Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Illegal immigration and national consciousness

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Preacherman, Jan 1, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article in today's Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007751):

    Mi Casa Es Su Casa

    America's porous border enables Mexico's misrule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    I doubt the fence will ever be built - it doesn't fit with the Bush "guest worker" program.
     
  3. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Them there is fightin words mister foreign secretary. What you going to o move more mexican soldiers to patrol our side of the boarder? :rolleyes: Oh sorry thats right mexican soldiers would never cross to our side of the boarder right? Maybe go ahead and sabotage or attack it? Lots of big talk from a little man and I actually laughed when I read the warning.
     
  4. Moondoggie

    Moondoggie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    724
    Location:
    Small Town, Nebraska
    I agree with this author completely.

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

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

    No country in the history of the world would put up with the crap we're swallowing from Mexico.
     
  5. Rem700SD

    Rem700SD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    South of Houston, TX
    +1 great article
     
  6. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    As one who lives on the U.S./Mexican border I will say that this writer is 100% right, and has hit the nail on the head. Without question the issue will affect the outcome of elections in this country during 2006 and 08. :banghead:
     
  7. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Not to mention any budget to pay for it. In any case, it should be secondary to removing incentives to come to this country by other than formal methods.
     
  8. LAK

    LAK Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,487
  9. Ledhead686

    Ledhead686 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Location:
    Florida
    How can ILLEGAL aliens receive aid from federal and local govt?!?

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

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

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

    wingman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,185
    Location:
    texas

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

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

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,439
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    To heck with the fence - invade.
     
  12. swampsniper

    swampsniper Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2003
    Messages:
    280
    Location:
    St. Augustine, Fla
    FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL

    Don't ask me for dates and fine details these days, my brain is wearing out!:D
    This all stems from the day that some of the major banks loaned Mexico enough money to keep going, so, whatever it takes to keep their investment profitable is what is going to happen.
    We run around with all our little silly ideas about patriotism, and saving our national identity, someone else sees it all as the bottom line in the ledger.
    We are going to debate about building fences and securing borders, Mexico and the rest of South America will throw a hissy fit, and in the end, nothing is going to change.
    The only way to get our Nation back is to just rise up, and demand it, but, we won't!
     
  13. Ledhead686

    Ledhead686 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Location:
    Florida
    Great idea. We could use the border more or less as a range where Army and Marine snipers hone their skills on live, moving targets. My guess is that illegal border crossings would taper off just a tad. ;)
     
  14. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    I believe the problem is that public service organizations are not entitled to ask for proof of citizenship. If they were, they would have to do it 100% rather than rely upon any racial profiling. It may be that our precious rights and political correctness are our enemy here. Even the solution is offensive, because people do not like the idea of being asked for their papers, needing to have any papers, or having personal details in some database accessible by who knows who.

    In any case, the national ID card is a done deal, effective today I believe.
     
  15. Ledhead686

    Ledhead686 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Location:
    Florida
    Exactly. I can just hear the charges of racism and xenophobia being leveled at the turd world's sugar-daddy for having the gall to stop the influx of freeloading illegals who could give a rat's patoot about assimilating into what's left of American culture.
     
  16. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    I just want to point out, sadly but with exact truth, that the extremely high cost of maintaining a secure border was one of the things that drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

    pax
     
  17. ken grant

    ken grant Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    Location:
    middle Ga.
    Illegals

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

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

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    True, although I'd guess the Soviet Union was more concerned about keeping people inside than preventing them from entering the workers' paradise.

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

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    pax, perhaps we could just invade Mexico instead, and effect a regime change and install a more democratic govt ;)

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

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    You must not be paying attention to the way this administration spends money it doesn't have. Print more, borrow more...money concerns won't stop the fence - the national agenda will.
     
  21. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Actually budget cuts were one of the last things addressed and passed before the holiday break. There isn't going to be any fence, so there is no point in sparring over it. I think it is more likely that money will be spent on some technological "solution". I don't know if satellites are capable of infrared pictures, but something along those lines is what I have in mind.

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

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    Pax, I think Russia had a lot more border to protect than our southern border. And we have a lot of military bases in states like California, Arizona, and Texas. Those troops must do something all day besides play volleyball. Why aren't they "training" with loaded weapons along the border? just don't see a huge cost involved in ratcheting up security by several notches.
     
  23. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    We need at least two fences: one on the southern border, another around Washington, D.C.

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

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    True, but several differences.

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

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

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

    QuickDraw Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    The Great State of California (Bay Area)
    Uhhh,
    Not to split hairs,but we're not there yet.
    Its still easier to get a D.L in other states.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page