Posted on 12/24/2003 7:50:09 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge recently committed the political sin of telling the truth. His helpful candor has reopened a much-needed debate over immigration and exposed some of the specious arguments used by those who want to close U.S. borders.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Just a quick point, all those legal documents would be void if they were obtained with false identification, which is customary among illegals. By adopting a machine readable passport as the standard for identification to be used by all Mexican nationals would avoid questionable documents being issued by states, such as, California.
They are absolutely not facts so far, and yes, it's coming from you.
I just posted a link to the STATISTICS that disprove your BS about the cost of legal immigrants, you have yet to post anything to refute my posted FACTS.
"...you are not up in front of come move out west here...--(is English a second language to you?)--"...and realize what every American out here already knows!"
Well, not EVERY American, that's even more unsubstantiated generalizations form you, I am an American, and while I realize the danger of uncontrolled immigration, and the need to take action on the issue of illegal immigrants, I take positions from an informed point of view.
Does this mean you believe anyone from anywhere over the world should come here ignoring any of our laws especially in regards to immigration but also any other laws they find inconvenient? Anyone from any poor country who might find life on welfare better --- they obviously don't all bring the skills needed to make it on their own here, everyone isn't blessed with a strong body and good health to do hard manual work but still would like a comfy lifestyle ---- Haiti, South Africa, Brazil, Red China, Uganda? Anyone at all who wishes just has a right to move over at any time? Or do you want this type of immigration limited to only those from so-called hispanic countries?
The very first line of the first article you provided as "facts" is wrong.
The U.S. Census estimates the total population of the U.S. by 2050 to be 394 million...all trend accounted for.
I could post one link to the victims of Tim McVeigh that overshadows every crime on your link.
Crime is bad, but it exists in every society, and in every culture.
Here is the link.
Here is the article
Clinton’s Subtle, but Historic, Redefinition of U.S. Immigration Policy
January 10, 2001
Commentary by Ira Mehlman Federation for American Immigration Reform Spokesman
The Clinton Administration is now a part of history, and historians are just getting started assessing the Clinton legacy. There will be plenty to keep them busy.
Among the records set during the Clinton years was the largest sustained wave of immigration in America’s history. Some 10 million new immigrants arrived in the U.S. during his presidency, and by the time he left offices there were nearly 30 million foreign born residents, accounting for more than 10 percent of the population.
But perhaps more significant than the sheer numbers of people who settled here during the Clinton years, was the dramatic redefinition of the purpose of immigration policy and the relationship between immigrants and their adopted country. Two subtle, but significant shifts occurred during the last eight years that are worth noting: U.S. citizenship was turned into a political commodity, and immigrants became America’s “customers.”
After losing control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election to the Republicans, Clinton embarked on a program to reshape the electorate in a way that was more to his liking. In addition to using his considerable powers of persuasion to win back public support, he set about creating a new American public. The administration directed the Immigration and Naturalization Service to mint new citizens in time to vote in the 1996 elections. Under the direct control of Vice President Gore, the Citizenship USA program was tasked with naturalizing as many noncitizens as they could possibly find in time to participate in the next election.
The plan succeeded. Democrats have eliminated the Republicans’ majority in the Senate and have significantly eroded their advantage in the House. An analysis of voting patterns across the country shows that voting by new citizens has been the deciding factor in numerous elections, and in nearly every case, has broken to the Democrats’ advantage.
That immigrants are playing a significant role in American politics is nothing new. What changed during the Clinton years is that altering the political landscape became an objective of immigration policy. In much the same way as employers have used immigrants to change labor market conditions to their advantage, the Clinton Administration used them to create an electorate more to their liking.
The second subtle, but important, change that occurred under Clinton was a redefinition of the relationship between immigrants and the American nation. One of the priorities set forth by Clinton’s INS commissioner, Doris Meissner, was to improve the agency’s “customer service.”
Certainly no one who has ever dealt with INS would dispute the need for improvements in the way the agency treats those who are going through the immigration process. But Meissner’s repeated description of immigrants as “customers” was more than a matter of semantics. The choice of words reflected a very significant change in attitude.
In the past, immigration was seen as policy designed to serve the interests of the nation. As such, there was a general belief that it was the responsibility of the immigrants to go the extra mile to accommodate themselves to the social, cultural and linguistic norms of the country. As customers, that relationship is reversed. It is the nation that must bend over backwards to accommodate the “customers,” and provide whatever services and programs they need.
Under the customer model, if immigration creates overcrowded schools, or exceeds the capacity of public health care system, you don’t reduce immigration. Instead you build as many schools and emergency rooms as the “customers” require. Under the customer model, it doesn’t matter whether immigrants have marketable skills, or that more than one-third have less than a high school education. It becomes the nation’s obligation to deal with the needs of the immigrants.
Very often it is the subtle policy changes of a presidential administration that define its legacy. Clinton’s subtle manipulation of immigration policy could prove to be among the most long lasting imprints he leaves on America.
.................................................................................
I believe we need to reduce legal immigration for awhile so we can assimilate those who just got here. Maybe then, more of them will start voting republican/conservative. As far as illegals go, they need to leave and go back to the end of the line.
AMEN.
You are mistaken.
Check this out
STEIN REPORT XXXXX Tuesday, April 01 2003 10:20:30 ET XXXXX
PRO-IMMIGRATION PROF. WISHES FOR 'MILLION MOGADISHUS'
According to National Review Online, "Last Wednesday, Columbia University assistant professor Nicholas DeGenova told the audience at a faculty-led antiwar teach-in that he wished 'for a million Mogadishus' to visit U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq." According to the Columbia University biography of DeGenova, his teaching focuses on "transnational urban conjunctural spaces that link the U.S. and Latin America as a standpoint of critique from which to interrogate U.S. nationalism, political economy, racialized citizenship, and immigration law." DeGenova has appeared at several open-borders conferences as a panelist and his writing has been highly critical of immigration enforcement. He is also scheduled to speak at a Brecht Forum event April 3. The discussion, titled "The New Internments" focuses on detention of illegal aliens under the NSEERS program. The Brecht Forum says, "In the hysteria that the Bush administration has continued to foment for over a year in its push for the continued militarization of the globe, a gutted constitution, and a ghoulish vision of endless war, immigrants in the U.S. have been ‘disappeared’ and deported at alarming rates."
......................................................
Sounds like the good socialist Professor Nicholas DeGenova is in agreement with you on immigration.
He probably agrees with me that 2+2=4 as well.
Sounds like you two will get along fine in your new world with no borders.
Sounds like you don't make very good arguments, Cletus.
Namecalling. How clever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.