[lapidator]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112519-2334r.htm

Bush's immigration plan hurts re-election war chest


By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



President Bush's immigration initiative has angered conservative Republicans so much that some are refusing to donate to his re-election campaign, according to a Bush fund-raiser in Georgia.
Phil Kent, a member of the host committee for a Bush fund-raiser in Atlanta yesterday, said he was told by several would-be donors that they would not attend the $2,000-per-person event because of the president's announcement last week on immigration reform.
"I was soliciting checks right after the announcement, and I lost two checks from people who had wanted to come, but wouldn't," Mr. Kent said. "They specifically said this is just rewarding lawbreakers.
"That was the constant theme," he added. "And even among some people who wrote the checks, there's grumbling."
Mr. Bush's initiative would allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States as guest workers if they have jobs. The immigrants eventually could apply for permanent legal residence.
"The vast majority of Georgians — black and white, I might add — don't like this because it's perceived as amnesty for illegal immigrants," Mr. Kent said, shortly before greeting the president at the fund-raiser. "And I intend to tell him so, not just because it doesn't help him with money, but because it's wrongheaded policy."
Asked what he specifically would tell the president, Mr. Kent said: "I think you're a great president, but, boy, I think you're wrong on amnesty for illegals."
A Bush campaign official declined to criticize Mr. Kent, but said of his complaint: "I'm not sure it's that big a deal."
"Fundamentally, this is a tough decision the president made to address a tough issue," the official said. "And it's a decision based on policy concerns, not political concerns."
Interviews with attendees at last night's fund-raisers revealed a mix of opinions.
Gerry Lynn Warner, who works for an Atlanta assisted-living equipment company, said although he opposed the immigration initiative, he was even more opposed to the idea of supporting a Democratic candidate, such as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. So, Mr. Warner donated the $2,000 to the president.
"I don't agree with everything he does, and I think it would be a mistake to do what he has proposed," Mr. Warner said. "In business, you have to support the guy you think is going to win."
Jim V. Schrull of Horton Automotive, who also gave $2,000 to the campaign, said the president's proposal was not a factor in his decision to contribute.
"I'm pleased with the proposal. I actually think it's a good thing," Mr. Schrull said. Opponents of the plan, he said, "are either misinformed or uninformed."
But those opponents include Rep. Johnny Isakson, Georgia Republican, who is considered the front-runner in the campaign to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Zell Miller.
"I have great respect for President Bush and the leadership he has provided over the last four years," Mr. Isakson said in a statement. "I have serious concerns, however, over recent policy announcements with regard to undocumented workers and illegal aliens."
He said the president's proposal would cause an increase in illegal immigration.
"We must not reward past illegal activity or encourage it in the future," he said. "I do believe a complete overhaul of our nation's immigration system is critical. Any reform must begin with strict enforcement of current laws and better security at our borders."
Also opposing the immigration initiative are the three Republicans who are vying to fill Mr. Isakson's seat in Georgia's 6th Congressional District, which once was held by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Ironically, much of the grumbling from Republicans came during a fund-raiser at which Mr. Bush was introduced by a Democrat — Mr. Miller. The senator, who is retiring at the end of the year, called the president "a great leader with a good heart and a spine of steel."
"The more I see of this leader, my respect and my support just continue to grow," he said. "And I can guarantee you that I will not be the only Democrat working for his re-election."
• Joseph Curl contributed to this report in Atlanta.



Not a big deal huh?

I guess my vote won't be much of a big deal either.

Lapidator

[Jim Diver]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112519-2334r.htm

Bush's immigration plan hurts re-election war chest


By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



President Bush's immigration initiative has angered conservative Republicans so much that some are refusing to donate to his re-election campaign, according to a Bush fund-raiser in Georgia.
Phil Kent, a member of the host committee for a Bush fund-raiser in Atlanta yesterday, said he was told by several would-be donors that they would not attend the $2,000-per-person event because of the president's announcement last week on immigration reform.
"I was soliciting checks right after the announcement, and I lost two checks from people who had wanted to come, but wouldn't," Mr. Kent said. "They specifically said this is just rewarding lawbreakers.
"That was the constant theme," he added. "And even among some people who wrote the checks, there's grumbling."
Mr. Bush's initiative would allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States as guest workers if they have jobs. The immigrants eventually could apply for permanent legal residence.
"The vast majority of Georgians — black and white, I might add — don't like this because it's perceived as amnesty for illegal immigrants," Mr. Kent said, shortly before greeting the president at the fund-raiser. "And I intend to tell him so, not just because it doesn't help him with money, but because it's wrongheaded policy."
Asked what he specifically would tell the president, Mr. Kent said: "I think you're a great president, but, boy, I think you're wrong on amnesty for illegals."
A Bush campaign official declined to criticize Mr. Kent, but said of his complaint: "I'm not sure it's that big a deal."
"Fundamentally, this is a tough decision the president made to address a tough issue," the official said. "And it's a decision based on policy concerns, not political concerns."
Interviews with attendees at last night's fund-raisers revealed a mix of opinions.
Gerry Lynn Warner, who works for an Atlanta assisted-living equipment company, said although he opposed the immigration initiative, he was even more opposed to the idea of supporting a Democratic candidate, such as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. So, Mr. Warner donated the $2,000 to the president.
"I don't agree with everything he does, and I think it would be a mistake to do what he has proposed," Mr. Warner said. "In business, you have to support the guy you think is going to win."
Jim V. Schrull of Horton Automotive, who also gave $2,000 to the campaign, said the president's proposal was not a factor in his decision to contribute.
"I'm pleased with the proposal. I actually think it's a good thing," Mr. Schrull said. Opponents of the plan, he said, "are either misinformed or uninformed."
But those opponents include Rep. Johnny Isakson, Georgia Republican, who is considered the front-runner in the campaign to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Zell Miller.
"I have great respect for President Bush and the leadership he has provided over the last four years," Mr. Isakson said in a statement. "I have serious concerns, however, over recent policy announcements with regard to undocumented workers and illegal aliens."
He said the president's proposal would cause an increase in illegal immigration.
"We must not reward past illegal activity or encourage it in the future," he said. "I do believe a complete overhaul of our nation's immigration system is critical. Any reform must begin with strict enforcement of current laws and better security at our borders."
Also opposing the immigration initiative are the three Republicans who are vying to fill Mr. Isakson's seat in Georgia's 6th Congressional District, which once was held by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Ironically, much of the grumbling from Republicans came during a fund-raiser at which Mr. Bush was introduced by a Democrat — Mr. Miller. The senator, who is retiring at the end of the year, called the president "a great leader with a good heart and a spine of steel."
"The more I see of this leader, my respect and my support just continue to grow," he said. "And I can guarantee you that I will not be the only Democrat working for his re-election."
• Joseph Curl contributed to this report in Atlanta.

[Standing Wolf]

If he proceeds with this patently insane scheme, he won't get my vote this November. I'd already stopped sending money to the Republican party because its representatives in the U.S. Senate have been slacking off. The money I would have sent to the Republican party is now being divided between the N.R.A. and the G.O.A.

[moa]

Yep, I just got another fund raising call from the RNC, and told them I was unhappy with the unenforceable, and it will be unenforced, immigration scheme Bush has, and hung up on them.

I also complained about the Campaign Finance Reform act too.

As far as I am concerned, Bush's new immigration plan is an open admission that we have little control over our borders and successful border jumpers.

14,000 Border Patrol and immigration agents to control unknown millions of illegal aliens! Washington has lost its mind a long time ago.

With George Soros spending millions of dollars of his $7 billion in assets to defeat George Bush in 2004, George Bush may very well be a one term President if he keeps poking his finger in the eye of his base of core conservatives.

[fix]

And even among some people who wrote the checks, there's grumbling.

But they wrote the checks!!!:banghead:

[labgrade]

The Bushies have lost 2 (of 2) votes in this household long before this latest.

2X "throw-away" votes going to any Lib-folk out there ....

The Wife mentioned last night that she wouldn't vote for Busg if Hillary was running. Can't argue (much).

Funny (not) that we got Bush (the 'Pubs) in control to restore honor to the whitehouse, & perhaps a return to the constitution, no? a repreive & roll-back from Klintons abuses ...

Frankly, I haven't kept up on this latest "immigration reform policy," but must ask this for clarification:

Can the prez-de jour just set policy, or must it go through the normal channels of the legislative branch?

In any event, the crack-down of personal liberties by this admin through "phantoms of lost liberties"-Ascroft & the "no-vetos" of this prez, besides the lack-luster CO 'pubs, leave me somewhat lacking.

There are about three 'pubs I'd vote for & sadly, only one is one I'd get to.

Thanks for nothing (or worse).

:barf:

[fix]

Can the prez-de jour just set policy, or must it go through the normal channels of the legislative branch?

Goes through congress. My rep (R) says it isn't going anywhere.

[labgrade]

Thank, fix, & good enough - except for this yahoo is actually proposing this nonsense.

& I did mistake making mention that all the while (re the crack-down on ourselves) that the borders are wide open ....

Go figure.

Ya know. I bailed out of political activism - & even TFL/THR - for some time because of a total disgust - & this after "doing my bit" with the "pubs'-thing" through the '02 CO caucus, yada, yada.

I'm ramblin' & just better sign off ....

Where's one to turn?

[TallPine]

"I'm not sure it's that big a deal."
Translation: "Who else ya gonna vote for, sucker?"

:fire:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I think the message is being sent. All of this media coverage and direct feedback will kill this idea. Now, if we can just go back a few weeks and make sure it never happened. :rolleyes:

[moa]

One of the aspects of Bush's immigration plan and "guest workers" is that it would require a vast and expensive bureaucracy to manage effectively. It would take years to ramp it up.

A huge number of Federal immigration inspectors would be required. Right now there is only a piddling 2,000.

And, basically, all law enforcement would have to be dragooned to participate in enforcement. Currently, many juridictions refuse to cooperate with the Feds in identifying illegal aliens the apprehend.

[rick_reno]

I called both my Senators (both Republican - one openly supporting this insane immigration scheme) and let them know if it is enacted Bush and anyone supporting it would not get my vote in November.

I've concluded there is one good thing about politicians - like diapers - changing them often is good. I hestitate to think what sort of screwball stuff GWB would toss at us in a 2nd term - with no election staring him in the face.

[moa]

Amen, Rick-Reno.

[Waitone]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not sure it's that big a deal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Translation: "Who else ya gonna vote for, sucker?"

Dubya, listen up, Bub! I'll say this once. You and Rove may well be almost right when you say, "Where you gonna go!" Almost right in my case because I consider the war on islamofascist terrormongers to be THE issue of the next decade. Handing the presidency to your opposition is an instant end to the war.

However, I will not give you control of the senate. I will take from you the privilege getting your nominees through the senate. I can not and do not trust you to appoint justices that respect the constitution. You evidently hold it in some degree of contempt so why would you do any different in your appointments?

I will also seek to drive the balance of the house toward 50-50. You are in need of strong checks and balances on your policies.

This year my state has an open senate seat. The last occupant (John Edwards) is a waste of oxygen. Erskin Bowles is the democrat I'll be voting for not the republican. My house representative is a republican. I vote for the democrat running against her.

You may get my vote for president but I will not give your party my votes for congress. You, sir, need to be neutered.

[Lone_Gunman]

Lets see.. Here are some things Bush has either signed or supports:

--Medicare Drug Bill
--Campaign Finance Reform
--Assault Weapon Ban Renewal
--Patriot Act
--Immigration Reform

Is anyone but Democrats going to vote for Bush??? These are all ideas he has borrowed from his supposed opposition.

The more he does, the less I like him.

[longeyes]

I'm cynical enough to see Bush getting what he wants, or most of it, either this year or in '05. At that point he can bask in the glow of having been the Bush That Made It Twice. He won't have much time to relax, though, as I envision his second-term testing the the governability of this nation. The stuff is going to hit the fan on a number of fronts in the next few years, and he'd better do more than fiddle.

[seeker_two]

Can the prez-de jour just set policy, or must it go through the normal channels of the legislative branch?

True, but GWB could easily "forget" to enforce a lot of the illegal alien rules on the books--making the legislative efforts moot. :banghead:

A Bush campaign official declined to criticize Mr. Kent, but said of his complaint: "I'm not sure it's that big a deal."

It WILL be a big deal if GWB keeps pushing the issue near Election Day...:fire:

"Fundamentally, this is a tough decision the president made to address a tough issue," the official said. "And it's a decision based on policy concerns, not political concerns."

http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/geno/rofl.gif


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not sure it's that big a deal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Translation: "Who else ya gonna vote for, sucker?"

Check my sig... :evil:

Myself--I might be willing to suffer through a Democrat Presidency & Republican Congress for four years if it means the Republicans straighten themselves out. If they don't, then we'll just work from there...

[w4rma]

If he does... I will... He will... This bill is last straw, no the next bill is the last straw, no the next bill is the last straw...

