Comments

Bottom of Comments | Comment Form | Original Post

Absolutely right.

jetfxr69 | 3/30/2006 12:01 PM CDT | #60552


I’ve never been one to point to polls as indicia of overall public opinion—they’re too easily designed and interpreted to reach a predetermined results.

That said, I’m wondering now, what the hell is going on here?

We have what appears to be consistent and overwhelming support for strong reform to limit immigration (try getting 72% of this country to agree on anything)—yet Congress is going in the exact opposite direction.  What. The. Hell.  I’ve never been a proponent of mob rule and/or direct democracy, but this blows my mind.  3/4 of the country would vote for a candidate that limits immigration, and they’re ignoring this fact?

Why?  Seriously, why?  What does Congress gain from this?  Who is pushing the other agenda so hard that they’re willing to ignore overwhelming opinion?

Or don’t they think we’ll remember when November rolls around?

Rule10b5 | 3/30/2006 12:08 PM CDT | #60553


Rule10,

I’m not one to believe polls much, myself. But poll after poll shows not just a small majority, but an overwhelming one, in favor of curbing illegal immigration.

That Congress seems to be ignoring this supermajority is just inexplicable to me, unless agribusiness and the meatpackers are throwing dollars at them.

Kim du Toit | 3/30/2006 12:12 PM CDT | #60554


A San Diego Union Tribune columnist, Ruben Navarre, had an op-ed on today’s IndyStar (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060330/OPINION/603300318/1002) website calling for “honest talk on immigration. Among other things, Navarre said “most Republicans in Congress insist they’re not anti-immigrant. If that’s the case, the time has come to prove it by allowing higher levels of legal immigration.”

Oh, okay. It’s all so clear now. The way to stem the tide of people illegally crossing the border from Mexico is to allow more people to cross legally? I somehow doubt the people fording the rivers/climbing the fences/using the smuggler paths/hiding in trucks are people who have been patiently waiting in line for their chance to come into this country legally. They are people who have, with their country’s blessing, decided that the laws of the United States do not apply to them – they’re rarely enforced, so why worry? Why bother jumping through legal hoops when the border’s right there? Hey it’s their right - it was their land once, right?

And Navarre thinks more immigration is the answer? Now, would that increased immigration quota be divided among all countries or just be set aside for our neighbor to the south?

That honesty thing’s a bitch, isn’t it?

The truth is the U.S. is a sovereign nation with its own rules and policies. This country has the right and the responsibility to regulate who comes here, and lamenting the plight of the poor, scorned immigrant is not going to change that. We have a generous system in place whereby people from other countries, including Mexico, can immigrate here.

You want some honesty? Millions of Mexican citizens have chosen to flout our laws and our sovereignty and come here illegally. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Any further discourse about legal immigration must wait until the illegal flood through the border has been staunched.

clay | 3/30/2006 12:21 PM CDT | #60556


Remember all those old national polls showing overwhelming support for gun control?

Congress ultimately went the other way because RKBA folks are committed single-issue voters, and thus wield far more political authority at the ballot box than their absolute numbers might indicate.

I’m fairly certain the same is occurring here: Congress sees all the folks in the street and a) believes that either they will vote, or if they’re illegal and can’t vote, they have one or many legal family members who will vote; and b) believes that the people responding to those polls are not as committed to this issue as the people in the street and their families.

davidwhitewolf | 3/30/2006 12:26 PM CDT | #60557


As several astute commentators have noted elsewhere, this story would be getting some very different coverage if it were that thousands of Mexican academics and journalists were swimming the Rio Grande and taking the jobs of American academics and journalists for half their salaries.

Because this concerns mostly lower-skilled and manual labourers, it is the perfect opportunity for liberal commentators to swan about making pious pronouncements that show how inclusive and multicultural they are - while still being able to buy hand-picked vine-ripened tomatoes at Whole Foods for pocket change.

And I’m sick of hearing how Mexicans do the jobs that ‘Americans won’t do’. Nonsense. Americans will do the most horrible, backbreaking work - for a decent wage. But when an illegal will always do the same work for less - always - it’s not that an American will not do it - it’s that they can’t.

