Immigration Reform: 10 Point Proposal


PDA






El Tejon
May 21, 2005, 10:15 AM
Immigration being a hot topic on THR, but we rarely see proposals on how to fix it other than the occasional hotheaded comment by a Border Guard to murder illegal aliens. As if violence against a 17 year old who wants to wash dishes in Chicago to support his family in Mexico will solve anything or is the right thing to do.

Last night I was reading the recent (May 23, 2005) issue of National Review and came across an article by Mark Krikorian (an eeevil son of an emmygrant!). Mr. Krikorian details the following proposal that I summarize for discussion here:

1. Commitment to enforcement: politicians must acknowledge the problem of illegal immigration and pledge to treat it as a crisis.

2. Even enforcement: across-the-board, long-term enforcement, not just silly raids for the cameras.

3. No amnesty: the '86 amnesty created the climate of future amnesties and thus created more illegal immigration.

4. Crack down on employers: long overdue. As an employer who has employed non-citizens, I resent the fact that large employers are free to ignore the regulations while IRS and INS kept me under a microscope. As well, since I work for some illegal aliens, I ask them why they came up here. I was shocked to learn that large factories recruit in Mexican cities, heck some have told me there are signs posted in the jumping off points along the border.

5. Greater cooperation with states and cities: saw this in LE, we would beg INS or USA to do something. They ignored us. Long overdue.

6. Document security: minimum federal standards for birth certs, DLs, etc.

7. US-VISIT: speed up the program and not exempt Canada and Mexico.

8. Streamline legal immigration: comparable to the CCW issue. It is an outrage that so many law-abiding people who want to become citizens are mired in forms and attorney fees while illegal aliens walk across the border and get amnesty, inter alia.

9. Making "temporary" visas temporary.

10. Discourage dual citizenship.

What say you?

If you enjoyed reading about "Immigration Reform: 10 Point Proposal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
May 21, 2005, 10:39 AM
Overall, a good plan alhough #6 is a two-edged sword. I would also essentially put a 10 year moratorium on all immigration until we could sort our present immigration problems out.
Finally, dual citizenship should not be allowed, period. If a man has two wives, to which does he pledge his faith and loyalty to?
Biker

wingman
May 21, 2005, 10:53 AM
All good stuff, excellent, however I agree with second poster that a mortorium
should be on the agenda but I would settle for a 3-5 year "hold" until we can
regroup. America now takes in more then all countries combined, I know it may be hard to believe but this country also has limits to what we can afford.


Mark Krikorian (an eeevil son of an emmygrant!).

Please explain what your point was on the above.?

El Tejon
May 21, 2005, 10:55 AM
wing, should have said "son of an eeevil emmygrant."

Waitone
May 21, 2005, 11:56 AM
Good point to start the discussion. However, I see no provisions for taking the financial incentive for criminal immigration out of the mix. I would think that for any attempt to regain control to have a prayer of a chance, governmenthouse would have to remove financial incentives. Subsequent comments are directly related to the financials of criminal immigration.

From the criminalee side remove all welfare bennies, full stop. No dual citizenships. Pick one and live with the consequences. No anchor babies. No need to re-unite fractured families.

From the criminalor side, The CEO or owner of a bidness regardless of how big does time in the big house if his charge is found to hiring criminal aliens. His or her company will have all assets associated production of revenue from the use of criminal aliens confiscated. Hey, you can take my car on a whim then big boys need to suffer the same kinds of sanctions.

From the enabler side (aka government), develop the ability to do a database search via telephone to check the validity of SSN's. Governmenthouse hasn't done it thus far because it makes too much sense and it will be quite effective in stopping the sharing of SSN's.

Lots of other things to be done, bt my suggestions only deal with the revenue side of the equation.

Old Fuff
May 21, 2005, 12:19 PM
I think you would find wide support for your plan along our side of the U.S./Mexican border. It has been our experience however, that the authorities that could do something constructive about the situation don't want too. There are too many in powerful positions making money, or expecting political support in the future. The expectation here is that nothing will happen until (or unless) we get into another 911 kind of attack, and it is found that those responsible, or the materials they used, were slipped accross the border. Then, probably only for the short term, something will be done.

That said, the discussion you've started is a useful one, even if it's only between ourselves.

Waitone
May 21, 2005, 12:34 PM
Democrats have decided Bush will be impeached. Abuse of prisoners is the cause celebra. I personally have drawn a line in the sand at criminal immigration. We get hit and it is found to have come from across the southern border, he gets impeached. But you are right. Those making the money and those receiving the money do not want it stopped. And it is for that reason nothing will be done until a city gets smoked.

longeyes
May 21, 2005, 01:18 PM
Good thread. I am in general agreement with the proposals but second those who believe we need at least a temporary immigration moratorium and a thorough overhaul of the social welfare give-aways. Denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens ought to also be on the docket.

