May 30, 2006

Sensenbrenner Says "Pathway To Citizenship" Will Queer Any Deal On Immigration
— Ace

And he says it is amnesty, which it is, of course.

Although reasonable people may disagree on this, I think the main problem with the immigration plans offered by Bush and the Senate is this:

Most Americans saw the words "immigration reform" as meaning enforcing border security and allowing some legal guest-worker immigration. The idea, we thought, was no to increase the numbers of immigrants working in America, nor to increase the numbers of legal immigrants, but to regularize, legalize, and recognize some fraction of the immigrants working here already.

I didn't think "immigration reform" was going to be an amnesty, or a bonanza of new legal immigrant citizens, or a huge new number of legalized immigrant workers.

Bush and the Senate seem to think the only problem with illegal immigrants is that they're 1) illegal and 2) immigrants. So they have a solution-- we'll just make them all immediately legal, and in a couple of years, non-immigrant citizens.

Well, that does solve the problem, in the sense you won't have illegal immigrants anymore. You'll have legal citizen workers.

But that's not the way most of us were looking at the problem. We sort of thought the main problem was that we had too many low-skilled workers coming into America, displacing Americans who would otherwise be doing those low-skill jobs (as they historically have), and furthermore creating problems with public services, as they simply don't pay nearly enough in taxes to reach the break-even point as far as public services. I trust most conservatives understand that it's the rich who pay the lion's share of the taxes, federal and property and so forth; importing millions of people who pay little to no taxes, while having a great need of public services, just means that everyone else has to pay more.

I don't understand Bush's and the Senate Amnestyites' driving ambition to subsidize Mexico and Latin America by forcing the American taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Bush promised to reform Social Security and Medicare. His amnesty plan would make it worse. If legal immigration increases, that's just that much more of a drain on the already soon-to-be-bankrupt system. Young workers will pay into the system, and get paid out a bit more than they put in; you'll be paying the difference. That's bad enough, but the law generally allows every citizen to bring over his family members and then they, too, can become citizens, with all the rights of citizens. So grandfathers and grandmothers can be brought over, made citizens, and begin drawing expensive medical benefits for the elderly without having ever donated a dime to the system. Fathers and mothers can be brought over just before they reach retirement and similarly begin drawing benefits within a few years.

Furthermore, of course, Hispanics vote 60-40 Democratic. And that includes longtime Americans in the mix, who vote more Republicans. Among recent Hispanic immigrants, the numbers are probably 80-20 Democrats, at least for the first two or three generations. So, for every 1,000,000 new Hispanic immigrant citizens, we generate 600,000 or so net Democratic votes.

And don't give me that jazz about Hispanics being more "socially conservative." Fine. They're also more economically liberal, coming from nations with a socialist tradition. Anyway you slice it, they break heavily in favor of Democrats.

This is Bush's plan for a permanent Republican majority? Simply importing in millions of fresh Democratic voters every year?

Pretty soon the votes of current Americans won't count for all that much.

Posted by: Ace at 02:12 PM | Comments (55)
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Depends on what your definition of reform and amnesty is.

Posted by: George Jefferson Orwell at May 30, 2006 02:19 PM (5WEQS)

2 "Queer Any Deal"?

I did not know the issue involves gays too!

Posted by: Tushar D at May 30, 2006 02:24 PM (9ULFg)

3 I don't think you can keep out trannie hookers anymore. (I know, I know, some of you are happy with that.) And you certainly can't test them for tb, hiv, hep a, hep b, heb c, etc.

Posted by: shawn at May 30, 2006 02:27 PM (lw1AE)

4 I think it is part of a larger plan to weaken this nation, and make it appear more like Europe. For example, a giant welfare state, and one large economic region, Canada, America, Mexico. It looks to me to be a CFR plan to do away with our national pride, and bring in a globalize yourself mentality.