Enforce the Immigration Laws and get the borders under control. So prices at the grocery store, or new-home costs, tick up a percent or two - deal with it. Incidentally, with unemployment at less than 5%, if the estimated 10-15 million illegals were to be rounded up and deported, the job market would explode, wages would go up, we’d all be better off. But get the borders under control, before the uncontrolled tide of illegals drags us all down to the standard of living that they fled from.

llater,

llamas

llamas | 3/30/2006 12:49 PM CDT | #60558


Personally, I think that if we put some real teeth into the immigration laws---as in “we catch your sorry carcass in our country illegally, you get a fifty-year vacation mining uranium in Northern Alaska, in chains,” it would drop off. 

I’m conflicted on the whole thing.  On the one hand, I remember where my ancestors came from, and I’ve not got a drop of “Native American” blood to my knowledge.  On the other hand, things have changed since the 19th century.  If we were to be able to get rid of the welfare state, I think a lot of the objections would tend to taper off. 

And, I notice that this is pretty much all-Mexican.  There are lots of Hispanics (Cubans, forex) who want no part of this nonsense. 

I’d love to see us seal our border to the south, and build a wall.  One thousand feet high, one thousand feet thick, ashlar stone all the way through, from sea to shining sea.  Let Mexico implode---afterwards, we can come in and set things to rights.

Technomad | 3/30/2006 12:50 PM CDT | #60559


Well now, I’m driving to work in Tucson, AZ (yeah, main front of la reconquista), and it’s the second day kids are late/skipping school to march the sidewalks with Mex flags and protest uncompassionate border policy.  May I just fantasize a moment: if this were how many decades ago, the parents would all be spanking and grounding away, the complicit teachers/admin would be on their ears, and school would return to normal with honest (one would hope) scabs.  Bah.  I’ve had enough, but the choir needs very little more preaching, I figure.  Time to volunteer for the Minutemen, err, Undocumented Border Patrol.

carbinero | 3/30/2006 12:53 PM CDT | #60560


Kim

I’ll use the first name because I’ve been reading your posts for a long time (NoR).  I feel I almost know you.  Generally, I agree with you.  You speak to the RKBA more elequently than I, certainly, and you’re exactly right.  Generally.

Just not now. 

Don’t get me wrong, I even generally agree with you on this one, too.  except for the last sentence, which, while it might be nice, has a problem.

Just how do you propose to “close the __ __borders?” (expletives deleted - as an aethist, why would you invoke the damnation of a god you don’t believe in? - but I digress).

Build a wall?  They will poke holes in it, tunnel under it, etc. faster than you can build it.  Militarize it?  How much are you willing to spend?  What level of force are you willing to use?  How many are we willing to kill to stop folks from crossing the Rio Grande?

The only solution, long term, is to develop the mexican economy so that there are jobs in mexico.  That’s why they come here - jobs. 

That would be money better spent.  Certainly, we can upgrade border security as we do that.  And the idea that illegals have a “right” to social services in the US is insane. 

But close the border?  Impossible, even if desirable.

GMC70 | 3/30/2006 12:55 PM CDT | #60561


In this order:

1.  Fire all the idiots in congress who propose this sort of stupidity.

2.  Seal off the border so no more illegals can get in--won’t do any good to send the ones already here home if they are coming in faster than we can send them back.

3.  Do a sweep of all businesses, farms, orchards, ranches, etc., catch all the illegal ones and send ‘em back.

4.  Heavily fine all people employing illegals.

5.  Change the law so that just being born here makes you a citizen.  Either one or both of your parents is already a U.S. citizen or you don’t become one just by being born here.

6.  Make English the official language of the U.S.  No more printing governmnent documents in languages other than English.

7.  If you want to become a citizen, you have to enter the country legally, learn English, take a class in American history and government, and pass a test on same--in English.

Crash

Crash | 3/30/2006 12:59 PM CDT | #60562


We’ve been over this plenty, and I figure now’s not the time/place for hyperbole, but I’ll remind GMC70 of the possibility: take the illegals who are now in federal pens for commiting heinous crimes.  They shall build the wall under armed guards with whatever material is handy...concrete and steel are pricey right now, so have ‘em transplant cactus if necessary.

carbinero | 3/30/2006 01:02 PM CDT | #60563


Oh yeah, and be ready for backup with gunships, etc. as the drug-runner cum mex-militia continues to breach the border and attempts to rally the convicts of imperial injustice.

carbinero | 3/30/2006 01:04 PM CDT | #60564


“Build a wall?  They will poke holes in it, tunnel under it, etc. faster than you can build it.”

And we catch them doing it, and either repatriate them (first offense), or imprison them in tented labor camps for five years (subsequent offenses). They wanna work here? Fine. Let them do it as convicts, earning $1 per hour.