I see lots of denial. Just face the facts, Smirk sold you guys down the river. He conned you. Heck he conned all of America into invading Iraq. Conning folks who have already been conned into thinking that Democrats and liberals are evil is nothing compared to that.

Neo – CONNED ! by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX-14th) (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm)

[spartacus2002]

I have the following observations:

1. "Who else ya gonna vote for?" Absolutely positively what RNC and Rove must be thinking. Well, watch me vote Libertarian, Constitution, or other.

2. Write the RNC and tell them they've lost your vote forever if this goes thru.

3. For anyone who thinks it won't pass congress or SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional, yadda yadda yadda, how about that Campaign Finance Reform bill. Like birth control, "Hope is not an effective method of prevention."

4. I've decided I'm voting kamikaze from now on: I'm voting purely against incumbents regardless of party affiliation.

5. AS for the presidential elections, I'm voting for Hillary: Why have the revolution later when you can have it earlier? :D

[HerbG]

It's darn sure a big deal to this voter! A few weeks ago, I was 100% certain I would back Bush for re-election, but the immigration issue is a major problem for me. This open political pandering to gain the hispanic vote is too much. Bush's proposed changes in immigration law may be good for illegals, but it is BAD for the country as a whole. I would expect this from liberal Democrats, but from conservative Reppublicans......never!

[ojibweindian]

Bush lost my vote a long time ago. but, with this immigration nonsense, he's finally lost my wife's vote, and the vote of my parents.

I voted straight Libertarian in the 2002 elections, and will continue to do so. I'm not sure about my wife and parents; they may very well just stay home.

[longeyes]

I saw Bush's press spokesman--what is that new guy's name anyway?--on CSPAN last night. A reporter asked how Bush would deal with the negative reaction his immigration proposal was getting so far. The response was not encouraging. Bush firmly believes "it's the right thing to do," though, frankly, no one but Mexicans can figure out why. And Bush firmly believes--yes, he's a firm believer--that just about everyone is behind him on this. Face it, Bush, with Rove perhaps whispering in his ear, made up his mind about this one not only before 9/11 but probably after his first visit to Mexico years ago. He doesn't need input, positive OR negative; he just knows he's right. That the only sector of our economy where jobs aren't shrinking is the part immune from global competition doesn't faze him; he has a plan for that: bring global competition, in the guise of legalized illegals HERE. There's a sort of divine madness at work, my fellow Americans, and we are bearing witness to it.

Then again it may be that we just need to: Follow the money.

[Moparmike]

"I don't agree with everything he does, and I think it would be a mistake to do what he has proposed," Mr. Warner said. "In business, you have to support the guy you think is going to win." THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE ARE FACED WITH!! COWARDS, NO, IMBICILES LIKE THIS ARE THE ONES WHO CONTINUE OUR AGONY.:banghead: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss:


I just cant believe another "politically-minded conservative" would say such a stupid-a$$ed thing. People like him are holding up the Libertarians (or, hope of all hopes, Ron Paul from being a write in) from being elected. What a waste of oxygen.

[longeyes]

It's disheartening to see some of the major talk radio righties siding with Bush on this one. Take Hannity, for example. According to him, we have to back Bush, regardless of this proposal, because he's been such a stalwart on the WOT. The only issue Hannity can see on the immigration proposal is national security, otherwise, hey, no problema. No, that is only one element of this: there are strong political, social, fiscal, and cultural issues involved. Personally, I think the WOT is turning into just another arm of the Make the World Safe for Globalism movement.

[greyhound]

Heck he conned all of America into invading Iraq

Actually, from what I've seen on THR, for most of the people you refer to in your post its Bush's domestic policies that upset them, not foreign policy/Iraq.

Generalizing, sure, but I'd bet the average THRer was gung ho for the Iraq battle of the War on Terror; its domestic spending, Medicare reform, Patriot Act, campaign finance, AWB, and this immigration thing thats got em POd.

(Then again that sounds a lot like me, so maybe I am projecting!:) )

[rick_reno]

Something to remember is most of the these conservative talk show radio and TV personalities are in a very different tax bracket from most of us. Bush did that end of the earning bell curve a lot of good...

Hannity and others can support him. I'm sitting this election out, unless he dreams up something even more bothersome than that immigration bombshell - and then I'll vote Democratic and it doesn't matter who they run.

Whatever happens, the shrub isn't getting my vote this time around.

[moa]

Some of the conservative talk show hosts are against Bush's Plan. I know G. Gordon Liddy and Michael Savage are for sure. Seems like Laura Ingram is too.

Have no idea where Rush is on this, or Glen Beck either. Have not listened to them.

Savage's web poll shows 95% or so against the Plan last I looked. Something like 11 million votes cast, which sounds like his entire listernship plus some. Ingram says the poll they took got the same 95% against the Plan.

I think Bob Sher (who sits in for Liddy) and Bob Levy are against it too. And, I think Levy is a liberal.

[gunsmith]

this stinks I may just stay home and clean my guns on election day
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/

[spartacus2002]

Vote Libertarian or Constitution. Sitting home just makes the politicians think silence is consent. You may not want to vote Rep or Dem, but giving a third party a boost tells the Big Two that people WILL consider other options....

I would vote Libertarian, but the Open Borders thing is the one MAJOR bone of contention I have. THe Constitution Party is more my thing although they are OK with the War on Drugs.

[longeyes]

The "rightwing" talk radio ranks seem split, depending on whether the host's first value is free market economics or cultural integrity (Constitution). I believe--heard this second-hand--that Rush was trying to spin this as a coup for the Republicans. Hannity's troubled by the national security aspects but is otherwise a Bush man all the way. Maybe the real split here is whether the host is conservative/libertarian or basically just a Republican partisan.

Savage's poll certainly indicates where the Savage listenership comes down. The result's not surprising but the fact that the Bush party line wants to ignore the implications of it is.

Dick Morris is out in the NY Post with an article that says the GOP is doing what it needs to survive. Fine. If the GOP wants to become the PRI North that's their business, but some of us will be looking at alternatives.

I just looked at immigrationshumancost.org. They make a good point about the fact that the rich in Mexico prefer to export their poverty rather than lift up their own nation. Unfortuately, the Bush family appears to have close alliances with some members of this Mexican oligarchy. I don't remember any exhortation by Bush down in Monterrey that Mexico do more to help its own people. I guess that would be "insensitive."

[wingman]

"The Dangers of Our United States Immigration Policies"




Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, writes this article on immigration, in which he lists five grave concerns about the United States continuing it present immigration trend. Lamm is director of the Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues at the University of Denver. The article appeared on the website of the Rocky Mountain News.

***
On Immigration

Should illegal aliens have driver's licenses, amnesty, welfare, and the right to move their families to the U.S.? Illegal aliens are, as is often pointed out, ''good, hard-working people who just want the American dream.'' But is that the end of the argument?

The trouble with that level of analysis is that there are billions of ''good, hard-working people'' and their dependents in the world who would love to come here, and obviously we can't take them all. We are also a nation of laws, with our own unemployed and underemployed, and our nation needs to come to some enforceable consensus on what our policy should be on people entering the country illegally.

Polls show that more than 70 percent of Americans object to illegal immigration, and we run a serious risk of a backlash against all immigrants if we don't reach some consensus on this issue. Polls also show that there is no issue in America where there is a bigger gap between public opinion and opinions of the media and other ''elites.''

Reasoned dialogue is rare and issues of immense importance to America's future are not being discussed or even debated.

Public policy requires us to be wise enough to appreciate cumulative effects. We already have approximately 10 percent of all Mexico living in the U.S. either legally or illegally. We owe it to the future to have a candid debate on the demographic impact of a mass migration of this magnitude. Consider:

1. We are a nation built on law. It almost sounds old-fashioned in contemporary America to ask that people obey the law. But when we start deciding which laws to obey and which to ignore, we start down a dangerous path. There are millions of potential immigrants patiently waiting in their home countries to immigrate here, playing by our rules. Illegal immigrants ''jump the line.''

2. As every house needs a door, every country needs a border. By turning a blind eye toward illegal immigration, we are encouraging countless numbers of these people to attempt to sneak into America. I spent a night with the Border Patrol in California, and was amazed to find people from India, Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Africa and China among the people detained.

3. Illegal immigration hurts America's poor. Illegal immigrants compete for the jobs our own poor need to start to move up the economic ladder. A study by The Center for Immigration Studies finds: ''Mexican immigration is overwhelmingly unskilled, and it is hard to find an economic argument for unskilled immigration, because it tends to reduce wages for (U.S.) workers.'' The study goes on: ''Because the American economy offers very limited opportunities for workers with little education, continued unskilled immigration can't help but to significantly increase the size of the poor and uninsured populations, as well as the number of people on welfare.''

4. We are told that illegal immigration is ''cheap labor,'' but it is not ''cheap labor,'' it is subsidized labor. The National Academy of Sciences has found that there is a significant fiscal drain on U.S. taxpayers for each adult immigrant without a high school education. Illegal immigration is something that benefits a few employers, but the rest of us subsidize that labor through the school system, the health-care system, the courts and in other ways that this form of labor imposes. With school spending of more than $7,000 per student per year, even a small family costs far more than a low-wage family pays in taxes.

5. America is increasingly becoming, day by day, a bilingual country, yet there is not a bilingual country in the world that lives in peace with itself. No nation should blindly allow itself to become a bilingual-bicultural country. If it does, it invites generations of conflict, tension and antagonism. America has historically demanded that its immigrants be self-supporting and English-speaking to join our polity. We vary from that rule that made us '''one nation, indivisible''' at great risk to America's future. Today, when over 40 percent of today's massive wave of immigrants is from Spanish-speaking nations, people can move to America and keep their language, their culture and their old loyalties. If the melting pot doesn't melt, immigrants become ''foreigners'' living in America rather than assimilated Americans.

6. Our social fabric risks becoming undone. It is important to America's future that we look at how Mexican immigrants are doing. Too many of our Hispanic immigrants live in ethnic ghettos. Too many are unskilled laborers, too many are uneducated, too many live in poverty, too many are exploited, too many haven't finished ninth grade, too many drop out of school. The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report last year, which found: ''Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, compared to fewer than one in 10 natives not completing high school. Mexican immigrants now account for 22 percent of all high school dropouts in the labor force.''

But what is most disturbing is that second and third generations don't do much better. Again, the study from The Center for Immigration Studies: ''The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist across the generations.'' A recent report from the center shows that two-thirds of Mexican immigrant workers lack even a high school education; as a consequence, two-thirds of Mexican immigrant families live in or near poverty. The question has to be asked: By tolerating illegal immigration are we laying the foundations for a new Hispanic underclass? A Hispanic Quebec?

[Jeff White]

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
05 January 2004

by Dr. George Friedman

The Geopolitics of Immigration

Summary

The United States is a nation of immigrants. That is the ultimate
cliche and the absolute truth. The debate under way in the United
States over Mexican immigration probably reflects the oldest
American debate: Are new immigrants a blessing or a catastrophe?
But the Mexican border situation is unique, and controlling the
movement of an indigenous population in a borderland whose
frontiers do not cohere to social or economic reality is
impossible.

Analysis

The United States came into being through mass movements of
populations. The movements came in waves from all over the world
and, depending upon the historical moment, they served differing
purposes, but there were two constants. First, each wave served
an indispensable economic, political, military or social
function. The United States -- as a nation and regime -- would
not have evolved as it did without them. Second, each wave of
immigrants was viewed ambiguously by those who were already in-
country. Depending upon the time or place, some saw the new
immigrants as an indispensable boon; others saw them as a
catastrophe. The debate currently under way in the United States
is probably the oldest in the United States: Are new immigrants a
blessing or catastrophe? So much for the obvious.

What is interesting about the discussion of immigration is the
extent to which it is dominated by confusion, particularly about
the nature of immigrants. When the term "immigrant" is used, it
is frequently intended to mean one of two things: Sometimes it
means non-U.S. citizens who have come to reside in the United
States legally. Alternatively, it can mean a socially or
linguistically distinct group that lives in the United States
regardless of legal status. When you put these together in their
various permutations, the discourse on immigration can become
chaotic. It is necessary to simplify and clarify the concept of
"immigrant."

Initial U.S. immigration took two basic forms. There were the
voluntary migrants, ranging from the Europeans in the 17th
century to Asians today. There were the involuntary migrants --
primarily Africans -- who were forced to come to the continent
against their will. This is one of the critical fault lines
running through U.S. history. An immigrant who came from China in
1995 has much more in common with the Puritans who arrived in New
England more than 300 years ago than either has with the
Africans. The former came by choice, seeking solutions to their
personal or political problems. The latter came by force, brought
here to solve the personal or political problems of others. This
is one fault line.

