A Take On Immigration From A Ukiah Teacher

Discussion
1

Dear All;

This came from a Face Book post and is long but well worth the time to read it. Read it and think about immigration and schools and what it all means.That is what it really means either Libertarian wise or legal wise or illegal wise or any Washington wise or even Arizona wise. BTW: it did elicit a few commentez vous. LOL

Contact information for the author is at the bottom of the post. I think the email address that you may want to use should be the un-highlighted one or the email address got scrambled by the first person who copied the message.

Ron Getty

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California
high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its
students average lower socio-economic and income levels.

Most of
the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens,
Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.... See More

Title 1 schools are on the free
breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not
talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar
with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of
this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the
trash uneaten.

I estimate that well over 50% of these students
are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have
cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed
teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class
without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my
department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though
there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the
appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a
free education in America.

I have had to intervene several times
for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal
immigrant students, here in the country less then 3 months, who raised
so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" (whores) and throwing things, that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical,
free education, free food, free day care etc., etc, etc. Is it any
wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand
rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point
out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because
they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for
tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and
see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our
schools, overcrowding, new diseases. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

Americans, we need to wake up.

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: It involves an American third-world culture that does not
value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about “political correctness" that
we don't have the will to do anything about it.

If this makes
your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to everyone you know.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.

Consumers don't want
expensive produce.

Government will tell you Americans don't want
the jobs.

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap
labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap
labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five
children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six
dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he
files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to
$3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized
rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free
no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free
breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers
and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. If
qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (OUR) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life
insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish
language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills AND his.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! THESE ARE THE
QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS OF EITHER PARTY. 'AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON'T DO AS THEY SAY, WE SHOULD
REPLACE THEM.

Please pass this on to as many as possible.
Immigration legislation is to be considered in 2010. This is important
to working Americans, our economy and our American culture and heritage.

Grace Gan
Ukiah Unified School District
925 N. State St.
Ukiah, CA
95482
Tel. 707-463-5214 Alt. 707-463-5200
Fax: 707-463-2120

ggan@… <http://us.mc591.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ggan@…>;

2

Dear Ron and All,

Heartfelt words from the teacher! Folks living in border states have been saying the same things for years; sometimes with some more additional horrors, such as border jumpers trampling their lawns or otherwise using their gardens for private needs.

However, there are bums of every race and culture, as there are good, decent, hard working people of every race and culture. So, to single out the undocumented bums seems counterproductive. Also counterproductive, I believe, is to enact obviously unconstitutional laws (even as a desperate move); or claim libertarian privilege to behave as badly as the teacher describes; or boycott a state that is obviously at its wits end, as San Francisco and other cities have done in the case of Arizona.

In my opinion, there is one productive solution to discourage undesirable behavior from all races, cultures, and economic levels -- quit the give aways that perpetrate the behavior and let the market sort out the bums from the decent workers/students. But, as the teacher intimates, the chances of bureaucrats working themselves out of a job by stopping the give aways are nil!

Regards,

Marcy

3

Exactly Marcy. That is what we need to do. with conviction.

4

Marcy,

  Thank you for reminding us of the importance of considering people as individuals rather than members of groups! I do wonder what the situation is precisely with this supposed education administrator (her letter doesn't claim she actually teaches). She says she "I am" (present tense) "in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school", but the last time I checked, Ukiah was not in southern California. Perhaps she is one of the lucky folks who can afford to maintain two residences.

  Even if she is who she says she is, her observations seem pretty meaningless with respect to the border control issue, since she gives no evidence to suggest she can distinguish the undocumented migrants at her school from the rest of the students. Although, I daresay, those who are undocumented are more likely to be found among the students who are *not* overweight, who are *not* throwing away large amounts of food, and who do *not* have relative luxuries such as cell phones. Such characteristics and behavior seem unlikely among a population coming from an impoverished background (one where the food that does get consumed tends to be healthier and less likely to make people fat), or among those who have had to undergo arduous journeys in the course of reaching the United States.

