Bush Plan a Magnet | Immigrants cite lure of border proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to all the polls I see, including informal ones by Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham (sp?), the public sentiment is about as powerful and one sided as you will see on just about any issue.

Savage's and Laura's poll response was about 95% and 93% against respectively.

Sounds quite potent to me.
 
El Tejon, to answer your question about polls and to second what moa posted, every poll, formal and informal I have come across, indicates that from two-thirds to 90-plus per cent of those polled oppose illegal immigration and want tighter controls up to and including sealing the border.

Viewed in that light Bush's proposal, by itself, is rank effrontery. I knew it was coming but admit that when I heard about it I felt anger. I'm sure I am not alone in seeing Bush's supercilious and unctuous "just because it's the right thing to do" position as the epitome of someone whose ears are plugged and whose eyes are on what he believes is a higher light. I'm sorry but there's no place for that in a Constitutional Republic like ours. Bush isn't a monarch, he's just a President. If Bush wishes to ignore the will of the people he is welcome to do at the expense of his political career and the stability of the country.

I have to disagree strongly with greyhound that this issue is not a "hot button." Believe me, it is. The economic and cultural implications are vast. This is certainly the kind of issue that American citizens want to feel they have a voice in deciding and not to be swept along by elites.
 
There are two things that Bush and Congress will have to do to get this passed: Lie about what the proposal will do and ignore the overwhelming voice of the people. I anticipate that a lot will not be fooled and that they won't take very kindly to being disregarded. If Bush gets a second term it's going to be a rocky one.
 
7.62 & moa, Bush can enforce the law to the extent that his budget allows. It is Congress that controls the purse.

We did not wake up yesterday and have an illegal immigration "problem." Whoever the President is, the people have spoken, they prefer to feed at the taxpayer trough than to enforce the border.

Concerns over language and culture are non-concerns. These "concerns" have been raised over and over in the past--Catholics, Slavs and Poles in Chicago, Irish illegals in Boston, the Yellow Horde or German being used as language of instruction in Indiana. Somehow we struggled throught the "threats" of Catholics and the German language. We will struggle and survive (and get a bunch of yummy restaurants) from Mexican and Chinese immigration.

I disagree that immigration is a drain on the economy. If "illegals" instead of native-born couch sitters are killing "hospitals and social services", why not sue to recover or lobby to change the law and turn off the welfare magnet?

Why all the anger over this proposal? Is not eye color really at issue here.

Ronnie Raygun gave amnesty to a bunch of illegal aliens in '86? Not a peep heard over that. It is because a large number of them were white and now they are not?:confused:
 
long, O.K., it this immigration proposal IS such a "hot button" (I don't believe it is, but my notion may [O.K., they are] coloured by my personal beliefs) then Congress in an election year, is likely not to act or shoot this down, right? Bush gets a political victory and the people get what they want.

Should Bush not even proposed a "solution" to immigration? Why is everyone so mad?:confused:
 
As I have said elsewhere, we need a tourniquet, not a wider wound. Bush's proposal says, we have a bad problem, let's legitimize it and make it worse. We've had years of unchecked illegal immigration and have accumulated plenty of unskilled, uneducated labor. Why do we need more? Can someone explain that to me? It's not as if we don't have ten million of our own already unemployed. This is the time, for fiscal reasons alone, to stop the illegal influx, not encourage it. It should be obvious there are also serious national security implications.

I'm afraid I don't agree about language and culture concerns. That was a different era; today the rules of the game are very, very different. The pressures to assimilate are all but gone. History indicates that multiracial societies can thrive but multicultural nations don't. This is NOT about "eye color," it is about having radically different Americas within one nation and thinking that they are going to peaceably co-exist, especially with one a largely subsidized arm of the other. Why should current American citizens pay the bill for another America that won't learn the language and doesn't respect our laws, that feels this country, with its bounties, is somehow theirs anyway, that it was stolen from them. To that I say B.S. America as it is is nothing like what it would have been if Mexico had retained its territories for this last century and a half.
 
long, we need Mexican labor because native-born Americans would rather sit on the couch and eat and whine about not getting something for nothing fast enough rather than work.

Yes, national security is important. But do we build a Maginot line and believe we are safe? We cannot stop the drug trade or illegal immigration regardless of the Congressional funding level.

The arguments about assimilation ("they won't assimilate, THEY are just too different"--horsefeathers, sez I) were made about the Catholics, the Germans, the Poles, the Irish, the Chinese, and the Italians. Now we hear that the Mexicans are "radically different". Yeah, just like the Poles or the Italians, the Slovenes, the Dutch, the Chinese [I wonder what percentage of THR is of Chinese heritage?:D] were too radically different. Nah, people are people.