I am no more optimistic than the rest of you that anything substantive will be done without serious upheaval first. It may be an attack or attacks sourced south of the border or it may be social strife from ethnic warfare within our borders, especially if the anti-illegal immigration movement picks up steam and actually starts having an impact.

I don't really see any benign way out of the current mess, unfortunately. The reforms being proposed won't work; they are at best Band-Aids over a malignancy. We have allowed this to get way out of control and now we are going to pay the price.

The real issues here go beyond just immigration; they go to our views of what America is really all about in 2005. Do we care any more about the principles that underpin the Republic or are we just a collective of convenience- and comfort-driven consumers who will cut any deal to buy a little more pleasure?

Navy joe
May 21, 2005, 01:20 PM
What really is not touched on is the why of controlling immigration. We need immigration, we are a nation built on immigration. However, uncontrolled immigration will ruin the country.

-National Security. There are way too many tan colored folks who can't speak a lick of spanish clearing our southern border. The implications are obvious.

-National prosperity. Non taxed immigrants using public health and welfare structures will bankrupt us. Easy way to fix is to cut off the tap for everyone, let the unmotivated find some other socialist paradise. Another big problem is GDP loss, a significant portion of money that illegals make is going out of country rather than being spent here.

-Regional stability. Rather than throw money at all of Central America, how about controlling our borders so the best and the brightest in those countries stay home. Support stable non-corrupt governments so that the people creative and determined enough to get out want to stay. If we let everyone in our resources, land space, etc. will be reduced and we will be bordered by numerous nations who are wastelands created by the talent and manpower vacumn of our uncontrolled border. Destabilized countires are ripe for takeover by dictatorial fanatics, purchase by criminal elements, often one in the same. I guess that leads to drug legalization so as to remove the revenue stream that empowers the grand scale criminals and corrupts their governments.

Seal the border, deport illegals here, take companies to court who hire illegals, and Congress set annual immigration quotas.

RealGun
May 21, 2005, 02:05 PM
11. Rethink "compassion"

Free medical services is a problem. If the law says that a person cannot be turned away, that's a problem, right? Who is to pay for it?

If we cannot afford or be expected to care for the entire world, isn't it true that we are compassionate when a problem is right under our nose, but that compassion is much more restrained outside our borders, supported by aid programs if at all. There is only so much one can do.

Whose law is this? Who decided that the US must provide medical services for Mexico? Are we our own worst enemy in providing this incentive to sneak into the country? Why should having children here not be a problem? Oh, we could help all right, but deportation should be a consequence, if the needy parties are not legal immigrants or citizens. Babies of illegal immigrants ARE NOT citizens in my view. I have lost track of what the law actually might be. It wouldn't be logical.

It is my understanding that AZ has some plan to use Real ID cards to restrict medical center services.

I think I would say that if an illegal immigrant needed medical treatment, there would need to be a willingness to be deported as a consequence after some recovery (How badly do you need help? What's it worth to you?) . I believe that would mean that one unable to demonstrate citizenship or immigration status would have to be reported to immigration authorities, perhaps starting with local police.

I hate this Draconian kind of stuff, but what rights should an illegal immigrant have?

longeyes
May 21, 2005, 02:21 PM
The choice is "Draconian" or self-immolation. It will come to that, with or without debate.

Compassion should never trump self-preservation and the ensuring of primary values. Dealing with the immigration problem is going to require some philosophical spadework. We are going to need to assess our Christian roots and what kind of Christianity is impelling the humanitarian impulses that color this issue.

wingman
May 21, 2005, 02:36 PM
Compassion should never trump self-preservation and the ensuring of primary values

True helping others is great, to destroy yourself in the process is foolish.
Texas is facing a large problem with schools and health care much in part
to illegal immigration, the wealthy want the cheap labor but they don't
like paying the taxes required so the burden is on the lower middleclass
and the working poor with property tax.

We must reassess the whole immigration process including numbers if we
wish to survive. :banghead:

Old Fuff
May 21, 2005, 03:38 PM
Why must our hospitals provide free services to illegal migrants?

Who says that children born of illegal migrant parents are U.S. citizens?

The COURTS of course, from the United States Supreme Court on down, and to some degree the U.S. Congress when it was controled by socialist-leaning Democrats.

Who says that children born in the United States still have citizenship in Mexico?

The Mexican government of course, and the COURTS in the United States have agreed.

If this is going to change it will be necessary to get some judges with a different viewpoint. This is part of the reason a major argument is going on in the U.S. Senate right now.

If you want different judges write your senators and say so.

Otherguy Overby
May 21, 2005, 05:42 PM
When they've got you searching for the wrong answer, they've won.

The wrong answer, of course, is closing the borders. (PERIOD)

The right answer: just stop providing social services to aliens. No welfare, no medical services, no education for their offspring, no driver licenses and NO VOTING.. IOW, currently, everyone gets to vote on where our tax dollars go, 'cept us.

