Illegal immigration and national consciousness


PDA






Preacherman
January 1, 2006, 01:01 PM
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article in today's Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007751):

Mi Casa Es Su Casa

America's porous border enables Mexico's misrule.

BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Sunday, January 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

SELMA, Calif.--"Shameful," screams Mexico's President Vicente Fox, about the proposed extension of a security fence along the southern border of the U.S. "Stupid! Underhanded! Xenophobic!" bellowed his foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, warning: "Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall."

The allusions to the Berlin Wall made by aggrieved Mexican politicians miss the irony: The communists tried to keep their own people in, not illegal aliens out. More embarrassing still, the comparison boomerangs on Mexico, since it, and not the U.S., more resembles East Germany in alienating its own citizens to the point that they flee at any cost. If anything might be termed stupid, underhanded or xenophobic in the illegal immigration debacle, it is the conduct of the Mexican government.

"Stupid" characterizes a government that sits atop vast mineral and petroleum reserves, enjoys a long coastline, temperate climate, rich agricultural plains--and either cannot or will not make the necessary political and economic reforms to feed and house its own people. The election of Vicente Fox, Nafta and cosmetic changes in banking and jurisprudence have not stopped the corruption or stemmed the exodus of millions of Mexicans.

"Underhanded" also sums up the stance of Mexico, masquerading in humanitarian terms the abjectly immoral export of its own dispossessed. Indeed, such cynicism directly protects the status quo in three critical ways. The flight of the poor is Mexico's aberrant version of Fredrick Jackson Turner's safety-valve theory of the frontier. But instead of homesteaders heading west, the impoverished go northward, preferring simply to leave rather than change their government.

Mexico receives between $10 billion and $15 billion in annual remittances from illegal aliens in the U.S., a subsidy that not only masks political failure at home, but comes at great cost to its expatriates abroad. After all, such massive transfers of capital must be made up from somewhere. Poor workers who send half their wages to kin are forced to make do in a high-priced U.S. through two exigencies--they lower their standard of living here while often depending on state and local governments for supplemental housing, education, medical and food aid.

Rarely in the great debate over illegal immigration do we frame the issue in such moral terms: If life back home is improving thanks to money wired back, first-generation Mexican enclaves in the U.S. remain chronically poor, not investing where they live and work.

Mexico senses that the longer its poor are away from Mexico, the more likely they are to grow sentimental about a homeland that they can visit but need not return to. In short, the growing Mexican expatriate community offers valuable political leverage with the U.S. As the politics demand, the community can be characterized either as poor and exploited to shame the U.S., or as successful and industrious to claim credit for the economic boom up north. In our Orwellian world, the welfare of the neglected of Mexico warrants more concern from their government when they are no longer in Mexico.

How did we get to this impasse--where Americans would embrace such a retrograde solution as building a fence, or Mexico would routinely slander its northern neighbor? The answer is the vast size of the illegal population--now over 10 million--and the inability or unwillingness of the U.S. government to sanction employers or deploy sufficient resources to enforce the border. Sheer numbers has evolved the debate far beyond the old "We need labor" and "They have workers," to something like, "Can the U.S. remain a sovereign nation with borders at all?"

With a few thousand crossing illegally each year we could all look the other way. Free-market libertarians could lecture that illegal immigrants toned up the labor market and helped us avoid the demographic stasis that Europe now suffers. Critics of illegal immigration--who complained that their property on the border was vandalized, or that their relatives from India and the Philippines waited patiently while others cut in front of the immigration line--were written off as racists and worse.

Americans liked their food cooked, yards kept and dishes washed cheaply--as long as the invisible workers with little education, less English and no legal status stayed invisible, and as long as illegal immigration could not directly be linked to plummeting public school test scores in the Southwest or 15,000 prison inmates in the California penal system. But somewhere around the year 2000 a tipping point was reached. The dialogue changed when the number of illegals outnumbered the population of entire states. There also began a moral transformation in the controversy, with the ethical tables turned on the proponents of de facto open borders.

Employers were no longer seen as helping either the U.S. economy or poor immigrants, but rather as being party to exploitation that made a mockery of the law, ossified the real minimum wage, undermined unions and hurt poorer American citizens. The American consumer discovered that illegal immigration was a fool's bargain--reaping the benefits of cheap labor upfront, but paying far more later on through increased subsidies for often ill-housed and poorly educated laborers who had no benefits.

Nor is the evolving debate framed so much any more as left-versus-right, but as the more privileged at odds with the middle and lower classes. On one side are the elite print media, the courts and a few politicians fronting for employer and ethnic interests; on the other are the far more numerous, and raucous, talk-radio listeners, bloggers and cable news watchers, the ballot propositions, and populist state legislators who better reflect the angry pulse of the country.

Those who own farms and run hotels, who hire nannies and housecleaners, who head Washington lobbying organizations, and who staff the Mexican ministries, really do need the millions of illegals that in so many different ways serve their needs. But the American poor who wish to organize for better wages; the reformers in Mexico who need pressure on the Mexican government; and the middle class, which pay the taxes and tries to obey the letter of the law, are increasingly against illegal immigration. And they no longer much worry over being slurred, by their illiberal critics, as nativist.

So the world is upside down. The once liberal notion of ignoring illegal immigration is now seen as cynically illiberal. And taking drastic steps to enforce the law--including something seemingly as absurd as a vast fence--is now seen as more ethical than the current subterfuge that undermines the legal system of the nation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal immigration and national consciousness" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rick_reno
January 1, 2006, 01:07 PM
I doubt the fence will ever be built - it doesn't fit with the Bush "guest worker" program.

Lupinus
January 1, 2006, 01:12 PM
"Stupid! Underhanded! Xenophobic!" bellowed his foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, warning: "Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall."
Them there is fightin words mister foreign secretary. What you going to o move more mexican soldiers to patrol our side of the boarder? :rolleyes: Oh sorry thats right mexican soldiers would never cross to our side of the boarder right? Maybe go ahead and sabotage or attack it? Lots of big talk from a little man and I actually laughed when I read the warning.

Moondoggie
January 1, 2006, 01:22 PM
I agree with this author completely.

For my part I have contacted all three of my elected representatives and told them that stopping illegal entry into the US from Mexico is my number one issue and my vote will depend upon their positions on this issue.

Fox is howling like a wounded water buffalo because he knows that if we significantly curtail the exodus from his craphole 3rd world excuse for a country his gov't and the gravey train for him and his ilk will come to a screeching halt. Of course, he'll be doing fine in exile somewhere enjoying his Swiss Bank Account millions.

No country in the history of the world would put up with the crap we're swallowing from Mexico.

Rem700SD
January 1, 2006, 01:41 PM
+1 great article

Old Fuff
January 1, 2006, 01:54 PM
As one who lives on the U.S./Mexican border I will say that this writer is 100% right, and has hit the nail on the head. Without question the issue will affect the outcome of elections in this country during 2006 and 08. :banghead:

RealGun
January 1, 2006, 03:11 PM
I doubt the fence will ever be built - it doesn't fit with the Bush "guest worker" program.

Not to mention any budget to pay for it. In any case, it should be secondary to removing incentives to come to this country by other than formal methods.

LAK
January 1, 2006, 03:36 PM
Can't have any fences in the new Pan Americas.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Ledhead686
January 1, 2006, 04:01 PM
"Hispanic-American" (see how pc I am? :rolleyes: ) orgs such as La Raza openly brag about how they're gradually taking back the Southwest from the gringos, one acre at a time. When Minutemen have the audacity to attempt to bring the issue of totally porous borders to national attention, they're branded as racist by Bush and Rice. (Personally, I believe Bush -- his party giving up any hope whatsoever of garnering the lion's share of the black vote -- is after the hispanic vote to help offset this political disadvantage).

It absolutely floors me that illegal aliens in Ca. are "entitled" to driver's licences, social security benefits (to which they've contributed absolutely nothing), and other forms of state aid. Mind-blowing it is...

btw -- does anyone here know the rationale of forking over public funds to illegal aliens? I've searched high and low all over the net and can't find anything on it's justification. Also -- can anyone give an example of any other country in history committing national suicide in this manner?...or are we the first?

wingman
January 1, 2006, 04:12 PM
does anyone here know the rationale of forking over public funds to illegal aliens? I've searched high and low all over the net and can't find anything on it's justification. Also -- can anyone give an example of any other country in history committing national suicide in this manner?...or are we the first?



Justification is for the wealthy to have taxpayer subsidized labor and yes,I agree it is national suicide having lived on and near the border a large number of years I have seen first hand the results in our schools, hospitals and the courts. We are in fact building a third world, importing under educated workers and exporting manufacturing jobs all over the world, in the end it will have bad results for American, while short term profits for some is high there is always a price for greed.

I would build the fence and include as part of the package the training of military troops on the border.

armoredman
January 1, 2006, 04:25 PM
To heck with the fence - invade.

swampsniper
January 1, 2006, 04:27 PM
Don't ask me for dates and fine details these days, my brain is wearing out!:D
This all stems from the day that some of the major banks loaned Mexico enough money to keep going, so, whatever it takes to keep their investment profitable is what is going to happen.
We run around with all our little silly ideas about patriotism, and saving our national identity, someone else sees it all as the bottom line in the ledger.
We are going to debate about building fences and securing borders, Mexico and the rest of South America will throw a hissy fit, and in the end, nothing is going to change.
The only way to get our Nation back is to just rise up, and demand it, but, we won't!

Ledhead686
January 1, 2006, 04:35 PM
I would build the fence and include as part of the package the training of military troops on the border.
Great idea. We could use the border more or less as a range where Army and Marine snipers hone their skills on live, moving targets. My guess is that illegal border crossings would taper off just a tad. ;)

RealGun
January 1, 2006, 04:42 PM
btw -- does anyone here know the rationale of forking over public funds to illegal aliens? I've searched high and low all over the net and can't find anything on it's justification. Also -- can anyone give an example of any other country in history committing national suicide in this manner?...or are we the first?

