They Are Vital To our Economy...Not

Quote from jem:

But is not baseless speculation that the democratic legilature was making California very inviting for mexicans.

95% of mexicans are not coming here for social services, if California cancels all social sevices for illegals they will still be coming in droves cause they are here to work and make a living. They will still be taking chances.

Of course while they are here they may get sick, get into an accident etc. You said they are good for the economy, you said you're humane so what exactly do you propose, should they be dying in the streets, should hospitals pick up the tab? You want them here but you don't have any idea what to do about them when they need help or treatment.

Besides while California may have been "inviting", two democratic governors of New Mexico and Arizona declared a state of emergency because of the border/immigration disaster in their states. Of course you conveniently "forget" about that. The point is it's not a local/state issue, it's a federal issue and for the last 5 years the federal government has been controlled by republicans, the results are becoming more and more obvious.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

Nah, you don't know what you're talking about. The only reason why Mexicans immigrate to the U.S. en masse, is simply because they are treated like serfs in their own nation and the U.S. Government has permitted this state of affairs since before the U.S. Civil War.

The descendants of Aztec and Mayan civilization are considered sub human by the Mexicans who are descendant of the Spanish and French, and that class distinction is the regular and common feature of Mexican society and economics.

If you watch Mexican TV (Telemundo, Univision) you will see what appear to be mostly white european entertainers playing all the roles. You will never see a wealthy Mexican trying to immigrate to the U.S. -- only the mestizo, the brown skinned indigenous native Mexicans migrate, because they are systematically prevented from becoming a part of their own society.

Interestingly, the history of Aztec culture plays directly into the hands of this pathetic situation. The Aztec rulers routinely staged mass executions of their "citizens" in order to control the population and appease the Gods (20,000 people or more would be slaughtered at one time). So, in fact the guy who's mowing your lawn has a cultural history of, and is quite used to, being brutally mistreated for 10,000+ years -- far longer than any descendants of African slavery.

There would be no Mexican immigration problem if we insisted that the Mexican Government enforce the laws and rights of citizens found in their own Constitution.

But, Mexico doesn't enforce it's laws. Why do you think that "Spring Break" is so popular with American kids. They can go down to Mexico and drink and carouse and the Mexican police will do nothing.

The only time that the Mexican authorities get involved in law enforcement is (1) when someone is seriously injured; (2) where there are riot-like conditions; (3) where a wealthy member of the Mexican Aristocracy requests help.

You can tell the jewelry stores that sell "real" Rolex watches from the fake shops, because there will be a Mexican policeman with a shotgun wearing a bullet-proof vest who stands outside the store with the real goods. Not a private security guard -- a government worker.

Same goes for the wealthy Mexican homes.

Try to get that in the USA. Payola and graft is how Mexico works -- not via law. Law is for the rich. The poor work for tips.

So, your attempting to lay the immigration problem at the hands of liberals is simply wrong. The problem is the result of the entire US Governmental establishment, aiding and abetting the Mexican Government to allow two completely different sets of laws to operate in Mexico. If the same situation were to exist in the USA, we would describe it as "separate but equal." (Brown v. Board of Education).

Maybe you like "separate but equal" and you'd like to see it reestablished in the USA. If you're wondering what it would look like, the example is just South of the Border -- in Mexico.

It's even worse than that. Wealthy mexicans are above the law. If they kill or injure some poor person or foreigner, it's swept under the carpet, kind of like they were a Kennedy here. The police are totally corrupt. they stop taxicabs in mexico city and rob people at gunpoint.

For all the mexicans' bellyaching aobut how unfair US immigration law is, theirs is many times more harsh. Teh Mexican Constitution spells out a series of severe limitations on the rights f non-citizens. Unlike here, "illegals" are subject to summary expulsion, as is anyone else who does something like demonstrate or try to influence mexican politics. Their southern border is guarded by troops, to prevent illegals and drug smugglers from crossing without paying off the appropriate officials.

As kent has pointed out, illegal immigration fundamentally distorts mexican society, as it provides an escape for the most motivatedpeople, those who might otherwise force a change in their system.
 
Quote from dddooo:

95% of mexicans are not coming here for social services, if California cancels all social sevices for illegals they will still be coming in droves cause they are here to work and make a living. They will still be taking chances.

