Canada Increasingly a Gateway for Undocumented Polish Immigrants Entering the U.S.

Don't get me wrong now, it's just a question. Your name PlasticPole is a little bit confusing because the name itself makes me understand that you're a green card holder ( association) and then you keep saying "our", "we" etc. Are you actually an American citizen already?

I only mention the word "improvement" because either we fight the illegal immigration and then we do it right or we just make everyone legal here. That's how I see it.

Things have changed greatly in the last 10 years and are changing as we speak. It's getting more difficult but it's still possible to break the law. For those who say Poles no longer come to the US to work, just go to Disneyland, California and talk to some of the technicians (a pretty good paying job btw), more often than not they will speak with a Polish accent, few have legal papers. (a friend's brother works there so I know the internal politics).

Technically INS doesn't exist under that name anymore. After 9/11 there were several reorganizations and after the final one we have the "good cop" and the "bad cop" INS agents or CIS and ICE to be specific; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) which handles legal immigration, asylum seekers, naturalization ceremonies, etc. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which handles lawbreakers, deportations, etc.

IF someone want to work illegally in the US California is the place to go as many cities there are "sanctuary cities" (police won't notify ICE even if you've committed a serious crime), after all cheating the "system" is the Kalifornia Way. :)

From wikipedia:

"The administration of immigration services, including permanent residence, naturalization, asylum, and other functions became the responsibility of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), which existed only for a short time before changing to its current name, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The investigative and enforcement functions (including investigations, deportation, and intelligence) were combined with INS and U.S. Customs investigators, the Federal Protective Service, and the Federal Air Marshal Service, to create U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Yes, I was born here! I am a full fledged citizen! I see illegals catagorized into two groups. One is the criminals who make up the gangs, the drug dealers, etc. The other's the honest people who come here to work and buy a nice house. My point is, we have never as a nation punished the honest people who come here to work and buy a nice house. What kind of country will we be if we do that? Shouldn't we honor our heritage of letting people come here who just want a better life. Just about everyone here has an ancestor who came here to have a better life. Some people even stowed away on ships, more than you realize. Some might even be ancestors of some of the Americans posting here. Not everyone who came over on the ships was a legal immigrant. Were they punished for attempting? Should they have been? This is America, after all.

I understand your point but still I'm not sure about calling someone "honest" if the person lives here illegally. Somehow, the words "illegal" and "honest" don't sound right when used in the same context. (to me anyway)

There are legal routes for immigration, unfortunately the cost and procedures for doing so have increased dramatically. Whatever happened to just writing your name in a book at Ellis Island?

Okay, lets say the person has always been considered good and nice, decent, caring, giving, a hard worker and the only thing they ever did wrong was cross a border into the US or overstayed a Visa. Why should the US who has a strong immigration history and is known around the world as the land of opportunity and dreams be so harsh and unforgiving because people want so badly to live here? I can understand wanting the criminals out but should we be so harsh on people who just want a better life like our ancestors wanted? And not all ancestors from Europe came here legally as well. There were plenty of stowaways.

True, Convex, the govt has made it too expensive and complicated for immigrants these days.

I know PP, but still the law will never see those people as "honest" citizens. I tend to agree with you to the point that if one lived here for a long time and proved to be a good person and never got in trouble, the person deserves a chance to stay here but it would have to be worked on a criteria of the legalization in this kind of cases.

Apples and oranges PP. Ellis island was for LEGAL aliens, the government actively sought labor from other countries and they used work permits and even land deeds as a carrot to bring the people here.

What's going on now is unacceptable. More than 10% of a nation lives illegally within our nation. It's bad for the US (except the business owners who make tons of money) and it's bad for Mexico. Instead of investing in schools, hospitals and factories they're relying on remittances the illegal workers send back home.

You mentioned 2 categories of immigrants but if only 10% of the illegals commit a series crime than who's paying for it? The business owners? Nope, as always we, the taxpayers do. Who's paying for the numerous child births, prenatal care costs, vitamin supplements, etc., etc? The business owners? Nope, the taxpayers do. (Latinos have higher child birth rates than most muslim countries, they definitely put Poland to shame.)

What about the thieves, the gang hoodlums, the drug smugglers and the dealers, the maffia hire-to-kill murderers and the rapists? Do the business owners pay for the costs of their prosecution and incarceration? (won't even mention the human cost the victims have to endure). Nope, the taxpayers pay... The vast majority of gang members in the California, Arizona but also North Carolina and Alaska prisons belong now to Latin Kings, the Mexican Maffia, MS-13 and other Latino gangs. Who's paying the costs of keeping those thugs in prisons? The business owners? Nope, it's you and I.

Illegal immigration hurts this country even if most of the immigrants are "honest and hardworking" people as you describe it. (and I agree with that description)

Don't be fooled by the "poor Mexico" mantra. In 2006 Mexico was the 6th largest producer of oil in the world. Their corruption is killing them from within and the worker drain to the US only make things worst.

