Replies

The problem which no one wishes to tackle is a hard one: I.E. The law (or stupid custom) granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegals must end. If we are to have gastarbeiter on the German model, as our leader is actually proposing, the whole damn family has to return to Mexico in three years. And of course, for GWB's proposal to work, the border must be tightly controlled. No one wishes to state the ugly truth ... we don't want "guest workers" on the citizenship track ... and they want to stay forever.

A very good point.

As far as I can tell, the anti-Bush comments miss the boat on 2 levels: First, like the proposal or not, the status quo aint that great. second, have you looked at the Democrat viewpoint? Open borders, full amnesty, and a full end to the concept of citizenship entirely. If you want to hyperventilate over the destruction of our culture, save it for the Howard Dean. he really deserves it. He's that bad.

And as usual, official sources understate the numbers involved at about a factor of 10. The former Foreign Minister of Mexico opined on the radio that, as the Mexican population ages, we can expect "only 750,000 or so" migrants from his country every year! Nice try. That's probably the number that snuck in last month! Actually, that # is probably accurate. They have also said that demographics would change in Mexico so that by 2015 this would subside. What is the Mexican interest in this issue? Simple, they are exporting their unemployment! Well, if we took the workers without taking their 39 other relatives, we would still have some workers but not the flood of immigrants. Therein lies the 'compromise' imho. A small guest worker program, vigorous enforcement of law, and end chain migration and anchor babies. then we would have a saner policy: more space for the 'workers only' migrants, no flood of illegals, and a manageable labor situation that doesnt hurt American workers.

Thanks and points taken,

Upon continuing reflection, I actually do see how GWB's program might well be the lesser of two evils. However, and it's a big however, there is no administrative infrastructure anywhere that I can see, which can run the program. My real fear is that this program, or some high-sounding version of it, will be put in place and the border will remain wide open!

The other sticking point for me is the lack of exact details of the plan. If handled properly, this could mean that wages paid for the jobs offered might have to meet market rates for Americans. Hopefully, this could do away with the inane argument that the Mexicans are taking jobs no one wants to do!

Also, the plan says nothing about the illegals already here and gumming up the works in California, Texas, Colorado, and other venues. IMHO, If the Feds ain't gonna patrol the border, they owe the states some kind of subsidy ... and if tax money had to be diverted for this purpose, it just might wake up the majority of Americans who have yet to notice the problem.

Finally, I supect that sufficient demographic 'damage' has already been done, to the extent that if all Latino immigration were to end tomorrow, it would merely take those already here just another couple of decades to assume majority status in many states. Pardon my xenophobic sentiments, but having worked all over Latin America and being at home in the language and culture as a visitor, I just don't happen to think that's a great idea.

What the hell good is 'diversity' if the population is 50% Spanish-Speaking?

"A small guest worker program, vigorous enforcement of law, and end chain migration and anchor babies. then we would have a saner policy: more space for the 'workers only' migrants, no flood of illegals, and a manageable labor situation that doesnt hurt American workers."

You still don't get it. They won't leave once they're here. Please, give us some evidence to show that the vast majority will willfully leave. Moreover, show us why having a "guest worker" here for three years is any different that having them here for three years under any other title or provision?

Your thought processes are peculiar but all too familiar. Your ideas reflect a deductively biased thought process with virtually no demonstrated capacity for inductive reasoning. In other words, you make no attempt to test your ideas against reality. Whenever someone points it out to you, you ignore reality in favor of the theory. Handed a theory, this kind of thinker can do wonders with it; but only if the theory is valid. Without a theory, proposition or hypothesis this kind of mind is lost and flails endlessly. You will of course write that this is unrelated to our discussion, but in fact it is at the crux of the error in your thinking. By ignoring my contention you merely create your own reality; a reality that fits a predisposed position or ideology. When you're ready to acknowledge reality let me know and I'll resume.