I believe the problem is that public service organizations are not entitled to ask for proof of citizenship. If they were, they would have to do it 100% rather than rely upon any racial profiling. It may be that our precious rights and political correctness are our enemy here. Even the solution is offensive, because people do not like the idea of being asked for their papers, needing to have any papers, or having personal details in some database accessible by who knows who.

In any case, the national ID card is a done deal, effective today I believe.

Ledhead686
January 1, 2006, 04:47 PM
We are going to debate about building fences and securing borders, Mexico and the rest of South America will throw a hissy fit, and in the end, nothing is going to change. The only way to get our Nation back is to just rise up, and demand it, but, we won't!Exactly. I can just hear the charges of racism and xenophobia being leveled at the turd world's sugar-daddy for having the gall to stop the influx of freeloading illegals who could give a rat's patoot about assimilating into what's left of American culture.

pax
January 1, 2006, 05:08 PM
I just want to point out, sadly but with exact truth, that the extremely high cost of maintaining a secure border was one of the things that drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

pax

ken grant
January 1, 2006, 05:18 PM
A contractor charges you $20,000 to do a job. He pays his workers $15-$20 an hour. The workers in turn pay both Fed. and State income taxes.
They both pay into S.S. and in a lot of cases insurance.

Then the contractor changes over to illegal workers and pays them $5-$10 an hour cash under the table. No taxes,No S.S and no insurance.
The taxpayers pay for free medical care, help with rent and utilities.
The contractor saves a lot of money and also puts more into his pocket.
You don't save anything because he still charges you $20,000 to do the job.

Standing Wolf
January 1, 2006, 06:49 PM
I just want to point out, sadly but with exact truth, that the extremely high cost of maintaining a secure border was one of the things that drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

True, although I'd guess the Soviet Union was more concerned about keeping people inside than preventing them from entering the workers' paradise.

The cost of maintaining the nation's borders could be largely underwritten by fining people who employ illegal aliens. Checking social security and driving license numbers, for example, couldn't possibly cost 1% as much as the TSA spends on airport so-called "security."

TallPine
January 1, 2006, 07:03 PM
pax, perhaps we could just invade Mexico instead, and effect a regime change and install a more democratic govt ;)

we always seem to have plenty of money for that sort of thing :uhoh:

rick_reno
January 1, 2006, 08:14 PM
Not to mention any budget to pay for it. In any case, it should be secondary to removing incentives to come to this country by other than formal methods.

You must not be paying attention to the way this administration spends money it doesn't have. Print more, borrow more...money concerns won't stop the fence - the national agenda will.

RealGun
January 1, 2006, 08:45 PM
You must not be paying attention to the way this administration spends money it doesn't have. Print more, borrow more...money concerns won't stop the fence - the national agenda will.

Actually budget cuts were one of the last things addressed and passed before the holiday break. There isn't going to be any fence, so there is no point in sparring over it. I think it is more likely that money will be spent on some technological "solution". I don't know if satellites are capable of infrared pictures, but something along those lines is what I have in mind.

A fence wouldn't do any good if there was no resolve to shoot anybody coming over it.

Hawkmoon
January 1, 2006, 09:53 PM
Pax, I think Russia had a lot more border to protect than our southern border. And we have a lot of military bases in states like California, Arizona, and Texas. Those troops must do something all day besides play volleyball. Why aren't they "training" with loaded weapons along the border? just don't see a huge cost involved in ratcheting up security by several notches.

longeyes
January 1, 2006, 09:57 PM
We need at least two fences: one on the southern border, another around Washington, D.C.

Any southern fence will pay for itself in no time in terms of expenses saved.

Lupinus
January 1, 2006, 10:02 PM
I just want to point out, sadly but with exact truth, that the extremely high cost of maintaining a secure border was one of the things that drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.
True, but several differences.

One- The boarders of the Soviet Union were considerably larger then those between the US and Mexico. The boarer between the US and Mexico is nothing compared to the boarders of the USSR.

Two- They were more focused on keeping people in and out rather then simply out. It's much easier to keep people out then in, we just want to keep them out, the USSR wanted to keep them both in and out.

Three and most importantly- Massive amounts of defense and military. What we need simply is a fence/wall, guard towers, cameras, patrols, and centers that would act as bases/HQ's to moniter the cameras and cordnate things in their asigned strech of wall. The USSR aside from civilians were focused on keeping out military invasions. Tanks, much larger numbers of man power then we would need, mine fields, etc. While Mexican military does sneak onto our side of the boarder I doubt highly they would have the gual to launch an outright military invasion of the US(while they are invading in a sense, I am speaking literal military). The Texans would kick the chit out of them....and thats not even counting the Texas NG or the Federal Military :D. So where they were focused on civilian and also the extreamly costly military, we need to focus only on the much cheaper civilian.

QuickDraw
January 1, 2006, 10:38 PM
It absolutely floors me that illegal aliens in Ca. are "entitled" to driver's licences,

Uhhh,
Not to split hairs,but we're not there yet.
Its still easier to get a D.L in other states.

Ledhead686
January 1, 2006, 10:46 PM
I believe the problem is that public service organizations are not entitled to ask for proof of citizenship. If they were, they would have to do it 100% rather than rely upon any racial profiling. An American citizen has to show some form of ID when applying for federal/state funds -- same as when applying for a driver's license. And it's done "100%" of the time. If illegals somehow find their sense of self-esteem "offended" :eek: by such blatant effrontery on the part of their newfound chump hosts when attempting to board Uncle Sam's gravy train, I say "tough feces."

Is it considered "racial profiling" when asked for proof that you are in fact legally entitled to benefits supposedly set aside for US citizens, and US citizens only? Maybe from a leftie's p.o.v...

Now there's an idea. How about making a trade-off? For every illegal who crosses the border into the US, we allow a bleeding heart libby to cross the border into Mexico and stay there, in order that he may show his solidarity for these poor unfortunates. Sound good?

Standing Wolf
January 1, 2006, 11:04 PM
For every illegal who crosses the border into the US, we allow a bleeding heart libby to cross the border into Mexico and stay there, in order that he may show his solidarity for these poor unfortunates. Sound good?

It sounds excellent! Unfortunately, few, if any leftist extremists would be willing to live in a third world hell hole with little in the way of capitalist luxuries.

Ledhead686
January 1, 2006, 11:10 PM
It sounds excellent! Unfortunately, few, if any leftist extremists would be willing to live in a third world hell hole with little in the way of capitalist luxuries.Of course not. They're much more comfortable pontificating to the masses from their cozy little Ivory Towers, casting aspersions on the "un-enlightened." :rolleyes:

Hypocrites to the extreme...

LAK
January 2, 2006, 07:35 AM
Pax, I think Russia had a lot more border to protect than our southern border. And we have a lot of military bases in states like California, Arizona, and Texas. Those troops must do something all day besides play volleyball. Why aren't they "training" with loaded weapons along the border? just don't see a huge cost involved in ratcheting up security by several notches.
And Russia was largely bankrupted by a corrupt colossos of a government that was merged with organized crime. If one single department of our government can not account for 2.6 trillion dollars, imagine how much was waste, lost and siphoned out of th entire Russian economy over several decades.

The cost of securing our borders should not be that high. In addition to the State national Guard units and Reserves, we already have a Coastguard, Navy, Air Force, Army that are already being paid, fed, housed, maintained, transported around, and trained in ongoing exercizes etc.

It shouldn't cost any more to have them paid, fed, tented where necessary and transported around the borders instead of anywhere else in the CONUS. And it should be far cheaper than moving them around the globe elsewhere.

This administration, like the others, will make plenty of lame excuses why "we have not", "can not" or "should not" almost completely secure our borders. The simple fact is that they do not want our borders to be completely secure, because it conflicts with an ongoing geo-political agenda.
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Preacherman
January 2, 2006, 11:15 AM
Heck, to pay for a border fence, simply tax all monies sent back to Mexico or other countries by illegal immigrants (obviously, legal immigrants would have to prove their status to avoid paying the tax). A tax rate of 50% sounds about right to me. Also, tax all funds made available as aid by our government to South American countries whose citizens are here illegally - again, a 50% tax rate sounds OK. Use the monies so collected to build the fence. Problem solved!

RealGun
January 2, 2006, 01:23 PM
Heck, to pay for a border fence, simply tax all monies sent back to Mexico or other countries by illegal immigrants (obviously, legal immigrants would have to prove their status to avoid paying the tax). A tax rate of 50% sounds about right to me. Also, tax all funds made available as aid by our government to South American countries whose citizens are here illegally - again, a 50% tax rate sounds OK. Use the monies so collected to build the fence. Problem solved!

What rights of privacy would have to be overcome? The bank doing a transfer is not aware of immigration status, and it's not their place to disclose transactions to the government. How do you make it their job to collect the tax or check immigration status without asking ALL customers for their papers? First we have to have "papers".

How do you avoid retaliation against bona fide US citizens sending money into rather than out of the country?

JohnPaulJones
January 2, 2006, 01:35 PM
Even the solution is offensive, because people do not like the idea of being asked for their papers, needing to have any papers, or having personal details in some database accessible by who knows who.

In any case, the national ID card is a done deal, effective today I believe.

It's interesting because as an American citizen I'm routinely subjected to Big Brother intrusions and for now inconveniences, like pistol licensing. However, it seems our amigos here illegally, and in a state of legal noncompliance don't seem to have very much to fear:

The Mexican Dream (http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20051229/NEWS/51229002)

Enrique’s life in Colorado also isn’t without worries. Every day when he drives to work, he’s afraid the police will stop him.