Of course while they are here they may get sick, get into an accident etc. You said they are good for the economy, you said you're humane so what exactly do you propose, should they be dying in the streets, should hospitals pick up the tab? You want them here but you don't have any idea what to do about them when they need help or treatment.

Besides while California may have been "inviting", two democratic governors of New Mexico and Arizona declared a state of emergency because of the border/immigration disaster in their states. Of course you conveniently "forget" about that. The point is it's not a local/state issue, it's a federal issue and for the last 5 years the federal government has been controlled by republicans, the results are becoming more and more obvious.


yeah well you are speculating now as well.

if ca did not give away benefits there would be many less illegals. I guarantee that from my experience living there and being a lawyer there. There are many illegal asians working for cash and getting benefits in San Diego. i met plenty of them.
 
A lot in New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., FLorida, Texas, heck even in Raleigh North Carolina! How is this only one state's problem and only one party's fault???????
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's even worse than that. Wealthy mexicans are above the law. If they kill or injure some poor person or foreigner, it's swept under the carpet, kind of like they were a Kennedy here. The police are totally corrupt. they stop taxicabs in mexico city and rob people at gunpoint.

For all the mexicans' bellyaching aobut how unfair US immigration law is, theirs is many times more harsh. Teh Mexican Constitution spells out a series of severe limitations on the rights f non-citizens. Unlike here, "illegals" are subject to summary expulsion, as is anyone else who does something like demonstrate or try to influence mexican politics. Their southern border is guarded by troops, to prevent illegals and drug smugglers from crossing without paying off the appropriate officials.

As kent has pointed out, illegal immigration fundamentally distorts mexican society, as it provides an escape for the most motivatedpeople, those who might otherwise force a change in their system.

You just had to throw Kennedy into the mix, didn't cha? That's an extreme anomaly -- we both know the only reason Teddy got off was because the government, and the public opinion at the time, simply decided that the Kennedy family had had enough death via public service to outweigh having another family member charged with negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter, so soon.

But, I'm off topic. The current crop of illegal immigrants outnumber U.S. law enforcement plus the military by about 10 to 1, and mass deportation could lead to civil war in States with concentrated illegal populations. So, that's not a rational solution.

I think we should give those illegals who are already here the carrot and the stick: set up some reasonable rules to attain U.S. citizenship; filter the immigrants who are already here through those rules, deport the losers, and close the border.

But, if we don't close the border, then nothing else we do will matter -- it will be the same outcome as what occurred during the Reagan era amnesty. We will have millions of new citizens and millions more illegal immigrants. And, it will never end.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

... .

But, I'm off topic. The current crop of illegal immigrants outnumber U.S. law enforcement plus the military by about 10 to 1, and mass deportation could lead to civil war in States with concentrated illegal populations. So, that's not a rational solution.

I think we should give those illegals who are already here the carrot and the stick: set up some reasonable rules to attain U.S. citizenship; filter the immigrants who are already here through those rules, deport the losers, and close the border.

But, if we don't close the border, then nothing else we do will matter -- it will be the same outcome as what occurred during the Reagan era amnesty. We will have millions of new citizens and millions more illegal immigrants. And, it will never end.

I agree. No one is advocating mass expulsion, but clearly the system is broken. It didn't get that way overnight, and it can't be fixed overnight.

The problem with a "comprehensive" solution like bush wants is that it ends up being all carrot and no stick. The only reasonable way to fix the system is in stages, and the obvious place to begin is the border. Once that is taken care of and the influx reduced to a trickle, the other problems become more manageable and we begin to have some trust in our officials to be responsible. As it is now, that trust is lacking.

It baffles me how Bush, MccCain and Kennedy can argue for a legalization process without explaining what they will do to the illegals who fail to comply. They won't expel lawbreakers now. Why should we, or the illegals, expect anything to change?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I agree. No one is advocating mass expulsion, but clearly the system is broken. It didn't get that way overnight, and it can't be fixed overnight.

The problem with a "comprehensive" solution like bush wants is that it ends up being all carrot and no stick. The only reasonable way to fix the system is in stages, and the obvious place to begin is the border. Once that is taken care of and the influx reduced to a trickle, the other problems become more manageable and we begin to have some trust in our officials to be responsible. As it is now, that trust is lacking.

