone from Mexico speaks poor-to-no English I’m not a racist, because I didn’t mention appearance? Or, if I talk about the Jewish habit of drinking the blood of cute widdle Chistian babies I’m fine, just so long as I don’t mention big noses? Is that what you’re saying?

41. Auguste: No, who’s he?

    Jill: Perhaps we’re using different terminlology for what “white” meant? I know, for example, that Jew (and Italians) could use and be accepted into whites-only spaces.

    Ben Franklin’s quote isn’t entirely apposite here, because the main waves of Irish immigration leading to the NINA stuff (and the resulting discrimination) took place in the 1800s (the potato famine was aound 1845) and the Franklin quote was much earlier (he died in 1790). And of course, the federal government (which in 1850 classified people as white, black, or mulatto) classified the Irish and Jews as whites.

    I am sure that one could define “white” in a way that would exclude Irish and Jews. And I am well aware of the discrimination suffered by both of those populations. I am fairly sure, though, that they have always been classified as white in the eyes of the law.

    I have not read that book of essays. Have you? I do not know for sure what it says. But my readings on critical race theory (not the white kind) suggest that the authors may be using terms like “white” and “racist” in a manner which is very different from their usage elsewhere. That means you may not be able to quote their conclusions out of the context of CRT, without more background.

    Raznor, I’m not ignoring that, it’s just not really relevant.

    Chris, enough of the ad hominems already, willya? We’re talking about HISTORY. And in a historical sense, physical appearance was a very important aspect of classifying someone based on race.

42. Apparently, we’re quite rare.

    You keep saying that, and yet you keep failing to provide any support for the idea that there are some huge number of liberals who are both for illegal immigration and racist.

43. Characterizing an argument as racist is an “ad hominem” now?

    Sailorman, if you don’t think the division between (say) French and English people, even in the context of North American history, wasn’t in every modern sense of the word a racial division, then you’re appallingly ignorant of the subject.

    Note: that last paragraph comes much closer to being an ad hominem argument, but it still isn’t an ad hominem argument.

44. You keep saying that, and yet you keep failing to provide any support for the idea that there are some huge number of liberals who are both for illegal immigration and racist.

    I think that you’re saying there are many liberals who are opposed to illegal immigration, yet are not opposed due to racism. I’d go one step further and say there are many people of all political leanings who are opposed to illegal immigration and yet are not racists.

    So why is the knee jerk reaction to someone who is against illegal immigration to claim racism?

    Apparently it’s just how the game is played in America.

    In favor of the war in Iraq? You must hate muslims.

    Opposed to the war in Iraq? You must hate America.

    In favor of Israel’s recent actions against Hezbollah? You must hate muslims.

    Opposed to Israel’s actions? You must be an anti-semite.

    In favor of abortion? You’re morally bankrupt.

    Against abortion? You’re a bible-thumping woman-hating moron.

    It’s sad to see that this is what’s become of you.

45. I think that you’re saying there are many liberals who are opposed to illegal immigration, yet are not opposed due to racism.

    No, you’re getting it all wrong. I’m saying that you keep saying that there is some huge mass of people out there who are PRO- illegal immigraTION for racist reasons. You’re just not coming up with any examples.

    I’ve said over and over that the typical liberal position is to oppose the kind of treatment that illegal aliens get, and to argue that the immigration laws, as currently written, are overly restrictive and are enforced in a discriminatory manner. They also don’t do a whole lot to address the exploitation of people who come here illegally, nor is there much done in the way of working with the Mexican government to get its own house in order so people aren’t so desperate that they’ll crawl across the desert to get jobs mowing lawns and working in sweatshops.

    You, however, keep throwing out this idea that liberals in the US are pro-illegal immigration. And you keep saying it, and saying it, and mischaracterizing what I’m saying to you, but you never provide any shred of support for what you are saying.

    It’s sad to see that this is what’s become of you.

    Fuck you, too.

46. Sailorman seems to be arguing that race is some sort of intrinsic and physically determined characteristic of human beings.

    Race is intrinsic and physically determined by genes.

    Which is of course a racist argument.

    Racism is not the belief that races exist – racism is the belief that race has an impact on capacities and character, and that one race can be genetically superior to another.

    Please, use definitions that actually exist in a dictionary – not ones you pull out of your ass.

    # Granary Says:
    August 30th, 2006 at 1:34 am

    “What can you do to stop illegal immigration? Make all immigration legal. Duh. Why shouldn’t anyone who wants to live here live here?”

    Because everyone wants to live here. If you think traffic and pollution are bad now, wait til there are 2 billion people living here.

    “. Race has no scientific foundation other than a general term regarding skin color,”

    You are completely wrong. Here’s one example out of thousands, on the difference in prostate cancer.
    “A black man’s odds of developing prostate cancer by age 55 are more than twice those of a white man”.
    http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060826/fob2.asp

    Amen. This ‘race is a construct’ poisition harks back to the when the early Communist Party of the Soviet Union claimed “Sex is a construct, gender isn’t real.”, and peddled their propaganda accordingly.