1st offense 1 month in prison plus a large fine, second offense 5 years in prison that can be waived by your embassy paying a $1,000,000 fine. I bet you Mexico would beef up their border enforcement prompto once we started collecting the illegal immigration fees. Also, non-neighboring countries would let the fine to be paid by the offender and this illegal immigration fiasco would end sooner rather than later.

immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

Don't be fooled by the "poor anybody" mantra. There are rich and poor in every country.


That isn't the American way and will only make us weaker.


Which is why we should just let them in. We can't keep them out unless we want to turn our backs on our past.


We might need to do something to cut the costs, but not keep people out. The answer is to make it more cost efficient, not close the doors and put up walls!


Deport them, cut funding for prisons. Why should criminals live like the middle class while they are in jail?


It doesn't hurt it any more than it has always hurt it and that isn't much considering America has done pretty well. We've had some rough times but all and all nothing we haven't overcome.


It's not really apples and oranges. These people weren't perfect. They just wanted a better life in America the same as the people today.


What if we had the same criteria all along as people are calling for now. Not nearly as many people would be in the US and we might not be here because our grandparents or great grandparents wouldn't be allowed in. Maybe they just weren't honest enough or had enough money to qualify? They would have been denied before ever leaving their country of orgin.

Really? I am in Shanghai, Beijing and Mumbai several times a month. Just in those cities alone I could probably get a couple million people each who'd love to come over tomorrow, better yet yesterday. Is that ok with you? Or is your "American way" approach limited to Mexico and Latinos?

I keep my iPad wrapped up into this cheap book-looking cover not to stand out in India (or many other places) as my iPad is worth more money than the majority of people make in a year. The poverty here is simply mind-boggling. Yet if you give a child a few dollar/rupees bills, the next time you try it the child's friends will pull a knife on you. Has happened many times and there are warning everywhere not to give out money to beggars. Just makes you sick to your stomach to see their sad eyes. If we had no borders or if we didn't enforce our laws at all I bet you 90% of India's 1.3 billion population would come over to the US (or EU) tomorrow, same with China, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Zimbabwe, Uganda and on and on. We couldn't be racist so we'd have to "let them all in"... Nowadays boats and airplanes make mass-migrations possible...

What you described is a world without borders, a total anarchy and a communist utopia, as far from the "American way" as it gets. You've watched too many Hollywood flics if you truly believe in what you're saying. The American way was always about respecting the law, about respecting local regulations, heck even the Mormons altered their laws on polygamy to obey the US law, had they used your translation of "the American Way" having multiple wives would still be legal in Utah (i know some are still doing it, but I'm talking about what's legal) As long as there are such disparities in living condition between different nations borders should exist and borders should be respected.

With all due respect (and I do respect you) people with your mindset scare me, full of utopian gaga and no practical and realistic solutions... Your approach reminds me of Marie Antoinette. Let them all in, if they're hungry we'll feed them a cake.

It's not communism, it's what America was founded on. We were a refuge for people from all over the world. That's our history. Even "native" Americans migrated here from Asia and Europe. If Chinese and Indians want to migrate here, we have the largest state in the country still pretty much population free - Alaska. They can live there. Alaska would get more representation in congress out of it.

I disagree with letting in terrorists but why not let in Mexicans and Canadians? They are our closest neighbors. Why is it we won't let our close neighbors in?

I am not against letting in people from China and India so long as they aren't terrorists.

Exactly REFUGEE not economic migrant! When US needed workers we invited them and even gave them land if they're willing to relocate (Ellis island), when we didn't need more laborers (recessions, etc) we still accepted REFUGEES or people who were persecuted, who were risking death in their home countries. We still accept REFUGEES and always will. Because THAT is the American way, to save the oppressed not the ones who simply want to make more money.

Currently there are 300 million Americans within the 50 states. Based on your thought process are you willing to let in let's say 5 million or so immigrants tomorrow? Since you want to "let them all in" 5 million is optimistic, there are over 100 million Mexicans alone. Then we have all the other nations. Or are you reserving your graciousness to selected poor people? I mean neighbors. Sounds pretty selective, maybe even racist wouldn't you say?


Terrorists? What are you talking about? Are all 1.3 billions Indians terrorists because they've been attacked by Pakistani jihadists? What about China? I have no idea where that comment came from... You're hiding your own prejudice by saying you want to help the "neighbors." Poor people looking for work are poor people looking for work no matter where they came from...

I disagree with you here. We actually have to strictly limit the immigration numbers. We can't be constantly held responsible for the welfare of the whole world. I don't mind helping others after we help each other first. 234 years should be enough to quit seeing our country as a huge "welcome everyone land" and finally see it as "our" country, one unit, united people within the United States just like it is in so many other countries (just about all of them) out there.

I meant Indians who are not Pakistani Jihadists or PJ sympathisizers.