It is much deeper than what I wrote, but it would take up to much room on Mr. Ace's blog to write the whole nightmare.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 30, 2006 02:43 PM (D2g/j)

5 Well, I'm a conservative who HATES illegal immigration. However, I must admit that I know illegals,(note I did not put that in quotes, they are in fact illegals) who are not trying to suck the tit of the american grandeur, but rather working towards a better life for themselves and their progeny, and having known them, there must be some way for, one specific illegal, who has all of the legal documentation other than citizenship (that is a failure of the GOVERNMENT, not he) to reside in this nation and love and care for his kids, who are some of the best fucking kids I have ever known (I used to tutor students at a local school, when I went through my unemployed periods.) And this fucking guy was NUMBER one in his participation.

So, a path to citizenship for certain illegals, is acceptable to me as long as they are mothers or fathers of american citizens, and married to american citizens, but are not themselves American's yet.

Not an "advance the line" situation, but an "equal to the line" situation does not bug me with this particular situation.

Story about this particular illegal. On the day that Mexicans were raising mexican flags to protest the immigration bill? This man, knowing his wife, and loving the opportunities his children have had, found his children running around his yard with an american flag.

The problem with these bills is not that they do one thing, "secure the borders" which should be a fucking DUH moment in the legislators life.

But rather that legislators think that those Illegals who ARE Americans without the paperwork will think it is okay for the criminals to have the same option, as they do.

I think that this particular man, would rather return to mexico, despite his years of americanism, rather than inflict CRIMINALS from mexico on his children.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 30, 2006 02:45 PM (QTv8u)

6 I think "imigration reform" is an attempt to preserve/obtain the Hispanic vote. Which makes it evermore shameful. BTW, Jim Sensenbrenner is a man among boys in that place. He's one of the VERY few that had the balls to vote against the Katrina federal money giveaway.

Posted by: BrewFan at May 30, 2006 02:47 PM (0AD+O)

7 "Comprehensive" packages, are "LAZY, packages, unwilling to accept any blame" packages.

I think there should be a law, even though their actually is, but that doesn't matter, FUCK the constitution and the common law.

A LAW should be about ONE thing, not 50 things, with 150 loopholes, and 90 entitlements.

Why does the public hate the congress? Because, a congressman will support their constituancy, 90% of the time, in a comprimise, and then another in 90% of theirs etc etc.

Find enough people willing to compromise? and you end up with a thing that doesn't serve ANYONE in ANY WAY.

There is a punk band.

NOFX "Everything in Moderation, (Especially moderation)"

Why do PUNKS speak for conservatives?

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 30, 2006 02:51 PM (QTv8u)

8 Bush thinks he can buy the hispanic votes. This will fail.

They may vote for a republican at some point, but it will only be because the dems queered them by pushing a "hard stop" social issue they just can't swallow.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 30, 2006 02:59 PM (gf5iT)

9 Ace, well said. What you just wrote should be required reading for the Mexipublican crowd.

Posted by: tommy at May 30, 2006 03:12 PM (hMLSq)

10 I didn't think "immigration reform" was going to be an amnesty, or a bonanza of new legal immigrant citizens, or a huge new number of legalized immigrant workers.

Really?

God, we like, totally got that wrong.

Sorry. Maybe the House can fix it.

Posted by: Senator John McCain at May 30, 2006 03:24 PM (s7t6E)

11 The PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO WRITE AN ENFORCEABLE LAW!!!!!!!!!

That is a FACT.

But somehow the dissemination of language within "laws" that become arguments, rather than LAWS has become common.

MY SUGGESTION to anyone who takes part in the letistative ellections?

REQUIRE THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE DO ONE THING AT A FUCKING TIME!!!!!

That is the JOB of the legislature.

they define ONE THING AT A TIME, that is what a FUCKING LAW IS!!!!!!!!

Fire anyone who doesn't know what a LAW IS!

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 30, 2006 03:40 PM (QTv8u)

12 The House must stop this bill, or we will have to protect the borders ourselves.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at May 30, 2006 04:02 PM (wxEwj)

13 Pretty soon the votes of current Americans won't count for all that much.

Hell, mine doesn't now - what with all the dead Democrats still voting and all the live ones voting all day long.