“Militarize it?  How much are you willing to spend?”

Lots. 


“What level of force are you willing to use?”

Lots. 


“How many are we willing to kill to stop folks from crossing the Rio Grande?”

Lots.

Jokes aside, here’s the thing.

Illegal immigration costs us an untold amount of money each year, in social services, law enforcement and unpaid taxes. That’s just pure currency we’re talking about.

Now add to that the harm done by drug smuggling, terrorist infiltration and increased gang violence.

Ask me again whether the cost of securing our southern border is too much.

It’s not perfect; few things are. But it’s better than nothing, and even a 50% solution is better than none at all.

Here’s another thing. If a wall is a pie-in-the-sky solution, I would respectfully suggest that “developing the Mexican economy” is an even bigger pie in the sky.

Kim du Toit | 3/30/2006 01:10 PM CDT | #60565


Doesn’t seem to be too hard to close a border in desert. Post sensors equipped with cell technology. Wireless sensor, centralized control station, helicopters to move troops to stop crossers with as much force as necessary. Layered defense.

Technology exists to do the 2000 mile border crosser detection system for less than $2.5million (a guess, but an educated guess). Costs of troops/(guards) depends on how many teams/how large/etc you want to field.

What is lacking is the political will to shoot crossers. The problem becomes much more difficult if we have to catch, hold, and re-patriate the captured.

jetfxr69 | 3/30/2006 01:11 PM CDT | #60566


Crash:

1) That’s what elections are for.

2) Can’t be done.  Not with all the money you’d care to spend.  Physical impossibility.

3) Heard of the 4th amendment?  Probable cause?  That’s YOUR business they’re swarming over, and they won’t keep their blinders on as they do it.

4) That’s not a problem, but it will simply drive more of the economy underground.

5) 14th Am., Sect. 1.  It will take more than a legal change, but a constitutional change.  I, for one, am reluctant to tinker too much with that document.

6) OK.  I’m not too fond of the idea, but I can live with it.  It’s mostly symbolism.  Every wave of immigration has caused this same reaction (Italians, Germans, Polish, Irish, etc.) and they all assimilated in a generation or two.  These will too, eventually.  But we have to stem the tide somehow in the meantime.  See above for only real long-term fix.

7) Not a problem; that’s generally the law now.  I got no issue with it.

I don’t pretend to have the magic fix; I don’t think there is a single magic fix.  I’m certain what won’t work, and that’s sealing the border.  Can’t be done.

GMC70 | 3/30/2006 01:15 PM CDT | #60567


Kim

Thanks for the response.  Good to get to know you.

And you may be right about “pie in the sky” re: developing the Mexican economy; the biggest impediment is the mexican government, which is little more than institutionalized theft.  You’d have to get around it.  Long term, I’m afraid, there is no other solution.

But being able to “close the border,” as much as it may make us feel better, and feel like we’re fixing the problem, simply isn’t feasible, for any amount of money you’d care to spend.  And I simply don’t think Americans are willing to machine gun crossers; the first time dozens of bodies floating in the Rio Grande appeared on the evening news, that policy would be over.

Hope to post more in coming months.  and thanks again.  It’s good to blog someplace where people think, and not just knee-jerk react.

GMC70 | 3/30/2006 01:24 PM CDT | #60568


GMC70:  Hunh, you think developing the Mexican economy is “difficult?” Try Iraq, my friend.  It’s all a matter of priorities.  No disrespect intended, but I gotta assume you don’t live near a hot spot.

carbinero | 3/30/2006 01:46 PM CDT | #60569


I tend to agree more with GMC on this issue, but in the sense that there is no easy fix.  There are fixes, but none that don’t have other dire (and yet to be understood and experienced) consequences, at least with quite a bit of temporary pain.  Yeah, “the market” will adjust, but we don’t live in the market’s timescale.

This issue is not going to be solved by “building a wall.” Building a wall might help somewhat, but that will create other problems and issues, and cost is just one of them.

It isn’t going to be solved by criminalizing people who hire maids.

Criminalizing drugs and prostitution has sure helped solve THOSE problems.

Yes, I think we need to seal the border. No, I think revamping Mexico’s economy is impossible (totally different culture--not possible--the Spanish have been trying to do that for 600 years and so far, no luck). 

I think that people want it solved, but there isn’t one issue to solve, so people are going to be upset about this for a long, long time.  And we need to keep talking about it--talk lots--with lots of different ideas and solutions to think through.

