Posted on 01/06/2011 9:22:56 PM PST by presidio9
As the new Congress convened, a group called State Legislators for Legal Immigration proposed two laws. One would declare that children of parents who immigrated here illegally are not born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and so are not birthright citizens under the 14th Amendment. Under the other, states would issue two types of birth certificates, one for those born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and one for everyone else.
The states have no power to pass the first proposed law. Congress may be able to, but it is a bad idea that will not halt illegal immigration. It also has no chance to pass the Senate or override President Obama's certain veto. If it were enacted, the courts would strike it down. It is symbolic politics expressing special hostility to Mexican immigrants, who comprise almost 60% of the nation's undocumented population.
This is a the opposite of how we should be making immigration policy. The U.S. owes more, not less, to Mexico and its immigrants than it does to other nations.
Why? Because the U.S. has treated Mexico in ways that it has treated no other nation, creating potent incentives for Mexicans to move north. Yet our immigration policy applies the same per-country cap to Mexico that it does to countries from which few wish to leave.
If the U.S. apportioned more of its overall legal immigration admissions to Mexicans, it would do far more to reduce its numbers of illegal aliens than any change in birthright citizenship would.
To suggest that the U.S. privilege Mexicans over other nationals is heresy in Washington - not to mention in Arizona.
But it is common sense if one studies history.
The story begins in 1846, when partly due to concerns that Mexico had abolished slavery, the U.S. provoked a war that resulted in America acquiring half of Mexico's territory, including the vast natural resources of California and Texas. No other nation has lost so much land to the U.S. except the Indian tribes, whose members now all have citizenship. Mexicans could stay on their conquered lands if they became American citizens. But few could provide land titles to American courts, so most lost their lands and had to work for U.S.-owned farms, mines and industries.
In the late 19th century, the modernizing Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz drove many Mexican small farmers off their soil, turning the lands over to American-owned railroads and mining companies, who employed many of those they helped displace.
Patterns were set: Many Mexicans found they could make a living only by working for American companies, often moving to the resource-rich north to do so. Through the 20th century, American employers in farming, manufacturing and service industries often recruited Mexicans when cheap labor was needed - then callously supported mass deportations, even of Mexican-American citizens, when labor surpluses arose.
Meanwhile, many Mexicans in the U.S. suffered from severe discrimination, despite their desire to work hard and contribute to America. Many, therefore, had strong senses of their distinct cultural identities, developing a kind of cultural "dual nationality," American and Mexican.
In sum, U.S. policies have created to our south a large population that has strong kinship ties to Mexican-American communities and well-founded beliefs that they have better economic opportunities in northern areas, many once part of Mexico, than they do at home. They immigrate, more than any other nation's people - and most are then productive, peaceful residents who seek to retain their cultural identities, like many other Americans, but who are glad to become loyal citizens.
Not all Mexicans fit those descriptions. But if the U.S. altered its policies to expand opportunities for those who do, it would reduce illegal immigration and express the best American values.
Mexico owes the US boatloads of oil.
Mexico stole all of its land from the indigenous pre-Columbian population. Mexico needs to take the lead and disband.
And my beeber is stuned, too.
I think Smith has smoked one too many burritos.
Screw Mexico - we don’t owe them squat.
Warning: politically incorrect appellation ahead: RETARD
No he’s a Class A douche.
Another moron brainwashing our kids. And we pay him for that!!!
That’s a barf-up-your-large-intestine article.
To the article writer: I totally disagree. You can leave for Mexico and apy off what you think we owe them, though. Feel free. See what it’s like to be a foreigner living under THEIR immigration laws.
Smith doesn’t know as much about the historical situation in the American southwest as he should. He spews the Progressive version of history.
Basically, the Mexican government in the 1830s and 1840s didn’t care about the safety and welfare of its own colonists and ignored their pleas for protection from marauding Indians.
The Americans were flat-out better when it came to protecting colonists.
The Californios, Mexican colonists in California, weren’t effective businessmen. They took out loans from Yankees that they couldn’t pay back later. Most lost their property through poor business acumen, not by being swindled.
There are families in New Mexico who have owned their ranches since the 1500s. They are good citizens and I doubt any of them want the corrupt Mexican government back in New Mexico.
Another guilt-ridden, self-loathing white nitwit.
“Mexican colonists in California,”
There were no mexicans in California at that time, theywere all spanish!!
The spanish screwing indians created mexicans not only here but in mexico!
A mexican is a half breed that the ruling class in Mexico would love to eliminate!!!
MAJOR barf alert!
Therefore he appears to be in favour of anchor babies & the imminent & growing problem of those illegals connected to that phenomenon.
I disagree with your statement.
I was born in Los Angeles and grew up in California. So did my parents. The California we knew is long gone.
But I’m very familiar with the history of California and after Mexico declared its independence from Spain, there were Mexicans in California.
I have many friends who are Mexican, they are proud of their Mexican citizenship, and many are not of Indian descent.
The article does accurately describe how the US did take Mexican land and mistreated Mexicans. Question I pose to the author, are common Mexican people ready to forget and forgive the US for its past actions??? I don’t think so. Just look at the speeches of Latino advocate groups. Look at what our own universities and public schools are teaching them about the US. Thus is it wise for the US to import a huge poor population who has a historical grudge against the US. I don’t think so.
The author needs to read up more history and get an accurate assessment of human nature/tendencies. Because you give generous welfare and economic opportunity to people you have mistreated in the past does not mean you will create loyal citizens. Telling them we are sorry will not either. The only way Mexicans are satisfied is the US is beaten in an humiliating war with Mexico, the territories are returned and all gringos are kicked out of it.
My family has been in Southern California for over 140 years and there is no such thing as a mexican that isn’t spanish and indian mix!!!
There was nothing but spanish in Californis until the late 1800s except those that were offspring of indians that were screwed by catholic priests!
That is the definition of a mexican, thay are halfbreeds and second class citizens in Mexico!
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.