Posted by: RLS at May 30, 2006 04:03 PM (Lh7Vt)

14 The House must stop this bill, or we will have to protect the borders ourselves.

I'd like to see a movement for citizens to cheat on their taxes and send the difference to the Minutemen.

Not only are our tax dollars not being used to provide for the common defense; they are actually being used to buy votes from the very people who are here illegally.

Talk about spitting in the face of your constituents.

Posted by: The Warden at May 30, 2006 04:26 PM (cMMJ/)

15 Do you remember before the Republicans came to power in 94, how they fought tooth and nail to stop socialized medicine? That was my Republican party.

Today's Republicans, now that they are in power, would more likely be proposing their own socialized medical programs.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at May 30, 2006 04:36 PM (wxEwj)

16 Unless we stop the tide of illegal immigration, we will go the way of Europe.

None of the stuff the party-firsters are worried about - Supreme Court nominations, gun control, tax cuts...etc will matter in the least if we don't fight to pre$erve the middle class in this country.

This shit matters as much as the GWOT and there are people here arguing that the threat of a Hillary presidency matters more than losing America to a flood of people who cannot be supported by our infrastructure.

Get a fucking clue, guys. The oldest game in the book is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Problem is, we're running out of Peters (hehehehe). These politicians are fighting over a permanent underclass of voters which they will seek to keep under their thumbs. And they're going to do it on your backs. They're going to take every fucking thing you have - yours and your family's until there's nothing left to give. What the fuck do you think has been happening for the last 50 years? Social Security anyone?

So FUCK those RINOs. Voting for them just brings us closer to the inevitable. I'd rather at least try to get a new class of Republicans in office who have some balls. Christ, let's at least go down fighting.

Posted by: The Warden at May 30, 2006 06:06 PM (cMMJ/)

17 Eh, I haven't cared much for Sensenbrenner since I saw him in all those Seinfeld episodes. Or the back of his head, at least.

Posted by: Sobek at May 30, 2006 06:18 PM (dmsUZ)

18 Ace, I am surprised that you fall into the trap of characterising employment as a zero-sum game. Adam Smith and FA Hyak would roundly disagree with your assertion that an immigrant (legal or otherwise) performs work at the expense of someone else. THis is the same argument that Marx and Engels used to justify planned economies and state control: Namely that wealth is not created, but only transferrred from one person to another.

I claim that if the federal, state and local governments stopped transferring wealth from producers to looters and moochers, they would have no incentive to come here.

Accordingly, I would accept the following proposal: In exchange for the immediate cessation of ALL social programs for immigrants (legal and otherwise) I would be willing to declare amnesty for all illegal immigrants not convicted of any other crime.

Any takers?

Posted by: Honest Abe at May 30, 2006 06:40 PM (xfUCZ)

19 Glad to see you lily-livered varmints are finally on board.

I volunteered to help build the fence. The link is at Michelle's.

Posted by: Bart at May 30, 2006 06:56 PM (9naQ1)

20 Test (first)

Posted by: Gun Toting Liberal at May 30, 2006 07:27 PM (OKBoD)

21 Something's definitely fucked up here. Was able to post a response, now I'm not.

Posted by: Gun Toting Liberal at May 30, 2006 07:34 PM (OKBoD)

22 Sweet Hay-zues GTL, you kiss your mom with that mouth?

Posted by: Jake Jacobsen at May 30, 2006 08:58 PM (mVj52)

23 I'd like to see a movement for citizens to cheat on their taxes and send the difference to the Minutemen.

Apparently hundreds of people have been sending congressmen red murphy bricks in the mail with angry notes attached.

One noted that someone willing to pay the postage on a brick is probably a "motivated voter".