Your fears are unfounded, long, my friend. There have always been hotheads and knuckleheads in every group. Mexicans are no different--there are heros (which ethnicity holds the most U.S. combat medals in war?) and scum, just like every other "sub-group" or city or profession or whatever.

Just because of a few hot/knuckleheads in the white European population, either the Aryan Nation or the Kennedys, does not mean we kick Whitey and Mr. Charlie out or deny new immigration to the Ingerish, Dutchies or even the Irish (the Kennedys are a grave offense but we cannot hold it against an entire people).
 
The immigration problem we have now can not be compared to legal immigration of the past. Immigrants from the early 20th century did associate and language was a barrier in limited circumstances. The cultural differences were overcome or accentuated the existing mix. The key is that it was controlled and welcome. We had a country to fill. All of the immigrants from that time came on ships over oceans.

The current immigration issue is overwhelming. The illegal immigrants are flooding over a land border unchecked. They have instant access to social services. They have instant access to the underground economy. They do form "cultural" communities. I spent a fair amount of time on SoCal and the problem is overwhelming.

The political landscape is also very different now. The PC police calls anyone that opposes this onslaught a racist, or a non-humanitarian. LaRaza and Aztlan are two groups which seek to undermine our sovereignty and re-take the southwest. They are doing it openly through the political process. Just look at the mess that is California. I am sure that residents of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have the same concerns.

The economic climate is also very different. We have 280 million souls here now. Low-skilled jobs are being exported. And we are importing low-skilled workers. Low-skilled workers that have serious barriers to success. The language barrier is tough. The cultural barrier can be overcome, but assimilation is not on the menu. Illegal immigrants are struggling for survival and do not typically live responsibly. They do tap into the welfare state, to include education. They do not spend their meager incomes on necessities such as health insurance, auto insurance, pensions, or even social security or medicare.

The evidence is prima facie: California is spending upwards of $7,500 per immigrant in services ($30,000 per family of four). I saw that figure and just about fell out of my chair. Their are about 2M illegals in California (modest est.) and $15B in gov. services (modest est.). That expense is not reimbursed by the feds, which are responsible for this mess. Contrary to the "hard working" people that provide a net gain to the economy story we are fed. Consider that it costs Ca taxpayers approx. $10K for each student and the numbers add up. LA Unified School District was taking a big hit when the mexican boycott happened a few weeks ago. LA Unified is now supporting the illegal immigrant cause because of FUNDING.

The PROBLEM, as I see it, is that the south, midwest, and east do not see or understand the problem. The southwest, and now the mountain states, are taking the brunt of this burden.
 
"The Dangers of Our United States Immigration Policies"




Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, writes this article on immigration, in which he lists five grave concerns about the United States continuing it present immigration trend. Lamm is director of the Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues at the University of Denver. The article appeared on the website of the Rocky Mountain News.

***
On Immigration

Should illegal aliens have driver's licenses, amnesty, welfare, and the right to move their families to the U.S.? Illegal aliens are, as is often pointed out, ''good, hard-working people who just want the American dream.'' But is that the end of the argument?

The trouble with that level of analysis is that there are billions of ''good, hard-working people'' and their dependents in the world who would love to come here, and obviously we can't take them all. We are also a nation of laws, with our own unemployed and underemployed, and our nation needs to come to some enforceable consensus on what our policy should be on people entering the country illegally.

Polls show that more than 70 percent of Americans object to illegal immigration, and we run a serious risk of a backlash against all immigrants if we don't reach some consensus on this issue. Polls also show that there is no issue in America where there is a bigger gap between public opinion and opinions of the media and other ''elites.''

Reasoned dialogue is rare and issues of immense importance to America's future are not being discussed or even debated.

Public policy requires us to be wise enough to appreciate cumulative effects. We already have approximately 10 percent of all Mexico living in the U.S. either legally or illegally. We owe it to the future to have a candid debate on the demographic impact of a mass migration of this magnitude. Consider:

1. We are a nation built on law. It almost sounds old-fashioned in contemporary America to ask that people obey the law. But when we start deciding which laws to obey and which to ignore, we start down a dangerous path. There are millions of potential immigrants patiently waiting in their home countries to immigrate here, playing by our rules. Illegal immigrants ''jump the line.''