Then, the PC bunch weighs in and tells us how we are "expected" to vote...

RealGun
May 21, 2005, 05:56 PM
currently, everyone gets to vote on where our tax dollars go, 'cept us.

That suggests to me that perhaps citizen-initiated, referendum voting should be much more common. What an anarchic idea!

Standing Wolf
May 21, 2005, 10:06 PM
I would also essentially put a 10 year moratorium on all immigration until we could sort our present immigration problems out.

Very reluctantly, I'm moving in that general direction.

Crack down on employers: long overdue.

We could solve at least 80% of the problem that way—and raise plenty of money though very heavy fines to address the remainder of the problem.

Commitment to enforcement: politicians must acknowledge the problem of illegal immigration and pledge to treat it as a crisis.

Aha! The crux of the matter becomes apparent at last.

The Rabbi
May 21, 2005, 11:39 PM
I have my own sure-fire proposals for ending illegal immigration. Sure they're draconian but if we want to stop this blight it'll be well worth it:

1) Triple all taxes. Income, gas, cigarette, highway, you name it.
2) Institute mandatory worker documentation for every employer, to be signed off on every month.
3) Lower tarrifs on goods from Mexico. Heck, subsidize them with all the tax money collected.
4) Eliminate all public funding of hospitals, health care facilities, and schools. Let 'em die on the streets if they cant pay.

After our economy is a wrecked, smoking ruin and Mexico's looks like Shangri-La we'll see the spectre of Mexican politicians trying to keep cheap American labor out of their markets.

Old Fuff
May 22, 2005, 12:04 AM
O.K.

But remember I can get there before you can ... :evil:

Jammer Six
May 22, 2005, 12:30 AM
The U.S. gets stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border, and their home country gets weaker.

The weak, lame and lazy aren't the ones who come.

If I wanted to be a policeman, I'd be wearing a blue uniform. Small businessmen are not policemen, and generally aren't interested in doing police work. That includes immigration police work. Find another way. That one was a non-starter, and anything it cost me is going to get passed straight on through to you, without preventing a single illegal immigrant. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe that or not, because I don't have to pay for it.

The overwhelming majority of the illegal Latin immigrants in my city can furnish me with the correct documentation I need to hire them.

The illegal Latin immigrants in this city who don't have the correct documentation can purchase it for less than two hour's pay, at the rates I pay, and they can do so by tomorrow morning.

Taken together, the last two points mean that I will easily be able to withstand any scrutiny from any agency that you cobble together to "go after" employers, because I am innocent, and easily able to comply with the letter of the law. It won't cost me anything, and even if it does, you will pay the bill.

At some point, the overwhelming majority of your ancestors were immigrants. Some of them were even "legal".

Tight borders would include many, many restrictions that other threads, right here on THR, are railing against. You can't have both. If you want tight borders, tell us how your national ID card system would work, and tell us about the cavity searches you would impose to prevent corruption of that system.

I'm not willing to give up the freedoms that everyone would have to give up to close the borders. As long as I hold this view, it's safe to say that there are others like me, with similar views. Some of us are your employers. Many of us vote. You will never get us to surrender the freedoms we've decided to cherish in exchange for an illusion, whether in the name of fear, expense or expedience.

If you ever do succeed in closing the borders, get ready for a fight, because the things you will need to do to sucessfully close the borders guarantee that I and other men who consider themselves free won't abide by, and we'll be coming for you. So far, we've never had to use anything but lawyers, money and votes, but don't mistake that for a lack of will.

Tight borders are an excellent indicator of fear, weakness, and other things that don't apply to America.

At least, they don't apply to most Americans. That's how the borders got this way in the first place.

The Rabbi
May 22, 2005, 05:16 AM
+1 Jammer Six.

Combat-wombat
May 22, 2005, 05:39 AM
I'd agree with you except for your tenth point. What's wrong with dual citizenship as long as it's legally citizenship in both countries?

c_yeager
May 22, 2005, 06:50 AM
Who says that children born of illegal migrant parents are U.S. citizens?

The COURTS of course, from the United States Supreme Court on down, and to some degree the U.S. Congress when it was controled by socialist-leaning Democrats.


Ummmm, next time you see one of those pocket-constitutions for sale at a gunshow I suggest you purchase it, and read it.

AMMENDMENT XIV :

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Your parents have NO EFFECT on your status in any way, shape, or form in this country.

spartacus2002
May 22, 2005, 08:21 AM
I am no more optimistic than the rest of you that anything substantive will be done without serious upheaval first. It may be an attack or attacks sourced south of the border or it may be social strife from ethnic warfare within our borders, especially if the anti-illegal immigration movement picks up steam and actually starts having an impact.

Take a look at the videos at http://www.saveourstate.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1767&st=0 I think what worries me more is the PRO-illegal immigrant movement.

The U.S. gets stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border, and their home country gets weaker.

