Posted on 01/05/2002 3:42:31 PM PST by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
According to GWB, the U.S. has little or no control over who settles into our country, legally or not.
Because 'family values' don't stop at Rio Grande - follow the logic? - the way to address the Mexican invasion is not to actually guard the borders, refuse to employ illegals, refuse to provide them with tax-payers-paid benefits and deport them back to wherever it is they came from. Not at all. It's Mexico that decides whether we got lots of Mexicans in our country or not.
GWB advocates or beggs Mexico to grow its 'middle class' so that Mexicans won't come here. I would assume that the formula should apply to any other country whose standard of living is lower than ours. Isn't it sad that we lost the will to preserve our national identity?
One embarassing moment, or a great example of multidiversity - it depends on how you want to see it, a Mexican-looking person was addressed by GWB in Spanish. At least twice. While the poor man kept responding back in English.
We need, as a people, to completely reexamine the whole "Liberal" attitude towards immigration--and the sooner the better. (See Immigration & The American Future.)
William Flax
Buchanan's book has got it exactly correct. Wonder why the Republicans keep importing liberal immigrants to become citizens to vote for their opponents: the liberal Democraps?
I believe that my interpretation of what GWB said was quite accurate, even though not verbatim.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what it is. I'm for it. And that's a good question. I just don't know exactly where it stands right now. I need to -- okay. Como esta?
Q Muy bien. I'm so proud you came here from the largest state of Texas, and the biggest President of the world. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Jorge --
THE PRESIDENT: Si?
Q For those of you who don't speak English, it's George. I have a question. As an American Mexican, we face the problem with immigration.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q I'm very concerned. And I want to ask you what we can do to help to solve this problem, not only with the illegal immigration, but with the millions of people living in the United States with the proper papers to work.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. A couple of things. First, short-term, is to make sure that the INS functions; that the INS is able to expedite the paperwork for people who are legitimately here in the country, and expedite the paperwork necessary for families to reunite. If you believe in family values, you've got to have families together, it seems like to me. And yet, we're too bureaucratic when it comes to the INS, and we need to streamline it and make it work. (Applause.)
Secondly, we've got to understand that in the past, at least, there have been people who were trying to hire people and people willing to work. And it makes sense to me to have a system that matches willing employer with willing employee.
Thirdly, the long-term solution is for Mexico to grow a middle class so that people don't feel like they have to come here to work. (Applause.) The long-term solution -- family values don't stop at the Rio Bravo. If there's somebody who has got children to feed, somebody, a mom or a dad who has got little ones to take care of, and they make fifty cents in a state in Mexico, or they could make $5 in America, they're going to come to America if they believe in their children, if they have the same values you and I have.
Values don't stop. And so, therefore, it seems like to me the best thing we can do is to have a strong relationship with Mexico, a free trading relationship with Mexico so that Mexico is more likely to grow a middle class, which means that person who is willing to walk miles across Texas desert to work to feed her children will be able to find work close to home.
That's why I said one of the most important foreign policy relations we have is with Mexico. The stronger Mexico is, the less pressure on our border; the stronger Mexico is, the more prosperity there will be in both our countries.
The securing of our borders should be part of: provide(ing) for the common defense
Does 'our posterity' include include anyone outside our borders, or anyone illegaly here? Or, maybe, the illegals are really the 'oursevles'?
none of you nativists, including that fat piece of lard buchanan, are going to get off your recliners and go out and hoe beets and beans, or pick strawberries, or work in a fast food restaurant.
buenos noches.
il·le·gal [i lg'l ] adjective
1. LAW against the law: forbidden by law
noun (plural il·le·gals) illegal immigrant: somebody who has entered a country illegally
No,illegals are not included.
Immigration pact remains Bush priority
"I am determined, the president is determined ... to get back to this very important issue of regularizing the movement of Mexicans back and forth," said [Colin] Powell during a recent interview. "We haven't given up." -- The issue is especially critical for Mexico because its economy relies on an estimated $9 billion in money sent home by Mexicans living in the U.S.
http://www.americanpatrol.org/
Bush has to be stopped. E-mail your Congressman and Senators today. Tell them NO on any type of amnesty!(Regularizing)
If you don't know who your reps are or their addresses:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://www.senate.gov/
Did I coin a new word? I meant illegal.