2. As every house needs a door, every country needs a border. By turning a blind eye toward illegal immigration, we are encouraging countless numbers of these people to attempt to sneak into America. I spent a night with the Border Patrol in California, and was amazed to find people from India, Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Africa and China among the people detained.

3. Illegal immigration hurts America's poor. Illegal immigrants compete for the jobs our own poor need to start to move up the economic ladder. A study by The Center for Immigration Studies finds: ''Mexican immigration is overwhelmingly unskilled, and it is hard to find an economic argument for unskilled immigration, because it tends to reduce wages for (U.S.) workers.'' The study goes on: ''Because the American economy offers very limited opportunities for workers with little education, continued unskilled immigration can't help but to significantly increase the size of the poor and uninsured populations, as well as the number of people on welfare.''

4. We are told that illegal immigration is ''cheap labor,'' but it is not ''cheap labor,'' it is subsidized labor. The National Academy of Sciences has found that there is a significant fiscal drain on U.S. taxpayers for each adult immigrant without a high school education. Illegal immigration is something that benefits a few employers, but the rest of us subsidize that labor through the school system, the health-care system, the courts and in other ways that this form of labor imposes. With school spending of more than $7,000 per student per year, even a small family costs far more than a low-wage family pays in taxes.

5. America is increasingly becoming, day by day, a bilingual country, yet there is not a bilingual country in the world that lives in peace with itself. No nation should blindly allow itself to become a bilingual-bicultural country. If it does, it invites generations of conflict, tension and antagonism. America has historically demanded that its immigrants be self-supporting and English-speaking to join our polity. We vary from that rule that made us '''one nation, indivisible''' at great risk to America's future. Today, when over 40 percent of today's massive wave of immigrants is from Spanish-speaking nations, people can move to America and keep their language, their culture and their old loyalties. If the melting pot doesn't melt, immigrants become ''foreigners'' living in America rather than assimilated Americans.

6. Our social fabric risks becoming undone. It is important to America's future that we look at how Mexican immigrants are doing. Too many of our Hispanic immigrants live in ethnic ghettos. Too many are unskilled laborers, too many are uneducated, too many live in poverty, too many are exploited, too many haven't finished ninth grade, too many drop out of school. The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report last year, which found: ''Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, compared to fewer than one in 10 natives not completing high school. Mexican immigrants now account for 22 percent of all high school dropouts in the labor force.''

But what is most disturbing is that second and third generations don't do much better. Again, the study from The Center for Immigration Studies: ''The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist across the generations.'' A recent report from the center shows that two-thirds of Mexican immigrant workers lack even a high school education; as a consequence, two-thirds of Mexican immigrant families live in or near poverty. The question has to be asked: By tolerating illegal immigration are we laying the foundations for a new Hispanic underclass? A Hispanic Quebec?
 
What I want to know is, what are we getting from Mexico in return? So far the answer is NADA. We can't even get Mexico to extradite its felons who have committed heinous crimes in this country. For that alone, for not pressing that issue to the satisfaction of American citizens, Bush's position is dishonorable.

El Tejon, you are right, we can't seem to stop the drug trade from Down South, but I don't think you can blame the people generally decrying illegal immigration for that. I think we should start checking the bank accounts of our elected representatives for "discrepancies" and doing some spadework on money laundering in our larger financial centers. Perhaps we'll uncover some linkage between Mexico's 47 Families and our own great dynasties.
 
7.62, immigration was controlled? You mean by the racist quota system put in place to stem the Yellow Peril and the Catholic flood? Immigration was not "welcomed." It was seen as it is now by a segment of protoTHRland, an assault upon America by the Other (Southern Europeans and Chinese), thus the racist quotas. I know for a fact we have one descendant of a "paper son" here at THR, probably more.

What about immigration prior to the quotas? How did the unchecked tide of German immigration wreck havoc upon America? Too much beer lead to the downfall of the economy of Pennsylvania? Forests in Indiana too orderly and clean? "They" all looked alike with those hats with feathers in them and all.

Illegal immigrants did not cause the Welfare State. The Welfare State was put in place to buy votes of native-born Americans. Native-born Americans are the ones at the trough.

California's mess was not caused by immigration, but by native-born Americans wanting everything for nothing, and be quick about it. Moe the bartender to the contrary, the scapegoat is not "them emmygrants."

Escapism, as Clint Smith so brilliantly writes about in the new issue of American Handgunner, can only work for so long before one has to acknowledge that any "problems" of anyone are self-induced. If there is a problem, it is up to that person (or those persons) to fix it.