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 30, 2006 11:10 PM (gf5iT)

24 Our host is off base on SS. Oversimplifying for brevity, SS screws the guest worker like it screws us. It takes their money and gives them a crappy investment in return. But that benefits the system--your loss funds retirees. That's the "bargain" and it applies to guest workers also.

As far as their sickly 'rents go, guest workers should self-insure. Their have been mutual aid societies for immigrants for generations.

There are some pretty good objections to the way this bill is shaking out, but the numbers don't work out too badly so far.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 31, 2006 02:32 AM (uSomN)

25 This is what it comes down to: future votes. Most people get that, but that's where the common understanding seems to end.

What a lot of people don't seem to get is that you need to go a lot farther than just easing their way into US citizenship to get the votes of illegal aliens - after all, they can already get in, they can already find work, schools are being ordered to teach their kids - in spanish no less, they get free healthcare at the ER, etc etc.

In other words, they're already functionally citizens, in all the ways they care about. Stamping the word "legal" on them basically just lets them stop looking over their shoulder in exchange for paying taxes.

So, amnesty is a lost cause for the republicans - it loses votes from the base, and gains little or nothing from the new influx of illegals-made-legals - most of the (voting) remainder going to the dems.

Not because dems are handling the amnesty thing differently, but because the dems have a history and culture of social whore-ism aka socialism thinly disguised as democratic capitalism. They are the mommy to the republicans' daddy, and when you are (or see yourself as) an outsider, underdog, lower class etc, it's mommy you'll be choosing, every time.

To swing those numbers to the republicans, the repubs would have to develop their own long, proud tradition of social whore-ism, and at that point the votes gained are offset by the values lost, i.e. at that point who cares who votes repub or dem as both will be the same, and we will be France 2.

Posted by: Scott at May 31, 2006 03:03 AM (f8958)

26 Every time I watch a documentary about an ancient civilization and the narrator says "X civilization ruled x territory for x thousands of years" I hear "The United States was a world leader for 300 years and then the system collapsed due to ....". The reasons for the collapse of the US are outlined on the various AoS threads from immigration issues to the GWOT. The main reason for all of these failures: our Congresslite. What happened to the days of fighting for your cause? What a bunch of self serving spineless mamby pambies!

Posted by: Ruth at May 31, 2006 03:10 AM (DTwYZ)

27 Immigration reform means controlling the borders and increasing and easing immigration - not for illegal aliens but for people seeking legal immigration.

Posted by: Aaron at May 31, 2006 05:28 AM (FN4lz)

28 It's public POLICY not public law. It can and will change from day to day on the mearest whim of Congress. That's why the present policies in place are, though adquate, are not enforced. What surprises me is that you actually believe there will be ANY change in the status quo. (No change in the status quo on Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, your day to day) Until the borders are secure, there is NO controling this problem, we ALL know this. The only fence that will get built is the one the Minutemen are building and that will have to be maintained and manned at their expense. It's public POLICY not public law, REPUBLICRATS. There IS a difference.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 31, 2006 05:41 AM (IeLhK)

29 Wanna know how the immigration committee effort will go? Watch Utah. Long term Congressman Cox is having to run off against a challenger and the issue is immigration. If Cox loses, the Republicans in the House will be in sheer panic. Like in stampede to make sure no provisions of the Senate bill see the light of day. It might even shake the WH.

Consider that a Nebraska Republican incumbent has lost a bid and the same seems to be happening in the Republican side to replace Duke Cunnigham's seat. A strong immigrant control candidate swept the field.

The People are sending the message and so far the pro immigrant, open borders crowd is being swept from the field. Pols take note -- Your ass is grass, if your grass is Open Borders. Defeat tolls for thee.


Posted by: JohnMc at May 31, 2006 07:01 AM (cMd8l)

30 Spongeworthy,

Hey I think you have not thought SS thru dude. You assume that the employer is FORWARDING the SS quarterly payments on to the govt. I would hazard that is not the case for about half of them. If they know they are hiring an illegal, then they won't be asking for a SS number. That would be setting one up for investigation/fines if caught. So it would all be under the table, cash. So SS does not get any $$.