----------------------
Our economy rand excellently with the population of 132,000,000 people it had when I was young, and we even won WWII with it. With automation, superabundance of people is not necessary for production.
none of you nativists, including that fat piece of lard buchanan, are going to get off your recliners and go out and hoe beets and beans, or pick strawberries, or work in a fast food restaurant.
Again...the word is Illegal
Before the mass invasion of undocumented immigrants in need of regularizing (which by the way sounds like some commercial for a laxative) started pouring across our borders uninvited, who was picking hoe beets and beans, and the strawberries? Who was working the fast food restaurants?
The work managed to get done somehow - didn't it??
This country never needed 10 million illegals in here at any given time to survive. What's really going on but you won't admit is females are coming across, having babies, then using social services paid for by taxpaying Americans.
Many are doing exactly what you imply Americans are doing, which is sitting on their butts milking the system.
I'm afraid the President still doesn't get it on this issue, and I predict unless he does, he's taking the republican party down with him. But that's something you'd probably enjoy seeing. Then the demoRats can amnesty everyone and open the borders.
Wouldn't that be lovely??
I believe that the great Roman Empire collapsed as it opened its borders and granted Roman citizenship to just about anyone physically within.
The great Roman civilization drowned into a sea of multiculturalism where all gods were seen as equally worthy of worship and all customs and morals as acceptable.
what this country wanted, as exercised by our defacto illegal immigration policy, supported by both parties, was human genes.
altho' some immigrants do not learn the language and may not assimilate, and many of those do return home, their children are americans. and the children do not want to return to a culture that they don't understand, or where the economic opportunities are less.
their children know english, like america, and often marry other races. where there is racial intermarriage there is reduced social conflict, as the roman empire showed. there was marriage across tribal lines with the invaders in modern countries such as france, germany, and italy. there was not intermarriage in the area now known as yugoslavia--and differences remain thousands of years later.
our economy will not function with a deficit birthrate, such as we had in the late 1970s.
if you don't understand birthrates, look at japan's and italy's economies...down the tubes. no kids.
Your remarks are interesting in the sense that we are seeing incredibly low birth rates in what we call 'the West' - it should include Japan and in the former Soviet block. These happen to be all 'nanny states' where the government (ours too since the New Deal) decided to take over most families' roles, including taking care of the elderly. Consequently, there is decreased interest in having children since the elderly are provided for by the nanny state. The only group who is encouraged to have as many children as possible is, of course, the underclass who will be granted increased benefits by the states. And the illegals, whose American-born children would almost automatically grant them the right to permanent residency.
Ergo - destroy the nanny state and witness national and culturfal regeneration or, maintain the state and be taken over by inferior cultures who will, of course, in the end, destroy the state.
Why not?
So your argument is, and you've made it many times, is that we're not having enough babies to meet the economic needs of the country. A fallout from the unconstitutional decision in 1973 of Roe v Wade.
But then why do we see such venom directed at Buchanan when he says the government should give tax incentives for American couples to reproduce? He's immediately called a Nazi for even thinking such a horrible, fascistic thought.
The pro-immigrationists can't have it both ways. There are many reasons that immigration needs to be controlled, it's not just the financial ones, the burdens on the taxpayers, but cultural and assimiliation ones as well.
After 30 years of uncontrolloed immigration, the country is going to have to stop it for a while until it figures out where we need to go with this. The current situation is a mess and unacceptable.
--------------------------
One major reason Japan's economy is failing is because it can not compete with Chinese labor. Chinese are producing and marketing goods for 1/3 orice in socialist factories. It's killing Japan.
You see, this is not a worthy contribution unless you first explain what you mean by 'racist', provide evidence that W is not that while Buchanan is, then explain why the fact that W is not a racist and Buchanan is are important within the context of W's immigration policy - which does not mention Buchanan at all.
I am presenting an interesting hypothesis at #21. According to it, the nanny state are to die off. Unless they kill the nanny state, of course. This would mean gradually killing just about everything that came with the New Deal and expanded it since.