California has a lot of goofy politicians, those of Mexican origin included. Because we have goofy white politicians and white racist groups do we kick Whitey out or prevent more whites from immigrating?

Immigration is merely a stalking horse for frustration with the Welfare State. This would not be an issue if everyone would get off the couch and help us pull the wagon.
 
It seems a lot of people are confusing legal immigrants with the ILLEGAL variety. Illegal immigrants are criminals as soon as they set foot on American soil, yet our government is pandering to them and has been for years. Why?

The numbers speak for themselves as to weather or not the combination of a welfare state and an open border is sustainable, it's certainly not wise.

The arguments put forth in this discussion are not racist, they are factual. My high school was just over 60% Hispanic, our eighth grade class set out with 147 students on the roster and over the next four years that got whittled down to a whopping 42 at graduation day. The majority of our missing class was of Hispanic descent. I'm not being racist or looking down on anyone, it is what happened. Many of them were migrant workers and I assume had to move away to stay in work, many others just quit in ninth or tenth grade.

Almost all the money these illegal workers make is being sent to Mexico, go check out a Western Union office on pay day in a Hispanic neighborhood. These people are coming here ILLEGALLY, stealing jobs from the ones who play by the rules, sucking up precious social resources, and will end up costing you and me dearly unchecked.

Why would we want to make this problem worse, possibly much worse, than it already obviously is? If Bush Jr. is too blinded by his own sense of right and wrong to see the gaping flaws in this course of action then he should loose his authority to make these kinds of decisions.

A coalition of property owners ought to get together and close the border on their own since the people in Washington refuse.
 
Border Patrol: Did Bush send you here?
Surveying illegals to find out whether prompted by immigration plan

Posted: January 23, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern




© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com



Border Patrol agents along the southern frontier are surveying illegals to find out if President Bush's controversial immigration reform plan announcement prompted them to come.

Agents have been instructed to ask one out of every five illegal aliens they catch if they were aware of Bush's proposed guest worker program and if it motivated them to come, the Tucson Citizen newspaper reported.

The daily said a citizen border watchdog group, Civil Homeland Defense, believes it already has seen an effect from the announcement.

The group caught 85 people entering the country illegally last weekend, said founder Chris Simcox.

"They were, like, 'What's the problem? President Bush said it was OK,'" he told the Tucson paper. "That's the attitude out there, and [Border Patrol] agents are totally demoralized."

Civil Homeland Defense reports its capture of illegals to Border Patrol agents.

The Citizen reported an unnamed local officer of the Border Patrol complained the survey is a meaningless waste of time.

"It does burden agents down with paperwork, like they don't have enough already," he said, according to the paper. "And the survey itself is meaningless because you can't guarantee these people are going to tell you the truth."

Rob Daniels, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, said he was not aware of the survey being conducted locally but noted it is being done in Texas and parts of Louisiana.

It's probably too early to tell if the president's two-week-old announcement is having an effect on the border, he said.

But according to the Los Angeles Times, agents say there is anecdotal evidence a new wave of immigration has begun, as detainees have demanded "amnesty" upon their capture.

The Times, which conducted dozens of interviews with U.S. Border Patrol agents this week, found overwhelming opposition to the president's plan.

Many of the agents consider themselves supporters of the Bush administration but savaged the White House proposal as a grab for Latino votes and a favor to the business community, the paper said.

The agents said they are bracing for an onslaught of people trying to sneak into the country.

"We get rocks thrown at us. We get shot at. We get spit on," James Stack, a veteran patrolman near El Paso and an agents' union representative, told the Times.

"There have been many agents who have given their lives in the line of duty," he continued. "This seems to say that those deaths were for nothing, and that this administration is not truly concerned about immigration."

Since the federal government offered amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal aliens in 1986, the number has at least doubled. Agents expect a similar pattern this time.

"The increase in numbers is going to be phenomenal," Charlie Maxwell, a union leader and senior Border Patrol agent in Brownsville, Texas, told the Times.

In his State of the Union address this week, Bush emphasized he is against "amnesty."

Under a plan he will propose to Congress, illegal aliens working in the United States would be allowed to remain in the country for three years if their employers vouch for their jobs. During that period, the worker essentially would be given the rights of a worker with permanent-resident status, including Social Security benefits and the right to bring family members to the United States.

In addition, a "temporary worker program" would permit foreigners to come to the U.S. if they can prove they have secured a job.

But David A. Martin, a University of Virginia law professor and ex-general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, believes the impact of the plan will be similar to amnesty, the Times said.