In the case where the illegal does do fake doc scam well yes SS will get money. But even here I have to tell you, YOU are getting screwed. Lets say an illegal comes out of the shadows. He's 50 and starts paying into SS. Lets say he's eligible for benefits at 65. So he paid in for 15 years. For a guy like me, I'm 54 currently, I have been paying SS tax since I was 14. Say I retire at 65 as well. What's the result?

Answer: The illegal and I get the same benefit if we had the same salary during the last 20 quarters of employment. That is true even considering the fact that I have paid in 3 times as long and the NPV of that payment stream.

So dude that immigrant is a net accelerator to the collapse of the SS system. Give it some thought.

Posted by: JohnMc at May 31, 2006 07:13 AM (cMd8l)

31 Unless we stop the tide of illegal immigration, we will go the way of Europe.
================
Don't think it's even close. Specially since latino, African, and Muslim ethnic groups don't all act the same when they immigrate to a country. I think Europe has much more serious problems with integration now than the US can ever have in the long run.

Regarding immigration, I think a more realistic plan is to control and to select more, forget about "stopping" it.

I don't think the amnesty plan weighs at all negatively on the overall balancesheet. I haven't followed the issue too closely, but it's much more of a politically symbolic hyperventilation than any real problem due to the enormity of the US as a nation.

For example, all the Enron-type guys are a tiny tiny fraction of the population, and legal Americans, but together they can have a more negative impact with their corruptive deeds than a ton of low income (illegal or amnestized ) people. Furthermore I don't see a single ethnic group in the US that doesn't start to seriously integrate with the first born generation.

Posted by: alessandra at May 31, 2006 07:36 AM (n/PLG)

32 On a side note, maybe most of you disagree, but one benefit of large (leg or illegal) immigration waves is that at least it makes a chunk of the common American population bilingual, which is like the minimum you can be without being totally ignorant. 2 languages is still not much, I have always thought knowing 4-5 languages is when it starts to get cool, but that takes more than watching American Idol munching on Cheetos... Not that I am such a fan of Latin American culture, but it has its highlights...


Posted by: alessandra at May 31, 2006 07:45 AM (n/PLG)

33 Alessandra, I would say this about other cultures and how they act when they immigrate. They all start drawing on the social support systems - WIC, EIC, healthcare, school - regardless of where they came from and especially since they offer low-tech skills. When we hand out benefits without the requirement of citizenship, there is no impetus for them to become citizens. That is the current situation. Why would an illegal want to become a US citizen? They already have a job, a drivers license, free healthcare, free schooling, etc.

Let's say that the Enron guys may have affected half a million people, at losses of say 50k. How does that compare when millions of immigrants start taking out SS like they have been contributing for years? 50k, 100k, 150k?? And that affects ALL of those drawing SS at that time.

You see integration with the first generation? Not always and not with the Hispanics. For them it's a cultural thing. Groups like La Raza and others are reinforcing that this is their land. You may think that will never take but combine their message with our current culture that is telling them what their parents are doing is wrong, you MUST be an Amercian to assilimilate and you'll understand why they're fighting it. When they had all those demonstrations, I saw TONS of younger kids not just enjoying a day off but waving lots of flags other than the US and shouting lots of anti-US slogans.

I wrote this in a post yesterday. It's about votes. The pols are sellign us out. Let 1 billion Chinese, Arabs, Africans, anyone come streaming over the border. What will they care as long as they can continue to vote themselves raises, waste time investigating steroid scandals (are you kidding me??) and create boards of inquiry that these guys will never attend?

Posted by: Pixelflash at May 31, 2006 09:01 AM (O+1/6)

34 Let's say that the Enron guys may have affected half a million people, at losses of say 50k. How does that compare when millions of immigrants start taking out SS like they have been contributing for years? 50k, 100k, 150k?? And that affects ALL of those drawing SS at that time.
===============
OK, maybe I didn't put a lot of emphasis, but I was thinking of "all the Enron-type guys" not just the two recently convicted honchos. As you well know Enron types are not that few and they have become a real problem in the financial stratosphere.