:barf: what a rosy-eyed picture. I'm sure it is true for those who put up with the LEGAL immigration process, but look at the number of illegal immigrants who constitute jail populations and gang memberships.

wingman
May 22, 2005, 09:15 AM
The U.S. gets stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border, and their home country gets weaker. :barf:

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 11:23 AM
AMMENDMENT XIV :

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

"Oh, what tangled webs we weave." What if a Court ruled that citizenship for a child of one here illegally was not in the spirit of this amendment?

You have to be careful that pro-lifers don't turn this amendment into "all persons conceived". Think about it. At some point you have to stop and say, wait a minute. What is the real intent here?

I don't doubt that this amendment is used literally. I still say its application can be illogical and a self inflicted wound.

The Rabbi
May 22, 2005, 11:26 AM
"Oh, what tangled webs we weave." What if a Court ruled that citizenship for a child of one here illegally was not in the spirit of this amendment?

The SC cannot rule that something is "not in the spirit of an amendment." This isnt how its done. And the clear history of interpretation supports the obvious meaning.

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 11:35 AM
I'm not willing to give up the freedoms that everyone would have to give up to close the borders. - JammerSix

What freedom do you give up if there is real control of the borders and everyone passing in either direction uses proper checkpoints and shows proper documents?

Today's technology makes it more practical than ever to literally "control" the borders. What we don't get is a President who releases funding to move in that direction. It's already okay with Congress. They approved the allocation. Was the budget submitted by the White House disingenuous? I think that's a good question.

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 01:20 PM
The SC cannot rule that something is "not in the spirit of an amendment." - The Rabbi

Except when it comes to claims against the Second Amendment.

The Rabbi
May 22, 2005, 01:22 PM
Except when it comes to claims against the Second Amendment.

Given that the USC hasnt considered a 2A case for a while, do you have any proof for that statement? :scrutiny:

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 01:28 PM
I am not accepting any assignments today. You know perfectly well what I mean.

Iain
May 22, 2005, 01:47 PM
Except when it comes to claims against the Second Amendment.

Call me stupid, but I'd have thought that was exactly the reason why you'd not want there to be rulings on the 'spirit' of any of the amendments.

wolf
May 22, 2005, 02:16 PM
really...its as much of a sham as...well..the war on drugs..lets see...here in LA..if you really want to, you can: buy any kind of drug..along with a "clean gun" and a "real" drivers license etc..from an illegal alien...and the bitch of it is..the LAPD may know he is doing it..but cant do anything about it because he is illegal.."special order 40" ..

a sharp increase of illegal aliens from central & south america (china also) has just begun to be admitted by some major news sources..illegals crossing each year now number in the millions..estimated 1.5-2 mill a year from all borders, air, outdated visas etc..should we wait until its 5-10 mill a year and just say..ok we cant control the borders so lets not have them..

before you say all these "potential americans" bring realization to the american dream...please visit downtown los angeles, pacoima, santa ana..the list is a bit too long to continue..but if you like what you see in these cities..and think that is what america is supposed to be..open them border gates...real wide..

wolf

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 04:41 PM
Call me stupid, but I'd have thought that was exactly the reason why you'd not want there to be rulings on the 'spirit' of any of the amendments. - Iain

I just wouldn't want a ruling to ignore evidence that clearly indicated what that spirit might be. I wouldn't want them to ignore grammar either. I think rulings are based more on precedent than on the words of the Constitution. If a precedent is clearly wrong, that becomes a real problem.

Jammer Six
May 22, 2005, 04:46 PM
No one is above being asked to provide citations.

Without cites, a claim is merely an opinion.

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 06:28 PM
A request for a cite is also a way to evade what should be an obvious point to an informed requestor, who was knowledgable enough to declare that old cases don't count. Phooey!

Try U.S. v Miller. Is any case more notorious? Carrying a sawed off shotgun is "not in the spirit of the Second Amendment". Yeah, right. Check some of the rest of that case too. If that doesn't suit, then just forget it.

Supreme Court gun case summaries (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/supreme_cases.html)

longeyes
May 22, 2005, 06:28 PM
and the bitch of it is..the LAPD may know he is doing it..but cant do anything about it because he is illegal.."special order 40" ..

Good point. We hear a lot about how illegals are "exploited;" what we don't hear is that increasingly illegals are de facto above the law because of the confused or disingenuous hands-off policies in numerous localities.

And then there's the small matter of what is now three thousand Mexican nationals who have fled south to Mexico to escape prosecution for murders committed in the U.S. That Bush is doing nothing about this is obscene.

Amy
May 22, 2005, 06:40 PM
I would add to those ten points doing away with the "anchor babies" being citizens because their mothers happened to make it across the fence and drop their kids here.

I'd also recommend a Berlin style wall all along that southern border, and large fields on our side of it heavily laced with toe-poppers.

