Posted on 01/08/2004 5:01:57 AM PST by T-Bird45
Deservedly so. They are part of the problem. I would rather deal with that than with the continuing endless wave of more illegals, once they see that for over 25 years now, their illegality is ultimately ignored, and indeed rewarded.
Do you have access to a Spanish newspaper? Can you read Spanish? I guarantee that you will have an instant epiphany when you see the extent of the problem in their own words. The are continually outraged and more incensed than the average citizen at the continuing failings of the system providing them what they want. This, mind you, in the context of real estate loans for home purchases that the government (our government) is presently offering, as well as social security benefits and lower college tuition that American citizens cannot claim.
Illegals can't be integrated at all which is why they don't have an "integration-oriented" mindset. Make them legal in any way and that would change.
Yep, I'm in L.A. too, I've seen it all myself. It could be that I'm too optimistic, but maybe that is a better guide than pessimism.
No one has suggested a closed society. Just one where laws mean something. This is a red herring. The choices are not simply a closed society or a mindlessly open one.
I have yet to see anyone argue to eliminate legal immigration. Why must you insist on arguing or implying that this is now or has ever been the goal of the overwhelming mahority of American citizens?
I agree 100%. He sidesteps those, because they are very dangerous politically. However, how the heck do you address them while those people are still illegal? That has to happen first.
I suspect what will happen is the social sevices drain will be solved through some combination of getting more taxes from work-permit holders than we get from illegals now, and by not providing some kinds of services to them.
As for the other one, it requires a constitutional ammendment, I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe you lose your permit as soon as you're pregnant? ;) Or maybe the INS just doesn't give family of those babies visas, ever, thus removing most of the incentive for it? I dunno.
DingDingDingDingDingDing!!!!!!
Give that lady a cigar (or perhaps a more gender-appropriate prize ;-)
All of this whining about illegal immigration, and why doesn't the W and the gubmit do something about it ... why not just solve these two problems instead?
The second item -- schools and welfare -- is something that's happening in the states (California being the biggest violator). I'm pretty sure the Feds have the Constitutional authority to slap California down on this.
But the first item -- the demand-side of illegal immigration -- is far and away the biggest reason people stream across our borders.
If the jack-asses like Tancredo really want to be pissed at somebody, perhaps they should stop flapping their gums, and focus on the Americans who are financing the problem.
That statement is the triumph of wishful thinking opinion over reality. The original Reagan was supposed to solve the problem forever and to accomplish exactly that, and it did no such thing. It simply disproportionaltely increased our "legal" native population of criminals. Why have 400,000 illegals already slated for deportation for serious criminal activity not been deported?
"Not realistic" is simply an unacceptable answer to the overwhelming majority of citizens.
It's all a big scam and many pols know it. Not even the INS has a good, consistent way to check the authenticity of the documents, hence it will never work until we have a un-duplicatable ID card for all immigrants. If that does not happen, look for millions more invading America until Aztlan takes over the Western states as they claim they will soon do. Adios America-- Bienvenido Aztlan!
Ok, so what is wrong with changing the laws so that they mean something?
The people on this board who say "just kick them out", it seems pretty clear, want those 10 million or so to never come back, and for similar people to not come here in the future. That's why it's not a red herring. Legal immigration now is much less than at what it has been in the past. That may not be a completely closed society, but it isn't too far from it. My definition of open is 0.5-1% per year or thereabouts, what's yours?
I disagree on legalizing the illegals first. It's a "ready, fire, aim" approach. Were anchor babies and the social services burden solved, I would be in favor of what he's proposing. As it is, it's a dose of cyanide.
As a Libertarian I support open borders. But definitely NOT open borders in the context of a huge welfare industry.
No.
But (as posted elsewhere) I walked through the legal immigration process with my wife, from marriage to naturalization. It was a frustrating and exhausting process, but I'm extremely proud that my wife is now a U.S. citizen, and so is she.
So I will not support anyone who violates that honor (including GWB), or who spits on the Oath Of Citizenship.
"I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
I belief GWB is doing this out of conviction, not votes. However, if Congress blows the two following stipulations, they are hosed.
"Providing Incentives for Return to Home Country: The program will require the return of temporary workers to their home country after their period of work has concluded. The legal status granted by this program would last three years, be renewable, and would have an end. During the temporary work period, it should allow movement across the U.S. borders so the worker can maintain roots in their home country.
Protecting the Rights of Legal Immigrants: The program should not connect participation to a green card or citizenship. However, it should not preclude a participant from obtaining green card status through the existing process. It should not permit undocumented workers to gain an advantage over those who have followed the rules.
Perhaps you're right, but from the anecdotes I've heard the pool of potential replacement workers is pretty thin. Metalheads, druggies, layabouts, neer-do-wells.
I did a lot of manual labor during college and even high school years, and for the most part everyone followed a normal work ethic, did what they were supposed to do, and generally worked pretty hard (particularly in construction work: digging ditches, operating a pneumatic drill, pulling and stacking concrete forms).
I have heard that this is not the work ethic of today's American youth, though it is exactly that for most of the illegals.
A few people have said that. I guess I don't understand why that would imply we can't give the majority of those who are here working illegaly and have no criminal record etc temp work permits, and then deport the rest? It's legal immigration if we pass a law that makes it legal, right? Do you think they should be deported (and presumably not allowed back in) because they have broken the law once already?
By the way, welcome to Free Republic.
thanks ;-P I'm a somewhat regular reader, just never posted before.
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.