"Let's say that the Enron guys may have affected half a million people, "

then you take that and multiply by 100 (a conservative estimate, certainly) and you have a significant negative impact, and as a total guess, I would think could be more harmful than whatever drain illegals put on social services resources.

Posted by: alessandra at May 31, 2006 09:20 AM (n/PLG)

35 True. I'll concede that. I guess I'll say that their (Enron idiots) impact is as great as those of the illegals. I am as much for the prosecution of CEOs ripping off their investors and employees as I am for those runnign across the border.

My main point is still that those on the Hill and in the House don't care about us like they would have us believe.

Posted by: Pixelflash at May 31, 2006 09:31 AM (O+1/6)

36 one benefit of large (leg or illegal) immigration waves is that at least it makes a chunk of the common American population bilingual

Not many of the illegals I've encountered on construction sites are bilingual.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 31, 2006 09:49 AM (gf5iT)

37 When we hand out benefits without the requirement of citizenship, there is no impetus for them to become citizens. That is the current situation. Why would an illegal want to become a US citizen? They already have a job, a drivers license, free healthcare, free schooling, etc.
==============
OK, I don't know much about the above problem, but I certainly think it's problem too. But to me the lack of integration is a much greater problem than the amnesty or immigration one. However, I think you exagerate by portraying the US as Finland, France, or the former USSR for that matter (everything on a silver platter given by the state).

Millions of legal Americans don't have healthcare, so I'm not sure what percentage of illegals get what free, but it still doesn't seem like such a big thing to me.

As an additional thought, if legal Americans were to have 5 children on average instead of 2, and still earn the same, the drain on the govt services would be greater than the illegals cause now, and I don't think anyone would suggest abortions to curtail this overload.

I see the threats/provocations as more symbolic on the culture/politics front, rather than the economic one. A nice example given by you: "I saw TONS of younger kids not just enjoying a day off but waving lots of flags other than the US and shouting lots of anti-US slogans." I saw a few of those pics too, but it seemed to me they were not illegal kids, don't know.

culturally speaking, in a few years, when it's time to go to work, either these kids have integrated or they are going to find out the ugly life track options available for those too clueless to adapt and become a citizen. It's as simple as that.


Posted by: alessandra at May 31, 2006 09:49 AM (n/PLG)

38 Not many of the illegals I've encountered on construction sites are bilingual.

Posted by Purple Avenger
==============
well, those aren't even monolingual... ;-)

Posted by: alessandra at May 31, 2006 09:53 AM (n/PLG)

39 I'm a bit baffled by the right wing concerns over Mexican assimilation. Mexican assimilation tends to follow the same pattern as most other immigrant groups; I don't see a big cultural problem. There's just no comparison with muslims in Europe.

Most of the anti-American nonsense is being stoked by groups like ANSWER and by Chicano Studies professors at American universities, who actually have a vested interest in provoking an anti-hispanic backlash, even if they don't admit it to themselves. The main threat to universal American values is coming out of American schools, and sealing the border isn't gonna stop that.

Enforce the laws and all that, but let's not go overboard with the Mexifornia worries.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 10:09 AM (Cpse7)

40 "On a side note, maybe most of you disagree, but one benefit of large (leg or illegal) immigration waves is that at least it makes a chunk of the common American population bilingual, which is like the minimum you can be without being totally ignorant."

So, I'm first generation Polish on my mother's side, and I don't speak Polish. My father's 2nd generation Russian and he doesn't speak Russian.

So, between the two of us, we're not only ignorant, we're bucking the supposed benefit, eh? By your reasoning with our national mutlike status, we'd have people speaking every language (European in particular) in our streets. I don't see it.

Posted by: Cutler at May 31, 2006 10:20 AM (5f4Yy)

41 Mexican assimilation tends to follow the same pattern as most other immigrant groups; I don't see a big cultural problem.