The Congress isn’t going to solve it.  To use a Kimism:  They’re so indecisive and inept, they take 15 minutes trying to figure out which french fry to eat first. WE have to solve it--looking to experts and wise men who may have more to offer than “build a wall” and be done with it.  This problem is going to be with us forever, no matter what we do, and we have to start doing something soon, and whittle away at it until it is less of a problem.

I’m not one for “do something.” Bad things happen when we do things quickly and without carefully thinking things through.  But in this case I’m willing to opt for “do a little something” which is better than the whole lot of nothing that’s been going on for the last 70 years.  Nothing hasn’t worked.  Maybe “something” will.

Connie du Toit | 3/30/2006 02:06 PM CDT | #60570


There’s the Kim I remember.

USMC-1983 | 3/30/2006 02:56 PM CDT | #60571


Seal the border.  Kill/capture crossers.  If they are armed when they cross the border kill them, period.  All you good shots can say if you see a long gun at 300 m+ with a good scope.  Unarmed folks that are truely looking for a better life (family units) and all others get picked up and returned, preferably to Mexico City.  Unarmed folks who are criminals either here or in Mexico can be transfered to a facility in Alaska, Montana or N. Dakota (way north) not anywhere near a southern border.  Mexican military units are our land is justification for war, period end of question.  Would I go? Yes, I have some knowledge about which end the bullet comes out, and how much water a person needs in dry surroundings.

Or conversly we could just use Mexico as an example and seal our southern border the same way they seal theirs, mimic their laws for the treatment of furriners and have voter registration the same as theirs.

TANSTAFL

Dolan | 3/30/2006 03:24 PM CDT | #60575


GMC70,

Following keyed to my original post and your reply:

1.  Fine, however we can do it....

2.  Respectfully disagree.  Didn’t say it would be easy, cheap, or quick.  But with electronic sensors, quick-response teams stationed along the border, and layered defense it could be done.  What really makes it difficult is the fact that too few of our elected officials have the political will to do it.

3.  Then we simply allow illegal immigrants to stay here because we don’t have probable cause?  I believe “probable cause” is open to interpretation and I think that there are judges who would be willing to grant warrants to check out whether workers at a ranch, farm, etc., are here illegally. 

4.  I believe that the economy that employs illegals is already “underground.” If enough employers of these people had to pay stiff fines they might reconsider hiring them.  Of course, they would have to pay higher wages to “legals” to do the work and that would drive up prices at the supremarket but, if we implement the other measures I’m suggesting (and I’m not claiming that I’m the originator of any of these...), welfare costs should eventually go down.  Now, if when this happens we could just get politicians to lower taxes (I know, I know--I’m dreaming...) it should help offset the higher prices.

5.  We’ve amended the constitution quite a few times in the past as times changed and it became apparent that the document, though a great one, was not perfect and needed changing.  Why not for this problem?

6.  I believe such a change would be far more than symbolic.  Language is probably the most complex of human behaviors.  It has been said that as one learns a new language, a different way of conceptualizing goes along with it.  If this is true, requiring immigrants to learn and use English might change their way of conceptualizing to the extent that they would be more amenable to assimilation and would realize, and appreciate, that this country is the United States, not Mexico.

7.  Yes, it’s generally the law, but if the Senate bill passes I can visualize an “amnesty” program that allows illegals to become citizens without knowing, or appreciating, anything about this country or its history.

I agree that there is neither a magic nor an easy fix and I’m not suggesting that any of my points would be easy, cheap, or quick.  But, we’ve go to do something and (if it’s not already too late) do it soon.

Respectfully,

Crash

Crash | 3/30/2006 04:33 PM CDT | #60579


A telling thing about all those displays of the Mexican flag.  The MSM ignores them in print, and edits them out of photos, for the most part.  The right blogosphere shows them to very negative comments.  From anectdotal comments that I hear from people who don’t cruise the net, the Mexican Flag business really pissed off a lot of people.  There seems to be a word of mouth going around. 
Now for another elephant in room.  Black vs. Hispanic animosity.  There seems to be a struggle over who is THE minority in the US and who gets priority at the welfare trough.

toad | 3/30/2006 04:45 PM CDT | #60580


For those who say a fence is unrealistic, what about the one in Israel?

CBasken | 3/30/2006 04:45 PM CDT | #60581


It’s kinda hard to deport mex criminals if the border is a sieve.

I think Gullyborg has a workable solution… Deal with our own courts first.