“One time, they pulled me over and I showed (the police) a Mexican drivers license they let me go,” he said.

:fire: I, an AMERICAN BORN CITIZEN have never once been pulled over and NOT been issued a summons by the enforcing agency. Even for something bs like a brake light out, no matter what it is, I had to produce a valid license, registration and insurance card! But that's understandable I guess, because as an American it's implicitly understood that I'm also a sucker.

I wonder though, would gringos driving south of the border with an American driver's license be "let go" by the Mexican authorities??? :confused:

longeyes
January 2, 2006, 01:35 PM
This administration, like the others, will make plenty of lame excuses why "we have not", "can not" or "should not" almost completely secure our borders. The simple fact is that they do not want our borders to be completely secure, because it conflicts with an ongoing geo-political agenda.

In a word.

Our banks are part of the problem. A big part. First it's questionable money laundering (narco $), now it's foreign transfers.

LAK
January 4, 2006, 09:30 AM
In a word.

Our banks are part of the problem. A big part. First it's questionable money laundering (narco $), now it's foreign transfers.
Banks are no doubt a part of it. But the Bush, and other administrations, have long been way too cozy with a government as corrupt as that of Mexico. I think it is more than just the banks.
-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 09:55 AM
In a word.

Our banks are part of the problem. A big part. First it's questionable money laundering (narco $), now it's foreign transfers.

I believe you might have to intrude on the right of privacy in the name of fighting crime. Do we need more of that? The banks aren't doing anything wrong.

Biker
January 4, 2006, 10:17 AM
I believe you might have to intrude on the right of privacy in the name of fighting crime. Do we need more of that? The banks aren't doing anything wrong.
Sure they are. For example, Wells Fargo accepts the Matricula Consular card for ID which is only needed by illegals. Hence, they're essentially aiding and abetting.
Biker

QuickDraw
January 4, 2006, 10:29 AM
How do illegals open checking accounts with no
SS number?
I've always had to show Id,SS.
Bias in banking?

QuickDraw

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 10:51 AM
Sure they are. For example, Wells Fargo accepts the Matricula Consular card for ID which is only needed by illegals. Hence, they're essentially aiding and abetting.
Biker

What law is being broken? Does one have to be an account holder to transfer funds, or can the person present cash? Do "legals" launder money for illegals? What power would enable tracking these transactions?

Biker
January 4, 2006, 10:56 AM
How do illegals open checking accounts with no
SS number?
I've always had to show Id,SS.
Bias in banking?

QuickDraw

Check this out:

www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/matriculaconsular.htm

Biker

longeyes
January 4, 2006, 11:59 AM
It's clear enough that good business opportunities appear to matter more than upholding the law, upholding citizenship, upholding sovereignty. That's true for service businesses, including banks. It's true for much of Congress. It's certainly true for this Administration.

I'm not sure, frankly, how many American citizens themselves just shrug when the issue of illegality comes up.

Not a good sign for our society.

wingman
January 4, 2006, 12:06 PM
Let me see, local border town has pop. of 30,000 with over 12 banks,
nope nothing wrong here, just plain old honest business folk.:rolleyes:

Sheldon J
January 5, 2006, 03:03 AM
A contractor charges you $20,000 to do a job. He pays his workers $15-$20 an hour. The workers in turn pay both Fed. and State income taxes.
They both pay into S.S. and in a lot of cases insurance.

Then the contractor changes over to illegal workers and pays them $5-$10 an hour cash under the table. No taxes,No S.S and no insurance.
The taxpayers pay for free medical care, help with rent and utilities.
The contractor saves a lot of money and also puts more into his pocket.
You don't save anything because he still charges you $20,000 to do the job.
Damn have I ever seen this happen more than once, BTY you forgot that the quality of the work takes a ****** as well. :cuss:

Heck, to pay for a border fence, simply tax all monies sent back to Mexico or other countries by illegal immigrants (obviously, legal immigrants would have to prove their status to avoid paying the tax). A tax rate of 50% sounds about right to me. Also, tax all funds made available as aid by our government to South American countries whose citizens are here illegally - again, a 50% tax rate sounds OK. Use the monies so collected to build the fence. Problem solved!

All they have to do is ask any (leagal) Texan, Arizonian, or NM resident & they would gladly donate towards the project, I live in Mi and I would gladly kick in a C note to get er done.:evil:

LAK
January 5, 2006, 03:33 AM
I believe you might have to intrude on the right of privacy in the name of fighting crime. Do we need more of that? The banks aren't doing anything wrong.
Well, I am being matter of fact. I believe that government shouldn't have access to the personal financial information of anyone without a warrant - including their banking activities. Sort of along the lines of the old Swiss banking operations.

But considering that it has been common knowledge for a very long time that corruption has been, and is, rife within the Mexican government, the relationship between our government officials and theirs is suspiciously cozy to me.

Part of the recent agreement signed by George Bush, Paul Martin and Vicente Fox includes a move towards direct co-operation, shared information and databases between the different agencies of the U.S., Canada and Mexico - all in the name of fighting the "war on terror" and crime in general. This supposedly so "security" can be resigned to a common Pan America exterior border, which implies less attention to the national borders on the inside.

As if our agencies and agents have not been exposed to enough corruption as it is, now they are to be systematically amalgamated with the rot-infested agencies of Mexico.

For people like George Bush, and those before him, to move this overall agenda right along indicates that there is something drastically wrong.
-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

wingman
January 5, 2006, 09:58 AM
As if our agencies and agents have not been exposed to enough corruption as it is, now they are to be systematically amalgamated with the rot-infested agencies of Mexico.



Correct, a corrupt society that is in fact moving north.:banghead:

cz75bdneos22
January 5, 2006, 07:49 PM
Correct, a corrupt society that is in fact moving north.:banghead:

What!!!i don't believe you said that...oh! well...YMMV

spartacus2002
January 5, 2006, 09:01 PM
What!!!i don't believe you said that...oh! well...YMMV

http://www.cjjohns.com/c_law/mordida.html

RealGun
January 8, 2006, 06:24 PM
Sure they are. For example, Wells Fargo accepts the Matricula Consular card for ID which is only needed by illegals. Hence, they're essentially aiding and abetting.
Biker

This didn't make sense to me, so I did a little research. The following article covers the basics of this type of ID in the context of banking:

http://www.bankersonline.com/articles/bhv12n10/bhv12n10a1.html

While the Matricula Consular may be held by many illegal aliens, they are not the only ones who can benefit from it or who could obtain one.

I also talked to my niece, who is a bank manager specializing in Spanish language support. She said they accept Matricula Consular (in SC). They only do transfers for account holders. To open an account, a person needs two forms of ID. She also said they can obtain a SSN on behalf of the account holder. This would be needed for an interest bearing account.

From what I have read, I would have to agree that banks are finding ways to tap that market, but what they are doing is entirely legal. I also note that the Patriot Act somewhat addresses this issue. It wouldn't surprise me to see eliminating of recognition of the Matricula Consular card as a provision of new laws addressing illegal immigration. It would certainly be a way of making illegals feel less welcome here.

Part of the problem would be the need to confront Mexico about how they enable all this tapping of the US economy. Any "amnesty" plan should specify that any money earned here should be spent here. Otherwise it is no benefit to our economy. That would mean that not just anyone can send money out of the country.

My niece also mentioned that while the bank doesn't do transfers of cash, only account balances, one can get an international money order using cash at many other places. Our local Mexican restaurant issues them, for example.

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 07:12 PM
Any "amnesty" plan should specify that any money earned here should be spent here. Otherwise it is no benefit to our economy.

Our goal should be to see America prosper, to see labor and investment produce a better America. Improving the lot of people in Mexico should not be a priority here. That's the business of Mexico. Mexicans are not thinking about what benefits us and the U.S. taxpayer.

The Pan-American troika that Bush has in mind is a joke. Commonality means commonality of values, not land mass. Do we have that with either Mexico OR Canada right now? Highly questionable. It is one thing to trade with people, quite another to bed down with them socially and economically.

Phyphor
January 8, 2006, 07:23 PM
Heck, to pay for a border fence, simply tax all monies sent back to Mexico or other countries by illegal immigrants (obviously, legal immigrants would have to prove their status to avoid paying the tax). A tax rate of 50% sounds about right to me. Also, tax all funds made available as aid by our government to South American countries whose citizens are here illegally - again, a 50% tax rate sounds OK. Use the monies so collected to build the fence. Problem solved!

Yea, and any drug monies siezed from illegals is immediately funneled into the funds for the building and maintenence of the wall. :evil:

JAMES77257
January 8, 2006, 09:05 PM
"Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall."


Sweet, George on the way back from Iraq, send the troops through Mexico, it shouldn't take more than a week.:evil:

longeyes
January 8, 2006, 10:39 PM
If you're waiting for George to do it, you're in for disappointment.

I suspect Bush wants to get his "guest worker" program in place before Vicente Fox is out of office.

Woodland_Annie
January 9, 2006, 11:55 AM
This guest worker program is a joke. You're good enough to come to this country and work for sub-par wages and live on the bottom rungs of society, but you're not good enough to stay and raise your family here. And become Americans.

I say, ":cuss:!!!"

Either open the border or close it. As the descendant of immigrants, I tend to say, "Open it." If they would have had illegal immigrants when my ancestors came over, they were escaping famine and war, and would likely have been kept out because they didn't fit the desirable WASP-ish characteristics of the nativists.