It does?

Posted by: geoff at May 31, 2006 10:24 AM (nH1Ad)

42 JohnMc:

See, the plan is to get these workers on the books so the employer has to forward his SS contributions. You're arguing that the status quo is broken but no one is arguing that--it is assumed. We are discussing the fix. And the fix will get those workers on the books so they do contribute.

And I don't know where you come up with this 50-year old river swimmer, but that's not the demographic at work here and you know it.

I can tell from the tone of your post your mind is closed on this issue. Anybody who posits a 50 year old Mexican and illegal behavior from employers as obstacles to SS solvency isn't arguing in good faith.

But try to remember that arguing that the status quo is broken is not the same as criticizing proposals to fix it.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 31, 2006 10:26 AM (uSomN)

43 Yeah, from what I have heard over the years, mexicans are not assimilating. They are also not pursuing higher education as most children of immigrants and immigrants sought to do.

Today, on the radio they were discussing one of the city charter schools that is more or less run by azlatanistas with my tax dollars, mind you. The principal said he does not give interviews to white journalists and if the reporter came to the school, he better watch his back.

Sandy, I think you live in a geek-ghetto where the effect of immigration is not as pronounced.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 10:34 AM (lw1AE)

44 They are not bilingual. I don't see how you can support that claim. That's just not happening, our schools are hiring teachers to teach in spanish only. Monolingual does not make one ignorant. Come on.

They ALL get free healthcare. Local hospitals have to provide it by law if they are told up front that the person is here illegally (I know because our newspaper did a story on a pregnant couple from Ecuador who was here on an expired visa. When they went to the hospital for prenatal care and told the doctor, the doctor told them they should have said they were here as illegal immigrants and they would not have to have paid a thing. True story - believe it or not.)

As far as them coming out of school and looking for jobs. When they graduate (if they do, that is) and look for a job, they may not want to further educate themself and just get a menial labor job. American kids are doing the same thing. With our glamorization of celebrities and stars, no one wants to become scientists, teachers or scholars in general. Why should their kids be any different?

I see plenty of fast-food workers who don't speak any english beyond taking your order. The newspaper I work for has approx. 50% of their packaging and distribution people with the inability to communicate with you without an interpreter to help.

That's the problem. The liberals see threats as symbolic (if you're not one, I apologize, but your stance seems to infer that). Not real. Just something out there, out of reach.

I live in SC and it's not just a Mexifornia problem, sandy. It's all over the country. There is a town here that has seen radical change in the 5 years I have lived here. Not just one tienda per strip mall, but 2 in all but one.

They do not want to assimilate. Period. Wake up. Or better yet, go and grab an interpreter and go talk to them. Our paper has done just that and reported on it.

Posted by: Pixelflash at May 31, 2006 11:21 AM (O+1/6)

45 Not sure if this is true or not, but it's something to consider in trying to understand the madness.

An acquaintance over at Free Republic who follows developments in China claims that Venezuela and China are both trying to influence Mexico's elections, especially given the communist presidential candidate Obrador's popularity. The hope is to turn Mexico Communist and especially in the past year, they have really turned up the heat.

This acquaintance claims that the money America loses now with the illegal immigration problem would be nothing compared to the cost we'd face if we suddenly had an armed communist state to our southern border supported by China.

Maybe this is what's going through Bush's mind and why he wants mexicans to have a favorable view of America (and capitalism). Any anti-American backlash might translate into a win for communist presidential candidate Obrador.

Posted by: T. at May 31, 2006 11:35 AM (+z7jR)

46 They do not want to assimilate. Period. Wake up. Or better yet, go and grab an interpreter and go talk to them.

I don't need an interpreter, I speak spanish well enough. My experience is that they do want to assimilate, in general.