Once this is done, it is possible to fix the rest of it. Secure the border. Eject the *ssholes. Allow any “anchor babies” to re-enter the US as citizens ... on their 18th birthday.

kbarrett | 3/30/2006 04:55 PM CDT | #60582


Oh, and if the wall is such a bad idea, why are the illegals and open-border crowd protesting against it so vociferously?

Walls work. They’re not perfect (not much is), but they work.

Kim du Toit | 3/30/2006 04:57 PM CDT | #60583


Walls with scorpion or lion pits would be perfect.

Add enough new bodies to patrol it and fish the bones out of the pits, and you can stick a fork in it and call it done.

kbarrett | 3/30/2006 05:11 PM CDT | #60586


This whole debate consists of just two simple choices:

1) Secure our borders, language, and economy.
2) Open our borders to all.

That’s it. It’s that simple. Every time our government gives amnesty to illegal aliens it, for all intents and purposes, translates to “open borders” since the last amnesty. The price we are paying is the future of this country.

To say that enforcement of our borders and sovereignty is “unrealistic” is, I believe, absurd. Imagine that same tact being applied to the security of your home/family. I don’t give a damn how unrealistic it may be for me to protect my home and my family. I’ll do whatever it takes, period.

Again, at the risk of sounding alarmist, I believe that this issue has as much or more potential of dramatic civil unrest than any other time in our history. This whole thing has a different feel to it and, admittedly, I can’t put my thumb on it. There is no doubt that the majority of Americans are being blatantly disregarded in matters that most feel are critical to the point of life or death (of this country).

Which brings us back to two simple choices.

Regards

Lobowalk | 3/30/2006 05:16 PM CDT | #60587


Dr. Pournelle has an interesting view on this subject.

rws | 3/30/2006 05:50 PM CDT | #60589


Regarding Rule # 2 (Aztlan):

A little history:
It started with Texas. The rebellion there was not by a bunch of Anglo interlopers. The Anglo Texans had been Mexican citizens for some years, and were joined by long-time established Texan families of Spanish descent. Why? Because the Mexican government was distant, arrogant, unresponsive, and corrupt. Wow! Not at all like it is now, huh?

Also, the then provinces of New Mexico and California felt the same way that Texas did, and were contemplating their own rebellions against Mexico (NOTE: Almost no Anglos there). They were overtaken by an event known as the Mexican-American War.

A question for the “Azltlaners:” If they do get “Northern Mexico” back, will they give it back to the Indians THEY STOLE IT FROM?

Adrian | 3/30/2006 06:16 PM CDT | #60591


I don’t think anyone agrees that open borders/open immigration policy are the answer. I don’t think anyone has suggested that.

Use Google Maps (or some other satellite imaging thing) and see how many towns sit right on that border.  How in the heck are we going to deal with that?  Move the town?  Build the wall in such a way the town is behind the wall?  Dredge the Rio Grande and build the wall in water?  We know how well the Corp of Engineers does THAT.  Seven hundred miles of it!

Let’s see, it costs a million dollars a mile to build a highway, we’ve got 700 hundred miles of border.  Rough estimate, assuming we’d need to build a road next to it (making it accessible for maintenance monitoring) with handicapped access (you never know when the border patrol might hire handicapped patrolmen--can’t forget ADA on those building projects!), but without any of the complicated bits (moving towns, condemning private property/eminent domain payments, or putting it in a river), I’d guess $14 Billion.  Oh, but wait.  The government is doing this: $150 billion, and that’s just for the lawyers who’ll be fighting the eminent domain lawsuits and the various alphabet naysayers who’ll put up a fight over it.  The government spent that much trying to build a database and they didn’t need land or concrete for that.

Then there’s the issue of ID.  Our IDs are so easy to fake it’s not funny.  Fake ID, you get in.  So much for the wall.  You guys want National ID cards, encoded with biometric data?  This isn’t going to stop a terrorist (it might slow them down a bit, but then they could cross on a pleasure boat at the Pacific or Atlantic, so unless we also want to build a friggen sea wall for another 3000 miles, I doubt that would help).  Any ID, no matter how complicated you make it can be forged.  It’s only going to stop Juan the pool boy from getting in, and only if he doesn’t have the $500 for the really difficult to forge IDs.

Would folks be happy if we made it better, not AS porous, combined with other things, or do people want a 100% solution?

What’s the expectation here?  When?  With what result?