One warm day in San Francisco, I sat in a courtroom awaiting a hearing on a friend's extradition case (they won it and live and work happily in this country now) and listened in on the numerous cases of Mexicans and Central Americans. It must have been "sentencing day" in that courtroom because nobody was there for more than five minutes. For those who had committed crimes in this country, they were sentenced to the usual number of years, with the addition of deportation once their sentences were completed. Now why didn't the judge just order them deported immediately? Everyone complains about wasting our tax dollars; what could be more waste than that?:banghead:

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 12:05 PM
Don't expect the rural backwaters of Ohio to stay rural much longer if you open the borders. You can expect a MASSIVE influx of Mexican immigrants, all expecting social welfare assistance for the families they can't support on those jobs Americans allegedly don't want, if and when Bush and Congress give a wink and a nod to unrestricted immigration. This is economic, social, and cultural folly; in a time of national insecurity it is criminal. Other nations are restricting border crossing; we, thanks to The Few, seem to know better. For once we don't.

wingman
January 9, 2006, 12:07 PM
Either open the border or close it. As the descendant of immigrants, I tend to say, "Open it."

The question remains how many can America "take in", what is our limits,
with a growing third world pop. and most want to come here what is the
answer. Can you as a home owner have an open door policy and survive,
the simply answer is, no.

carlrodd
January 9, 2006, 12:17 PM
here is something to consider: is there anyone that is looking to run for the presidency that seems intent upon switching gears with all of this.....not just the illegal immigration prob specifically, but intent upon changing the nature of our relationship with the leadership in mexico....holding them accountable, making governmental reform in mexico the most profitable option...the only option? as much of a disaster as it will be in other ways, i have a sneaking suspicion that we could see another clinton in office in 2008.....any notion of where she stands on this?

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 12:24 PM
Hillary? On illegal immigration? Guess.

I think that given the unfortunate alienation of the taxpaying class from the political class our only hope for serious immigration reform and control lies with political mavericks, backed by public support. Tom Tancredo comes to mind.

It remains to be seen how much support for controlling the borders there really is within the Republican Party. I am very, very skeptical that the current leadership of either party is of much use on this issue.

Woodland_Annie
January 9, 2006, 01:01 PM
Well, let me start by saying there are no simple solutions. If there were, the problem would have been resolved long ago.;)

In my neck of the woods we "host" lots of Mexican immigrants working the vineyards our Governor claims as being the backbone of the economy. So, even in an area which boasted single-digit unemployment during the 1990's, there are illegals being trucked in to pick the grapes. How does the winery benefit our local economy when only the grower makes money?

US policy in many countries (mostly fueled by our insatiable desire for oil) has often been a major factor in those nations' economies. Mexico is a prime example and has been since we took a big chunk of their northwestern territory and called it the US southwest since the 1848 war in Mexico.

If we restrict immigration, do we only accept immigrants from "nice" countries? Countries of governments we are friendly with (which changes daily it seems - witness Iraq and Afghanistan)? Do we only allow rich people in from other countries? Do we accept only the people of a certain religion or skin color or political philosophy?

Or do you go by a strict number? Say, 1,000 per year from everywhere. The 1,001st person gets a free trip back home. BTW the number is just a number I threw out at random. But that would be the only fair and impartial way to prevent overpopulating the US, wouldn't it?

It seems simplistic, but so is closing the border or building a fence and staffing it with military who are needed elsewhere (like Iraq and Afghanistan).

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 01:58 PM
US policy in many countries (mostly fueled by our insatiable desire for oil) has often been a major factor in those nations' economies. Mexico is a prime example and has been since we took a big chunk of their northwestern territory and called it the US southwest since the 1848 war in Mexico.

You mean if Mexico had kept that territory things would have been radically different Down There? Mexico is the result of its values and its culture. Transpose those values and that culture anywhere and you will get "Mexico." And that, slowly but surely, is exactly what we are getting Up Here.

As for who we should take in, well, we ought to have a say in that, don't you think? Let's take in the people we need, who can help make a stronger America. That would be the rational approach.

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 02:02 PM
If we restrict immigration, do we only accept immigrants from "nice" countries? Countries of governments we are friendly with (which changes daily it seems - witness Iraq and Afghanistan)? Do we only allow rich people in from other countries? Do we accept only the people of a certain religion or skin color or political philosophy?

Or do you go by a strict number? Say, 1,000 per year from everywhere. The 1,001st person gets a free trip back home. BTW the number is just a number I threw out at random. But that would be the only fair and impartial way to prevent overpopulating the US, wouldn't it?

A modest proposal:

We take in people who are likely to enhance America. I happen to believe that means people of like mind, of like values, and, yes, of like culture. People who don't value America's core principles and won't further them are not great candidates for keeping the America we want.

carlrodd
January 9, 2006, 02:26 PM
As for who we should take in, well, we ought to have a say in that, don't you think? Let's take in the people we need, who can help make a stronger America. That would be the rational approach.

that would be ideal...if we could somehow determine which immigrants would be productive and share core values. impossible though. how could we do that when we have millions of totally unproductive 'citizens'? we need to address our own welfare system immediately and with a very heavy hand i think. our way of thinking about ne'er do wells is terribly flawed. go visit any urban center in this country. apparently it's easier for the federal govt to provide millions of people with enough to live rather than to force them to shape up.....and i do mean force. there is a whole world of possibilities when it comes to addressing that problem. it seems to me that if we can't even get a handle on the parasites in our citizenry, then we will always be hard pressed to come up with solutions to the immigration problem. our government, and our people...we are far too situated and comfortable to do much of anything that means anything these days. the only stands our leaders are willing to take are against problems 10,000 miles away, and even then we are afraid to be ruthless and efficient and complete.

so seriously...what can be done?...about the immigration problem, our welfare system etc. as someone already mentioned, who that might be elected will shake things up?....nobody. what are the options we have for change here? is something like this site our only outlet? are we simply supposed to be content voicing our concerns in this manner?

Biker
January 9, 2006, 02:33 PM
See the sites in my sig for a place to start. For example, numbersusa allows you to send free faxes to your state congress-critters and senators, even the POTUS. The pols are starting to listen. We can fight back.
Biker

Woodland_Annie
January 9, 2006, 02:34 PM
Then we have different ideas of what makes America strong. I believe a nation that can positively accept people of different cultures and faiths and even values living and working together.

The United States is unique in that it is a nation of immigrants. It builds on the experiences not just of its own past, but of other nations and their older civilizations. Many of the problems you see in Europe now are because of a longtime homogeneous population taking in immigrants from cultures vastly different from their own.

And define American values, ideals, culture. What you get is some amalgam - a mishmosh - of the world's values, ideals, and culture. Our founding fathers were mostly British, or descended from British people. They were mostly Protestant, and all were white. The Irish potato crop failures brought in millions of Irish, who were poor, spoke little to no English (their native tongue was still Irish Gaelic), and the first massive influx of Catholics into this country.

A hundred years later you had an Irish and Catholic as president. For good or bad, better or worse, JFK was in the White House. That was certainly not in the original founding fathers plan anymore than a non-white, non-Christian or woman would be. But the nation evolved and that's what we had.

I'm not saying Mexico would be far more prosperous if we hadn't invaded and taken those lands. But Mexico has always been a junior partner and the US has always felt the right to one degree or another to interfere economically, militarily, or politically in the life of not only Mexico, but the entire Western Hemisphere, thanks to the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. That would be Teddy Roosevelt and not his nephew, Franklin.:)

And I see Mexicans as no better and no worse than anyone else. Probably no worse than my immigrant ancestors landing in this country half-starved and unable to speak the language. It took them three generations to become "Americanized."

wingman
January 9, 2006, 02:41 PM
[QUOTE]Then we have different ideas of what makes America strong. I believe a nation that can positively accept people of different cultures and faiths and even values living and working together.

/QUOTE]

Sounds great and in 1800's it worked fine, when 40 acres and a mule would
provide for a family, sad, but it has changed. Once again how many should
we accept, do we want a rich/poor society. It would be nice if posters such
as you could view what has happened to south texas in past 30 years, my
guess is you would change our mind.:banghead:

Woodland_Annie
January 9, 2006, 03:44 PM
So who do we let in or keep out? And how many? I don't know. But if you're going to restrict immigration that should include Canadians and West European entertainers and business executives, along with doctors from India, engineers from East Asia, and campesinos from the Mexican countryside.

Honestly much talk about closing the gates strikes me as having more to do with fear of other cultures than a concern for environmental impact, standard of living, etc. Jobs left Ohio thirty years ago for the southern states where people were willing to work for less money than northerners were. Now they move into Mexico, and from there to the smaller, poorer nations of Central America. Just like they move from the US to China because the Chinese are willing to work for less than Americans on either side of the Mason-Dixon line. Now alot of those jobs are moving to Thailand and other poorer Asian countries because they're willing to work for less than the Chinese.

So much of what becomes US policy has to do with business dealings. If the multinationals were forced to stay in this country and hire at a decent wage, then we wouldn't be having a discussion about keeping poor people out. We'd be looking for ways to bring more in.

If I had all the answers, I'd be queen of the universe. And everyone's problems would magically disappear.;)

carlrodd
January 9, 2006, 04:15 PM
Honestly much talk about closing the gates strikes me as having more to do with fear of other cultures than a concern for environmental impact, standard of living, etc.


uh oh. nobody is afraid of these other people and their cultures. it's a matter of numbers. to address huge problems involving huge numbers of people, we are forced to think generally. certain groups of people tend not to produce. we collect statistics on population, unemployment, average household income etc for good reasons. as someone just said...this isn't 1900 or prior. we don't have the ability to just let anyone in, and we are no longer a developing nation, so we don't NEED just anybody....that's just reality. maybe an observation that would be more to the point is not that people are afraid of other cultures, but that we see what happens and is currently happening to virtual welfare states(france, germany, britain) that let all this go unchecked. don't forget the roman empire either.....the initial boost to civilization provided by the conquered or welcomed masses eventually becomes the bleeding wound that topples the whole great experiment. people here are just suggesting that we need to keep that in check.

