Why do the earlier immigrants always think they have a greater right than later immigrants?Mexicans have more native blood than your average American, so they have more of a right to this continent anyways...
CR
Why do the earlier immigrants always think they have a greater right than later immigrants?Mexicans have more native blood than your average American, so they have more of a right to this continent anyways...
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Of course not.
The Native Americans/Amerinds/First Peoples were not barred by any legal entity or custom from emigrating to the Americas. By boat and/or Ice Bridge they came and settled.
The Euro-colonials were not barred by any legal entity or custom (N.A. not having such a codified system as had Europe) and were not effectively enough opposed by the then-owners. Other subsequent immigrant groups came over legally (mostly) according to the rules and regulations then extent.
Illegals crossing the border without following the established laws/procedures are -- however understandably on a familial/economic level -- committing a crime by entering the country illegally. It's just not the same thing.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
My favorite Republican makes a good case for the Arizona law. As per usual, he makes very solid arguments.
The experience of the past two years has shown that migration responds swiftly to changing incentives. The Center for Immigration Studies has tracked monthly census data for young Hispanic males with low levels of education—a good proxy for the illegal immigrant population. Between the summer of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009, that population actually declined. Extrapolating from survey figures, CIS estimates that the illegal population in the U.S. dropped by 1.7 million during the recession. The number of illegals entering the country fell by about one-third while the number returning home doubled .
States and counties that have strengthened enforcement have seen declines in the population of non-English-speaking students in local schools (another good proxy for the illegal immigrant population).
Arizona’s law seeks a similar effect. It’s no substitute for federal enforcement. But it’s a big improvement over all the loose talk of amnesty.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Legal immigrants are welcome as far as I'm concerned. However, those who are here illegally are breaking the law. Those who are employing them, supporting/abetting them, family included, are also breaking the law, and I don't care what ethinicity they are. It's not fair to the immigrants that follow the rules, nor those that pay social security & medicare/medicaid taxes. There should be a requirement to show proof of legal residency/citizenship via a social security number to collect any social services or apply for a job. A one year state residency requirement, and finger-printing for social services would go a long way to reduce the abuse of those benefits by those who don't legally deserve them.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
A legal immigrant from Mexico living in Arizona speaks at a city council meeting in support of the law.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Ever wonder how Mexico deals with illegal immigration?
Ironic, no? Especially considering this hypocrisy.
Last edited by Hosakawa Tito; 05-01-2010 at 20:47.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
I have no objection to legal immigrants who come to my country according the the established procedures. In fact, I think we need more than current quotas allow.
It's easy to understand why many in Mexico choose to flout US law on this. The economic incentive is powerful and our lax enforcement of existing laws doesn't exactly serve as a deterrent.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Aztlan, meh.
A sense of reconquista? Why, it's not absent. Mexican kids learn in school how America stole half their country. Never underestimate Old World nationalist pettiness. 'Old World', in this case, meaning planet Earth minus the USA.
Check out the UK election thread. A UK woman, of part Irish immigrant ancestry herself, complained about East European immigration to Gordon Brown. Afterwards, Brown called her, in private, but with an open microphone, a 'bigoted woman'. By US standards, she IS a bigoted woman. Imagine an Irish-American complaining about Polish immigrants in the US. In America, a president would lose an election if he would not publicly speak out against it as bigotry. In the UK, not even the leftwing candidate is supposed to consider it bigotry. Brown has lost his PM by it, the public sides against Brown, the thought this woman should be bigoted is considered an insult, a sign of Brown being out-of-touch with public sentiment, a betrayal to the working class white Britons he's supposed to represent as the leftwing candidate.
Me being a petty Old Worlder myself, I must admit I do find it odd that, should I live to a ripe old age, by the time I die there will be nearly as many Hispanic Americans as Non-Hispanic White Americans. I need to get used to that.
Never underestimate demographics. One lifetime ago, there were twenty million Mexicans worldwide. Eighty years onwards, at the moment, there are thirty million Mexicans in the US, and 110 in Mexico.
Whatever the government of a given state chooses to provide on these issues is between them and their voters -- I'd have no objection. The federal government shouldn't be involved in any of those issues. I want my governance as local as possible and decisions on those issues would seem to be directly relevant to a states' "competitiveness" in the market place.
I'd like to see more legal immigration because I think we can assimilate more folks than we do -- and because illegal immigration intensifies all of the negative aspects of the ghetto/barrio and does NOT aid assimilation.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Well, the legality of the conquest of the New World was entirely correct....in the eyes of the conquerors. I freely admit that those persons living in the Americas prior to 1492 might have a different view as to that legality, as will/would many of their direct descendents no doubt.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Establish a massive scale guest worker program, tell them that any worker who wants work can sign up and register and will be provided free access to come and go into and out the US without trouble and minimum wage so their low socio economic status is removed from the equation (hilarious I know, since the minimum wage hasnt been increased since 97 because republicans dont believe in inflation). At least it will keep track of the problem in terms of numbers and will work against drug cartels throwing immigrants in harms way by using them as drug mules.
I believe the best way to solve the illegal immigration is to make it easier for people to come here legally. I'm pretty sure the majority of people who came here illegally would have happily came over legally if they had been able to do so. I've heard that immigrating to the U.S. can be an expensive, bureaucratic nightmare. Not something that your average illegal immigrant is very capable of.
Wasn't the minimum wage raised to 7.25 just last year?
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Bookmarks