Connie du Toit | 3/30/2006 06:32 PM CDT | #60594


Again, at the risk of sounding alarmist, I believe that this issue has as much or more potential of dramatic civil unrest than any other time in our history. This whole thing has a different feel to it and, admittedly, I can’t put my thumb on it. There is no doubt that the majority of Americans are being blatantly disregarded in matters that most feel are critical to the point of life or death (of this country).

I would say that the whole Civil War thing caused a bit more “civil unrest” than this ever will. However, I agree with everything else. This issue certainly has the potential to explode into something worse than anything most Americans can remember happening in America. If the politicos and MSM keep ignoring the American people about this, and instead the citizens of Mexico, the race riots of the 60’s will seem like minor disagreements.

Unfortunately, I don’t see anybody “in charge” doing anything about it until there is blood running in the streets of the Southwest.

TheRoyalFamily | 3/30/2006 06:49 PM CDT | #60595


here is my solution: Employ the “Fair Tax”. The single largest gripe we have about illegals is the drain on the tax base through medical assistance etc. The prebate can only be paid to those who are legal residents. The tax is unavoidable unless you quit buying goods and services at the retail level. It will hurt those who are here illegally since they do not receive the prebate they are not being given the benefit of the “poverty line neutrality”. On top of that, cut off all government assistance to those who are not citizens.

One of the added benefits to the Fair Tax is the explosion od jobs that would be available due to increased manufacturing. Of the 500 major companies polled worldwide, 80+% of their CEOs stated that if the Fair Tax was passed, their NEXT plant/office building would be on american soil. That would be a great reason to have a guest worker program.

I don’t have an issue with the vast majority of hispanics. They have terrible taste in music, but really good food. Most of them have higher standards of family involvement than the average urban american, and like any group, they have some bad apples. Guess what, so do we. I could go a lot further with this, but I run the risk of boring you/ pissing you off.

All the same reading sites like wehategringos.com and hearing what is being said about whitey makes me want to .... well, we’ll just leave it at “do bad things”

Fast_rope71 | 3/30/2006 10:29 PM CDT | #60600


One thing that I notice again and again when this subject comes up is that employers prefer “illegals” because, among other things, they don’t have to hassle around with the laws we’ve put into place to price low-end US labor out of the market.  Can you say “Unintended Consequences?” Sure you can---I knew you could!

One way to deal with it might be to get rid of the minimum-wage laws, as well as shutting Social(ist) Security down---ISTR that for low-wage jobs like these, complying with the endless SS bureaucracy and its endless niggling forms is a bigger pain than looking out for La Migra.  Let Americans compete legally for these jobs, and also get RID as in ABSOLUTELY RID of welfare for able-bodied people. 

Personally, I think Social Security’s one of the biggest scams in history---Ponzi would be proud.  I’d not mind seeing laws passed that took the vote away from anybody receiving gov’t money other than for services rendered, except military pensions.  That would shut the AARP up, as well as the welfare farmers and a bunch of other PITAs.

Technomad | 3/31/2006 12:07 AM CDT | #60601


One way to deal with it might be to get rid of the minimum-wage laws, as well as shutting Social(ist) Security down---ISTR that for low-wage jobs like these, complying with the endless SS bureaucracy and its endless niggling forms is a bigger pain than looking out for La Migra.

If it were next to impossible to circumvent the law of supply and demand via illegal alien workers and so called “worker visas”, minimum wage would increase across the board without government intervention. Because of the increase in earnings people would do what comes natural and that is spend it on “stuff”. The demand for “stuff” would go up which means that those who make “stuff” would have to gear up to make more of it. That means more jobs. More jobs mean a deeper tax base, etc, etc. It’s a quaint little cycle we have going on. 

I’ve always thought that the true genius of Capitalism is the simplicity of it. That being said, Capitalism can only be fully realized within the paradigm of secure and sovereign borders. The so called globalization of our economy is like linking your household expenditures and budget with every other household on the block.

For me this is more pressing than the security issue when it comes to our de facto open borders, although the security issue is a valid concern.

Also, in response to:
I would say that the whole Civil War thing caused a bit more “civil unrest” than this ever will.

I don’t agree. I think the potential of the current immigration issue to be more catastrophic is very real. Like I said, I can’t quite put my thumb on it—I’m still formulating my thoughts on it—but it is related to my postulations above and how it relates to the possible massive erosion of an American Middle Class whereupon leaving a mostly two class system of a wealthy elite and a low wage “service/servant class” and the problems that can ensue. It is apparent that millions of illegal aliens pouring into this country form third world nations is mostly importing poverty. But this is veering off into another discussion.