Woodland_Annie
January 9, 2006, 05:12 PM
When I read about welcoming only immigrants of like mind, values, and culture, it appears to me that it excludes everyone who isn't the same color, religion, or political philosophy of the majority.

Many of the immigrants in places like Britain, France, Germany come from former/current colonies, although immigration from Eastern Europe is now taking its toll, as well. The effects of 19th-20th century colonialism will be felt for a long time. But in those countries, only citizens are eligible for any relief whatsoever.

Rome collapsed under the weight of its own excesses. The "benefit" to the conquered masses of any empire is questionable. Most of them would probably have been happier to be left alone to live their own lives and govern their own communities instead of someone imposing it from outside. Paved roads and toilets don't mean much if you can be tossed to the lions for worshipping a different God.:eek:

At this point I think we need to agree to disagree. Everyone here has been respectful towards me, despite my being in the minority, which I appreciate more than you know. And I hope I have returned the favor. Please let me know if I have not.

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 05:12 PM
Then we have different ideas of what makes America strong. I believe a nation that can positively accept people of different cultures and faiths and even values living and working together.

The United States is unique in that it is a nation of immigrants. It builds on the experiences not just of its own past, but of other nations and their older civilizations. Many of the problems you see in Europe now are because of a longtime homogeneous population taking in immigrants from cultures vastly different from their own.

And define American values, ideals, culture. What you get is some amalgam - a mishmosh - of the world's values, ideals, and culture. Our founding fathers were mostly British, or descended from British people. They were mostly Protestant, and all were white. The Irish potato crop failures brought in millions of Irish, who were poor, spoke little to no English (their native tongue was still Irish Gaelic), and the first massive influx of Catholics into this country.

You ignore the homogeneity of our society--via the vehicle of our Constitution, laws, and core beliefs. Other people have come here but in the main have accepted the tenets of our Founding Fathers and the Anglo-Protestant values they espoused, whatever they began with. I don't see much amalgamation, though the multiculturalists are trying very hard to argue for it these days. As you yourself say, Europe is struggling with an influx of peoples of quite different values and customs. So too here, quite frankly. We are not infinitely elastic in cultural and philosophical terms.

RealGun
January 9, 2006, 05:35 PM
Back to basics. Illegal immigration is offensive and a burden to taxpayers and unfair to those who abide by the law. Lately it has become an issue of homeland security, having no real control of our borders, who sneaks in for what purpose.

I see a lot of discussion confusing legal with illegal immigration. Near as I can tell, we already have adequate control of "legal" immigration. Irritation with lack of assimilation is a side issue. It is also immaterial that some of this type of labor is nice to have.

Those who want to come here can wait for a formal invitation, playing by the rules once they arrive.

Firethorn
January 9, 2006, 07:19 PM
Here's a radical suggestion. :D

Start buying land from Mexico/Canada. Current owners keep ownership, but jurisdiction moves to the United States. That way we have land for everyone.

Heck, start buying sucky places, a small chunck at a time, and introduce our values there.

longeyes
January 9, 2006, 07:36 PM
When I read about welcoming only immigrants of like mind, values, and culture, it appears to me that it excludes everyone who isn't the same color, religion, or political philosophy of the majority.

No. Shared core values, the values that form the foundation of a particular society, in this case our own. Start with acceptance of the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Woodland_Annie
January 9, 2006, 11:15 PM
The immigrants I have known throughout my lifetime, legal or passing through to Canada;), do desire the freedom and rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the emotional stirrings of the DOI. They would not have jumped through all the hoops, be the hoop riding across the ocean in steerage, swimming across a river, or arriving on an airplane after years of bureaucratic paperwork, if they didn't desire that freedom. How they exercise those rights will vary from culture to culture.

If it's illegals using social services and not paying taxes because they're paid under the table that is a problem, then give them amnesty and let them work legally towards citizenship. Give them a valid SSN and let them work at jobs and pay taxes. Let their children go to school and learn English (this is where I part with my fellow lefties who believe in "bi-lingual" education) so they can do better than their parents and really contribute to American society. Now, they are living an underground existence, which will only perpetuate the poverty and that life for the next generation.

Firethorn, maybe we should just send some troops and take over certain territories. Less expensive and less paperwork than buying the properties.:evil:

RealGun
January 10, 2006, 08:12 AM
The immigrants I have known throughout my lifetime, legal or passing through to Canada;), do desire the freedom and rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the emotional stirrings of the DOI. They would not have jumped through all the hoops, be the hoop riding across the ocean in steerage, swimming across a river, or arriving on an airplane after years of bureaucratic paperwork, if they didn't desire that freedom. How they exercise those rights will vary from culture to culture.

If it's illegals using social services and not paying taxes because they're paid under the table that is a problem, then give them amnesty and let them work legally towards citizenship. Give them a valid SSN and let them work at jobs and pay taxes. Let their children go to school and learn English (this is where I part with my fellow lefties who believe in "bi-lingual" education) so they can do better than their parents and really contribute to American society. Now, they are living an underground existence, which will only perpetuate the poverty and that life for the next generation.

Firethorn, maybe we should just send some troops and take over certain territories. Less expensive and less paperwork than buying the properties.:evil:

A declared liberal, declared female, who wants to talk about legal immigrants and amnesty for illegals, never mind the scope of the root article, is hijacking the thread. Are you asking for attention?

Woodland_Annie
January 10, 2006, 10:44 AM
I apologize. It is not my intention to high-jack a thread, regardless of my political beliefs or gender. IOW if I were a conservative and/or male, would it matter?

RealGun
January 10, 2006, 10:56 AM
I apologize. It is not my intention to high-jack a thread, regardless of my political beliefs or gender. IOW if I were a conservative and/or male, would it matter?

An interesting question, better pursued on its own thread IMHO.

carlrodd
January 10, 2006, 10:57 AM
If it's illegals using social services and not paying taxes because they're paid under the table that is a problem, then give them amnesty and let them work legally towards citizenship. Give them a valid SSN and let them work at jobs and pay taxes. Let their children go to school and learn English (this is where I part with my fellow lefties who believe in "bi-lingual" education) so they can do better than their parents and really contribute to American society. Now, they are living an underground existence, which will only perpetuate the poverty and that life for the next generation.


we cannot support an unlimited number of people, legally or illegally, and unlimited is the number you are talking about. there is only so much room, only so many resources. it is terribly unrealistic to assume that we could or should just start dealing out citizenship willy nilly to anybody who wants in and says they will work. any government would collapse under such a policy.

wingman
January 10, 2006, 11:44 AM
we cannot support an unlimited number of people, legally or illegally, and unlimited is the number you are talking about. there is only so much room, only so many resources. it is terribly unrealistic to assume that we could or should just start dealing out citizenship willy nilly to anybody who wants in and says they will work. any government would collapse under such a policy.

Exactly, many people fail to understand that while rich America must have limits, even our own government seems to not understand this.

The idea we have unlimited space, money and still maintain our way of life
is naive, as the world continue to grow in population it becomes more
important we control our borders unless of course we wish to build a
new third world within our borders, perhaps that is what we are doing
where only the rich and poor survive.

TallPine
January 10, 2006, 01:47 PM
A declared liberal, declared female, who wants to talk about legal immigrants and amnesty for illegals, never mind the scope of the root article, is hijacking the thread. Are you asking for attention?
That really was uncalled for :(


And personally, I think the whole country has gone to heck ever since those Asians came over the land bridge from Siberia during the last ice age :neener:

Herself
January 10, 2006, 02:52 PM
A modest proposal:
We take in people who are likely to enhance America. I happen to believe that means people of like mind, of like values, and, yes, of like culture.
First point: this is, at the root, an argument in favor of central planning, the very opposite of capitalism.

...But it's not your decision on whom to admit. If done, it would be implemented by a group of bureaucrats, based on politically-driven policies handed down from Washington: in short, the very way it is done now. While I disagree with the present system of quotas, it is an effort to accomplish the result you want: to let in those most likely to have something to contribute.

There are problems with looking too closely. A sickly-looking fellow came here from Serbo-Croatia a long time ago, a young man with no job, little money and suffering chronic migraines. Another young man, a hunchbacked dwarf and avid socialist, came to the U.S. from Russia. He was broke, too. Not real likely prospects?
Keep 'em out, and your lights go out! The first is Nikola Tesla, father of the alternating-current power distribution grid; the second is Charles Proteus Steinmetz, who did much of theoretical and applied work behind the parctical aspects of it. ...Papa Steinmetz mellowed into a crusty but likeable sort; Tesla was a brilliant looney all his life.
It's very difficult to accurately predict just what good a person might do.

Immigration faces much the same problem as criminal justice; the system's got to have enough "slop" in it to avoid refusing or convicting the innocent, even at the cost of letting a few baddies slip through. There is no perfect justice this side of the grave; the only choice is which way you want to stack up the errors: missing a few baddies to get nearly all the good ones, or getting almost all the baddies at the cost of losing some good guys.

There really isn't an easy answer.


People who don't value America's core principles and won't further them are not great candidates for keeping the America we want.
They're also quite unlikely to do well here. ...And most such are not very likely to want to come here, either.

Limiting chances for legal immigration only turns away those who are most likely to be interested in becoming citizens; and it swells the pool of illegals, allowing better chances for persons not all interested in citizenship or the "core values" to slip in with 'em.

Like any product, limiting supply simply drives up the price and encourages the use of substitutes, including really lousy imitations.

--Herself

longeyes
January 10, 2006, 03:15 PM
Enough with the straw men. Who said I wanted to discriminate against your "motley crew?" Honestly. You'd be surprised how open I am to iconoclasts and freethinkers.

The danger today is not excluding the geniuses and mavericks and people marching to their own drummer. The danger today is that we are not excluding ANYBODY.

odysseus
January 10, 2006, 03:41 PM
I have been away from this conversation. A lot has been added, thought I would add some responses to it.