It would be virtually impossible for the government to deport millions of people once their temporary worker visa expires, he and many analysts contend. Through a website, noamnesty.com, the National Border Patrol Council is calling the guest worker proposal a "slap in the face."

The site says Bush "has decided that cheap labor and votes outweigh obedience to laws."
 
I would only caution everybody to take the union representatives words with a large grain of salt, not to mention the fact that this is based out of info coming from San Diego.


As an aside that doesn’t really make a bit of difference except satisfy my personal curiosity, how many people in this discussion have actually seen an illegal alien? I don’t mean seen one walking down the street, you know, the scruffy dude with three jackets, two pairs of pants and a ratty backpack that you just “know†is illegal, but actually somebody that you (or somebody else) has determined is indeed an illegal alien?
 
ahenry, mmmm, every day. All last week, today (Saturday), and every day of the week. If I go for sushi tonight, I'll see them working washing dishes while native-born Americans are home watching television, eating and whining about not having a job (i.e., something for nothing).:rolleyes:

Tag, illegals are not "stealing" jobs; they are filling them. They are doing the work that native-born Americans deem themselves too good to do. Why do you think obesity is a problem in America?:confused:

America cannot function without them. Bush's proposal is a recognition of this reality.
 
I would only caution everybody to take the union representatives words with a large grain of salt, not to mention the fact that this is based out of info coming from San Diego.

Having worked on union side and management for government I would also
caution taking the word of managment on anything, for they also have there
"cheerleaders".



.
America cannot function without them. Bush's proposal is a recognition of this reality.

If American cannot function without them then we don't deserve to hold on
to our country.....
 
wing, what is wrong with a realization of reality?

America made the decision seventy years ago with the election of FDR--security over freedom. A segment of the native-born population would rather sit on the couch and wait for a government check than get a job and work. Right now in New Hampshire, FDR's descendents are arguing that it will continue and expand under them.

If Americans sit around and do nothing, what are the alternatives? The Welfare State must have illegal immigration, not the vice versa.
 
I think president Bush may have just MADE this a "hot button" topic, but I don't see where it can lead. Can anyone see one of the Democratic contenders calling for cracking down on illegal aliens? I can't.

I guess it will have to start at the state legislatures and the House and Senate at the Federal level.

What was the opinion when Reagan passed amnesty in 1986(?).? I don't recall this level of outrage (I was pretty young though), but then again I wasn't passing groups of young Hispanic (probably illegal - they always seem to be wary and watching everything. What they really look like is scared. I see that same look on every one.) men like I see every day now.
 
grey, yes, they have in the past. It was the unions that have been calling for "cracking down" on illegals.

If you don't remember the same level of anger generated by Raygun's amnesty in '86, then you make my point. It is all about the ethnicity of those affected.;) Irish in '86 vs. Hispanics in '04.
 
It was the unions that have been calling for "cracking down" on illegals.
-----------------------------------

not the case anymore...unions are looking for more members..citizens or not..country be damed.

Like the politicians looking for voters, being rich they will not have to live in the mess they create or send their kids to substandard public schools.

30 yrs ago California had one of the best schools systems in the country, now its is in the bottom 10. The city of Los Angeles is looking more like Mexico city everyday and even the mayor declared LA to be a "Mexican city"

as for the tired chestnut "Americans wont do that kind of work"..well not for that "kind of money". While going to school and getting my career started I have washed dishes, bussed tables, even picked corn.

Example..the construction trade..at one time it was a very good job that paid union wages and you could support a family. Yes it was hard work and the men (majority of workers) and women that did this work were proud of what they built.

Those days have gone..here in LA the crews are mostly all Hispanic, non-union and the wage base is 50-75% less than is was in the union shops.

Its not that Americans wont do the work...we wont do it for the wages being paid. Illegal immigration blows the wage base to hell and good-by middle class.

The problem with the Bush plan is that it is not an end solution...all of central & south America are watching. Hey!!! if Mexico doesn't have to take care of its own people and they send them to the US and nothing happens...why cant we.

There are millions of people that cross the border illegally every year....wait until its tens of millions...and it wont be long.

As for illegals paying their own way...please...wake up. California is un-officially bankrupt. It didn't get there because we don't have enough people here. We are the most populated state. Schools are in crisis, hospitals are closing and cities are in financial trouble.

Last year Mexico received 14 Billion dollars in remittances from its citizens in the US. That is untaxed US wages going to help a corrupt country that demands the US do MORE to help the country of MEXICO.

I dont care what color people illegals are...illegals are illegal..thats not racist..THATS ANGER!!!


wolf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top