I disagree with "giving people land" but people coming over to find work and a life, I have no problem with that. It's the American way! We cannot forgo our tradition of letting people move here. It's the way of life here. We are a nation of immigrants, like it or not. That will never change.

We have always allowed the poor into our country. These poor people are the ones who worked and built America up. They have made our country the strong place that it is!

With the situation in Mexico, would you say that there is a good argument for asylum seekers?

I wouldn't mind opening up the borders. Alternatively, I would mind executing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. One or the other, not this in-between stuff. If we hadn't turned into a touchy feel welfare state, there wouldn't be a problem with allowing anyone in. The negative aspects of immigration is probably more of an effect of where the US is headed rather than the cause of the problems. People got lazy, and they got into massive debt. Individuals, municipalities, businesses, the federal government.


It would also free up a lot of resources to fight crime, which is the problem...

Your opinion is pretty typical for the first generation Americans. You still feel like one of those immigrants so obviously you want to grant them the same rights as the ones that were granted to you not that long ago and you can't be blamed for this way of thinking but it's not how the "earlier" generations of Americans think about it.


of course you wouldn't, you don't live here.

You are missing my point, "letting people move here "was NEVER our tradition. Our tradition was to let refugees in (the American way to save people whose lives were endangered) AND -> when we needed labor <- to entice laborers to come en masse. Stop spreading this Hollywood propaganda, it sounds very nobel but the truth is we let people in because we needed them, additionally we let refugees in (as we should have). Totally different things but you keep combining the two into this utopian picture which simply isn't true.

Please don't ever run for a government office! ;) [Sanfran-sickos and Newyorkers would love you)

Ok, I'm done discussing this, I'm an American not a UN welfare sponsor so we'll never agree.

welcome to the club :-)

For a couple of months out of the year I do. That's enough for me, maybe not for you, but that's irrelevant. Feel free to ignore the rest of the post though...in particular the part about an everything or nothing approach.


We let people in because there were no immigration laws on the books. Unemployment in the major cities was incredibly high during the waves of Irish, German, and Polish immigration.

Anyway, couple of stupid facts for everyone:

The murder rate in the US is near an all-time low for the last 60 years.
Apparently Americans are making more money than ever.
Unemployment is nearly 10% (officially) which is high, but not exceptionally so.

So, what exactly is the problem? I mean, other than household debt, of course. Is property crime up? Hospitals going bankrupt?

Are the statistics lies?

Yes, conduct the typical investigation other refugees go through (is this person's life truly in danger, an anti-gang informer, etc.) and if so allow them to stay.


Bingo!!! Severe penalties to scumbags who're "importing" and hiring illegal aliens into the US. Those who brought in illegals who later ended up murdering people here in the US should be eligible for death penalty as co-conspirators - absolutely!

It's obvious your opinion about this topic will be different than most of Americans who live and work here. You live and work in Poland and like you once said on PF, "what do I care" (when talking about the states) and that's why I basically I said what I said. The meaning of what you once said is not really different than what I replied to you so no need to jump up like that convex.

Check out the link I provided earlier about the human costs of the illegal immigration. Click on victims and there somewhere you'll find Tricia from Detroit who lost both legs to a drunken illegal alien who was drag racing in a 25 mph zone. I remember when many years ago we were collecting money for her rehabilitation at a previous place I was based at. We have plenty of our own criminals, we don't need criminals from other countries too. But we do and that's what the problem is...

My comment was, if I'm supporting some bum on welfare, I might as well be allowed to choose who I sponsor. I still see no difference between sponsoring a worthless begging lazy American and a worthless begging lazy illegal immigrant, they're both equally worthless to me.


It's the same arguments that were made about every wave of immigration. But like I said, I'm for an all or nothing approach.

If I have a choice then I still prefer to support my local "bums" (as you said) than be responsible for any other 'Bum" out there.

And I see them all as equally worthless. That's the difference. I'll sponsor whoever makes me the best meal using govt. cheese.

besides, by nowadays economy, not all unemployed people are "bums".

I think they are, that's our difference of opinion. Plenty of minimum wage jobs out there. Wendys is hiring in Oklahoma, there are ads up on the billboards...

few years ago, I'd probably agree with but now not anymore. It can happen to anyone to lose a job and it's not easy to find another one. Wendys in Oklahoma isn't really something for someone from Chicago or New York.

Move, these are responsible people we're talking about right? The ones that put away money during the good times so that they could ride out the hard times. People that furthered themselves while they could and made themselves more attractive to employers, and didn't just spend money on conspicuous consumption. You've already mentioned that people in your area don't have a problem and aren't struggling, so what's the problem? A well qualified individual won't have a problem finding a job, even right now. I see that when I look at my friends. The ones that are doing work that is easily replaceable aren't having too much luck. The ones that have special qualifications are still more or less naming their own price.

If you're American then you know that many Americans are not able to save much if at all. I'm talking about very simple people who struggle to survive even when having a job. There are many families like that here and you should know it.