Freedom Riders Ride Again?

You can find Lula White's story of her own freedom ride here:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TUfkpCr_Ws&gt;

Just the use of the term "undocumented" demonstrates your bias. I get that you don't want to use the opprobrium "illegal" but can we at least agree on something like
"immigrants without permission"-something that indicates that that these folks are here in violation of the law?

As to the main point, what a stretch! Forgive me for failing to see the equivalency between (1) a people who are brought here in chains and held as slaves for hundreds of years and then as second class citizens literally risking their lives for equal rights vs. (2) the offspring of people who are here "without permission" risking being sent back to their homeland for a college education?

I will accept responsibility and the need for redress for what my country did to African Americans but I feel no need to provide a subsidized college education to those here without permission.

ignoranceisbliss
How is "undocumented" biased?

It is actually very descriptive. People who are here without documentation are in fact "undocumented".

"Illegal" immigrant is an incorrect term--not because it is pejorative--but because it is not commonly used in our language.

Imagine if I jaywalked--am I an "illegal walker"? I've clearly broken the law. I am ACTIVELY breaking the law. Do you refer to me henceforth as "David Streever, illegal walker"?

Have you ever driven over the speed limit? Even 5 miles?

Does anyone call you, "Ignoranceisbliss, illegal driver"?

"Immigrants without permission" means what, precisely? "People who immigrated to America without permission and in violation of laws" would be much more descriptive, but also quite a mouthful.

Undocumented immigrants is an easy way to quickly sum up the facts.

An undocumented immigrant:

• lives in a country they are not citizens in
  
• did not go through the documentation process that other immigrants go through
  
  I'm not sure how you can call that an obvious bias. It seems accurate, succinct, and appropriate.

All the in-state tuition in the world won't help you if you can't pass the analogy section of the SATs...

These two things aren't the same, not EVEN a little bit.

Comparing the struggles of the descendants of slaves to illegal immigrants is demeaning.

One group clearly endured serious hardship, cruelty, and oppression at the hands of others; the other made a choice to break the law.

These are citizenship rights. The first group had no path, the second group has a path and chose to work around it. Giving them the rights of citizens for free is absurd.

When North Americans finally trash the scape goating of immigrants, public workers, people of color, unions and start defending themselves in the class war that the super rich are waging, we'll be able to attack the real issues of jobs, housing, education, rebuilding the infrastructure.

When the U.S. stops invading Latin America with fully armed mercenaries or with subsidized corn, Latin Americans will stay home to build their own countries instead of slogging north to build ours.

When the U.S. allows legal immigration to all who have been invaded, or their democratic governments overthrown, or their economies destroyed by corrupt leaders our corporations put in power with the help of our government, the concern about undocumented workers will disappear.

Streever,

Should I begin calling every driver without a license or insurance "an undocumented driver" and every thug on the street with a 9 an "undocumented armed person."

The issue I have with using the term "undocumented" is that it is devoid of any notion of cause let alone responsibility.

I must also agree that this article is insulting to those who truly stood up for freedom (legally, mind you); and to compare the plight of those who suffered generations of oppression to those knowingly breaking the law is an immoral analogy to make.

Not to worry. The best disincentive for people considering illegal entry into the US is a ruined US economy -- sort of a "ruin it, and they won't come" approach. We are well on the way to accomplishing that, so illegal aliens shouldn't pose much of a problem in the future.

For those Americans, however, who might decide to take advantage of the cheap prices south of the border and move to Mexico -- you would best be advised to remind yourselves of the Mexican laws:

From IMMIGRATION LAW SANCTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT IN SELECTED FOREIGN COUNTRIES. REPORT FOR CONGRESS (April 2006). The Law Library of Congress, Directorate of Legal Research
LL File No. 2006-02877

"D. Illegal entry
Illegal entry is a federal crime (delito) penalized with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine from three hundred to five thousand Mexican Pesos (US$27.32 to US$455.47), and deportation.29 Illegal entry is a continuous offense,30 that is, that the offense continues after the initial illegal entry has been consummated. Therefore, the illegal presence of an alien that enters the country without documentation is a continuation of the initial crime of illegal entry (other penalized circumstances involving illegal presence are described below). According to a 1986 decision of the Mexican Supreme Court, when an illegal entry occurs on board a private airplane, the felony is consummated at the moment the alien in the airplane enters into national airspace without migratory documentation, even though the airplane has not landed.31

E. Repeated Illegal Entry
The General Population Act provides imprisonment for up to ten years, a fine of up to five thousand pesos (US$455.47), and deportation against an alien who, after being deported, enters the Mexican territory again without having obtained readmission authorization. The same sanction applies to a foreigner who does not disclose or hides his deportee status in order to obtain a new entry authorization.32 This crime (delito) has two stages: the first is the initial crime (delito) of illegal entry, which continues during the time the alien remains in the country illegally and the second is the criminal omission of hiding the alien's deportee status. A readmission under the above circumstances requires an express authorization of either, the Secretary, the Sub-Secretary, or the Chief of Staff (Oficial Mayor) of the Secretariat of Interior (Secretaría de Gobernación).33