The second fault line is between those who came to the United
States and those to whom the United States came. The Native
American tribes, for example, were conquered and subjugated by
the immigrants who came to the United States before and after its
founding. It should be noted that this is a process that has
taken place many times in human history. Indeed, many Native
American tribes that occupied the United States prior to the
foreign invasion had supplanted other tribes -- many of which
were obliterated in the process. Nevertheless, in a strictly
social sense, Native American tribes were militarily defeated and
subjugated, their legal status in the United States was sometimes
ambiguous and their social status was frequently that of
outsiders. They became immigrants because the occupants of the
new United States moved and dislocated them.

There was a second group of people in this class: Mexicans. A
substantial portion of the United States, running from California
to Texas, was conquered territory, taken from Mexico in the first
half of the 19th century. Mexico existed on terrain that Spain
had seized from the Aztecs, who conquered it from prior
inhabitants. Again, this should not be framed in moral terms. It
should be framed in geopolitical terms.

When the United States conquered the southwest, the Mexican
population that continued to inhabit the region was not an
immigrant population, but a conquered one. As with the Native
Americans, this was less a case of them moving to the United
States than the United States moving to them.

The response of the Mexicans varied, as is always the case, and
they developed a complex identity. Over time, they accepted the
political dominance of the United States and became, for a host
of reasons, U.S. citizens. Many assimilated into the dominant
culture. Others accepted the legal status of U.S. citizens while
maintaining a distinct cultural identity. Still others accepted
legal status while maintaining intense cultural and economic
relations across the border with Mexico. Others continued to
regard themselves primarily as Mexican.

The U.S.-Mexican border is in some fundamental ways arbitrary.
The line of demarcation defines political and military
relationships, but does not define economic or cultural
relationships. The borderlands -- and they run hundreds of miles
deep into the United States at some points -- have extremely
close cultural and economic links with Mexico. Where there are
economic links, there always are movements of population. It is
inherent.

The persistence of cross-border relations is inevitable in
borderlands that have been politically and militarily subjugated,
but in which the prior population has been neither annihilated
nor expelled. Where the group on the conquered side of the border
is sufficiently large, self-contained and self-aware, this
condition can exist for generations. A glance at the Balkans
offers an extreme example. In the case of the United States and
its Mexican population, it also has continued to exist.

This never has developed into a secessionist movement, for a
number of reasons. First, the preponderance of U.S. power when
compared to Mexico made this a meaningless goal. Second, the
strength of the U.S. economy compared to the Mexican economy did
not make rejoining Mexico attractive. Finally, the culture in the
occupied territories evolved over the past 150 years, yielding a
complex culture that ranged from wholly assimilated to complex
hybrids to predominantly Mexican. Secessionism has not been a
viable consideration since the end of the U.S. Civil War. Nor
will it become an issue unless a remarkable change in the balance
between the United States and Mexico takes place.

It would be a mistake, however, to think of the cross-border
movements along the Mexican-U.S. border in the same way we think
of the migration of people to the United States from other places
such as India or China, which are an entirely different
phenomenon -- part of the long process of migrations to the
United States that has taken place since before its founding. In
these, individuals made decisions -- even if they were part of a
mass movement from their countries -- to move to the United
States and, in moving to the United States, to adopt the dominant
American culture to facilitate assimilation. The Mexican
migrations are the result of movements in a borderland that has
been created through military conquest and the resulting
political process.

The movement from Mexico is, from a legal standpoint, a cross-
border migration. In reality, it is simply an internal migration
within a territory whose boundaries were superimposed by history.
Put differently, if the United States had lost the Mexican-
American war, these migrations would be no more noteworthy than
the mass migration to California from the rest of the United
States in the middle of the 20th century. But the United States
did not lose the war -- and the migration is across international
borders.

It should be noted that this also distinguishes Mexican
population movements from immigration from other Hispanic
countries. The closest you can come to an equivalent is in Puerto
Rico, whose inhabitants are U.S. citizens due to prior conquest.
They neither pose the legal problems of Mexicans nor can they
simply slip across the border.

The Mexican case is one-of-a-kind, and the difficulty of sealing
the border is indicative of the real issue. There are those who
call for sealing the border and, technically, it could be done
although the cost would be formidable. More important, turning
the politico-military frontier into an effective barrier to
movement would generate social havoc. It would be a barrier
running down the middle of an integrated social and economic
reality. The costs for the region would be enormous, piled on top
of the cost of walling off the frontier from the Gulf of Mexico
to the Pacific.

If the U.S. goal is to create an orderly migration process from
Mexico, which fits into a broader immigration policy that
includes the rest of the world, that probably cannot be done.
Controlling immigration in general is difficult, but controlling
the movement of an indigenous population in a borderland whose
frontiers do not cohere to social or economic reality is
impossible.

This is not intended to be a guide to social policy. Our general
view is that social policies dealing with complex issues usually
have such wildly unexpected consequences that it is more like
rolling the dice than crafting strategy. We nevertheless
understand that there will be a social policy, hotly debated by
all sides that will wind up not doing what anyone expects, but
actually will do something very different.

The point we are trying to make is simpler. First, the question
of Mexican population movements has to be treated completely
separately from other immigrations. These are apples and oranges.
Second, placing controls along the U.S.-Mexican frontier is
probably impossible. Unless we are prepared to hermetically seal
the frontier, populations will flow endlessly around barriers,
driven by economic and social factors. Mexico simply does not end
at the Mexican border, and it hasn't since the United States
defeated Mexico. Neither the United States nor Mexico can do
anything about the situation.

The issue, from our point of view, cuts to the heart of
geopolitics as a theory. Geopolitics argues that geographic
reality creates political, social, economic and military
realities. These can be shaped by policies and perhaps even
controlled to some extent, but the driving realities of
geopolitics can never simply be obliterated, except by
overwhelming effort and difficulty. The United States is not
prepared to do any of these things and, therefore, the things the
United States is prepared to do are doomed to ineffectiveness.
...............................................................

[longeyes]

Ah, I get it: Geography is destiny.

[Art Eatman]

Friedman's piece is informative, but it does not at all address the current problems we're having. Real world, we're not dealing with the problem of illegals with little or no skills or education, with the drain on the tax base in many areas or with their crime rate. (And on and on and on.) As many here have commented at length...

Art

[seeker_two]

Have no idea where Rush is on this, or Glen Beck either.

Beck is very much against Bush's plan...

http://www.glennbeck.com

I've pretty well written off Rush & Hannity as GOP spin doctors, so my talk radio list is pretty much Beck, Savage, Ingram, & Boortz (when I can find him)...

[fix]

Dr. George Friedman's analysis reveals something I've been saying for a long time. The potential is there for this to turn into our own little Israeli-Palestinian controversy. The intifada is coming.

[Jeff White]

The way I see it, the only real solution we have is to make Mexico into a democratic country with a free market economy to take the financial incetive away from crossing the border. How to do that with all the military committed in the middle east is a problem. :uhoh:

I told Vincente Fox the other day on Fox News Sunday, that if he wanted to fix the problem, he could make things better in his country. Don't think the message got through the TV though. Mexico has natural resources, a population that the RNC and the DNC says is dying to work, all we need to do is take over their country and fix it so there is opportunity on the South side of the border. Something to think about, Mexico is probably as big a threat to us as Iraq.

Jeff

[wingman]

Mexico is probably as big a threat to us as Iraq.


Worth repeating, Mexico "is" a bigger threat to the United States then
Iraq.........

[ahenry]

Worth repeating, Mexico "is" a bigger threat to the United States then
Iraq......... While that is debatable, if Mexico is “threat” at all to America, it is of an entirely different nature from Iraq. Mexico as a nation is not actively seeking to destroy America or Americans*. IF they are doing anything it is trying to leech off of America’s success.



* I realize that there are people of sound mind that do not believe Iraq was a threat to America at all. If such a view is yours, please just go with me on this.

[seeker_two]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worth repeating, Mexico "is" a bigger threat to the United States then
Iraq.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While that is debatable, if Mexico is “threat” at all to America, it is of an entirely different nature from Iraq. Mexico as a nation is not actively seeking to destroy America or Americans*. IF they are doing anything it is trying to leech off of America’s success.

It's not debatable. Whether by WOD, terrorism, or economic assault, an attack on the US is an attack on the US.

As for military action, we still have troops stationed where we don't really need them (Bosnia, Suez Penninsula, Germany, Columbia, etc. ) Those would be rather helpful in setting up a No-Man's Land 5 miles inside the Mexican Border. Landmines & armed UAV's would help, too. Make it a lot more risky to come to THIS country, and Mexicans will be eager to make their OWN country better. Then we can help the pro-democracy forces gain control.

But that takes a WILL TO ACT. Something that won't come from THIS administration...:banghead:

[longeyes]

I posted a while ago that within not that many years we'd see the USMC in Mexico City. Farfetched? We'll find out. It won't happen in this regime obviously because just as Clinton was our "first Black President," George W. Bush is our first Mexican President.

You are not going to bring an economic and political solution to Mexico without toppling the oligarchical 47 Families and the drug-cartels (same thing?). Easing immigration and "promoting trade" won't do a thing. Mexico and the U.S. already have a symbiotic relationship and it will be a brave soul who unearths the worst of that. Of course the problem with overthrowing Mexico's oligarchies is that we have more than a few of our own, don't we? Perhaps the next step will be for the great families of both countries to start intermarrying, just as royalty used to do in Europe.

The more things change, the more...you know the rest.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Friedman wrote:

The movement from Mexico is, from a legal standpoint, a cross-
border migration. In reality, it is simply an internal migration
within a territory whose boundaries were superimposed by history.
Put differently, if the United States had lost the Mexican-
American war, these migrations would be no more noteworthy than
the mass migration to California from the rest of the United
States in the middle of the 20th century. But the United States
did not lose the war -- and the migration is across international
borders.


This part of Friedman's essay is especially problematic. He is neglecting to take into account how sparsely settled were the territories seized by the US from Mexico. Perhaps the borders were set by that history as he says, but to say that controlling the border would somehow wreck havoc based upon some immense uncontrollable interchange across it is overstating that flow by a large margin.

Friedman also fails to take into account the offsetting benefits that tight border security would bring. These would be reduced costs to US taxpayers, reduced flow of illegal drugs, exclusion of potential terrorists, etc.

He also fails to quantify how sealing the border would be so prohibitively expensive, particularly in consideration of the immense cost savings that would accrue to the US by a halt in illegal immigration.

[ahenry]

As for military action, we still have troops stationed where we don't really need them (Bosnia, Suez Penninsula, Germany, Columbia, etc. ) Those would be rather helpful in setting up a No-Man's Land 5 miles inside the Mexican Border. Ah yes, the oft mentioned “X mile no-mans land”. I’d like you to explain just how exactly that is supposed to happen. No need to do so on a nation wide level, lets just talk Texas. Hell, no need to even talk all 1200 miles of the Texas-Mexico border, how about just the Valley area. Why don’t you tell me just how exactly you think say, a five hundred square miles, will become a no-mans land. Keep in mind a good portion of that area is city and town infrastructure and in order to make it a no-mans land you of course have to remove the entire infrastructure. Of course as you well know, here in Texas all that land is privately owned, so you’ve got to take all that prime real estate away from somebody. Also remember that America citizens do not have to (and should not have to) carry or show any sort of documentation to travel about in the country or to cross into the United States, nor do they technically have to cross at a port of entry. That’s just a couple of the main issues facing this rather ridiculous proposal. Perhaps you have some clever way of accomplishing this, sort of a Columbus and the egg thing. If so, by all means share it with us.

[longeyes]

There are many answers possible. Remove the carrot of welfare, for one. Penalize law-breaking employers. Repeal the jus soli citizenship provision.

Another is to push into Mexico and start taking back real estate there. We could start with Baja California, just to send a message.

Is this going to happen? Not with El Presidente Bush in the Casa Blanca, no.

People who begin with Accepting the Inevitable don't last too long. If we keep on this course our days as a Republic are numbered.

[labgrade]

Just as an aside, NAFTA/GATT was supposed to "help." It didn't, & wosre, all those low-paying jobs sent to Mexico are in the process of being replaced by even cheaper labor from the asiatic rim (China, anyone?).

Even with all the "economic benefits" of the "free-trade-folk," that's becoming toast with the new economic realities.

Less incentive to stay put.

A point missed earlier, but very important, is that of Savage's (one thing I can agree w/him on) is that of "borders, language, culture."

But back to my intial post - seems dichotomous for the administration to ply this facade, beat up current citizens with continually more draconian laws, while allowing anyone across the borders.

I'm I missing something (other than the obvious)?

[seeker_two]

ahenry: read my last post (esp. the part you quoted) for your answer...

As for military action, we still have troops stationed where we don't really need them (Bosnia, Suez Penninsula, Germany, Columbia, etc. ) Those would be rather helpful in setting up a No-Man's Land 5 miles INSIDE the Mexican Border.