  I don't know that I would describe having my lawn trampled as a "horror" . Locked for many hours in the non-airconditioned back of a vehicle where you are packed tightly in with many other people, your fate in the hands of human smugglers, or walking for days through the desert, sometimes in danger of running out of food or water, not knowing when you might encounter robbers or hostile armed border control agents -- these are things I think deserve to be called horrors. Having to replant the petunias, not so much!

  You're right however that there are both lazy and non-lazy people in every culture. Although a strong work ethic isn't what matters most -- there's nothing un-libertarian about being lazy so long as one is not directly or indirectly engaged in aggression as a result -- poor migrants to the United States in fact tend to have stronger work ethics than most people in this country. Numerous times I've seen it cited that migrants to the U.S. who qualify for various forms of government assistance actually obtain such assistance at lower rates than native-born persons who similarly qualify, and the fact that they are willing to do . Of course there are degrees of "bumliness" -- it is not an either/or condition. The extent to which one is or is not a "bum" is often less a matter of birth than of circumstance. Some laws and cultures, such as those in the United States, encourage people to behave in bum-like fashion more than other laws and cultures. When we see large numbers of people behaving like bums, we should look for answers to the circumstances in which they exist and the incentives, economic and otherwise, to which they are subject.

  Finally, migration is manifestly not about cheap labor. It is about people trying to make better lives for themselves and their families. If the main reason that people in the U.S. tolerate impoverished others seeking to improve their living conditions were in order to improve their own standards of living, it would be a sad commentary on the state of morality in this society, would it not? Fortunately I think most people are more decent than that. But in order for their basic human decency to manifest, they have to break through the negative stereotyping, nationalist xenophobia, and bigotry, and recognize migrants as fellow human beings with desires and motivations not unlike their own.

Love & Liberty,
          ((( starchild )))

5

I accidentally left an incomplete sentence in the fourth paragraph below -- it should have read:

"Numerous times I've seen it cited that migrants to the U.S. who qualify for various forms of government assistance actually obtain such assistance at lower rates than native-born persons who similarly qualify, and the fact that they are widely known for their willingness to do generally undesirable work for low wages, speaks for itself."

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

6

Hi Starchild,

Yes, it is "much" to destroy private property; I would not stand for my property being destroyed, no matter what the choices others made.

Of course the e-mail is questionable at best, but the sentiment is, I can assure you, pervasive. A permissive attitude (liberal), or a radical attitude (conservative) will not solve the problem. One will encourage tacky behavior, and the other wastes resources in patently unconstitutional attempts.

Again, the root of the problem is freebies and politically correct stances. Again, let the market sort out the productive from the non-productive. Additionally, let the private property owner defend his property in any way necessary (that's a can of worms!!!!)

Marcy

7

Marcy,

  When you say "A permissive attitude (liberal), or a radical attitude (conservative) will not solve the problem," I wish you were identifying pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment as the problem. Or the fact that government is using stolen money to provide services -- that's a problem too. The percentage of the recipients who were born outside the United States? That shouldn't be a problem, unless you hold nationalist views at odds with libertarianism.

  How bad do you think it is to have one's lawn trampled, versus being locked for many hours in the non-airconditioned back of a vehicle where you are packed tightly in with many other people, your fate in the hands of human smugglers, or walking for days through the desert, sometimes in danger of running out of food or water, not knowing when you might encounter robbers or hostile armed border control agents? If we say the former is a "horror", or even that it is "much" (compared to what?), how much more seriously should we treat and describe the other?

  I'm not sure exactly what encourages tacky behavior -- perhaps we should ask some people who are badly dressed or holding cell phone conversations in public places audible to everyone around them.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

8

Hi Starchild,

Sorry I was not as clear as I wanted to be. Yes, it is a big deal to have my property destroyed, since I am not responsible for choices the destroyers have made. Yes, it is tacky for those who choose to be disruptive destroy the opportunities my children might have in school. Yes, I do hold parents responsible for their children's disruptive behavior, and I take no responsibility for such behavior.