Amy

El Tejon
May 22, 2005, 07:14 PM
Amy, so we amend the Constitution to abolish the 14th Amendment? Oh, the Ghosts of the Confederates would love that. :D Or, maybe just amend it?

Why just the "southern border"? Why isn't anyone concerned about the illegal aliens flying into, for example, Chicago? Oh, wait, they are Poles and Irish. ;) If you say "security", then how about the guy that Customs caught at the Canadian border planning the 2000 incident?

The proposal in National Review smacks of the failed policy of the Drug War with its attacks on the Constitution. I think the biggest return on investment would be to hit employers. However, that is an uphill political fight and that does not solve the underlying reason of why employers hire illegal aliens--Americans are too fat and lazy to work.

As with the War on Drugs, the problem lies within. We have met the enemy and it is us. Americans no longer wish to work; "the others" do. Until we destroy the Welfare State that imprisons so many of our fellow citizens, the Creative/Productive Class will turn to those that wish to do something and if those that want to work are not illegal, and as with "gun control" there will be a way around the law.

If we are too aggressive/overbroad in combatting illegal immigration the people that we wish to attract may go elsewhere. There is also a utilitarian concern, what will this cost? More Border Patrol agents, more ALJs, more beds, more regulation=more cost.

Considering restrictions on immigration were among TJ's parade of horribles in the Declaration of Independence, I'd scrap the whole thicket of laws and start over with a clean sheet of paper with the goal of keeping it clean.

Anyone that just my $.02 based on my baises (I am descended from illegal aliens) and experiences. I know I would lose in THR committee. :D

Jammer Six
May 22, 2005, 07:49 PM
If that doesn't suit, then just forget it.
As you wish.

Shall I apply this to your opinions across the board?

The Rabbi
May 22, 2005, 07:50 PM
Try U.S. v Miller. Is any case more notorious? Carrying a sawed off shotgun is "not in the spirit of the Second Amendment". Yeah, right. Check some of the rest of that case too. If that doesn't suit, then just forget it.

Did you actually bother to read the case, rather than the summary of it?
First off, the case was tried in 1894. Hardly a recent case.
Second, there were many other issues raised, 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc.
Third, the case was denied because of procedural errors.
Fourth, the court declared an abiding principle that the 2A does not apply to states, which are free to regulate as their constitutions provide.

The reason people ask for proof or substantiation is to separate the hog from the wash. I think your claim falls in the wash category unless you can come up with something better.

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 08:12 PM
Hey, back off here, guys. If you are saying you have no argument with the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted, who has the credibility problem? If you have a different view than mine, do your own research, and make your case.

You are free to ignore anyone you want to. I have a bit of a list myself, mostly civility problems, but I think we have a good group.

RealGun
May 22, 2005, 08:16 PM
Did you actually bother to read the case, rather than the summary of it?
First off, the case was tried in 1894. Hardly a recent case. - The Rabbi

Miller v Texas (1894) and US v Miller (1939) are two different cases. The one I referenced, U.S. V Miller, is 1939.

Do you think we could be a bit less adversarial?

Old Fuff
May 22, 2005, 08:17 PM
I think you might have the wrong case in mind. Miller was heard (I believe, haven't looked it up) in 1938, not 1894. Miller, a somewhat small-time crook, was caught with a sawed-off Stevens double-barrel, and charged with having an unregistered (under the 1934 NFA) shotgun. His attorney claimed among other things that he had protection under the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise, saying that a sawed-off wasn't a Militia weapon, or at least no evidence was presented to show that it might be. By this time Miller had died.

gc70
May 22, 2005, 09:16 PM
Americans are too fat and lazy to work.Now there is an argument for you. If all of the fat, lazy Americans would simply stop impeding the efforts of the illegal aliens flooding the country, the United States might just have a chance of becoming a successful, productive nation.

I hope nobody will be too offended that I disagree. :barf:

Amy, so we amend the Constitution to abolish the 14th Amendment? Oh, the Ghosts of the Confederates would love that. Or, maybe just amend it?Yes, let's amend the 14th Amendment. Granting citizenship to a child just because the parents made it inside US borders before the birth is ridiculous, as is giving the parents a pass on immigration laws because they are the proud parents of a spanking-new US citizen. The Irish got tired of the baby-claims-citizenship racket and amended their constitution to prohibit it in 2004. The Swiss also voted in 2004 to not liberalize their citizenship requirements for Swiss-born non-citizens.

Jammer Six
May 22, 2005, 10:44 PM
There's no way we can get the Democrats to agree with us.

If this thread has demostrated anything, it's that we don't even agree with each other.

Certainly, as long as we don't even produce citations, we'll never get anywhere when faced with real opposition.

The opposition is extremely intellegent, highly educated, very rich, and in possesion of some of the most powerful offices we have. They are also true believers, and for the most part, they honestly believe what they are saying.

If you can't make your point here, among those who generally already believe as you do, do us all a favor, and never say anything about our mutual cause (if any).