47. I have not read that book of essays. Have you? I do not know for sure what it says.

    Click on the link and you will find “Why did some immigrant groups, such as the Irish and Jews, start out as nonwhite and later become white?” Karen Brodkin Sacks’ “How Did Jews Become White Folks?” is in this book. (I think studying Critical White Studies is more productive than studying CRT). Page 396:

    “The U.S. “discovery” that Europe had inferior and superior races came in response to the great waves of immigration from southern and Eastern Europe…Since immigrants and their children made up more the 70 percent of the population of most of the country’s largest cities, urban America came to take on distinctly immigrant flavor. The golden age of industrialization in the U.S. was also the golden age of class struggle between the captains of the new industrial empires and the masses of manual workers whose labor made them rich…Grant’s nightmare was race mixing among Europeans. For him, the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew. He didn’t have good things to say about Alpine or Mediterranean races either. For him, race and class were interwoven: the upper class was pure Nordic, and the lower classes came from the lower races.”

48. As an underwriter who has worked for Wells Fargo in the past, I can assure anyone concerned about illegal aliens getting home loans that every lender, including Wells Fargo and Citibank, are required to inquire about the legal status of every home loan applicant, regardless of race. FNMA form 1003, the industry standard, has a series of declarations the borrowers must answer: Declaration j. asks “Are you a U.S. citizen?” Declaration k. asks “Are you a permanent resident alien?”

    Depending on how they answer will determine the underwriting rules applied. If they are neither, the borrowers are required to provide a valid visa that allows work, such as an H-1.

    Also, the OFAC and Patriot act require lenders to verify the identity and legal status of all borrowers. Most of this happens behind the scenes using the information provided on the application.

    Investors on the secondary market, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will not purchase loans that do not disclose this information.

    Of course, they can always get fake documentation. However every lender has an automated program to flag suspicious social security numbers to minimize fraud and identity theft. The lender is the one who must absorb the loss due to fraud, often at millions of dollars a year.

    To make matters worse, were a mortgage lender to single out people based on ethnicity or race for additional scrutiny, it would violate federal HMDA regulations. Lenders can be severely fined or shut down for violating HMDA regulations.

    So, from an insider perspective, this website isn’t just racist and xenophobic. It also lacks any knowledge of the mortgage industry.

49. Mexico is fantastic and full of Mexicans, we should totally get another 30 or 40 million of them. What American doesn’t want a couple of little tan servants?

50. One canard I would like to challenge is the idea that it is “Big Business” that is fueling both illegal immigration and the exploitation of such immigrants. As far as employing illegal immigrants goes, it is the “little guy” who is the villain. It is the restaurant owner, the contractor, the day labor agency, the small farmer, the deli owner, bodega owner, the over worked, but well compensated two income family (Zoe Baird, she and her husband hearned over $500,000 per year, but they couldn’t find, and pay decently, a pair of legal workers to do their house work?) who are encouraging and exploiting illegal immigration. Just like you all, I know lots of immigrants. I know enough who are entrepreneurs, and a distressingly large number of these refuse to comply with our wage, labor and immigration laws. They refuse to hire legal workers and will only deal with illegal workers because they can pay them less and overawe them by virtue of the workers’s illegal status. This is how things are playing out in the real world. Stop being so gullible. Look around you, absorb the facts. The media loves to play up the cliche of the hard-working immigrant entrepreuner, but will not discuss how this success is often achieved, by exploiting illegal workers. And exploitation of illegal labor hurts free labor too, because the only leverage those of us at the bottom end of the income strata have versus employers is the act of withholding our labor if wages are too low, and this leverage, as weak as it is, is completely undermined by the continued inflow of illegal labor. That’s the truth.

    Where “Big Business” comes in for criticisim is their spinning the idea that America faces some enourmous labor shortage in critical skills. Bull. There is no shortage of nurses, doctors, computer programmers, teachers, etc. From time-to-time their are shortages in these professions, and these shortages are relieved when wages rise to make the job more attractive. Well, top executives don’t like paying higher wages to worers, not if they can help it, so they spun this idea of the critical worker shortage, and the media and politicians (left as well as right) have gone right along with it. And this H1B, indentured labor hurts free labor because, again, the free worker’s leverage is undermined and in some cases eliminated. Every job that a H1B holds is a job that the free worker cannot bid for. You see, the coporation grants the H1B holder the job for 6 years, with the vague promise that the coporation will “sponsor” them for a green card at the end of the six year period. What H1B is ever going to leave that job? Few. Question, why should corporations be able to run their own private immigration policy?

    I have an insider’s view on the computer programming industry. If you have any kids, unless they are really, really good at computer programming, tell them to stay away from this field. If they even get a job their hold on it will alwyas be precarious. Business will refuse to hire free American labor when they can import workers from India, with the spurrious excuse that they just can’t find qualified people in the American labor pool… . And this industry, that was the envy of the world, imagine that: IBM, Digital, Microsoft, Borland, Control Data, Amdahl, etc…..were built without these exploitative immigration programs. What changed? Why can’t they find this talent anymore? Of course they can find it, but they want indentured servants (H1Bs) whom they can control and pay less. An anecdote. I’ll name names. At Citigroup, here in New York, one IT department was recently ordered not to hire any more H1Bs, to actually rescind an offer to an Indian, but to find a token “white man” for the role. Some higher ups were getting just too uncomfortable with the fact that there were NO American workers in the department. Look at the world;rearrange your cliched left/right presumptions of how things work.

    And does anyone doubt that if yearly we were importing 300,000 lawyers from India this H1B program would be killed? And why not, though? Indian lawyers are trained on the same English based common law principles that American laywers are. Hmmmmmmm.

Comments are currently closed.