Why don’t you tell me just how exactly you think say, a five hundred square miles, will become a no-mans land.

Landmines & armed UAV's would help, too. Make it a lot more risky to come to THIS country, and Mexicans will be eager to make their OWN country better.

Landmines, armed UAV's, armed patrols, maybe some "live-fire" exercises conducted to train troops. These actions would make crossing the border a lot more risky than just "a midnight stroll" like it is now. Make it a game of Russian Roulette w/ three chambers loaded, and a lot more people will decide to stay home & clean their own house.

But that takes a WILL TO ACT. Something that won't come from THIS administration...

...or many of its citizens. :banghead:

[longeyes]

"But back to my intial post - seems dichotomous for the administration to ply this
facade, beat up current citizens with continually more draconian laws, while
allowing anyone across the borders.

I'm I missing something (other than the obvious)?"

How obvious is the globalist agenda? How obvious is it that Bush has a thing for Mexico? How obvious is it that Bush doesn't care that much for the inconveniences of the U.S. Constitution? How obvious is it that Bush sees the future of his Party with with new citizens and voters from south of the border?

You see it all, brother. And Savage is right on many things. Mexico believes in "border, language, culture," but we--some of us, anyway--clearly do not.

[labgrade]

Yup, seeker-Two, but just 3 chambers loaded? Slacker! :neener:

According to reports that I've heard, the immigrants will be allowed family to attend, which of course, allows the "anchor babies" (US citizens) to be born here.

Do the math.

We've already the HIB (?) program in effect which allows hi-tech positions to be taken by off-country folk. Heard an AM conversation about this 1/17 about Ohio (?) bringing in IT-folk to help revamp their unemployment system - it's out of date. But we've 1M unemployed & qulaified IT citizens?

CO congress-critter Tancredo has some interesting ideas .....

[another okie]

This issue is a failure of the political system. Most Americans want the borders tightened, and yet both parties are in favor of more immigration. The Democrats want votes and the Republicans want cheap labor.

I like Mexico and Mexicans, but uncontrolled immigration is destroying my county, and I'm sure many others can say the same about where they live. The little hospital in my county is going to go under in a few years under the weight of free care for illegals. The public schools spend huge portions of their budgets educating the children of illegals who essentially pay no taxes to support the schools. The sheriff spends half his time busting illegal aliens who are drug dealers, and we spend a signficant portion of our pathetically small county budget trying and imprisioning the criminals among them. They have destroyed neighborhoods, they drive recklessly and ignore tickets, they kill people in drunk driving accidents and flee. All this to benefit a few large employers.

It is just not true that they are here doing jobs no one else will do. They are doing them for wages no one else will do them for. They usually receive no benefits, including those required by law, such as workers' compensation, that a legal worker would require. I don't really blame either the immigrants or the employers for doing what it is in their short term economic interest. It is the job of the people and the government to look out for the long term interest, and we're not doing it.

It's like being on the deck of the Titanic and seeing an iceberg in the distance. When you try to get the captain's attention he tells you it's no big deal.

[longeyes]

"It's like being on the deck of the Titanic and seeing an iceberg in the distance.
When you try to get the captain's attention he tells you it's no big deal."

Maybe that's why God invented mutiny?

[ahenry]

setting up a No-Man's Land 5 miles INSIDE the Mexican Border. Sorry Seeker, I thought that had to be a misprint. So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting we go to war with Mexico, seize over ten thousand square miles of Mexico, destroy virtually every single Mexican border town, and then plant the military along that two thousand mile stretch of border? Hmm, that strikes me as even more ridiculous than setting up a no-mans land inside America.

Landmines, armed UAV's, armed patrols, maybe some "live-fire" exercises conducted to train troops. These actions would make crossing the border a lot more risky than just "a midnight stroll" like it is now. Make it a game of Russian Roulette w/ three chambers loaded, and a lot more people will decide to stay home & clean their own house. I understand what you are saying but such a plan in not feasible (on either side of the border). First of all, somebody owns almost all of the America side of the border. That means the American gov’t has to take the land from somebody either Mexico (to make the no-mans land inside Mexico), or private citizens, or Indian tribes. Think how hot under the collar people get when a few feet are taken from them for a street widening project and tell me that Americans would be ok with the gov’t forcibly taking all the land they own. Especially in Texas were there are ranches that are owned by the same family’s that settled them before America even existed.

But that takes a WILL TO ACT. Something that won't come from THIS administration... ...or many of its citizens. I sure hope you aren’t talking about me, because you really don’t know what you are talking about if you are…

[Waitone]

The idea of "sealing" the border is somewhat amusing since East Berlin couldn't seal itself off from West Berlin.

If you want to raise the cost of illegal immigration to those who benefit from illegal immigration, take a long hard look at workplace enforcement. The is a finite number of places illegal will go when entering the US. The will go to places that provide employment and dispense social services. If Bush and his antecedents wanted to hinder the problem they could have done so by ENFORCING THE FREAKIN' LAWS ALREADY IN EFFECT.

And that brings us to why nothin' is being done except beating of the chest and throwing gorilla dust into the air. Neither government (you pick which level) nor the business community has any stomach for cracking down. Why? because of the money. Business, particularly those in labor intensive sectors benefit big time because of the reduction in direct labor costs such as wages AND in the reduction of indirect labor costs such as transferring the cost of medical care directly to the taxpayer.

Government benefits because we now have an entire class of people who desperately need the tender mercies of the welfare state. Hot dog! Bureaucratic jobs for decades into the future.

Now let us look at a cold-blooded political analysis from Dick Morris as to why he thinks Bush is doing what appears to logical, constitutionally minded people to be insane. I don't buy all of what he says. I like him even less, but I have to listen to his construction because he did take two sows ears and made them into silk purses (Trent Lott and Bill Clinton).


http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11783



Hispanics: Key To GOP's Future
By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 16, 2004

{Poster's Note---Notice Morris' logic contains nothing of the law on constitutional requirements. Just good ol' fashioned hardball politics)


President Bush's immigration/amnesty proposal will probably be remembered in history as the idea that saved a political party.

By taking the lead in extending the benefits of legal protections to more than 10 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States, Bush has taken a bold and dramatic step to avert the extinction of his own party.

Until Bush acted, the grinding inevitability of demographic change was likely to doom the GOP to an early death. As America became 1 percent more Hispanic each year, the Republicans could not concede this growing group to the Democrats by 2-1 ratios without risking total annihilation down the road.

The Republicans have got to break the solid demographic phalanx that sustains the Democratic Party: Blacks, Hispanics and single white women. Together, this group cast 25 percent of votes in 1990, 32 percent in 2000 and will account for 40 percent in 2008.

But by embracing the cause of Hispanic immigrants and extending to them elemental civil rights and minimum-wage protections, Bush has struck a blow on their behalf that will resonate in their voting habits for generations to come. His legislative proposals are akin to the sponsorship of a sweeping civil-rights bill in 1963-65 by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and will have a similar effect in binding Hispanics to the Republicans as the civil-rights legislation did in linking blacks to the Democrats.

For decades, Republicans systematically alienated Hispanics by insisting on English-only initiatives, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants and demanding an end even to free public schools for the children of those who came here illegally. These measures drove Hispanics into the waiting arms of Democrats. Bush has now acted to reverse the legacy of these initiatives and to welcome Hispanics into the GOP.

As Catholic voters, who take their religion seriously, Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency. Recent data that closely links the frequency of church attendance to party-voting habits supports the theory that this very religious voting group is likely to adhere to the Republican Party once its platform stops repelling them at every turn.

Republican efforts to win black voters have proven largely fruitless. Even the appointment of blacks to the two top jobs in the Bush foreign policy apparatus has failed to generate any significant African-American support for Bush in the polls. But candidates who appeal to the Hispanic vote - Gov. Pataki in New York, Gov. Rick Perry in Texas and the Bushes in Florida and Texas - have shown a real ability to get large shares of Hispanic voters.

As Hispanics follow the traditional paths of upward mobility that immigrant groups have trod before them, they are likely to lean more and more toward the Republicans - just as Irish and Italians do these days, abandoning the Democratic orientation of their ancestors.

Hispanics hold the key to the political outcomes in many major states. California, Texas and Florida are heavily influenced by their participation as are New York, New Jersey and Illinois. These are the key battleground states that hold the balance of power between the parties.

Apart from the politics of the issue, the merits also dictate the Bush initiative. America has 4 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its wealth. It is incumbent on us to open our doors to those who seek upward mobility.

The only thing standing between subsistence and starvation in Mexico, and much of Central America is the money sent home to needy families by hard working men and women in the United States who tend our gardens, wash our dishes and clean our floors. It is not American workers who they are putting out of jobs, it is American robots. The alternative to their low wage work is not American labor but machines.

The United States needs the skills, energy, savvy and willingness to work hard of our illegal immigrants. They are illegal only because our laws have been nativist and short-sighted. Now Bush is setting them right.

[Marko Kloos]

Once again, I keep hearing about the use of the military to "seal off the borders.' Once again, the proponents of this action fail to explain in workable and logical terms how such a goal is to be achieved.

I'm going to warm up an old post of mine, just like I always do when this discussion comes up. The "seal the borders" crowd always fails to address the points.

The border is too long to be effectively patrolled by the military.

Our border with Canada is about 4,000 miles long. Our border with Mexico is approximately 2,000 miles long.

That's six thousand miles of land. Our accessible coastline adds another six thousand to the equation, although it's probably closer to ten thousand if you count the convoluted coastline by actual mileage instead of crow flight.

All the combat divisions in the United States Army and USMC combined would not be enough manpower to guard 6,000 miles of border and 10,000 miles of coastline...even if they were all placed on permanent garrison duty. You'd have to mobilize the Guard and Reserves, and keep them permanently activated to play Border Guards. Also, who's going to do the regular "Army stuff", like training for war?

Garrison Duty is bad for soldiers.

Troops placed on guard duty are garrison troops, and such duty is always detrimental to the morale of a fighting outfit. Additionally, they cannot train, so the overall quality of the unit will go downhill in a hurry.

Soldiers make poor policemen.

Soldiers are there to kill the enemy and break his stuff. Most of them, with the exception of MPs and Air Force SP, are not trained for law-enforcement operations. The mission of the soldier and the mission of the police officer are fundamentally different. You'd either have to retrain every trigger puller in the Army and Marines as part-time cops, or you have to change the rules of engagement at the border to fit the military mission. Are any of you seriously proposing machine-gunning illegals as they come across the border?

An open society like the US cannot be hermetically sealed.

It's a logical, technical, and logistical impossibility. Not even the Soviets and East Germans could keep their borders sealed, and they had minefields, machineguns and no Bill of Rights. The most heavily guarded and defended border in the history of the world, the inner-German border, was not airtight and did not prevent people from crossing it, even with the full might of a socialist dictatorship behind it.

Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus act expressly prohibits the use of the Armed Forces as police officers. The U.S. Border Patrol is a federal law enforcement organization. Putting soldiers into the same slot would be a violation of Posse Comitatus, since their mission would be the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

[glocksman]

Perhaps we can't hermetically seal it shut, but we can most certainly choke off the current tsunami of illegals to a level that doesn't threaten to overwhelm our society and put such a huge drain on the economy.

Immigration was the final straw for me.
I will vote for anyone other than that backstabbing bumbler Bush this year.

Tell Karl Rove that while I may not have anyplace to go, I'm capable of voting Democrat just to make sure GWB is a one term President.

As someone else wrote on another board: I'd rather take it in the gut from the Democrats than take it in the back from the Republicans.

[spartacus2002]

Vote COnstitution Party or Libertarian.

Here's an idea for guarding the border: issuing Letters of Marque to private citizen's groups. It's still in the Constitution, and I think we did that with the Barbary pirates before we finally sent the Navy over.

[seeker_two]

The border is too long to be effectively patrolled by the military.

But it CAN be patrolled by combining manned units & unmanned technology a heck of a lot better than it is now...:banghead:

Garrison Duty is bad for soldiers.

They're doing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, and South Korea. They can do it here too...:banghead:

Soldiers make poor policemen.

No one's asking them to write tickets & catch speeders. Their job, as it was from the beginning, is to protect and defend the borders of the United States from foreign powers. And invading illegal aliens falls into that range. They are the enemy. Act accordingly...:banghead:

An open society like the US cannot be hermetically sealed.

But it can be defended and protected. IF PEOPLE HAVE THE WILL TO DO IT!!!...:banghead:

Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.

See above. Plus, if they're stationed inside the Mexican border (where the No-Man's-Land would be), they wouldn't be in domestic areas. Besides, it's not about law enforcement--it's about a foreign threat to national security. And THAT'S what the military is for...:banghead:

Any OTHER questions?...:scrutiny:

[Marko Kloos]

Yeah. Can you use that freaking head-banging smiley a few more times? I just haven't seen enough of it yet.