F. Illegal Presence and Visa Overstay
The Act does not refer to visa overstay, but to illegal presence. Different penalties for illegal presence in the country under different circumstances are provided by the Act. Thus, a prison term of up to six years, fines of up to five thousand pesos (US$455.47), and deportation must be imposed upon a foreigner who after [initially] obtaining legal authorization to enter the country, is [now] illegally in the country due to non-compliance with, or in violation of, the administrative or legal provisions upon which his stay was conditioned.34
Other circumstances of illegal presence occur when a foreigner performs activities for which he is not authorized under the Act or the entry permit he was granted by the Secretariat of Interior.35 The Act penalizes this conduct with imprisonment for up to eighteen months, a fine of up to three thousand pesos (US$274.18), and deportation.

An alien violating the terms governing his stay in the country, by performing unlawful or dishonest acts, will be penalized with up to two years imprisonment, a fine of up to ten thousand pesos (US$910.53), and deportation.36

The Act penalizes yet, another conduct of illegal presence. A fine of up to five thousand pesos (US$455. 47) and deportation is imposed on any alien whose immigration status has been revoked and who has not complied with orders from the Department of the Interior to leave the country within the time period set for the purpose he stated at entry.37

No provision granting a grace period for overstaying a visa has been identified."


This goes on and on, but I think you get the picture.

An interesting comparison in this same document is between the Mexican and Swedish laws. Although oft cited as a "tolerant" and "liberal" country, Swedish laws appear to be quite similar to Mexico's but with lighter jail sentences.

This portion is particularly interesting on page 31: "Overall responsibility for Swedish border control lies with the Swedish police. The purpose of border control is, amongst other things, to counteract illegal immigration and cross-border crime.24"

Who'a thunk it? Do you think maybe Sheriff Arpaio's name was shortened from Arpaiosvensen?

No mention anywhere in this document about subsidizing higher education, though.

I think their plights are very similar. As a child of a documented immigrant, I understand the desire of many to come here. But to have been born an American and still treated the way Ms. White was, that is unfathomable to me. And to my entire generation. The way people are treated today when asked where they were born, what their last name is, what religion they are is unconscionable. Have we forgotten all the civil right fights before now? What stands out, I think is this; trying to do better, be better, live better, and having someone tell you it you are not allowed.

...

You say...and I quote:

"trying to do better, be better, live better, and having someone tell you it you are not allowed."

If you are here illegally, of course you are not allowed. So, if I, as an American citizen head into Mexico and begin to receive free services that I (as an illegal alien) am not entitled to; I will be punished by their legal system.

If you want to be better, do better, and live better in America, follow the law and attain legal citizenship; just like my family did four generations ago. If you are not willing to obey the law...why should you be given the same rights as someone who has obeyed the law?

@ignoranceisbliss
Ah, so the unbiased thing for a newspaper to do is choose a term that passes judgement on an individual, even if that person isn't at fault?

Technically, a 13 year old who was brought here by their parents without citizenship is "undocumented", but I see your very valid point that an unbiased news source should insert some shame and condemnation into a description of said 13 year old.

As someone who has never made a mistake, I look forward to the day that newspapers will describe others in condemning tones, even though those others are legally 'innocent until proven guilty'.

How about actually attending the event and hearing what they have to say, before making judgments about it?
And if the comparison between the two groups is so 'insulting' or 'demeaning', why do you suppose Ms. White has agreed to participate? I think she and her fellow freedom riders should be the one to judge the appropriateness of the comparison, no?

The entire original White population of North and South America came here without the permission of the inhabitants, seized their lands by violence and fraud, and embarked on a lengthy genocidal struggle. From their point of view, though, they were "in search of a better life."

If you see nothing wrong with that -- in fact, if you look at it as your country's proud heritage, then you really need to re-think your moral condemnation of the latest generation of outside-the-law people "in search of a better life."

And just as the takeover of what is now America by millions of European immigrants after 1492, however appallingly unjust, is a fact on the ground and can't be wished away, so is the presence in this nation of millions of people whose desire for a better life was enough to push them to risk their lives by coming here, even though they knew it was against the law. The time comes when wishful thinking and moral indignation are useless; we need to deal with what is actually going on.

@Not Okay and @Concerned

The comparison here in any case would be between the african american slaves and the children of "illegal" immigrants (not their parents). Note that the children didn't know they were breaking the law and had no say in their parents decisions. In both cases, these two groups were brought here "illegally" against their will and/or not knowingly.