Better silence than a loss of ground.

This country wasn't founded on absolutes. If anything, it was founded as a nation of compromise, in which the process is held to be more important than the result.

We don't have the best, the fastest or the most efficient government.

What we do have is a government of compromise, that guarantees that the minority won't give up their rights, even if those rights are unpopular.

If you're not willing to compromise and negotiate, you simply won't be able to accomplish anything under our form of government.

That's as American as it gets, and it's a process that has my wholehearted support.

Your gun simply isn't worth subverting the process. Not to me, and not to mine.

It's how we survive, it's why we're the strongest nation on earth.

Biker
May 22, 2005, 11:17 PM
Jammer Six
Although we may be on the same side regarding illegal immigration, please don't include me in the 'us' catagory. The Repubs are no different than the Dems on this issue, and may in fact be worse.
No offense intended....
Biker

Jammer Six
May 22, 2005, 11:29 PM
No worries, Biker, I'm not a Republican. :)

Biker
May 22, 2005, 11:33 PM
My mistake, Jammer. I'm a recovering Reublican.
Biker

Jammer Six
May 23, 2005, 01:04 AM
"Just for today, I won't vote for a candidate from the right wing of the Democratic party..." :D

El Tejon
May 23, 2005, 09:47 AM
gc, the immigrants will come regardless of what Americans do if the Americans refuse to work as they are doing now.

Gordon Fink
May 23, 2005, 02:47 PM
“Illegal” immigration is just a symptom of the actual disease. If you think real hard, I bet you already know what that disease is.

~G. Fink

The Rabbi
May 23, 2005, 03:14 PM
“Illegal” immigration is just a symptom of the actual disease. If you think real hard, I bet you already know what that disease is.

Umm. Abundant prosperity on this side of the border caused by our superior government and rule of law. Just a guess, mind you.

Waitone
May 23, 2005, 03:25 PM
South of the border
--socialist paradise
--government by the family few
--poverty
--economic future is dismal despite trade agreements
--blatant corruption
--narco government

North of the Border
--some degree of economic freedom
--comparative economic opportunity
--demand for below market wages
--lax immigration law enforcement
--fragmented law enforcement
--Americans too busy fighting each other
--conflict among city, local, state, and federal government
--bennies out the ying yang
--anchor babies

I repeat. Bush's immigration (as well as previous presidents) policies are venting the social pressure that would have otherwise exploded in Mexico.

Glock Glockler
May 23, 2005, 03:39 PM
Are we then enableing the corrupt despots in Mexico by so eagerly taking in Mexicans? I dont understand why we are so eager to "nation build" all accross the world but we ignore the cancer growing right on our own border.

Why isn't anyone concerned about the illegal aliens flying into, for example, Chicago? Oh, wait, they are Poles and Irish.

How many of them cause problems? I don't see hordes of them getting on welfare and committing crimes but I do know of many illegal Mexicans that do cause problems. Also, I would wager that the amount of Mexicans illegally immigrating is far greater than the amount of Irish and Poles. If a school district has to pick up the tab on a few illegals it would not raise to many eyebrows but when they get flooded I can assure you that it will cause people to notice.

The U.S. gets stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border, and their home country gets weaker

So all the criminals and welfare addicts that we have imported from other countries make us stronger?

The weak, lame and lazy aren't the ones who come

Allow me to introduce you to several the next time you are in my parts.

Tight borders are an excellent indicator of fear, weakness, and other things that don't apply to America.

Yeah, I just hate when criminals and terrorists can just waltz in like a breeze, why should we be afraid of that, as we have never had a one of those come in?

longeyes
May 23, 2005, 04:41 PM
Let's stop deluding ourselves about where all this is going, given current trends. We are one hothead away from civil war.


BALDWIN PARK, CA RIOT
Joe Turner - Save Our State

In the bizarre world that we live in, merely opposing illegal
immigration and all the peripheral issues that go along with it
is justification for being labeled a racist, bigot or a
vigilante.

In countless interviews, I am asked my thoughts when our
opponents accuse us of being a racist organization. I constantly
wonder why reporters simply regurgitate unsubstantiated claims
and in the process perform the devil's bidding.

Yet, as evidenced by today's happenings, it is so crystal clear
that our opponents are projecting their bigotry and hatred onto
us. Today, we saw some of the most vile hatred and bigotry
expressed towards us by the Mechistas.

Everything that we argued the monument stood for was reinforced
by the hundreds of activists who opposed our presence in Baldwin
Park. Numerous times we were told that this land is Mexico and
that they were taking it back. Numerous times racist epithets
were hurled away. One person even hurled a full water bottle at
our side and sent one of our activists to the hospital with
bleeding in the brain. Unfortunately, she is now in the
intensive care unit and we are all praying and hoping for the
best.