Oh, and do you have a workable solution to the issue that does not involve either machine-gunning wetbacks, or invading and occupying Mexico?

[seeker_two]

Yeah. Can you use that freaking head-banging smiley a few more times? I just haven't seen enough of it yet.

As you wish....

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Oh, and do you have a workable solution to the issue that does not involve either machine-gunning wetbacks, or invading and occupying Mexico?

When faced with a threat to one's national security, one uses what works...:evil:


P.S. :banghead:

[longeyes]

"...and do you have a workable solution to the issue that does not involve either
machine-gunning wetbacks, or invading and occupying Mexico?"

I think the better question is whether you have a solution that does not involve the defrauding, disempowering, and bankrupting of American citizens or permitting the invasion and occupation of the United States of America?

Civilization, as we know it, is synonymous with WALLS, real or metaphorical, usually both.

[longeyes]

The fact that we are an "open society" does not mean we are open to everything and everyone from everywhere, especially on other people's terms. This is an absurdity. Do you leave your house and car unlocked because you are an "open-minded" sort? And why are you armed if you believe that openness is the be-all and end-all?

Either we will find the will to do what we have to do or we will become historical roadkill. That is exactly what we are in the process of finding out.

[longeyes]

"Sorry Seeker, I thought that had to be a misprint. So if I understand you
correctly, you are suggesting we go to war with Mexico, seize over ten thousand
square miles of Mexico, destroy virtually every single Mexican border town, and
then plant the military along that two thousand mile stretch of border? Hmm, that
strikes me as even more ridiculous than setting up a no-mans land inside America."

What's ridiculous is not recognizing that we are already "at war" with Mexico, just in a cold war so far, not yet a hot war. On a fiscal level, Mexican nationals have de facto seized and occupied thousand of miles of U.S. territory, not to mention billions of dollars that has been transferred to them by our American welfare state. Take your blinders off. Illegal immigrants, through their proxies in government agencies (teachers, e.g.), are already setting policy in numerous states around this nation. The cry for higher taxes for "badly needed services" emanates from needs generated by this incoming migrant population, aided and abetted by the social welfare mafia in a splendidly noxious symbiosis.

[Derek Zeanah]

What's ridiculous is not recognizing that we are already "at war" with Mexico...That would be a "yes." ;)

(I don't agree, I'm just clarifying).

[wingman]

The Illegal-Immigration Threat
A top homeland-security priority.

By Rep. Lamar Smith

llegal immigration threatens homeland security. And many politicians are on the wrong side of the issue.

Polls show a wide divergence between the American people and their "leaders" on this issue. According to a recent survey, 70 percent of the public wants to control illegal immigration, compared to only 22 percent of leaders from Congress, business, labor, religious, and academic groups.

Citizens understand that if you don't know who's coming into the country, like illegal immigrants, then you don't know what's coming into the country, like terrorist weapons.

What will serve as the alarm clock that startles elected representatives into action? Will it be another terrorist attack involving those who violate our immigration laws? Will it be that over 20 percent of all federal prisoners are illegal immigrants?

Will it be the cost to taxpayers of furnishing education, health care, and welfare to those who shouldn't be in the country? Will it be the lost wages of citizens and legal immigrants who have to compete with cheap labor?

Will it be the government contracts, set-asides, jobs, and college-admission preferences that immigrants receive as minorities? Will the U.S. (one of only two countries in the world) continue to automatically grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrants?

The Census Bureau discovered that seven million people, far more than estimated, live in the U.S. illegally. Since only people who are here year-round are counted, the actual number, including those temporarily here, probably equals twice that amount, or fourteen million illegal residents.

Enough people to populate America's three largest cities — New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago — have broken our immigration laws. And we don't know who they are, where they live, or what they are doing. As long as we have unsecure borders, we are inviting dangerous people to enter.

Ironically, some propose giving illegal immigrants amnesty; others propose "guest work" programs that lead to "regularization," or amnesty. Of course such proposals, if implemented, would attract still more illegal immigrants who hope to take advantage of these or similar future programs.

Before any changes are made to immigration policy, we must first stop the problem of illegal immigration from becoming worse. That means enforcing current laws, not sending mixed signals that encourage foreigners to cross our borders illegally.

Actually, it's not a mixed message we're sending, it's an advertisement in bright neon lights that reads: "Get Across The Border and You're Here To Stay."

Why hesitate to come, or worry about getting caught once you get here?

Laws that penalize employers for hiring illegal immigrants are seldom enforced.

A person has to be caught sneaking across the border as many as ten times before they are charged with breaking immigration laws.

Unless an illegal immigrant is convicted of a serious crime, it's unlikely they ever will be deported.

Fraudulent birth certificates and Social Security cards are cheap and easy to obtain.

Some states provide illegal aliens with drivers licenses; many businesses accept Mexican identification cards as proof of legal residence in the U.S.

The dangers posed by porous borders and illegal immigration are not going away. The longer we wait to enforce all immigration laws, the worse the situation becomes, and that's not good for Americans' security.

[ahenry]

What's ridiculous is not recognizing that we are already "at war" with Mexico, just in a cold war so far, not yet a hot war. Not in the sense of a nations gov’t actively seeking to wage some form of war with us. You can trot out the same old arguments you always use and I can trot out the same old rebuttals I use, but lets just skip all that and say we disagree. Migration is going to happen when economic well being is so close to those so destitute . I’m not suggesting we “fix” Mexico, as Mexico’s problems are not mine. However, add free education, free health care, and the list of other handouts available to one and all and you need no ulterior motive to explain illegal immigration. As I have said a hundred times over, border enforcement will never solve this issue. Border enforcement can and should be improved but it is not a solution.

The cry for higher taxes for "badly needed services" emanates from needs generated by this incoming migrant population, aided and abetted by the social welfare mafia in a splendidly noxious symbiosis. I agree.

Take your blinders off. I would wager I am more intimately familiar with immigration, both legal and illegal, than you or probably anybody else on this board, to include guys like Oleg Volk.

[wingman]

I would wager I am more intimately familiar with immigration, both legal and illegal, than you or probably anybody else on this board, to include guys like Oleg Volk.


Wow, and modest too.;)

[Carbonator]

I can't imagine what Bush will do in another 4 years. Bush will win, but not with my vote. If it is a wasted vote, it'll be a statement at least.

[ahenry]

Wow, and modest too. I’m not the one telling people to take blinders off as if myself and those that think as I are the only ones with enough discernment to know the truth.

[LD]

There seems to be a tendency running in the posts that the apprehension of illegals and enforcement of immigration laws are entirely the responsibility of the feds. This is not the case. Local and state authorities can and should also be active in the effort to stop illegals from entering and continuing to reside within the U.S. It is well established and specifically stated, in the immigration context, through legislative acts and settled case law that state and local law enforcement have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws. Anytime your local or state government says that they do not have the authority to enforce immigration laws just refer them to one or more of the following. The U.S. Supreme cout has even upheld the case law noted below.


The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Resopnsiblity Act of 1996, Section 133
Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983)
U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F2d 1298, 1301-02 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984)
Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Circ. 1987)
U.S. v. Vasquez-Alverez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295, 1296, 1299 n.4, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999)

Granted local authorities have their hands full with crackheads and other miscreants and may not have the resources to jail illegals until deportation hearings, but they can make things damn difficult. Besides, if they ticket illegals to appear at an INS court later and the illegal doesn't show up, he just became a "bonafide" criminal (presence changes from a civil offence to a criminal offense) and a 10-year exclusion rule kicks in. Under the 10-year exclusion rule an illegal cannot obtain legal admission to the U.S. for 10 years, period. Blanket Amnesty proposals such as Bush's don't apply.

By the way, the CLEAR Act (H.R. 2671) that is currently before Congress will clarify local/state authority to apprehend illegals. It currently has 117 co-sponsors. Check it out and make sure your Representative joins as a co-sponsor.

The feds aren't listening to us (other than Tom Tancredo) so I encourage everybody to start putting some REAL pressure on state and local officials to enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books.

[Steel]

I'm not sure it's that big a deal."

Then, neither will be endorsing someome else for President.

[Dave Markowitz]

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with everything below, but it caused me to think.

-----

Some Dare Call It Treason
(GOT ROPE?)
Liz Michael
www.lizmichael.com
Released January 11, 2004

President George W. Bush along with Senator John McCain, want to give
some eight to ten million illegal aliens, most of them from Mexico,
legal status. Theoretically, the plan would legalize these aliens as
"temporary workers," which would allow them to work freely in the United
States without fear of deportation.

I hear some hard-line conservatives call this proposal treason. I hear
very little from the mainstream Democrats, but some people in Labor and
on the Left have pegged this correctly for what it is. My opinion: this
is a proposal which has something bad for everyone. And in the end, it
will cause a violent revolution in two countries.

Something for everyone

First of all, the plan alleges it is designed to thwart illegal
immigration. But in truth, by assessing no penalties, the eight to
fourteen million illegal immigrants already here will be joined by tens
of millions more. So forget that nonsense about this bill stopping
illegal immigration. That's a lie. This bill would give would-be
immigrants no reason to follow the law at all. Already, more than ten
percent of Mexico's population is living illegally in the United States.
If Bush's plan is actually implemented, that percentage would skyrocket.
Bush's amnesty program would only be seen as a green light for millions
more to invade our nation from all over the world.

What the Bush-McCain plan offers conservatives

Conservatives seem most concerned about the plan "rewarding
lawbreakers". Indeed, the effect of the plan is actually to encourage
and reward the breaking of the law. And if this law is broken, will this
not inspire the whole of the nation to break other laws with impunity?
And what manner of country will this become when that happens, if it
hasn't already? Where are we on this now? Well, 33 percent of our prison
population is now comprised of non-citizens. This doesn't mean everyone
trying to sneak in is a criminal. But it does mean our current policy
tends to enable alien criminals and not penalize them or exclude them.

Also, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. This shouldn't
sit well with anyone, but conservatives are the most alarmed by it. The
Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the average Mexican
illegal alien costs U.S. taxpayers a whopping $55,000 each. This puts
the lie to the concept that such immigration is actually "beneficial".
Yes, some people who are coming ARE a net benefit. But those people are
dwarfed by those who actually cost us money.

Conservatives are also concerned that this is another step in
undermining the sovereignty of the United States. Part of this is the
Aztlan movement, by which some Mexican-American radicals are essentially
preparing to craft a new nation out of the Southwest, and though they
won't openly acknowledge it, "ethnically cleanse" the region of whites,
blacks and Indians. Part of this is the burgeoning movement toward
regionalization, essentially making one North American country out of
Canada, Mexico and the United States.

And every child born of a guest worker would, under our 14th Amendment,
becomes an American citizen, automatically entitled to all the benefits
of citizenship. This also concerns some conservatives.

What the Bush-McCain plan offers liberals

If you love social programs like Social Security, Medicare, education
funding, environmental preservation, etc, and if you are a proponent of
universal health care, what does the Bush-McCain plan do for your
programs? Well, if the Bush-McCain amnesty plan happens, kiss it all
goodbye.

The financial drain on American taxpayers which will occur if more
aliens are allowed unfettered access to the United States is
incalculable. Taxpayers will be paying for their food, health care,
Social Security benefits, and education, plus all of the above for their
dependents, from now on. Not to mention, the cost of law enforcement and
loss of property due to the criminal conduct of a portion of the alien
population. What will this do to your social programs? It will collapse
them. The benefits of Americans in these programs, and their access to
them, will all be cut.

Oh, and when I say taxpayers, I mean, those who will still have jobs.
Corporations will look to hire the former illegal aliens wherever they
can. As a result, American unemployment costs will skyrocket and so will
welfare costs. The truth is, this plan is designed to specifically
ELIMINATE as taxpayers the very people who are needed to fund all these
social programs.

I know, I know. You'll respond: well, we can always raise taxes on the
rich. Get real. First of all, even if all the income of the rich were
confiscated, it wouldn't fund the government for any longer than three
weeks. But even if it could: how are you going to do it when Bush and
the Republicans control all three houses by wide margins? Which is
exactly what all this is designed to do by appeasing the Latino vote.

But wait: there's more! I haven't forgotten about you environmentalists.
Guess what the extra population coming in is going to do for the
environment? Totally destroy it. More resources will be used. More of
everything you hate will have to happen to accommodate these tens of
millions of people. They will have to locate somewhere. If they locate
in cities, they will displace Americans who will then have to move to
the open spaces. Or they will move to the open spaces themselves. Do you
know what kind of havoc illegal aliens can wreak on the environment?
Well, check out the southern border wilderness areas in California and
Arizona. Ask the Tohono O'odham Nation.

In any event, these new people will use more oil, requiring the tapping
of ANWR, more paper and more homes, requiring the felling of more trees,
more water, requiring more diversion of the natural courses of rivers.
They will deposit more waste in your bays, more sewage in your rivers,
and more trash in more landfills. The companies that hire them will
expand the level of their pollution: why? Because they can, having
Republican majorities everywhere. The savings in labor costs means that
such companies, instead of being forced out of business, will flourish
at the expense of the environment.