Woodland_Annie, I rarely go into statement by statement quote response - but the fruitfulness of posts lends me to do so. I apologize in advance if this looks odd.
I tend to say, "Open it." If they would have had illegal immigrants when my ancestors came over, they were escaping famine and war, and would likely have been kept out because they didn't fit the desirable WASP-ish characteristics of the nativists.
I find it very bad form and unfortunately common to the debate, that those in favor of amnesty for illegals and defense of illegal immigrants push forward and play the racism card. Now I am not ignorant to the fact racism in America is certainly strong (as it is in Europe and most any continent, even Asia against none Asians), however this is a separate conversation and not one for the discussion of illegal immigration from any country. My personal background has legal immigrants from 2 distinct regions both of far long ago and of recent time. Illegal immigration is not immigration. It is illegal entry and squatting in a country that has not welcomed you, even if you find someone who will pay you to work.
If we restrict immigration, do we only accept immigrants from "nice" countries? Countries of governments we are friendly with (which changes daily it seems - witness Iraq and Afghanistan)? Do we only allow rich people in from other countries? Do we accept only the people of a certain religion or skin color or political philosophy?
Again a discussion outside of illegal immigration. For the conversation, my own opinion is that it should be balanced regardless of race and wealth. However if you are a country in need and Congress recognizes this fact because of war of various reasons there could be special acceptances. Do more wealthy and educated people from other countries find the immigration process more accessible? Well yes, but that has always been an issue. It's not just racial either, for example many people from India who immigrated here for the most part are from the upper echelon's of their people. It's complicated in itself without trying to defend illegal immigration as acceptable due to perceived racism. Thousands of legal immigrants who are not "wasp" like as you put it come into this country every year. I don't have statistics in front of me, but I imagine they total more than your defined "wasp" types do.
I'm not saying Mexico would be far more prosperous if we hadn't invaded and taken those lands.
I think this is more revealing of your perspective than other comments. You have some form of guilt by a misguided belief that we "stole" lands from Mexico. While there could be solid debate, the push west by the US and our fights with Spain and Mexico are of historical value only at this time.
So much of what becomes US policy has to do with business dealings. If the multinationals were forced to stay in this country and hire at a decent wage, then we wouldn't be having a discussion about keeping poor people out. We'd be looking for ways to bring more in.
I agree on US policy. However that's what has become an issue internally by us, that our economic health is of priority to the protection of our state. That's another debate. Also those multinational corporations build and hire people in those countries. It is their own issue of supply and demand. We fought hard in this country for labor rights and the right to collectively bargain. That is their own issue to gain those rights too (ex. China), and we can be supportive of those ideals in their own countries. This has little value to the conversation of illegal immigration. There will always be a more prosperous nation to which those of less wealth will seek to go to.
If it's illegals using social services and not paying taxes because they're paid under the table that is a problem, then give them amnesty and let them work legally towards citizenship. Give them a valid SSN and let them work at jobs and pay taxes.
I cannot think of a worse way to condone and continue to support illegal activity as is illegal entry into a country then to do this. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. Outside of that, from an economics point of view that seems to be added to your point, I am not convinced we would be ahead on the accounting books by allowing illegal immigrants this allowance. Most money still will spill out into Mexico - which is why the corrupt Mexican government doesn't want to see their people come here only by legal immigration. Many agendas based on greed and power want to keep illegal immigration from Mexico going just like it is, from both sides of the border.
IOW if I were a conservative and/or male, would it matter?
Of course not. If you weren't, would it matter?

gc70
January 10, 2006, 08:42 PM
The bottom line is that we, the American people, can choose to leave the door wide open, shut it tight, or anything in between. In recent decades, the majority of the people have not been aware enough of the issue to care or to voice an opinion, but that is changing - quickly.

Although I personally favor an expansive immigration policy, I am disgusted with the current situation. The US is supposedly a nation of laws, but we are paying lip-service to a restrictive immigration policy while turning a blind eye toward the flood of illegal entrants. We should enforce our immigration laws or change them, but certainly not allow the current travesty to continue.

cz75bdneos22
January 10, 2006, 10:39 PM
why waste billions of dollars more...just deploy the four border states national guard to help the border patrol do its job...they NG are already on the states payroll, so make them work for it..that would kill two birds with one stone...it deals with stopping Illegal immigration and also tackling the drug supply problem across the Southern border...any supporters? no need for no stinking "Militia"...let the real deal do the job...:D

Herself
January 11, 2006, 12:04 AM
cz75bdneos22: The legality of employing soldiers as border guards along a border between the United States and a country with which we are not at war is questionable at best. So that's kind of a problem with using the National Guard.

There's also the fact that Guard units are already a little busy right now, helping the full-time armed forces in Iraq and Afganistan and elsewhere.

I remain convinced that illegal immigration is a created problem; if legal immigration were not artifically limited to restricted numbers, it would be an insignificant problem.


Longeyes: once again, I have failed to communicate my point to you. Well, at least I tried.
N.B.: The use of examples is not a "strawman;" your expressed desire for a predictive selection process was handed a couple of applicants to examine and the result of applcation of overly-strict critera was suggested. A parallel was made to the American "assumed innocence until convicted" system of criminal justice. You chose not to refute it.
As for the danger being "that we are not excluding ANYBODY," this is hardly the case. In fact, legal immigration does have quotas and health requirements and many are excluded. As for illegal immigrants, they're hardly "included," as they cannot artcipate in many Federal programs. While individual States have made decisions with which many of us disagree, that is an issue to be addressed at the State level. CA in particular tends to go its own way; and perhaps should be allowed to. There's no other teacher as good as failure.


Generally: we all keep bandying very broad terms about, like "a flood," "a few" and my own references to quotas. Has anyone got a link to well-substantiated, objective numerical data? Things like raw numbers of legal immigrant and demographic data on their national origins, actual immigrationm quatoas, and dependable numbers on illegal immigrants would be really useful. It could be that good numbers would tell the tale, one way or another.

I'm going to be very skeptical of any source with an axe to grind, pro or con; this an emotional topic, as we have all demonstrated, and that means an increased liklihood of stroked or cherry-picked numbers. But there's got to be some useful data somewhere.

One datum that has stuck with me concerns population densities within the U. S. as compared to most Western "first-world" nations: we have got enormously more space per capita than all the rest, save for Canada. So arguments suggesting the nation's got no more room for newcomers are really hyperbole. Room, we have lots of.

--Herself

gc70
January 11, 2006, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by herself
The legality of employing soldiers as border guards along a border between the United States and a country with which we are not at war is questionable at best. So that's kind of a problem with using the National Guard.
You may want to review the Posse Comitatus Act (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/95-964.pdf).

National Guard units operating under the authority of state governors are specifically exempt. :eek:

The use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes (normally prohibited by the Act) can be authorized by Congress. :uhoh:

And the President can waive the Act's restrictions in emergencies. :what:

gc70
January 11, 2006, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by herself
Generally: we all keep bandying very broad terms about, like "a flood," "a few" and my own references to quotas. Has anyone got a link to well-substantiated, objective numerical data? Things like raw numbers of legal immigrant and demographic data on their national origins, actual immigrationm quatoas, and dependable numbers on illegal immigrants would be really useful. It could be that good numbers would tell the tale, one way or another.How about the Pew Hispanic Center's report on Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics (http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf). Some key points from the report:
As of 3/2004, 10.3 million unauthorized migrants; 57% Mexican and 81% Latin American. (page 4)
About 610,000 legal arrivals per year (5-year average since 2000) versus 700,000 unauthorized arrivals per year. (page 6)
"1 in 11 Mexicans in the U.S." (page 36)

Originally posted by herself
I'm going to be very skeptical of any source with an axe to grind, pro or con; this an emotional topic, as we have all demonstrated, and that means an increased liklihood of stroked or cherry-picked numbers. But there's got to be some useful data somewhere.Judge for yourself. "Founded in 2001, the Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Its mission is to improve understanding of the U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos' growing impact on the entire nation. The Center does not advocate for or take positions on policy issues. It is a project of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" in Washington, DC that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world."

The overall numbers in the Pew Hispanic Center's report roughly coincide with Census Bureau and INS numbers.

longeyes
January 11, 2006, 01:49 AM
The use of examples is not a "strawman;" your expressed desire for a predictive selection process was handed a couple of applicants to examine and the result of applcation of overly-strict critera was suggested. A parallel was made to the American "assumed innocence until convicted" system of criminal justice. You chose not to refute it.
As for the danger being "that we are not excluding ANYBODY," this is hardly the case. In fact, legal immigration does have quotas and health requirements and many are excluded. As for illegal immigrants, they're hardly "included," as they cannot artcipate in many Federal programs. While individual States have made decisions with which many of us disagree, that is an issue to be addressed at the State level. CA in particular tends to go its own way; and perhaps should be allowed to. There's no other teacher as good as failure.

We're not talking here about LEGAL immigration, we're talking about ILLEGAL immigration. I'm sure there are Teslas and Steinmetzes and a host of mute inglorious Miltons toiling away in car washes, lettuce fields, and seedy Las Vegas hotels, but you don't make arguments about vast social problems based on anecdotal evidence. The criteria for inclusion aren't esoteric; they begin with needed job skills--I think we have enough unskilled labor here already, frankly--and shared philosophical values. If that's too restrictive/predictive for you, well, that's the way I see it. And I'm not alone.

Legal immigration is restricted because we don't want another half-billion people in the U.S. Maybe you do, Herself, but most of us don't. You believe there's a lot of empty space in America, do you? How about resources for the people you'd like to bring here? Water? Enough of that, you think?

Where was it you said you lived again?

Herself
January 11, 2006, 01:51 AM
You may want to review the Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act).