What started as a rather peaceful and uneventful protest on our
side ended in sheer hostility. The counter demonstrators were
supposed to rally at the other end of the metrolink station, but
proceeded to outflank the Baldwin Park Police Department and
traveled through a local neighborhood so that they could
formally confront us at the intersection allocated to us for our
protest.

In waves they came. Soon outnumbered 500-50 in a community that
is 85% Hispanic, crowd control soon became an issue. Rants,
chants and Mexican flags filled the air. They spit and a dragged
and kicked an American flag over the ground. It is imperative to
note that it was the only American flag displayed by our
opponents.

At the conclusion of the rally, a twenty year veteran of the
force shared that today’s rally was the most intense and largest
he has seen in his career. And intense it was, for at one point,
I was informed by BPPD that they could no longer ensure our
safety. Mind you, there were upwards of 70+ officers on duty in
riot gear. Emergency reserves were summoned from various local
agencies. A police helicopter circled above for the entire
duration. Officers with sniper rifles rested on a roof above.

In fact, we were told that a credible source of intelligence
suggested that violent attack on our group was in the making and
that two hundred more demonstrators may be en route (which would
have presumably overwhelmed the already taxed resources).
Surrounded by hostile forces on all sides, we were evacuated by
the police department to the police station one block away until
the crowd dispersed.

We did not hurl racist epithets or make bigoted hate-filled
comments. We did not hurl objects at our opponents or resort to
violence. Yet, we are racist vigilantes!

It is of utmost importance to emphasize one singular point.
Everything that we stated that monument stood for, embodied, and
represented, was reinforced and confirmed by the actions of
those opposing us today. To suggest that the monument doesn't
reinforce the reconquista of Aztlan and hatred toward whites is
simply delusional.

longeyes
May 24, 2005, 11:27 AM
From La Voz de Aztlan
http://www.aztlan.net

On the Wake Up America - Unite to Fight Summit in Las Vegas:

<> LA VOZ DE AZTLAN NEWS BULLETIN <>
<><> Los Angeles, Alta California <><>
May 23, 2005

Chief Anti-Mexican Bigots to Meet in Las Vegas

The principal leaders of the "USA Anti-Mexican Movement" will
all be under one roof this weekend at the Plaza Hotel located in
old downtown Las Vegas. The "Who's Who List of Xenophobes" will
be at the Plaza Hotel on Friday May 27, Saturday May 28 and
Sunday May 29 to coordinate the vigilante operations they plan
to undertake along the California/Mexico border on June through
August. The Plaza Hotel and Casino is located at the end of
Fremont Street in the old section of town (Phone: (702) 386-2110
Toll Free: (800) 634-6575).

Among the racists who will be attending is head bigot Tom
Tancredo. Tancredo is a congressman from Colorado who has
aspirations to become USA president by utilizing Mexican
immigrants as "scapegoats" for the nation's economic and social
problems. Among other bigots attending are felon Chris Simcox of
the Minutemen vigilantes and his lackey Jim Gilchrist. The list
of anti-Mexican xenophobes also includes Glenn Spencer, Barbara
Coe and the "coconut" Andy Ramirez. "Vendido" Andy Ramirez is
being utilized by the bigots as a "Taco Tio".

The anti-Mexican xenophobes are slow learners. This was
demonstrated when a group called "Save our State" experienced an
extremely humiliating event on Saturday May 14 in Baldwin Park,
California. They miscalculated the degree that Alta California
has changed when they undertook to protest a 12 year old public
monument that has the inscription, “This land was Mexican once,
was Indian always and is, And will be again”. The vile and
irresponsible leader of S.O.S. recruited about 25 senior
citizens from the areas "rest homes" and staged the protest in
front of the monument. They were shocked went they were
confronted by over 300 counter demonstrators, mostly youths of
Mexican descent. One very old white lady of S.O.S. collapsed and
had to be taken to the hospital. The police had to escort the 25
S.O.S. members out of town for their safety.

What the bigots, who will be meeting at the Plaza Hotel in Las
Vegas, don't know may not harm them but the fact is that most of
the personnel who work in the hotel's kitchens are Mexican. We
pray that they don't fall victims of "Montezuma's Revenge" from
eating the food.

http://www.aztlan.net

mtnbkr
May 24, 2005, 11:52 AM
Why just the "southern border"? Why isn't anyone concerned about the illegal aliens flying into, for example, Chicago? Oh, wait, they are Poles and Irish. If you say "security", then how about the guy that Customs caught at the Canadian border planning the 2000 incident?
I support securing ALL of our borders, but the mythical "Poles and Irish" aren't trashing my neighborhood at the moment, hence my silence regarding them.

BTW, we need an 11th point: No State or Local government can refuse to enforce laws pertaining to Immigration, nor can they protect known illegal immigrants. Fairfax, Va and Montgomery County, Md (and others) not only welcome illegals, but they also give them protection from prosecution based on their immigration status.