Lobowalk | 3/31/2006 05:30 AM CDT | #60606


The border needs to be militarized for another reason.  Drug smuggling.  True, drugs come across all of our borders and into all of our ports, but the Mexican drug smuggling is getting out of hand.  They aren’t just smuggling it and then selling it to American trafficers.  They are coming across the border and setting up retail distribution also.  One big problem it the extent to which Mexican government officials are involved in it. The are not just looking the other way but are aiding and abbeting the traffic.  I suspect the biggest drug dealers in Mexico now hold public office. 

Half of Federal cases immigrants

toad | 3/31/2006 10:05 AM CDT | #60610


My wife is Mexican, and 3 of my 4 grandparents were born overseas.  As such, I’m hardly against the concept or the reality of immigration.  Quite to the contrary, actually.  I literally wouldn’t exist without this country having opened its doors to my grandparents and great grandparents, and even if by some chance my grandparents had met each other “over there” and gotten married and had my parents - well, Adolf would’ve taken care of them.  So I literally owe my life to this country’s willingness to open its doors to foreigners.

My wife has done everything by the book - at no small cost in dollars, time and effort, I might add.  An amnesty - and that IS what we are talking about, no matter what it is called and how it is prettied up - is a direct slap in the face to us and to every other immigrant who has played by the rules.  It is a direct reward to those who have nakedly flouted our laws, and to the corrupt Mexican government that has encouraged it AND FUNDED IT.  It is a message that we are a nation of suckers.  For those reasons, and because the illegals are big users of scarce health, education and law enforcement dollars - lots of them - we MUST remove as many of these people from our nation as is practical.  Being that we are a humane nation, we have to do it in as decent a manner as possible - but do it we must. 

If we don’t do it, and the necessary task of also ensuring that it is not a catch and release program by dramatically increasing border security, then we are sunk as a nation.  Why?  Because these immigrants are different.  My grandparents, and virtually all immigrants of their day (the 1920’s), earlier days and latter days up to the 1960’s or so, had one desire above all - to become Americans, to learn our language, become accepted in our society and to put the old country behind them.  They wanted better lives for their kids and grandkids, and knew that it could only come about by them learning English and educating their kids.  This wave of immigrants, most specifically the Mexicans, don’t feel or act that way.  They have contempt for this country (while taking our dollars and our health care and our education), they wave the flag of a foreign land here within our borders, they refuse to learn English in startlingly large numbers, and they openly talk of “taking back OUR land” from the US.  What is wrong with us that we allow this?  What is wrong with our “leaders” that they can even conceive of an amnesty of any kind, of legalizing and encouraging the destruction of our nation from within? 

This has got to stop, and it has to come from the fed.gov.  Because if it doesn’t, sooner or later dozens or hundreds of ranchers and other citizens along the border will begin shooting those who steal from them, who vandalize or destroy their property, rape their women, etc.  And, of course, there will be a response from Mexico - unauthorized, of course - in which members of their armed forces (or criminals hired for that purpose by the Mexcian government) will come across the border and “deal with” the offending gringos.  It’ll only get worse.  We are on the verge of losing control, of not being able to do anything about this even if we want to - and we had better act before it is too late.  You know, all of the trouble in Nuevo Laredo is about rival drug gangs fighting over territory - NOT Nuevo Laredo, but US territory, specifically the I-35 corridor.  Are we THAT stupid that we can’t see that we are losing control over our own country, that we will become the next France with “No Go” zones for our police?

By the way, Tech Support said “Yes, I think we need to seal the border. No, I think revamping Mexico’s economy is impossible (totally different culture--not possible--the Spanish have been trying to do that for 600 years and so far, no luck).” I agree that it is impossible to revamp Mexico’s economy, but I disagree as to why.  I know that you share a bed with Kim, so I’ll be as respectful as possible.  The Spanish and the successors to the Spanish have no great desire to revamp or otherwise develop Mexico’s general economy - quite to the contrary.  They are the true heirs of Monteczuma, autocrats and cleptocrats of the worst sort, who WANT to keep the population of Mexico down by not educating them, by keeping them so poor that they don’t have any time to think of revolt because they’re worried about where tomorrow’s food is coming from.  The ruling class of Mexico has been the ruling class for 400 years for a good reason - because the other 98% of the population has been too stupid and too engrossed in sheer survival to worry about the corruption.