Again, permissiveness means sentiment that condones disruptive behavior, period. Again patently unconstitutional desperate moves are counterproductive, since there are other ways of bringing attention to problems.

We need to focus on solutions that address the real challenges. In this particular specific case brought up by the e-mail from the teacher (totally irrelevant whether the e-mail is legitimate or not, as long as the sentiments are legitimate, which I can assure you they are), we need to address 1) children who choose to rob other children of educational opportunities, 2) folks who choose to rob you and me of the earnings we generate to support ourselves and our families. Aspersions of nationalism, racism, anti-immigration are in my opinion completely irrelevant.

Marcy

9

Marcy,

  Not trying to be flippant, but lots of people believe in UFOs or think Elvis Presley is still alive too -- are their sentiments "legitimate"? Does "legitimate" in the context you used the term just mean "sincere", or do you mean something more by it? Certainly anti-immigrant sentiments *exist*, as do beliefs that people are being abducted by aliens. Are either of these sincere beliefs based on an accurate assessment of reality? I don't think so.

  I repeat -- is it a bigger deal to have one's lawn trampled than to be locked for many hours in the non-airconditioned back of a vehicle where you are packed tightly in with many other people, your fate in the hands of human smugglers, or to walk for days through the desert, sometimes in danger of running out of food or water, not knowing when you might encounter robbers or hostile armed border control agents? How bad are these experiences relative to each other, in your opinion? (Please don't say that migrants choose to undergo their travails -- they didn't choose to put in place the border controls that create the awful conditions described above, any more than property owners choose to put their property in locations where it makes an attractive route for people seeking to move through the area.)

  If the real challenges we need to focus on are "1) children who choose to rob other children of educational opportunities, 2) folks who choose to rob you and me of the earnings we generate to support ourselves and our families," then the focus should be on these issues themselves, not on scapegoating migration. Disruptive behavior in the classroom is neither new nor unique to schools with high ESL populations -- it was a big issue in my school experience from elementary through high school, and I don't think there were many undocumented migrants among my classmates. As for robbing people of their earnings, as I noted in my previous message that eligible migrants use government services at a lower rate than eligible non-migrants. Furthermore since undocumented migrants generally do not vote, they are on average less responsible than other people in this country for making it "legal" to commit robbery.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

10

Hi Starchild,

I will bounce your question back to you: You seriously do not believe there is anti-immigration sentiment in this country? Really?

Regarding private property, yes, I do unequivocally believe I have the right to protect my property against any and all that attempt to take it or destroy it. And that includes, besides physical property, my earnings, which I will also protect in any legal way possible. So, no point your asking me again, since my reply will always be the same.

Regarding your comment that focus of our discussion and our efforts should be on disruptive behavior itself, not on "scapegoating migration," that WAS the whole point of my original e-mail, all my subsequent e-mails, and shall be the point of all my future e-mails!

Remember, Starchild, I am an immigrant myself. I know first hand what privations and challenges exist in countries I was raised in. However, my family never used excuses for disruptive or destructive behavior, and neither do I. And neither do the immigrant friends, clients, and acquaintances I have now.

Marcy

11

Dear All;

To the note about government schools and the impact others have Starchild said in part: "1) children who choose to rob other children of educational
opportunities,

Today's Sunday Chronicle has a front page story about how while the government schools focus on low achievers to raise test scores mainly in response to the Nickel B to get money it's at the expense of the gifted students who are getting real short shrift in the specialized tutoring programs they should have.

Funds have been cut substantially federally there is $8 billion for all states for the worst schools and the GATE ( Gifted and Talented Program) program of about $7 million for all 50 states is being cut.

California has budgeted $39 million for an est. 490,000 gifted students. Gosh sort of hard to wisely spend $79.59 per student per year.