Well, that was the old Bush+Clinton+Newt song. Now, GWB believes that it's because their middle class is not large enough.
But you are correct if the government would take the advice.
How many 35 inch teevees can people watch, anyway? To me, it's much better to share and do business with our neighbors inside the country, keep the dollars flowing around the US, not ship the cash out for short term profits for a small few.
The 'second worlding" of the US is "not good" in the long run, we may be eating our dessert now, and in the future notice we have thrown out the main meal.
And we might be "hungry" then, as in "emergency" style hungry, on quite a lot of levels...
Most Hispanics, however, work, have family values, are Religious...but as long as we don't end up like Kalifornistan - or is this our problem? Welfare, etc.
There are also those Hispanics who want to socialize this Country.
i disagree.
i live around many immigrants in southern california, i've probably known representatives from all 80 cultures and 120 languages spoken.
i think it's true that some individuals will never assimilate. but most do. some will go back to their native countries.
ancedotal...an acquaintance of mine is a u.s. marine, his wife, philippino. they send money back to the philippines for her family; recently she built a new home for her mother. later they will build a new home for themselves and retire to the philippines. why? because neither he nor she make enough money here to retire.
a friend of mine, mexican, went home to oaxaca. spent 20 years here as a landscaper. he picked up an aa degree at the local college and returned to oaxaca with a new tractor and computer.
but his grown kids stayed here, many immigrant children do.
look at the long term. remember the animosity in this country towards first the irish and their catholic religion, then the italian, ditto, and the jews. even the german jews looked down upon the later arrivals from eastern europe.
by the time i came of age in the sixties all of this hostility to immigrants had disipated. some of the original immigrants had died. their children had attempted to carry on the old ways, but in the face of american commercialism, their kids, the grand kids, rebelled and became americans.
when i came of age in the sixties all of the late 19th-early 20th c hostility towards others was gone. people were americans. part this, part that.
the same thing is happening, but even at a FASTER pace, due to television and the internet.
i know dozens of mexican kids...nada, they ain't goin' home. period. i've discussed it with many. they are americans.
as i said above, the dollars and cents of how much immigration costs, is meaningless compared to the big issue. the big issue is our economy. our economy will not work with a deficit birth rate, 20 years after. illegal immigration filled a need for cheap employees.
also, as people rise financially, their kids do not work. most middle class kids in socal, no matter what their race, do not work, during high school or college. it wasn't that way when i was a kid. every one worked in the fifties and sixties that i knew. but today middle class kids don't work and this contributes to a labor shortage. had those kids worked, they would have most likely worked in fast foods, as i did, when i got out of the navy, before college.
it would take a ph.d. in economics to sort out the contributions and costs economically.
but my point is, even if it costs our society money, our society was most eager to pay for the human genes.
i recommend william greider's "one world, ready or not". he's a liberal but he makes a lot of points that buchanan makes.
i'm not an economist. but i disagree with both greider and buchanan.
it's a good read.
our economic system looks for the cheapest place to produce a product. right now that's in china. is this good? it's cheap, but it's probably not good for us in the long term.
from what i read in the nyt, china will control computer chip production in five years. and, according to an article in today's nyt, china desires to replace india as the world's number two software producer.
are the chicoms nice people? i don't think the government people are.
maybe china will implode due to ethnic rivalries. i dunno.
the same thing that china is doing to us now, we did to the british a century ago.
none of this is new.
when i was a kid in the fifties it was not uncommon for folks to have 3, 4, or even 5 kids.
then the boomer generation came by and changed that. they had less than replacement. by the late 1970s the u.s. birth rate had fallen to about 1.7 or 1.8.
then in the early 1980s illegal immigration increased.
neither political party stopped it. why? because our economy will not work with a deficit birth rate.
if illegal immigration were truly a harm to us, we'd have done something about it.
Exactly. The issue needs to be addressed, discussed, and decided upon. The present immigration policy is just that: policy, the result of a political process and on-going implementation. In poll after poll, ordinary Americans (regardless of their country of origin, interestingly enough) are deeply concerned. But, where's the debate? Not in the LA Times, the NY Times, or even in the heart of the Republican party, it seems It's been decided. "Opposition to immigration is racist. Opposition to immigration is economically foolish. It is inevitable that the present levels of legal and illegal immigration continue into the future. This has all happened before, and everything turned out fine."