National Guard units operating under the authority of state governors are specifically exempt. :eek:
But the Feds have jurisdiction over national borders; taking that approach is clearly an effort to accomplish an end prohibited by the law by using a technicality. Isn't there enough of that sort of thing already?

The use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes (normally prohibited by the Act) can be authorized by Congress.

And the President can waive the Act's restrictions in emergencies.
I guess I'm just too conservative about such matters. Every time the Feds have been given a new power to use, they have kept it and done unintended things with it. Waiving Posse Comitatus prohibitions would be a real boon to the next Administration to pull another Waco or Ruby Ridge, for instance.

--Herself

Herself
January 11, 2006, 02:04 AM
Legal immigration is restricted because we don't want another half-billion people in the U.S. Maybe you do, Herself, but most of us don't. You believe there's a lot of empty space in America, do you? How about resources for the people you'd like to bring here? Water? Enough of that, you think?

Where was it you said you lived again?
You are becoming personal. We've already both been material contributors to getting one thread of this nature locked; let's try to not do so again.

I have no intention of bringing anyone here, nor do I either like or dislike their arrival. They bring themselves. How any of us feel about it is more a topic for the TV chat shows -- Oprah, perhaps. It's not germane to claims of actual harm.

As for water, it doesn't get used up when it is used (unless you're cracking hygrogen or the like). It's quite easily recycled, one way or another, even the water you spray on the lawn. That whole Club of Rome "Limits to Growth" line is a bit out of place. The water I drink here in Indy comes, in part, from the White River -- downstream of the discharge from sewage-treatment plants in Anderson and Muncie. Better living through science!

--Herself

gc70
January 11, 2006, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by herself
But the Feds have jurisdiction over national borders; taking that approach is clearly an effort to accomplish an end prohibited by the law by using a technicality. Isn't there enough of that sort of thing already?Balderdash! I have substituted a link to a 58-page Congressional Research Service report on the Posse Comitatus Act for my original limited link. If you read the CRS report, you will find that the topic of the National Guard is not a "technicality." Indeed, the authority of governors over the National Guard stems from the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16) and has been upheld by the courts.

longeyes
January 11, 2006, 02:21 AM
You are becoming personal. We've already both been material contributors to getting one thread of this nature locked; let's try to not do so again.

Just taking note of the fact that you live in Indiana, far from the madding crowd of illegals who have re-made Los Angeles in the last decade. You really need to get out more and see first-hand what's going on in some of the Western cities.

You neither like nor dislike the arrival of illegal aliens? And how any of us feels about the influx doesn't matter? I see. Well, I'm sorely tempted to be "personal" but I'll just say I'm puzzled by your attitude. As the "the claims of actual harm," that's been covered here, there, and everywhere many times. Illegal aliens are prime contributors to crime, and they are major takers of public treasure. California, where I live, is now spending upwards of $5 billion a year on illegal alien services. That's what I call Harm, bigtime. You want to see another hundred million in the U.S., all laying claim to social welfare services? By the way, I do blame our government along with the social welfare and education mafias that feed off the "newcomers."

Herself
January 11, 2006, 02:43 AM
Okay, here are some rough numbers, using data from sources provided by gc70 (thank you!) and the Census Bureau at http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

These numbers are very raw and I invite criticism of my math -- it's late!

"About 610,000 legal arrivals per year (5-year average since 2000) versus 700,000 unauthorized arrivals per year."

I'm going to assume they are all Mexican or Latin American, and add them together: 1,310,000 per year.

U. S. Population as of today is 297,884,765.[1] Total immigrants arriving in the last year represent 0.4397% percent of that total, of whom a bit over half are illegals: 0.2349% Hardly a "flood!"

But that's not fair, really; maybe they're adding up more quickly than the native-born. How does immigration compare to those who arrive the old-fashioned way, by being born? Births in the US ran at very close to 14 per 1000 per year from 1997 though 2002, so I'm using that to get 4,170,386, or about 1.39% of the total population. Call it three times as much per year as the increase from total immigration, and 5.9 times as much as the increase from illegal immigration.[2]

Yes, it looks to me we're safe: we breed faster than they are sneaking in.

I'm surprised. I really thought the numbers would be bigger. Half a percent? Not statistically significant.

--Herself
___________________________
1. 2005 number was 295,734,134 if anyone wants to use it instead. Or get earlier numbers from the Census.

2. The numbers can be refined by assuming immigrants have children after arrival at the average rate, and shaving 0.4397% and 0.2349% from the total births to adjust for total immigrant contribution and illegal immigrant contribution; it does not change the "us vs. them" increase significantly. You can even the double the birthrates and it's still not significant.

Herself
January 11, 2006, 03:03 AM
Just taking note of the fact that you live in Indiana, far from the madding crowd of illegals who have re-made Los Angeles in the last decade. You really need to get out more and see first-hand what's going on in some of the Western cities.
We have plenty of ex-Mexicans in Indiana (please see my last posts in the locked thread) and I visit the Dallas-Ft. Worth area regularly. I am not seeing social chaos.
Los Angeles has been "remaking itself" for decades now, driven by the natives as much as any newcomers, and not in any direction I especially approve of. But it appears the majority of native Angelinos must like it, or they'd do something different.

You neither like nor dislike the arrival of illegal aliens? And how any of us feels about the influx doesn't matter? I see. Well, I'm sorely tempted to be "personal" but I'll just say I'm puzzled by your attitude.
Does how you feel affect any actual harm done? Nope. Just raises your own blood pressure and shortens your life.
My attitude has just now been tempered by my calculator. Please check my math.

As the "the claims of actual harm," that's been covered here, there, and everywhere many times. Illegal aliens are prime contributors to crime, and they are major takers of public treasure.
Anecdotes. Do you have any real numbers, or just more emotion? (I'm not gonna have to get all Phil Donahue and "validate your feelings" here, am I?) Also: "public treasure?" What, like the Hope Diamond?

California, where I live, is now spending upwards of $5 billion a year on illegal alien services. That's what I call Harm, bigtime.
It's what I call California, bigtime. That's why those of us in the flyover states look askance at CA. I didn't hold a gun on your state legislature and make them do that -- and of the two of us, you are the one with a voice in that state's affairs.

You want to see another hundred million in the U.S., all laying claim to social welfare services?
Let's see, at 700,000 per year, that will take...carry the zed...142.85 years. Goodness, yes, I would love to be around to see that! And that assumes all 700,000 are deadbeats; unlikely. If as many as half of them are, we'll be waiting 285 years. Sign me up!

By the way, I do blame our government along with the social welfare and education mafias that feed off the "newcomers."
In fact, the "social welfare and education mafias" are a part of government. They're not some seperate thing. And they'll feed off any resource they can get.

--Herself

LAK
January 11, 2006, 03:52 AM
Exactly, many people fail to understand that while rich America must have limits, even our own government seems to not understand this.

The idea we have unlimited space, money and still maintain our way of life is naive, as the world continue to grow in population it becomes more important we control our borders unless of course we wish to build a new third world within our borders, perhaps that is what we are doing where only the rich and poor survive.
Right; we are already swamped with cheap labor which has depressed lower, middle and even some upper incomes. When you punch a hole in the bottom of a bucket, water does not just seep out of the bottom layers; the whole level goes down.

In order to raise the standard of living in neighboring third world countries like Mexico and S America by eliminating borders and immigration controls, a level playing field in terms of labor must be created. Under these conditions, ours will go down to meet theirs. Not the other way around. Our middle class is bleeding out rapidly, and will largely cease to exists the ways things are being driven.

The United States as a nation does not exist to take in any and everybody from other countries anymore than your or my household exists to take in any and everyone off the streets.

If people want to come to this country to get an education, let the get a temporary visa to do so, then go back to their homeland and use it to build their own successful nation. Not bleed ours away for us.
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

RealGun
January 11, 2006, 08:28 AM
I don't see how walls and troops do any good until there is the resolve to shoot people trying to cross, including children. Employing a wall of bullets is not going to happen. I don't know...maybe you could gas them and drop them back in Mexico. And that's assuming Mexico would allow you to do that, sticking a toe on their side. The expense of prisons and camps is stupid. I think you start by removing economic and medical incentives to come here illegally.

Altering the discussion to LEGAL immigration issues is a bleeding heart, blissninny approach to the problem. We already know that amnesty program concepts are extremely unpopular, so why stir the pot? Rather than any solution, this attempts to make the problem go away without addressing that the situation will only get worse with a hands off approach.

I think, however, that it would be very interesting to know exactly how Mexico and the US handle LEGAL immigration. Why is that hard, and why do so many have to go around it? We seem to have job openings, so why aren't they posted? If it's all about being paid under the table, that's what should be addressed.

Herself
January 11, 2006, 08:36 AM
Remember, you're talking about a "flood" of illegals consisting of 0.2349 percent of the U.S. popuation per year.

It's a trickle, at most.

C'mon, guys. It's not rocket science.

--Herself

Glock Glockler
January 11, 2006, 11:42 AM
Herself,

Do you really believe the numbers provided by the census bureau? It seems to me it's in their interest to keep the reported number of illegals low, having them high would sort of like giving your boss a report that says you've been screwing up.

You might think illegals are insignificant but I doubt the people who have had to deal with hospitals shutting down and skyrocketing taxes share your sentiment.

Herself
January 11, 2006, 12:17 PM
Herself,

Do you really believe the numbers provided by the census bureau? It seems to me it's in their interest to keep the reported number of illegals low, having them high would sort of like giving your boss a report that says you've been screwing up.
Would you like to borrow my tinfoil hat?

The quoted numbers for immigrants aren't from the Census, who probably don't set out to undercount illegals but surely do simply because the illegals aren't likely to cooperate. The numbers are from the Pew Foundation, by way of THRer gc70

You might think illegals are insignificant but I doubt the people who have had to deal with hospitals shutting down and skyrocketing taxes share your sentiment.
Provide examples, please. Anecdotes and internet rumors do not count.