Sam Adams | 3/31/2006 11:39 AM CDT | #60630


Maybe we picked the wrong regime to impose “regime change” upon?

GMC70 | 3/31/2006 12:48 PM CDT | #60642


Nope, just haven’t finished the list yet.

jetfxr69 | 3/31/2006 02:59 PM CDT | #60653


Whatever needs to be done, needs to be done.......in a “yesterday-like” fashion.
I work in a D.C. area hospital where, at most any time of day, tiny little pregnant latino women walk out of the elevator, sometimes 2 or 3 at a time, looking from side to side.
When I ask if they need assistance, I can count on hearing the word “Clinica”?
This means more little “americans” will soon be born into this world, and American taxpayers will be footing the bill. And it will cover pre-natal, delivery and post natal care.
And people can’t seem to figure out why heath care costs are growing exponentially?
It’s time for our elected officials to quit jamming one thumb in their mouth, the other one up their chute & playing “switch”.

Frank S. | 4/3/2006 04:18 AM CDT | #60728

Add a comment

Bottom of Comments | Original Post | Back to Top

Not The Right Attitude

Kim du Toit
March 30, 2006
11:55 AM CDT

Here’s a little tip for those protesting in our streets about the proposed legislation dealing with illegal immigration. Go ahead and protest: it’s allowed here, even though it may not be in your home countries. But you may want to heed the following advice:

1. Stop waving those f*cking Mexican flags around. If you want to become Americans, you should be waving our flag around. (If you want to burn our flag, of course, that should be taken as a clear message that you’re unhappy here, and that we should ship your worthless incendiary asses back to your point of origin.) If you don’t want to become Americans, and just want to live here, work here, draw benefits, get preferential treatment/free medical care and then send your dollars back to your flea-ridden poverty hells, then you’ll pretty much have to live with whatever legislation We The Voters come up with to deal with your illegal asses. So hide the Mexflags. It’s a small concession you’ll have to make. And speaking of concessions…

2. Stop all that bullshit about “Aztlan”. You lost the war, and the land, and you’re not going to get it back, either. Saying that you are in your “home country” when you’re driving down Sunset Boulevard is just wishful thinking, amigo. And if you think that talking about ”reconquista” is going to endear you to the people who will be deciding your fate (again, that would be We The Voters), then think again.

3. Learn to speak English. Just so you know, our laws and Constitution are written in English—it’s also the international language of business and computing, so it’s not exactly a handicap to learn it—and if you intend to be American, we’re not going to change just to suit you. If you want to work in a country where everyone speaks Spanish to you, feel free to explore your employment opportunities in Venezuela, Spain or Cuba. But it’s not going to happen here. Oh, and if you’re worried that by speaking English, you’re going to lose your culture, then please understand this: we don’t give a rat’s ass about your culture. It’s there, and we’re here. Pick one, because pretty soon you won’t have a chance to enjoy both. (We didn’t offer signage in Gaelic or Yiddish in the 19th century to the immigrants of that era; why should we offer it to you now?)

And lest anyone think I’m being “insensitive”, allow me to quote a few numbers:

[A] Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don’t even want illegals to be permitted to have driver’s licenses). Time Magazine’s recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor “major penalties” on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.

An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.

Seems like quite a few of us are “insensitive”, doesn’t it? There may be tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets, but there are millions of voters waiting to pull the chain on all your crap.

And finally, here’s a word of advice to the MexGov: stop this nonsense.

The Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (Institute of Mexicans Abroad) has no respect for the internal affairs of our country. The institute was created by decree of Mexican President Vicente Fox and reports to a shadowy clique within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its vast computer database is used to deploy illegal and legal Mexicans to lobby state legislatures, city councils and county commissions to recognize worthless matricula consular “identification” cards, support granting driver’s licenses to illegals, promote multilingualism at the expense of English and help Mexicans and their children sponge off U.S. services ranging from schools to medical care.

If our State Department weren’t a bunch of pantywaist girlymen, we’d fix these little reindeer games by suspending diplomatic ties with Mexico and closing their embassies for a year. And let me tell you: if these shenanigans were known to everyone in the United States, and we had a plebiscite on the matter, your diplomatic asses would be on the next Aero Mexicana flights out of here.

And I’m not quite done. From the same article:

Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.

So, while I’m handing out advice, allow me to whisper a few quiet words of advice to Congress:

CLOSE THE GODDAMN BORDERS FIRST.