What the Bush-McCain plan offers organized labor

First of all, let's acknowledge the 18 million Americans who cannot find
a job. The truth is, there are not very many jobs around that Americans
will not do. So illegal aliens who are coming here to work do so at the
peril of American workers.

What the plan offers labor is very simple: the opportunity for major
corporations to bust every single one of your unions. It'll go something
like this. A company will advertise a job, and in three months declare
that no American "wanted it". Thus, an immigrant will be offered it. Now
does that really sound so bad?

Well, if it doesn't, you forgot something. What if the reason that job
went unfilled with no American willing to do it was that it didn't offer
a living wage? Is that really legal under the Bush-McCain plan? You betcha.

And this will hit all the minority communities the hardest. The first
jobs to be hatcheted under these plans are jobs mostly held now by
black, Indian, and Hispanic Americans. This is not an unintended
consequence, folks. This is by design.

And it will happen to jobs ALL OVER AMERICA. The Bush-McCain plan is the
ultimate union-busting, racial oppression tactic. Which brings me to the
next subject...

What the Bush-McCain plan offers immigrant workers

In a word, slavery. Yes, slavery. Every illegal immigrant worker
currently has a Sword of Damocles over their head: accept our slave
wages and slave conditions, don't complain, or you'll be deported, maybe
even arrested and sent to detention for two years. The new guest worker
plan not only allows such things to continue, it LEGALIZES the practice.
Abusive practices which often include sexual harassment and forced
prostitution. The plan doesn't offer these immigrant workers a path to
citizenship, which is exactly the condition Negro slaves found
themselves in in many states in the 1800's, perpetual non-citizen workers.

Are you listening, MEChA? MALDEF? Are you going to allow a practice
which abuses Mexican nationals, your brothers and sisters, in this way?

What the Bush-McCain plan offers legal immigrants

Bush's amnesty plan is also a serious slap in the face to those would-be
immigrants who are trying to migrate to America legally. And to the many
many legal immigrants now here. And to every single naturalized citizen
of the U.S. who did it all according to the rules.

There are thousands of decent, hard working people from around the world
who are seeking entrance into the United States. Some of these are
seeking political asylum. Some are fleeing persecution. Whatever their
reasons, they are following the rules and obeying the laws. Now, they
must wait and watch as President Bush pushes lawbreakers to the front of
the line. Bush and McCain have flipped the middle finger at you, Mr. and
Ms. Legal Immigrant.

Something for Osama bin Laden, too?

As if everything else the Bush-McCain immigration plan would do does not
constitute an act of war against the American people, here is the
kicker. As of now, it is made to seem that every precaution in the world
has been taken to prevent another 9-11. We have gone on military
excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan allegedly to root out "terrorists".
Yet at the height of all of this "Orange Alert" and security mania,
oppressing damned near every single American in the name of keeping them
safe, absolutely no concern has been shown to the southern border of the
United States.

That's right. Not one troop. One soldier. One national guardsman. Not
one has been stationed on our southern border to secure it. And mixed in
with the millions and millions of Mexican immigrants looking for work,
and occasionally for crime, are agents of Al Qaeda also being smuggled
in in order to wreak the next havoc upon America. How do we know? For
one, Al Qaeda themselves have said they are doing it and are going to do
it. For two, instances of notepads with Arabic writings have been
discovered in the Arizona desert.

Are ya "feelin'" me, people? Do you understand what I am trying to tell
you? This is a far more serious matter than just replacing George Bush
with Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Wes Clark, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry,
or whomever, and a far more serious matter than replacing John McCain
with Liz Michael. This is not about matters for which members of
Congress and the President should be defeated at the polls. This is
about matters over which they should be hung, under the treason clause
of the constitution.

Yes, treason. If Al Qaeda is an enemy of this nation, then the Bush
administration is giving aid and comfort to that enemy by exposing our
southern flank to attack on purpose, and dissuading law enforcement and
private militias from patrolling that area and arresting violators. If
the "War On Terror" is a real war, then those who perpetuate this open
and unguarded flank willfully are real traitors, and they should suffer
the penalty reserved for real traitors.

Who is funding illegal immigration?

Think about this. Coyotes, immigrant smugglers, can make anywhere from
$500 to $2000 a head and more, for smuggling the poorest of Mexican
immigrants, who barely have a peso to their family's name, across the
southern border.

How do you square that?

I mean, seriously, these people, who are absolutely economically
devastated in their home country, are supposedly paying coyotes
thousands of dollars to get into the United States.

Bull puckey.

Coyotes are being financed. By outside sources. And these people, many
unfamiliar with how to traverse the Sonoran Desert, are being directly
encouraged to come, by SOMEBODY. We may never know for sure, but here
are my list of prime candidates:
1. Drug trafficking. Many illegal immigrants are directly used in the
trafficking of illegal drugs into the country.
2. Corporate sponsorship. Proving this may be difficult. But it is the
logical conclusion. Who benefits from having these people come into the
country? Who would therefore be motivated to pay these people? The
corporations who are going to exploit them when they get here.
3. The Mexican government. This is not a stretch at all. Vicente "The
Sly Fox" is at wit's end trying to figure out a way to unload his very
vast domestic problem of too many citizens and too few economic
opportunities on the United States.
4. Terrorists. Think about it. What better way to provide safe passage
into the United States for your agents than to make sure the path across
the desert is overflowing with aliens. What better cover, and what
better diversion? What better way to test the routes, than to test them
with innocent and desperate Mexican citizens first, before sending your
guys in under their cover.

Who benefits?

Well, gee, if so many people are going to be devastated by the
Bush-McCain immigration plan, who is it going to benefit? I mean, it HAS
to benefit SOMEBODY? Right?

Big Business. Corporations. This is who it benefits. And it is the only
people it really DOES benefit, outside of Osama bin Laden. But only in
the short term.

Yes, this is a lever for union-busting and cost-saving. And yes,
corporations will make profits and maybe even the stock markets will
rise through it. However, long term, this is going to destroy the
American middle class. It is going to evaporate the ability of common
people to buy American products. And history teaches us that when
violent revolutions happen, it is when the middle class is unhappy.

And we're not just talking about America here. It's been these very same
alleged "free trade policies" like NAFTA that have devastated family
businesses in Mexico and forced people to consider these dangerous trips
to the United States for survival. When the people of America revolt,
the people of Mexico will be right behind.

The Republicans may indeed pass this, through flattering the very
communities they intend to devastate when the plan is fully exercised in
full force. And they may indeed win an unbreakable stranglehold on the
American government, secured by black box voting and McCain's campaign
reform that silences incumbent's opposition. However, as John Fitzgerald
Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable." In the end, all Congress may find they
have gained is a nice hemp necktie, and the common saying of the land
about politicians may become "GOT ROPE?".

And I'm sure the good honest decent people of Mexico will follow by also
putting their ruling class in their proper place, namely, the gallows.
_________________________________

Liz Michael has formed a committee to run for the U. S. Senate from
Arizona in 2004, and encourages donations and offers of assistance.
http://www.lizmichael.org

Copyright, 2004, LizMichael.com, http://www.lizmichael.com .. Permission
to reprint granted so long as the website and the copyright remains
referenced. No exclusivity may be retained by any individual or press
entity which reprints.

[Art Eatman]

Keep it civil or see this thread closed.

Art

[wingman]

We no longer live in the 1800's, the sad fact is we can not provide for the
world, no longer can ma and pa come here with 8 children get there forty
acres and not affect the community.

I would like to see all people work and feed there children however if we do not wake up and protect this country a lot more will starve....We export our jobs and import poor educated workers, at some point we will be what Mexico is today, poor, working poor and the wealthy.

Most of the polls I have seen the American people want the borders sealed,
and "yes" it could be done, does that mean some will get through, yes of
course but it would slow the tide.

The southwest is over burdened, hospitals, schools. Texas is now trying to
come up with someway to fund its schools, property tax is just not going to
do it. They expect population in central Texas to double in Austin, San Antonio
in 10-15 years.

Anyone who thinks we lost freedom in the past 3 years hang on because it
will get much worse if we don't get the immigration problem solved.
Controlled ,legal, limited immigration, isnt that what we should be doing.????

[fix]

This part of Friedman's essay is especially problematic. He is neglecting to take into account how sparsely settled were the territories seized by the US from Mexico.

I'm gonna beat this dead horse back to life folks.

Read the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and you will see the similarities to the above quote.

[longeyes]

Here's the diabolical part: the elites of this country, in complicity with Bush, are engaged in nothing less than an attempt to swap-out the current middle-class population of this nation for a younger, less educated, more docile, foreign work force. American citizens, especially conservatives, with their quaint notions of Constitutional freedoms, are viewed as obsolescent and downright inconvenient. The globalists want cheap, uncomplaining, "grateful" laborers; the socialists want a new foreign-grown proletariat. Bush should not be allowed to get away with trying to justify this proposal on vague moral grounds that appear, to this observer, to place the needs of Mexican citizens and families before the needs of the people who built and sustain our American Republic.

[Cogar]

Writing your local congressmen and senators is the most effective way of voicing your displeasure for sure. Bush has become what we would have called a liberal in the Reagan years. I have always supported our President, even though I did not agree with each decision. Still, his intent to give what amounts to amnesty to illegal immigrants is going over the top. He has lost my support completely on this one.

A good friend of ours works for the Border Patrol. Normally, when they see an illegal, they run away, trying to escape. Well, they are still running, but now they are running toward the agents, screaming "amnesty, amnesty!" They are coming in waves unlike anything they have seen before. (He has worked for the border patrol for something like 20 years.) I guess Mexico has heard the news that all the illegals get to stay. All you have to do is get across the border.

[longeyes]

Dick Morris' Mistake
By Allan Wall
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 19, 2004

Dick Morris is legendary for shrewdness and political acumen. But his analysis in “Hispanics :
Key to GOP’s Future” is erroneous and
misleading. Either (1) Morris wasn’t thinking very hard when he wrote it, or (2) Morris is
working for the Clintons again, who are paying him to
give suicidal advice to the GOP.

The Bush Immigration Amnesty Proposal would be a disaster. It will increase and encourage
further illegal immigration. It will drive down
wages for the American working class. It will expand the reach of the welfare state. It will cost a
whole lot of money. It’s a slap in the face to the
Border Patrol agents who put their lives on the line every day to protect our border. It will further
erode national unity, promoting divisive
ethnic identity politics and balkanization. It’s a bad proposal all the way around.

All these noxious effects are irrelevant to Dick Morris, who assures us, against all available
evidence, that an illegal alien amnesty (or whatever
you choose to call it) will save the Republican Party!

Mr. Morris tells us that Hispanics must be pandered to by making our immigration system even
more harmful than it is already. If we would just
do what Hispanic activists tell us to do, says Morris, then Hispanics will fall into the arms of the
Republicans.

This is sheer fantasy. There is no solid reason to believe that, even if the GOP does all the
misguided things Morris wants it to, it will gain the
majority of the Hispanic vote.

Not that all Hispanics support illegal immigration. Those who don’t must be insulted by Morris’
assertions. And for those Hispanics who
already vote for the GOP out of conviction, the amnesty proposal has nothing to offer them.

Why should we believe that the majority of Hispanics who vote for the Democrats will become
Republicans if the GOP supports an amnesty?
That certainly wasn’t the result of the 1986 Amnesty, also enacted under a Republican
administration.

Why would lower-income Hispanics support the GOP? Democrats can always outbid
Republicans in offering more public benefits. The only
way for Republicans to win that game is to be even more leftist than Democrats. And that would
destroy the party.

Dick Morris also peddles the conventional wisdom that Hispanics are social conservatives.
According to Morris:

“As Catholic voters, who take their religion seriously, Hispanics are a natural Republican
constituency.”

The truth is most Hispanics are nominal Catholics, with the same social and moral pathologies as
whites and blacks. In fact, Hispanic women
have higher rates of both out-of-wedlock births AND abortions than white and black women!

The Hispanic rate of welfare dependency is higher than whites and almost as high as blacks.
(Don’t believe it? Check out this article).
Immigrants from Mexico hail from a country with a strong secular political tradition. There is
simply no evidence that the majority of Hispanic
immigrants are attracted to social conservatism.

And if “Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency,” why aren’t they voting for the GOP
already? Because they want “benefits for illegal
immigrants”? Sorry Dick this just doesn’t add up! The evidence indicates, in fact, that even
Hispanic Republicans are more in favor of taxing
and spending than white Democrats! (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/pew.htm)

Morris ignores today’s reality when he writes :

“As Hispanics follow the traditional paths of upward mobility that immigrant groups have trod
before them, they are likely to lean more and
more toward the Republicans - just as Irish and Italians do these days, abandoning the
Democratic orientation of their ancestors.”