Note those "skyrocketing taxes" are state taxes, which should be dealt with at the state level. Why should the Feds limit the generousity of any single state of the Union, no matter how self-destructive it may be? Why should you and I have to bail out California but any means?


The numbers are insignificant. A population growth of less than one-quarter of one percent per year due to illegals is not statistically significant. It's a zit on bacillis on a flea on a horse!

--Herself

carlrodd
January 11, 2006, 12:29 PM
The numbers are insignificant. A population growth of less than one-quarter of one percent per year due to illegals is not statistically significant. It's a zit on bacillis on a flea on a horse!

--Herself

now that you have done all that math, and for the sake of argument we'll assume it's reasonably accurate.....do some more math. find out the percentage of that influx of immigrants that settles in urban centers in california and the southwest. i don't know what it is, but i do know the majority of latin american immigrants settle in these parts of the country. if the majority of 1.3 million immigrants settles in such a specific portion of the country, math says that for that portion of the country, it WILL be an epidemic.

longeyes
January 11, 2006, 12:35 PM
We have, I see, gone down the rabbit-hole into Wonderland. The influx is insignificant? To laugh or cry, that is the question. Judas Priest!

carlrodd
January 11, 2006, 12:41 PM
We have, I see, gone down the rabbit-hole into Wonderland. The influx is insignificant? To laugh or cry, that is the question. Judas Priest!


that's why i'm waiting for more math. i must admit that i have, in the not too distant past, made the mistake of underestimating the problem this presents in certain parts of the country, because where i live the numbers just aren't as bad. apparently herself is from a similar place. maybe herself should also calculate the average number of tax dollars spent on a single illegal immigrant and then times it by her 700,000. no matter where they settle, that amount money, which increases exponentially every year is of great concern.

wingman
January 11, 2006, 12:46 PM
The numbers are insignificant. A population growth of less than one-quarter of one percent per year due to illegals is not statistically significant. It's a zit on bacillis on a flea on a horse!


It is good most of America disagrees with you however you do have people
who hire illegals on your side.:rolleyes:

Also of note most second generation Mexican-Americans I know and work
with disagree with your views and want the border closed because they
understand it is hurting there familes also.

It is necessary for us to view American as our home not unlike your private
home which you would not allow strangers in to stay overnite, this is not
'rocket science", just common sense, controlled, limited, legal immigration.

shecky
January 11, 2006, 12:47 PM
Illegal immigration is the result of supply and demand. The US demands cheap labor and people are crossing the border illegal to meet that demand. This is a strength of capitalism, not a weakness.

With unemployment below 5%, it's difficult to make a case that these millions of illegal immigrant are actually hurting the economy more than helping.

Depressing wages? How many people here have more than one gun? More than one TV? Car? Computer? America is so economically depressed, we're all fat from doing nothing but sitting on our butts while enjoying all our nice diversions.

This is like all the folks whining about WalMart coming to town, killing small mom and pop businesses. At the same time bringing lower prices for everyone overall. Economic prosperity shouldn't be treated like a zero-sum game. For someone to be successful doesn't mean it comes at your expense.

RealGun
January 11, 2006, 12:49 PM
U. S. Population as of today is 297,884,765.[1] Total immigrants arriving in the last year represent 0.4397% percent of that total, of whom a bit over half are illegals: 0.2349% Hardly a "flood!"

I don't see this as good math or a good argument. The number is made small by comparing yearly influx to total population, kind of "apples and oranges".

The problem with the argument comes when you try to explain how a small percentage of the population sends 16 billion dollars a year to Mexico, and that this is so important to the Mexican government that they have an official bureaucracy to manage and encourage it.

shecky
January 11, 2006, 12:52 PM
It is necessary for us to view American as our home not unlike your private
home which you would not allow strangers in to stay overnite, this is not
'rocket science", just common sense, controlled, limited, legal immigration.


And who should "limit" immigration? The government? Since when is the government so good at doing anything?

Illegal immigration already has limits. The free market will impose limits if and when it can no longer support a illegal immigrant population when jobs become scarce.

longeyes
January 11, 2006, 12:53 PM
Nations have borders. Nations have political and cultural identities. Nations have laws.

The numbers alone are not the issue.

That said, the numbers are impressive--negatively. Relying on the government census numbers is folly, for obvious reasons. We've had three thousand illegals coming across every night for 20-odd years--do the math. The evidence of just how Significant the influx is can be found, in bold type, in any state and local budget affected by the problem.

Illegal immigration is one of the key wedges that is driving this nation toward socialism. It is part of the globalist plan. You can watch it unfold, against my better judgment and wishes, in the once great State of California.

shecky
January 11, 2006, 01:00 PM
Nations have borders. Nations have political and cultural identities. Nations have laws.

The numbers alone are not the issue.

That said, the numbers are impressive--negatively. Relying on the government census numbers is folly, for obvious reasons. We've had three thousand illegals coming across every night for 20-odd years--do the math. The evidence of just how Significant the influx is can be found, in bold type, in any state and local budget affected by the problem.

The United States is incredibly prosperous. Perhaps one key to that prosperity is that we have had "three thousand illegals coming across every night for 20-odd years".

Quite simply, if there is a net drag on the economy, it's pretty well hidden.

Illegal immigration is one of the key wedges that is driving this nation toward socialism. It is part of the globalist plan. You can watch it unfold, against my better judgment and wishes, in the once great State of California.

Put on your tinfoil hats, everyone! It's the globalist plan!

CAnnoneer
January 11, 2006, 01:07 PM
What blissninny apologeticists, social engineers, and leftists do not understand is that how they believe or feel about things does not change objective reality.

They believe there is no problem, but there still is a problem.
They believe the world can be a better place, but it is not.
They believe America is infinitely rich and can absorb any damage, but it is not and it cannot.
They believe that America can expand into the world and save it, but in doing so America is only destroying itself.

Let's face it, the middle class is the last major deposit of wealth that both the commies and the corporates can tap. That is why both groups are so active in their respective parties and dig in as much as they can.

The commies hate the middle class because they recognize it will never truly buy into its social message, as it understands albeit gutturally or silently that the message is both dangerous and unrealistic. The collapse of the USSR exemplified only too well that communism/socialism do not work in the long run. That is why the commies love to pit the lower class and minorities against everybody else (i.e. middle-class and upper-class whites!). Finally, whenever in power, the commies use taxation to take away from their enemies and feed their electorate making it dependent on .gov handouts and statism.

The corporates view the middle class as a cashcow, to which they can sell overseas products they build by slave labor in the Third World or by illegal wages to illegal invaders at home. In essence they cannibalize the country's manufacturing capabilities in doing so, which erodes the middle class. The trade imbalance, the national debt, horrendous spending, and pointless wars are just tools to accomplish their goal - take wealth from the middle class and from the country through deficits and the national debt. They know that the party will soon be over, just like a parasite senses the host is dying. So, they have gone into feeding frenzy in the past decade or so, sensing the end is near. In addition, they are going as international as possible, to decrease their parasitic dependence on any particular host. In essence, they are graduating from a national parasite to an international parasite. Evolution in the making.

Finally, one of the reasons why both parties have become so similar in part of their rhetoric and posture is because the corporates in both parties ultimately have the same goals to grab as much as they can before the end. The only differences arise from the varying ways in which they have to manage their respective footsoldiers to keep them in line by demagogy and fear.

It is clear that the most powerful and most energetic sections of both major parties are enemies to the middle class and the average American. Therein the irony of so many supporting them blindly or scaring themselves into "compromises" and "choosing the lesser evil". Would you like to be boiled or roasted alive? Choose the lesser? :barf:

CAnnoneer
January 11, 2006, 01:11 PM
Illegal immigration is the result of supply and demand. The US demands cheap labor and people are crossing the border illegal to meet that demand. This is a strength of capitalism, not a weakness.


That would have been meaningful only in a laissez-faire capitalism Except, we do not have that. Gov is bigger than ever. Stupid impractical blissninny laws are more numerous than ever. Socialists and welfare leeches are more than ever.

wingman
January 11, 2006, 01:26 PM
The United States is incredibly prosperous. Perhaps one key to that prosperity is that we have had "three thousand illegals coming across every night for 20-odd years".


Well I would at the very least consider your argument up to the above
statement. The only people who gain from illegal labor is the wealthy here
and in Mexico. The American taxpayer subsidizes labor for the wealthy
at a cost of $800-$2200 per year depending on what state you live in.

Repeat, if you hire illegals you gain,and please don't tell me profits are
passed on to me it simply isn't true.

Illegal immigration already has limits. The free market will impose limits if and when it can no longer support a illegal immigrant population when jobs become scarce.

Limits,and what are those limits, when the jobs become scarce as you stated
then the problem of out of control immigration will be very real even to those
living in the great glass bubble. Do you truly believe once the jobs are gone people will stop coming or those here will return to there birth countries without fighting if so your not living in the real world.

longeyes
January 11, 2006, 01:44 PM
Thanks, guys, for saving me a whole lot of typing. You've said it well.

The blissninnies don't believe there's a globalist agenda. Well, I just looked at my tinfoil hat and heck if it wasn't made in China!

pax
January 11, 2006, 01:57 PM
Blissninnies, apologeticists, tin-foil hats, leftists, social engineers ...

Closed.


To everyone who posted in this thread:

Please review THR's Forum Rules (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html). Every single one of you agreed to abide by those rules when you joined this site. You agreed not to attack other members or to call other members names, and your posting privileges are subject to removal if you violate this rule. If you wonder, "Is pax talking to me?" the answer is probably yes.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal immigration and national consciousness" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!