Chris

MikeIsaj
May 24, 2005, 11:52 AM
For what it's worth, let me offer a perspective that was shared with me.

My Dad was in the hospital and had a nurses aid with him 24/7 due to his confusion and getting out of bed. I was talking to one of these aids, a young Nigerian lady, and the subject was immigration. She was telling me how difficult it was for her to get a work visa, even though she had a marketable skill and an offer of employment. When she got here she made a big mistake. She chose to leave her children with their grandparents while she got established. She is now in a desperate uphill battle with INS to allow her children to come here.

She is absolutely beside herself every time she hears about all these illegals coming in and getting better treatment than she, a legal immigrant, does. She thinks it is insulting to her that she worked so hard to get here and now pays taxes to provide services to these illegals.

I thought it was interesting to hear the opinion of a legal immigrant on this issue. I was also surprised at what that opinion was.

mtnbkr
May 24, 2005, 11:58 AM
Yup. I think the hurdles a legal immigrant has to jump through are insane.

I'd love to see Legal Immigration made easier and Illegal Immigration made difficult and painful (legally, not physically).

Chris

Waitone
May 24, 2005, 12:06 PM
She is absolutely beside herself every time she hears about all these illegals coming in and getting better treatment than she, a legal immigrant, does. She thinks it is insulting to her that she worked so hard to get here and now pays taxes to provide services to these illegals. . . . . . and that is precisely why I support (as one component of an immigration plan) the idea of paying bounties to LEGAL immigrants to drop a dime on ILLEGAL immigrants.

Every legal immigrant I've known gets tight-jawed when discussing preferrential treatment illegal immigrants get.

longeyes
May 24, 2005, 12:11 PM
She was telling me how difficult it was for her to get a work visa, even though she had a marketable skill and an offer of employment.

Who is being allowed to come to this country and why is an important issue that is often not discussed as it should be.

A wise and sane nation would seek immigrants who can best further its own values and build upon its strengths. That means education, skills, attitudes, values, cultural congruency.

Instead, we are following a policy, openly or tacitly, of inviting immigrants who either serve the corporatist needs for cheap unskilled labor or the needs of agenda-driven "immigrant rights" groups or, pehaps worst, feed the vast and growing social welfare establishment that needs all the "customers" and "clients" it can drum up.

Art Eatman
May 24, 2005, 03:42 PM
Someone help me in my confusion: Is not "Aztlan" a shorhand for "Aztec Lands"? That's my understanding, anyway.

Now, the archaeologist folks tell us that the Aztec lands were around Mexico City, and did not extend outward for any great distance. This makes sense, for as one travels northward, one finds desert. Chihuahua. Sonora. Baja California. Even Tamaulipas is irrigation-only farming country.

Since Aztecs weren't within many hundreds of miles of Texas or New Mexico or Arizona or California, how is it, then, "reconquista"? How do you "re-conquer" where you never were?

Please help--or is there, actually, any rational explanation for all this self-deception?

:), Art

Waitone
May 24, 2005, 03:57 PM
Virulent ideologies as they develop tend to develop a mythology of their history. For that matter they also tend to develop a religion (though it is never described as such) around their development. Communists and Nazis devloped a mythology supporting their ideology. Aztlan is no different. The more extreme and improbable an ideology the more extreme the mythology.

longeyes
May 24, 2005, 04:22 PM
Anyplace anyone ever said, "Como?" is part of Aztlan. That now includes Hartford, CT and Waukegan, IL.

Art's point is well-taken. I don't remember any Sun God-inspired human sacrificing in Hollywood--except on a movie set.

wingman
May 24, 2005, 04:42 PM
Instead, we are following a policy, openly or tacitly, of inviting immigrants who either serve the corporatist needs for cheap unskilled labor or the needs of agenda-driven "immigrant rights" groups or, pehaps worst, feed the vast and growing social welfare establishment that needs all the "customers" and "clients" it can drum up.


Correct, in my very simply terms Greed, Greed, Greed, many do not care
what happens to America it is in fact a place to make money, not a home.

Gordon Fink
May 24, 2005, 05:04 PM
What is the meaning of the word Aztlan? (http://www.azteca.net/aztec/aztlan.html)

Eden, Atlantis, etc.

~G. Fink

Art Eatman
May 24, 2005, 06:27 PM
"This myth roughly coincides with the known history of the Aztecs as a barbarous horde that migrated from present-day northwestern Mexico into the central plateau sometime toward the end of the first millennium AD..."

Well, I'd say they got the "barbarous horde" part correct, for sure...

NW Mexico, hmmm? As in somewhere south of Nogales? Or Hermosillo? Or Durango? It sure wasn't a bunch of Aztecs sittin' around LA when the first Spaniards arrived...

Y'know, when ya pack up and abandon a place, it ain't yours, no mo'. Adios, sayonara, see ya down the road...

:barf:

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Immigration Reform: 10 Point Proposal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!