It baffles me how Bush, MccCain and Kennedy can argue for a legalization process without explaining what they will do to the illegals who fail to comply. They won't expel lawbreakers now. Why should we, or the illegals, expect anything to change?

Sadly, they are all misrepresenting the issue to the public. I was listening to Jeff Sessions on the floor of the Senate today, and he was "testifyin'" to the truth of the matter. He stated that no President or Congress has squared off on this issue, including Reagan, who put up the 1986 amnesty bill, promised to enforce the borders, and then never appropriated any money to do it.

I believe that there is a backroom deal between the heavyweights in Mexico and the U.S. and that they have agreed to allow a continuous stream of immigration into the U.S. in return for ______?

Maybe, we are just afraid of the consequences of another Mexican revolution. Maybe too many wealthy Americans own real estate trusts in Mexico now to upset the applecart. I don't know what's going on, but I'll bet that EVERYONE on ET would have to agree, that when Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush are on the same side of an issue, that SOMETHING very fishy is going on.

Ted and George do have one thing in common: they're both filthy rich. So, I'm guessing that they're both protecting their wealth and the wealth of some undisclosed constituents.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

Sadly, they are all misrepresenting the issue to the public. I was listening to Jeff Sessions on the floor of the Senate today, and he was "testifyin'" to the truth of the matter. He stated that no President or Congress has squared off on this issue, including Reagan, who put up the 1986 amnesty bill, promised to enforce the borders, and then never appropriated any money to do it.

I believe that there is a backroom deal between the heavyweights in Mexico and the U.S. and that they have agreed to allow a continuous stream of immigration into the U.S. in return for ______?

Maybe, we are just afraid of the consequences of another Mexican revolution. Maybe too many wealthy Americans own real estate trusts in Mexico now to upset the applecart. I don't know what's going on, but I'll bet that EVERYONE on ET would have to agree, that when Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush are on the same side of an issue, that SOMETHING very fishy is going on.

Ted and George do have one thing in common: they're both filthy rich. So, I'm guessing that they're both protecting their wealth and the wealth of some undisclosed constituents.

Who knows? But it doesn't require a conspiracy theory. The Dem's see an army of potential voters, the Rep's are afraid of a backlash and also their small business base depends on the illegals. so long as both parties stay in lock step, they figure there is nothing the voters can do about it.

It's amusing to listen to the open borders Republicans try to justify their position. I have heard a couple of them point to bush receiving 44% of the hispanic vote. Excuse me, but that means the other guy got 56% of it, nearly 50% more. It reminds me of the old joke about the guy who lost a dollar on every widget he sold, but was planning to make it up on volume.

For the Republicans, that's a really powerful strategy--infuriate your own supporters even as you swell the ranks of Democrat voters. With thinking like that, it's no wonder we made a mess out of Iraq.
 
Quote from dddooo:

I am vehemently against illegal immigration but just out of curiosity:

If you conservative, republican/libertarian Ayn Rand loving free-traders believe that corporations have the right to freely cross the border in search of better/cheaper labor and just as freely bring back across the border goods and services manufactured overseas without any obstacles, tariffs or limitations, if you believe in all that why do you not believe in the right of labor to freely cross borders in search of better opportunities and profitable employment?

Why all of a sudden all those "Globalization" and "The world is flat" concepts you've been talking about for years go down the toilet the moment immigration and border issues are concerned. How is it consistent that businesses and goods can freely cross borders but individuals can't.

oh my god. i cannot belive that i am agreeing with ddddoo. but let me ask you a question, if you r against illegals, what solution do you propose?
their farming communities along the borders were destroyed after the introduction of NAFTA and after the u.s. dumped their heavily subsidized produce in their back yard. what r u proposing to do with all of these farmers.

oh by the way, this is wael the bogeyman.
 
Only a physical wall the full length of the border has any hope of slowing it, until the costs of coming here equal the benefits. "Life finds a way". The free market philosophy and wealth disparity gives it additional energy.

Where has the mixing of peoples ever been successfully stopped anywhere in the world, at any time in history? Even max security jails have the occasional escape, and, believe it or not, the occasional break-in.
 
Back
Top