Unfortunately the actual story will not be available to the general public on line until Tuesday morning and is only currently available to on line subscribers or those who buy the print edition. aaaarrrggghhh!!!

Just another example of totally dysfunctional government schools. Ah yes "free education" and all of its unintended consequences.

Ron Getty

12

Marcy,

  Oh, I do believe there is anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., most definitely. As I said, I was not denying this, merely denying that such sentiments have a rational basis. But you have not answered my questions below -- the one in the first paragraph about the sense in which you used the term "legitimate", and the ones in the second paragraph about the relative undesirability of having one's lawn trampled versus the not atypical migrant experiences I described.

  Certainly I agree you have the right to defend your property against people taking or destroying it. Although in the case of migrants trespassing on the property of owners who live near the U.S. border, I think they should consider the responsibility of the federal government whose bad policies have created incentives to trespass, and not focus solely on the immediate act of trespassing.

  I wasn't accusing you personally of scapegoating migrants, it just sounded to me like you were taking a rather "permissive" attitude in condoning the "disruptive behavior" of those who are!

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

13

Ron,

  Sounds like bad planning on the part of the central planners! Evidently they have not considered that if they cut the programs for the gifted students, those students will more likely leave the government schools, and then their test score averages will decline precipitously by reason of many of the outstanding scores at the higher end being removed from the pool.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

14

Hi Starchild,

I have answered your question about private property quite clearly -- If it is mine, I do not want it destroyed, I will not accept any excuses *whatsoever* from anyone who feels entitled to destroy it, and I will use any legal and constitutional means to protect that property. Period. I do not see how I could be more clear.

I also have answered your question as to what I mean by "legitimate", although perhaps not as clearly. So, here is my clearer response. The e-mail which started this discussion may not have been legitimate, in that the author was not the person he/she was claiming to be; which, as I indicated, was irrelevant to the discussion.

Marcy

15

Hi Starchild,

I have answered your question about private property quite clearly -- If it is mine, I do not want it destroyed, I will not accept any excuses *whatsoever* from anyone who feels entitled to destroy it, and I will use any legal and constitutional means to protect that property. Period. I do not see how I could be more clear.

  I don't think you could be any more clear with *that* answer, Marcy! However you appear to be answering a different question than the one I asked! I was asking your opinion of the relative undesirability of having these experiences in your life:

I repeat -- is it a bigger deal to have one's lawn trampled than to
be locked for many hours in the non-airconditioned back of a vehicle
where you are packed tightly in with many other people, your fate in
the hands of human smugglers, or to walk for days through the
desert, sometimes in danger of running out of food or water, not knowing
when you might encounter robbers or hostile armed border control agents?
How bad are these experiences relative to each other, in your opinion?

  Of course it's up to you whether or not you wish to answer. But if you don't want to, I'd prefer you just said so. I feel like I am badgering you by pointing out that the question remains unanswered, but I don't want to pretend that it has been answered when it has not.

  Perhaps I can rephrase it in a way that you feel more comfortable answering:

Who do you feel is being more unjustly victimized -- the property owners who are forced to take strong security measures if they want to own land near the U.S.-Mexico border and avoid having trespassers crossing their property, or the migrants who are forced to risk death from dehydration, heat exposure, suffocation and so on in order to have a decent chance of being able to live in the United States where they can escape the crushing poverty that is their current lot in life?

I also have answered your question as to what I mean by "legitimate", although perhaps not as clearly. So, here is my clearer response. The e-mail which started this discussion may not have been legitimate, in that the author was not the person he/she was claiming to be; which, as I indicated, was irrelevant to the discussion.

  I agree with you that the legitimacy of the original email is not that important in the overall scheme of things. As you have pointed out, there are many people with similar views. But again, that is not what I was asking about. What I was getting at with my question about legitimacy is, do you believe that the anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. is *justified*?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

16

Hi Starchild,

No, I do not feel that you are badgering me at all. I have on many occasions expressed my gratitude for your dedication to causes.