I'm not blind to the problems. For example, when I lived in downtown San Jose, I saw all the trouble caused by hispanic gangs (the nortenos and the sudenos). But I don't see this as anything different from any other immigration wave we've dealt with in the past.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 11:52 AM (Cpse7)

47 Who knows what's going thru his mind?

If that is true, then there's another reason to put up borders and keep them out. The illegal ones coming here aren't strengthening the system, they're putting a strain on it. Money gong back home is subsidizing Mexico's failing economy.

Bush wants to relocate Mexico's poor class here. Face it. We have a pseudocon in the office. You don't get poll numbers in the 30s with just the war in Iraq. That number looked more like lower 60s. It was this issue that pushed it that low. He is losing the moderates now.

If Fox is leaning towards socialism, then wouldn't it make sense to move more of their lower class here so the state won't have to support them?

Posted by: Pixelflash at May 31, 2006 11:59 AM (O+1/6)

48 What wave in particular are you talking about? We have waves of 500,000 a year illegally coming across our southern border from another cultural group?

We thought we had this pegged in 1986. Same thought patterns.

Plug the border. Get them to assimilate via amnesty. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

I'm tired of hearing about how we need them. Really? If the estimated 24% of illegal dayworkers picking on farms or 14% in construction were removed, those who are receiving welfare because they can't find a job could take their place. What is so difficult about that once you get behind the basic reluctance to accept it?

This bill going to the House is ridiculous. They get to pick which 3 of the past 5 years they get to pay their back taxes? And they get 8 years to do it? That's a glimpse of the insanity they are offering.

Posted by: Pixelflash at May 31, 2006 12:24 PM (O+1/6)

49 It's not Fox leaning toward socialism, it's the presidential candidate Obrador. Far as I know, Fox does not lean toward socialism. I think Obrador's popularity has taken a serious hit recently due to some primo mudslinging by his opponent.

Posted by: T. at May 31, 2006 12:30 PM (+z7jR)

50 those who are receiving welfare because they can't find a job could take their place.

People aren't on welfare because there are no jobs.

They are generally on welfare because they're disabled, they have kids to take care of alone, or they have mental problems of some sort.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 01:17 PM (ePQxy)

51 To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of illegal immigration or amnesty. The point I'm trying to make is that Mexicans are as interested in assimilating as any other immigrant group has been.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 01:21 PM (Cpse7)

52 The point I'm trying to make is that Mexicans are as interested in assimilating as any other immigrant group has been.

Huntington disagrees - he thinks Hispanic immigration is qualitatively and quantitatively different than previous waves.

Posted by: geoff at May 31, 2006 01:28 PM (nH1Ad)

53 I think it's qualitatively different, but not because of the Mexicans. The difference is that the legal route has become much harder and the illegal route has become expected/tolerated/encouraged. This makes no sense, and the results have been predictably disastrous.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 01:51 PM (ePQxy)

54 1) Current Mexican immigration is far larger in proportion to the U.S. and to other immigration than any previous immigration stream since the Irish in 1845-54. (which caused some problems)

2) Most Mexican immigrants want to assimilate. But a significant, highly politicized element opposes assimilation and is antagonistic toward the U.S. (i.e. MeCHA). The scale of hispanic immigration also facilitates non-assimilation to a degree unprecedented in the U.S. There are also business interests opposed to assimilation, especially Spanish-language media such as Univision and Telemundo.

3) The May Day demonstrations were orchestrated by "International ANSWER", the front group of the Communist "Workers World Party". They were obviously and predictably counterproductive, so what was the reason? The, ahem, "ANSWER": the WWP hoped to provoke violent or jingoist reactions that could be publicized in Mexico, to the benefit of the far-left candidate, Obrador, in the upcoming election.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom at May 31, 2006 07:45 PM (n/CHn)

55 I see many similarities between past Irish immigration and present Mexican immigration.

Anyhow, one important difference between this wave of immigration and previous ones is that this one is taking place at a time when many American intellectuals are advocating a political philosophy which discourages assimilation.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 08:39 PM (Epllv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
118kb generated in CPU 0.13, elapsed 1.4321 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3506 seconds, 291 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.