Hogwash.
It's time to recognize the consequences of the current immigration policy (established first by the 1965 immigration reform act) that, for instance, gives preference to "family reunification" over any objective needs of existing US citizens. Picking this one issue, the president (of whom I'm a rather vocal supporter) has it exactly wrong, as noted in the quote in this thread. Family reunificion need not be the defining policy of the US -- reunification can be achieved by leaving the US just as well as entering. Time to look at the needs of the people already here, and formulate a policy based on that, I say.
Damn straight. A few years ago there was a soccer game at the L.A. Coliseum between the American and Mexican national teams -- I believe it was right before the start of the World Cup -- and I conservatively estimate that 95% of those in attendance were cheering for the Mexican team. The American flag and national anthems were booed mercilessly, and urine bombs -- that's right, I said urine bombs -- were hurled at the few American fans who had the guts not to hide their allegiance. I wasn't there, but I watched it on a local L.A. channel . It was one of the most depressing and disgusting affairs I've ever seen. Another conservative estimation of mine: 85% of the Mexicans in the stands were illegal.
Thank God for their birthrate....
meanwhile, on this forum the buchananites were spewing hatred of all moslems. is this a mis-statement? no, look at the threads where both christians and jews are saying that all moslems are bad.
when you leave the idea that there is some good and some bad in all people, you've left reality.
buchanan may not advocate racism, per se, but he sure makes minorities, jews, and immigrants wonder about his good will.
people of good will do not like buchanan.
people of good will do like w.
there's a reason why w is president and why buchanan never will be president of the united states.
and it's the same reason that b-1 bob will never be president...buchanan and b-1 say hateful things.
mexicans are here to stay. and w understands that.
the immigration picture today is no different than it ever was. it was always the case that some people who had arrived before others did not like the new arrivals. it's the same today.
20 years from now people will be wondering what all the fuss was about.
there are jerks in every culture.
do those who acted unwisely represent ALL mexicans?
nada.
ok folks, i've answered every reply. bye.
That's just it, it ended in 1925, followed by a period of 40 years for the newcomers to assimiliate, and their offspring like myself to become Americans.
But to listen to these pro-immigrationists talk, it's never going to end. It will go on and on and on forever, never stop it, we can't.
That's hogwash. Congress could stop it tomorrow with legislation if they wanted to. With the country in recession and polls showing the people want immigration reduced, now would be the time to do what they must know, but won't admit in Washington and that is get it under control.
-------------
And if eating the wrong foods caused heart attacks, and screwball sex caused hundreds of thousands of deaths from AIDS we'd do something about those too. You are desperately reahing into the bizarre areas of the wilderness in your desperate arguments. Good night. I have other things to attend to.
If it was only numbers and demographics and economical interests, that would be one thing, but as to the security angle-well, south of the border the political system is assassination, bombings, threats and intimidation. With too much and too fast, this "political process" has been imported into the US right along with all the other cultural standards. It's in some numbers, I have no idea what those numbers are other than no way it's "zero". It doesn't just disappear at the border.. Only a matter of time now before it starts happening I am thinking.
It's been quiet, but at some point some sort of critical mass will arrive, but think if only a few thousand become actives. It doesn't take much. I would also guess that we currently have a lot more than a couple or few thousand hard core revolutionaries living here now, maybe just waiting and building contacts and strength, maybe just waiting for a sleeper activation signal, who knows? And sympathisers? What's a good potential number, couple hundred thousand maybe? But I wouldn't bet a nickel against them being here now. And that's part of the debate, we won't "know" really until once again like 9-11, it's too late. After the fact.
then there's china.....
The idea that continued mass illegal immigration is needed to fill jobs here don't hold water. In areas where migrant labor is used in agriculture, unemployment is much higher during the harvest season, than the rest of the country. You are right, I won't hoe or harvest lettuce, or work in a fast food restaurant, Those are ENTRY LEVEL jobs, I did my time in entry level jobs.
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.