Regarding your ranking challenges: I think the reason you feel I am dodging your question, which I am not, is because I make a clear distinction between ranking episodes in my own life vs. ranking episodes across different lives. Were I to rank someone trampling my lawn vs. *MY*, repeat "MY*, suffering the challenges you describe (walking the desert, being victimized by unscrupulous coyotes, etc) my answer would be, forget the lawn! If I am to rank someone trampling my lawn who *HIMSELF*, repeat *HIMSELF*, chose to face the challenges you describe, my lawn comes first.

Regarding "legitimacy": Pay attention now, I am being as direct as humanly possible -- Yes, I do believe anti-immigration sentiment in the U.S. is, as you express it, "justified". Just ask any Arizonan who just had his lawn defecated on.

Marcy

17

Dear All;

There is another unpleasant side to the "illegal" immigrant issue as a Arizona rancher was shot and killed a month ago. Most likely someone who was an "illegal" as the tracks from the killing site led back across the border. The bad news here is the rancher had been known as a "Good Samaritan" who would help "illegals" when they were a little bit short of water and so on on there way through to El Norte.

The same ranchers brother had recently had a run in with trafficantos who had a couple hundred pounds of marijuana and got them turned in to the Border Patrol.

Was a retaliation killing possible mistaking the rancher for the brother? We'll never know.

There is a good bad and ugly side to the whole issue of immigration - both legal and "illegal". No Libertarian posturing about open borders immigration is going to set aside the fact that there are people who are virulently and if given the chance violently anti-immigrant.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/illegal-immigrant-suspected-murder-arizona-rancher/

Ron Getty

18

Ron,

  Advocating open borders is not "posturing" -- I believe in the moral correctness of this position every bit as fervently as the anti-immigrant folks believe in theirs. Ultimately I think my position is more realistic, too. It is not realistic to try to wall off an entire huge portion of the earth's surface and expect this policy to have the results you want when there is economic opportunity to be had within those parameters that cannot be had in nearby areas outside them.

  For all we know, the rancher whose killing you report below may have also been accidentally, or deliberately, shot by U.S. border patrol agents who made tracks across the border to disguise their involvement. If he was known for helping undocumented migrants, and they disliked that behavior, they would have had a motive. It wouldn't be the first time they shot someone. More likely he was killed by drug traffickers, but of course the root cause of that sort of violence can be traced to the Drug War policies being pursued by the U.S. and Mexican governments, and is not in any way the fault of people trying to peacefully migrate to the United States.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

19

Starchild!!!!!

where in the world did you dream this up!!! Can you cite any other instances of the Border patrol shooting ranchers???

For all we know, the rancher whose killing you report below may have
also been accidentally, or deliberately, shot by U.S. border patrol

Ron Getty

20

Marcy,

  Thank you for your kind words, and I appreciate you answering my query. However I think it is no more accurate to say that migrants "choose" to undergo the hardships I described, than to say that property owners "choose" to be subjected to trespassers by owning land near the U.S.-Mexico border. After all, no one is forcing them to buy or keep that property. For the few thousand dollars it might cost a migrant to be smuggled to the U.S. by coyotes, a typical small property owner could probably stop most if not all trespassing by buying some decent fencing that would make it much more trouble to go across his or her property than to go around (and could probably afford the expense much more readily than a Central American peasant). So I reject the notion that the migrants' situation is freely chosen while the property owners have no choice. In real life terms, the property owners actually tend to have a lot more choices and opportunities available to them than do the migrants.

  As for anti-immigrant sentiment, how can you think this is justified by the negative behavior of some individual migrants? That flies in the face of the libertarian principle of treating people as members of individuals rather than groups, which you yourself expressed quite well previously in this thread. Harboring an animus toward *undocumented migrants in general* just because one such person defecated on your lawn is morally no different from harboring an animus toward *Hispanic people in general* just because one such person mugged you -- irrational and bigoted.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))