But the Irish and Italians came here when America practiced assimilation and Americanization.
Today’s ethnic pandering – of which Dick
Morris approves – encourages Hispanics NOT to assimilate and implies that Hispanic interests are
not identical with American interests, a very
dangerous idea indeed.

Are Hispanic interests the same as American interests? If they are, why not just treat Hispanic
voters like other Americans? If they aren’t the
same, maybe somebody should spell out the difference. Maybe all Americans, not just Hispanic
activists, should have a say in our country’s
future.

Dick Morris has an explanation as to why the GOP has heretofore failed to win the Hispanic vote:

“For decades, Republicans systematically alienated Hispanics by insisting on English-only
initiatives, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants
and demanding an end even to free public schools for the children of those who came here
illegally. These measures drove Hispanics into the
waiting arms of Democrats. Bush has now acted to reverse the legacy of these initiatives and to
welcome Hispanics into the GOP.”

Morris is telling us that Republicans should abandon their principles and support lawlessness in
order to gain Hispanic votes. But the very
policies decried by Morris are proven vote-getters.

English-only initiatives are attempts to prevent the linguistic balkanization of our country. The
growing use of Spanish in politics, promoted
by both Republicans and Democrats, encourages politicians to say one thing in English and
another thing in Spanish. (For a detailed example,
click here ).

Immigration reduction is a proven vote-getter. Look at the recent California election. In a liberal
state, the majority of the electorate chose
candidates who were perceived to be tougher on immigration, and tossed out a governor who
followed exactly the policies Morris tells us will
help the GOP!

Near the end of the article, Morris falls into globalist pseudo-humanitarian claptrap: “America has
4 percent of the world's population but 25
percent of its wealth. It is incumbent on us to open our doors to those who seek upward
mobility.” So what are you suggesting, Dick? That we
open our doors to the entire 6-billion population of Planet Earth? Most countries in the world,
after all, are poorer than Mexico!

And speaking of Mexico, Morris informs us:

“ The only thing standing between subsistence and starvation in Mexico, and much of Central
America is the money sent home to needy
families by hard working men and women in the United States who tend our gardens, wash our
dishes and clean our floors.”

On the contrary, mass emigration encourages the leaders of Mexico and other nations to postpone
economic reforms. Vicente Fox was widely
seen as a hope for change in Mexico when elected (with Dick Morris’ help) in 2000. Here it is
2004, and no substantive changes have been
made. But Fox is still agitating for the U.S. to open its border.

Emigration from Mexico to the U.S. breaks up families, encourages deadbeat dads to abandon
their children and gives Mexico’s leaders an
excuse to put off economic reforms. Do you really want to help Mexico?

Close the border and you’ll see Fox and the opposition get serious about reforms.

Not only will the Bush Proposal not win the Hispanic vote, it will likely lose votes among the
Republican base. American voter-taxpayers
outside the country club are fuming over this proposal. I’m not talking about the Hollywood Left
or other pathological Bush-haters. I´m talking
about ordinary Americans, faithful Republicans who voted for George W. Bush, who have
defended him, who supported the Iraq war. Many of
these people feel betrayed. They feel that Bush takes them for granted. Are their votes of no
value? President Bush believes they will vote
Republican come November because they have nowhere else to go. He might be surprised.

Morris is wrong. The Bush Proposal will not save the Republican party. It may instead help to
destroy it.

Allan Wall (allan39@prodigy.net.mx) is an American who lives and works in Mexico, and writes
for VDARE.com
(www.vdare.com ).

[fix]

The similarities are many. The primary one of course is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories. The takeover of our respective lands by foreign elements occurred 100 years apart. For La Raza it happened in 1848 when Mexico lost the southwest at the end of the Mexican American War and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidlago. For the Palestinians it occurred in 1948 when the Zionist Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and signed the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired. The effects of the occupation policies over time , 153 years for La Raza de Aztlan and 53 years for the Palestinians, have been eerily similar.

Buckle up.

[wingman]

when Mexico lost the southwest at the end of the Mexican American War

It would of some interest to see the southwest returned to Mexico control
once it would be out of the welfare of the US, then the new border to cross
would be Oklahoma, etc.

It is not the land but the pockets of the American taxpayer that is lusted
after.:cuss:

[moa]

Hopefully one good thing about Bush's amnesty proposal is that it will open up a broad national conversation the political elites have been hiding from for a long time, showing their total lack of backbone or honestly. It may force many politicians to wake up and discover that they are on the wrong side of giant issue, one that could send them packing.

Then maybe will get a lot better border and law enforcement on the illegal alien issue instead of the stupid charade we have today.

[longeyes]

Yes, public debate, of which we have seen precious little on any serious issue in a long time, is healthy. Frankly, I am fed up with our President repeating the mantra of "compassion" and telling me I should surrender my sovereignty and taxes because he believes "it's just the right thing to do." He's going to have do better that that, a LOT better.

Anyway, here, contributing to the debate is Prof. Victor Davis Hanson in today's Wall Street Journal:

El Norte
The case against Bush's immigration plan.

BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Monday, January 19, 2004 12:01 a.m.

SELMA, Calif.--President Bush's recent proposal to grant legal status to thousands of Mexican citizens currently
working in the U.S. under illegal auspices seems at first glance to be a good start--splitting the difference
between open and closed borders, and between amnesty and deportation. Politically it was a wise move on the
eve of a Mexican state visit to grant some concessions to Vicente Fox. After all, the president of Mexico cannot
ignore the $12 billion in worker remittances sent his way--and he can either encourage or discourage millions more
of his citizens to head north in lieu of needed radical reform at home.

Yet the proposed legislation, even if it should pass in Congress, will create more problems than it might solve--the
fate of all such piecemeal legal solutions to systematic problems of illegality. Once the U.S. government--not to
mention the Republican Party--commits its good name and legal capital to regulate, rather than end, the current
chaos, a number of contradictions will arise that will only make things either more embarrassing or, in fact, worse.

First, what about the hundreds of thousands of workers who either cannot or will not participate? Will illegal
immigrants outside the program be stopped at the border, requiring more guards or an extensive wall? Or once
here, are they now to be deported without their requisite papers? Will we see a return of the old green
immigration vans, the "Migra" patrols of my youth that used to scour central California to pick up illegal residents
for immediate transit back to Mexico? Are we to establish two alternate universes: some employers who bring in
workers legally, and others who follow the old non-system of paying largely cash wages to workers who show up
at the local lumberyard parking lot or hotel lobby?



The proposed solution also assumes that illegal immigration is fuelled solely by too many jobs in the U.S. and too
few workers. Yet thousands of other Mexicans come north as preteens, or when they are aged or sick. The
impetus that brought them here was not necessarily always immediate employment, but understandable
amelioration from a bleak landscape of central Mexico where they cannot be sure of finding food, housing or health
care. Despite Hispanic activists' complaints that "illegal alien" is somehow pejorative, it is far more accurate
nomenclature than their inexact use of the politically correct "undocumented worker"--when thousands currently
are not at work, nor did they merely forget to do the necessary paperwork before leaving home.

After the debacle in California of first, passing, and then abruptly rejecting legislation granting drivers licenses to
illegal residents, we learned of the perils of applying a little bit of the law to a whole lot of illegality. Parents of
American citizens wondered why their teenage, soon-to-be drivers would need to produce U.S. birth-certificates
when those here illegally did not. Airline security agents worried whether a California driver's license would draw its
authenticity from anything other than an often fraudulent Mexican ID card.

Indeed, one of the causes of the growing furor over the present system of non-enforcement is the perception
that many illegal residents actually receive preferential treatment over Americans. For example, students here
illegally from Mexico and enrolled at public California universities pay about a third of the tuition costs that
American citizens from out-of-state are charged--on the dubious and narrow rationale that the immigrants or their
parents are all on official payrolls and thus always have had California income taxes and fees deducted from
paychecks.

Supporters of the proposed law say that something is needed since Americans simply refuse certain backbreaking
jobs in construction, agriculture, hotels and restaurants. But such understandable pessimism rests on many
questionable suppositions. It assumes, for instance, that the traditional remedies of the free market for scarce
workers--mechanization and increased wages--ceased to work around 1980; that it is hard to sleep or dine out or
find a cut lawn in an Iowa or Maine where there are not tens of thousands of illegal workers; that the experience
of guest-workers in Germany and France provides encouraging analogies for importing cheap labor, that
Californians or Texans once did not do most of their own work before the influx of industrious aliens; and that it is
economically beneficial and morally sound to use foreign workers when millions of Americans remain unemployed.

We forget that there is a life cycle for the typical teenage worker from Oaxaca, whose backbreaking labor is said
to be essential for the economy. For a laborer of 18, it may be a good bargain for all involved--but for too many
people, after 30 years without education, English, and legality, too often these jobs turn out not to be entry-level
or rite-of-passage, but remain dead-end, and thus catastrophe ensues when an aging, unskilled worker is injured,
laid off, ill or the sole breadwinner of a large family. Only the public entitlement industry--health, housing,
education and maintenance subsidies--can come to his rescue to provide some parity with Americans that his job
or former job could not. His employer in the meantime looks for a younger, healthier, and foreign, successor. Thus
the tragic cycle continues.

It is not only uneconomical in the long run to bus in impoverished laborers from Mexico, but also amoral to traffic
in human capital. We praise the bracero program of the 1960s, but I remember it somewhat differently: When
harvests here in the San Joaquin Valley ended, deposited wages in Mexico were often stolen, while not all guest
workers wanted to return home.

Nor can illegal immigration be looked at in a vacuum; certainly not in an age of growing ethnic chauvinism that
sees unassimilated and often exploited workers in the shadows as an oppressed constituency needing group,
rather than individual, representation. Ethnic studies, separate college-graduation ceremonies predicated on race,
bilingual education, state-supplied interpreters and power groups like La Raza ("The Race")--all these are
force-multipliers to massive illegal immigration, and thus present us with not merely a problem of labor and
economics, but a litmus test of the viability of the melting pot itself.



Instead of squabbling over piecemeal legislation in an election year, rolling amnesties or a return of braceros, we
might as well bite the bullet and reconsider an immigration policy that worked well enough for some 200 years for
people from all over the world. Reasonable advocates can set a realistic figure for legal immigration from Mexico.
Then we must enforce our border controls; consider a one-time citizenship process for current residents who have
been here for two or three decades; apply stiff employer sanctions; deport those who now break the law--and
return to social and cultural protocols that promote national unity through assimilation and integration.

In the short term, under such difficult reform, we of the American Southwest might pay more for our food, hotel
rooms and construction. Yet eventually we will save far more through reduced entitlements, the growing
empowerment of our own entry-level workers (many of them recent and legal immigrants from Mexico), and the
easing of social and legal problems associated with some eight million to 12 million illegal residents.

More importantly still, our laws would recover their sanctity. Without massive illegal immigration, Americans would
rediscover their fondness for measured legal immigration. At a time of war, our borders would be more secure. And
we could regain solace, knowing that we are no longer overlords importing modern helots to do the jobs that we,
in our affluence and leisure, now deem beneath us.
Mr. Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming"
(Encounter, 2003).

[Moparmike]

Good reading. Great thread.


While I would like the border to be sealed (theoretically), I know it cant happen. However, funding and hiring about 20,000 more border patrol can happen. Protecting our border and soverignty is too important to hand to an underfunded and under-manned organization who has no backing on Capital Hill to do their job.:fire:

[seeker_two]

While I would like the border to be sealed (theoretically), I know it cant happen. However, funding and hiring about 20,000 more border patrol can happen. Protecting our border and soverignty is too important to hand to an underfunded and under-manned organization who has no backing on Capital Hill to do their job.

Hence, the need for the MILITARY to do its job--protect the national security of the United States. Now the greatest threat is on the US/Mexico border. We NEED them there.

The only thing I disagree with on the last article: ONCE ILLEGAL--ALWAYS ILLEGAL!!! Never make it a worthwhile proposition...:fire:

[Jeff White]

Friendship With U.S. Worries Some Mexicans
AP
Wed Jan 14, 4:15 PM ET

By JOHN RICE, Associated Press Writer

MEXICO CITY - President Vicente Fox's renewed friendship with President Bush has revived old worries in a country closely tied to the United States but deeply suspicious of its motives.

Opponents accuse Fox of pandering to U.S. policies and weakening Mexico's own sovereignty to please Bush at the just-concluded Summit of the Americas in Monterrey. So sensitive is the topic that Fox denied he was a Bush "lackey" — giving Mexican newspapers their main headline on Wednesday, a day after the summit ended.

Fox entered office in December 2000 with Bush a close friend who vowed to help solve the dilemma of illegal Mexican workers in the United States. The money they send home to their families — along with U.S. trade and investment — is crucial to Mexico's economy.

The Sept. 11 terror attacks pulled U.S. attention elsewhere. Then Mexico's refusal to endorse the U.S. invasion of Iraq angered the Bush administration.

