Illegal immigration and national consciousness

[longeyes]

If you're waiting for George to do it, you're in for disappointment.

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

 

[Woodland_Annie]

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

I say, "!!!"

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

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

 

[longeyes]

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

 

[wingman]

Either open the border or close it. As the descendant of immigrants, I tend to say, "Open it."

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

 

[carlrodd]

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

 

[longeyes]

Hillary? On illegal immigration? Guess.

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

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

 

[Woodland_Annie]

Well, let me start by saying there are no simple solutions. If there were, the problem would have been resolved long ago.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[longeyes]

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

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

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

 

[longeyes]

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

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

A modest proposal:

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

 

[carlrodd]

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

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

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

 

[Biker]

carlrodd

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

 

[Woodland_Annie]

Then we have different ideas of what makes America strong. I believe a nation that can positively accept people of different cultures and faiths and even values living and working together.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wingman]

Then we have different ideas of what makes America strong. I believe a nation that can positively accept people of different cultures and faiths and even values living and working together.

/QUOTE]

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

 

[Woodland_Annie]

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

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

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

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

 

[carlrodd]

Honestly much talk about closing the gates strikes me as having more to do with fear of other cultures than a concern for environmental impact, standard of living, etc.

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

 

[Woodland_Annie]

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

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

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

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

 

[longeyes]

Then we have different ideas of what makes America strong. I believe a nation that can positively accept people of different cultures and faiths and even values living and working together.

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

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

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

 

[RealGun]

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

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

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

 

[Firethorn]

Here's a radical suggestion.

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

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

 

[longeyes]

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

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

 

[Woodland_Annie]

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

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

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

 

[RealGun]

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

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

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

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

 

[Woodland_Annie]

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

 

[RealGun]

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

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

 

[carlrodd]

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

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