Now, Fox's government seems to be making renewed overtures to Washington, even if it irritates some Mexicans.

News media here reported Mexicans were angered by the tight Christmas-season security requested by Washington that led to big lines at Mexican airports — and by demands that Mexicans visiting the United States be fingerprinted while Canadians and other nationalities are not. Some newspapers claimed, falsely, that FBI agents were conducting searches.

Even the president of Mexico's senate had to remove his shoes and be searched before boarding a U.S.-bound plane.

Fox's embrace of Bush's proposal to give undocumented migrant workers temporary legal status was criticized by many politicians and analysts, who complained it fell short of Mexico's goals or the needs of its citizens north of the border.

There was even sharper alarm when Bush, standing beside Fox at a news conference, said the Mexican president had agreed to join him in keeping a close eye on a possible recall election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The largest party in Congress, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, on Tuesday welcomed the newly restored good feelings between the two governments. But it added a few jabs.

The statement on Chavez "seems like an intervention in the internal life of the Republic of Venezuela, violating a principle of Mexican foreign policy," it said.

It also urged Fox to be wary of Bush's immigration plan and noted that Bush was seeking re-election. Mexico should avoid "excessive support for any of the proposals" by presidential candidates, it said.

Fox depends on the opposition to pass any legislation in a Congress where his party is a minority. The other main opposition force, the left-leaning Democratic Revolution Party, accused Fox of "accelerating submission" to Bush and making secret deals.

"It turns out that every week we learn of clandestine agreements that imply serious violations of our laws and a dangerous turn in the traditional neutrality of our country," party officials said in a statement.

They were referring in part to government admissions that FBI officials had been allowed in Mexican airports under a little-noticed bilateral agreement. Critics claimed they were directing security operations, while the government said they were sharing information.

Fox has insisted the airport inspections were carried out for Mexican security and said Mexico is merely supporting Venezuela's democracy, not meddling in it. He said Bush's immigration policy is the best Mexico can hope for right now.

And he insisted Tuesday that the impression he is kowtowing to Bush was wrong.

"There's no lack of people who immediately see things in an erroneous way that is convenient for them," Fox said. "They say that Fox is subordinate to Bush, that now he is a lackey of Bush, that now he has surrendered to Bush.

"The reality is that we have serious, professional work."

[longeyes]

Fox is on his way out. The REAL problems will start when his successor. Bush's strategy is predicated on a Mexico that doesn't exist and probably won't exist in our lifetimes. Without deep structural reforms in that country to encourage civil liberties, economic fairness, and business development we are looking at serious political problems on our border--and inside it.

We WILL need a "wall," sooner or later, especially if Mexico goes, as it likely will, left-wing.

[Waitone]

All you tinfoil-wearing, chicken littles have it wrong. You think we have a problem with illegal immigration. Wrong-o!

I listen the the president's State of the Union speech last night and it was clear he thinks we have a problem with a guest worker program, not illegal immigration.

Wheew! For a minute there I thought we had a real problem. Turns out we have a paperwork problem.

I can sleep now.

[Poster's note--why do I have the visual image of the fairy tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes"?]

[longeyes]

I think at the grass-roots level the "guest worker" plan isn't flying. Bush will try to sell it, but the numbers don't compute and there are way too many unanswered questions.

That doesn't mean he won't get it passed, however. The hairy stuff lies ahead, in what will likely be Bush's second term.

[seeker_two]

The hairy stuff lies ahead, in what will likely be Bush's second term.


If you believe he'll be ELECTED for a second term...:scrutiny:

This may be his "Read My Lips" Waterloo...:banghead:

[Moparmike]

Well then, who will get in his place? Our 2nd worst nightmare president? (Hillary being the 1st)

[Waitone]

I think at the grass-roots level the "guest worker" plan isn't flying. Bush will try to sell it, but the numbers don't compute and there are way too many unanswered questions.And the reason it isn't flying is because Joe and Martha Sixpack, if they are aware of a problem, don't believe or trust the proponents. We have experienced decades of lying, deceit, fraud, and theft all in the name of "legal" immigration.

I personally think a guest worker program is indeed necessary, but I will not trust the current cast of characters of either party to do what they say they will do. I would support, subject to the usual proviso's, a guest worker program in combination with a voluntary turn in, and a work place enforcement crackdown. But again, I will not trust the current cast of characters of either party. Both sides are married to voter demographics and both sides kiss up to corporate interests. The only group not being considered the Joe and Martha Sixpack.

[longeyes]

I too believe a controlled and responsible guest worker program makes sense, but like you, Waitone, am skeptical that what's been proposed by Bush is a) really a guest worker program and b) will ever resemble what's being initially advertised. When I said it didn't compute I meant that a lot of information is being deliberately left out. For example, the fact that these guest workers are going to have chidren, who are going to be American citizens, who will draw down public assistance, who won't ever go home, etc. We all know that what Bush is portraying isn't what the reality will be. Now Daschle and Friend are suggesting something even worse...

Ridge was on Hannity y'day. He said no way are we going to deport eight million people and that illegals need to be "validated." There we are. Now what?

[longeyes]

I believe that Bush will squeak through to a second term because most voters either won't see an alternative or don't really get it. In Term Two the stuff will hit the fan bigtime on the economic front as the pump-priming, steroidal deficit spending, failure to replace lost jobs, and the impact of illegal immigration will all begin to impact the middle-class in concrete terms. I also have serious doubts that the WOT is going to run smoothly, either abroad or at home. No doubt the vultures on the Left will be waiting to swoop in, but I'm not sure Americans see them any more as the way out either.

[Waitone]

Lou Dobbs on CNN is the ONLY talking head thumping the drum over illegal immigration and offshoring of jobs. Is you haven't watched the show, do it because he is the only voice out there in big media addressing the concerns of Joe and Martha.

Last night Dobbs had Tom Delay on. Delay tried to make Bus's case and I must admit he did a decent job, but I still doubt the leadership's integrity. Last question Dobbs asked was about outsourcing and getting a handle on the problem. Delay was caught flatfooted and started to mouth the party line of new world, changing economy, etc. Clearly he has not thought about the problem and had no self-evident answers.

It hit me in the face. Outsourcing, etc. is not even on the Bush radar screen. He has no intentions of addressing the problem because there is no problem. Just confirmed to me the gap in perception of a problem between the tax paying class and ruling class.

I repeat: revolutions get started that way.

[longeyes]

Outsourcing's not a problem. Unchecked immigration's not a problem. Well, that's right, to the wise and comfortable Beltway insiders these things are just the silly preoccupations of the tax serf class. I've heard the same things from academics who think Americans who worry about the deconstruction of their social and cultural system are just "dumb and narrow-minded." Let's face it, there's a tenured class, insulated and immune, and then there's The Rest of Us. I agree: Disconnect writ large spells the first stirrings of revolt.

Maybe we should outsource Congress, followed by the Executive.

[longeyes]

It would be remarkable and unthinkable that a man in the position of a Tom Delay would not have exhaustively pondered the issue of outsourcing--except that these pols ceased long ago to care about the substance of the issues. They are focused on raising money for re-election, fending off annoying constituents, and finding new and creative ways to pander. While the ship of state rolls on un-Captained, the "crew" are wheeling and dealing, selling off the cargo in the hold. That's how it looks from here.

I think we ought to postpone the '04 Election until We the People get the answers that satisfy us on every issue critical to this Election and our future.

[wingman]

We have a recipe for disaster in the continued loss of jobs to the third world
and a growing population of poor uneducated people coming to our shores
unchecked. In time we will lose our middleclass and at that point no one
to purchase highpriced products that are made elsewhere perhaps at that
point someone will notice.:confused:

[moa]

When you call a plumber to fix a leak, the first thing he does is shut off the water. And, that is what we need at our borders.

Otherwise, guest worker programs, employee hiring enforcement, deportation, War on Terror, controlling illegal aliens, etc., are not going to work to any meaningful affect.

[longeyes]

Wingman,

I think they're noticing already. Where we are now, I believe, is that harrowing transitional moment that Hamlet went through: from suffering slings and arrows to outright active opposition. For many people taking decisive action, which might endanger what you have, is of course hugely scary. We see the problem but we don't know quite what to do about it. What makes things more difficult is that there are few if any people out there at this moment who could rally mass protest. Tancredo comes to mind. Buchanan? Some of the talk radio jocks? When it gets bad enough, someone--probably several someones--will emerge.

[longeyes]

The irony with the call for immigration reform from Bush and Daschle is that this is exactly the time to stop/greatly reduce immigration, NOT expand it. We should be at the end of the cycle, not the beginning. Illegal immigrants have been flowing into the U.S. for two decades at an ever increasing rate; the problems associated with it are manifest. Our requirements for unskilled, uneducated labor ought to be largely sated. What could be the need for wanting to expand the pool of this class of worker at this time?

Well, it certainly isn't to fill "jobs Americans don't want."

[wingman]

Overpopulation disaster ahead
By Frosty Woolridge


In the past 10 years, the world has added 880 million people. America has added 30 million and Colorado has added 1.2 million. Today, America stands at 288 million and grows by 3.3 million per year.

In 50 years, the world population will go from 6.2 billion to 9.8 billion. America will add 200 million and Colorado will add 4 million. million. An average of 8,200 people are added to our country every day via annual net gains in U.S. births (1 million) and immigration (2 million) - legal, illegal and their births. Soon past the mid-century, those 200 million more Americans will be fighting over dwindling resources, water and food, and experiencing a diminishing quality of life. A Colorado drought in 2050 would be a disaster with multiple consequences.

For graphic examples, one need only look at India and China. recent speech, Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma, recently said, "In my country, 4 million people are born in the streets, live in the streets and die in the streets - never having used a toilet or shower." If massive population is so good, why is India so poor? Even more sobering is China's plight, with a population of 1.3 billion that increases by 12 million per year.

Overpopulation will become the plague of the 21st century. Where is America headed? Do we want such a legacy for our children? According to "60 Minutes," we have 1 million homeless children struggling in our inner cities today. Why can't we take care of their needs? What will be the fate of another 200 million people who create homeless children?

How many is too many - and when will Americans address that fact? Who possesses the courage to step up to the reality of overpopulation, consumption and pollution in America? in the long term?

No one. Politicians scurry at the mention of population stabilization. Corporations demand larger markets as if nonrenewable resources will appear out of thin air. the future of our children. Wake up! We're like a runaway freight train with no brakes headed toward a rock wall.

The East and West coasts teem with too many people, all striving to deal with escalating water, air and land dilemmas. Deep-water wells - already polluted with industrial chemicals from farmers and manufacturing plants dumping poisons - are drying up. Acid rains pound our lakes with chemicals.

Our cities create thick clouds where millions of children breathe carcinogens. Farmers kill microbes in the soil with fertilizers and pesticides, leaving us with contaminated foods.

Each year, 1.3 million new cancers are detected in our citizens - an epidemic of our own making.

Eleanor Roosevelt said it 50 years ago: "We must prevent human tragedy rather than run around trying to save ourselves after an event has already occurred. Unfortunately, history clearly shows that we arrive at catastrophe by failing to meet the situation, by failing to act when we should have acted. The opportunity passes us by and the next disaster is always more difficult and compounded than the last one."

By failing to act now, what kinds of consequences will we as a nation face when we hit a half billion people? people living in this state. That's 100% more cars, etc. In the US, that's 77% more traffic, 77% added planes in the air, 77% increased pollution, 77% faster uses of already limited resources such as gasoline.

We're paving over 3,000 acres of land each day for homes, roads and malls. In Colorado, we pave 100,000 acres per year. that is a pad of concrete/asphalt 88 square or, from Boulder to Colorado Springs and half way to the Kansas state line. With each new added American, 12.6 acres of wilderness is plowed up to support that person.

In the next 10 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences, 2,500 plants and animals will become extinct in the U.S. because of habitat destruction via population growth. Why aren't we addressing the moral and biological consequences of such horrific extinction rates?

When you add global warming, ocean fisheries collapsing, acid rain, ozone destruction, drought, contaminated water supplies, poisoning and sterilization of the soils by insecticides and fertilizers - we're building unimaginable consequences.

How serious is our problem? Upon receiving the Sanger Award for Human Rights in 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Unlike the plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases which we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of billions of people who are its victims."

Fifty years ago, Bangladesh, India and China ignored their accelerating populations. Today, America's leaders are following the same steps. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, we're allowing the immigration of more than 2.3 million people annually from countries that refuse to offer family planning. Since the American female has a fertility rate of 2.03 children, it's not Americans causing the rising population tide. We need immigration reform and reduction to less than 175,000 people annually before population momentum takes us to another 200 million Americans and an unsustainable society.

We commit our children and all living things to a difficult future by not addressing overpopulation. It's a disservice to ourselves, Colorado, our nation and to future generations.