What should be done about illegal immigration?

See if this works:
Joe's Too Early Thread.


thanks.
Joe(always ahead of the curve)Nation

The link provided is to the search results for "Your Topics" - it will return the list of topics started by whoever clicks the link. Perhaps the best way to link to a specific A2K post, your own or anyone else's, is to locate and open that post itself, then refresh it via clicking that post's shortcut, at the top left of the post, next to the date posted:



which will open the post in a new window. Then either copy the post's URL from your address bar, or right-click on the post's url shortcut again and select "Copy shortcut", then paste whatever you copied into wherever you want the link to appear - formatting as appropriate, if you wish to do so.


BTW - Here's Joe's Poll

Thank you, Timber, I am usually able to do that sort of thing myself, perhaps I am out of practice.

===

The penalty against employers will never pass Republican muster and that is why this latest effort will fail.

The message to the Third World is clear. Get here. Sooner or later, Americans will find a way to allow you to stay.

Whoops, posted this first to the wrong thread ... sorry,

It certainly seems that a great number of people are currently concerned with illegal immigration from Mexico. Certainly those families and communities who lie along the main coyote traces have a vital and continuing concern. The danger of terrorists, munitions, and narcotics coming into the country along with those hoping for a better life is a danger to national security. Are those legitimate concerns really shared by communities where Mexican concentration has grown considerably over the last decade, or so? I'm not sure that media hype may be as much the engine driving this issue as any real concern by the populace.

The number of Hispanic speakers, mostly from Mexico and south, has risen especially in the Southwestern States. The largest concentration of Mexican ethnics outside Mexico City is Los Angeles. A bit over a third of the population of New Mexico is Hispanic, some of whom have been here longer than Anglo colonization of New England. The same might be said for the Hispanic ethnics in South Texas and Arizona. The great majority of Hispanics, no matter how long their residence, are hard-working family oriented people who only want a better life from themselves, or at least for their children. Hey, that motivated every other ethnic group to come to this country in large numbers.

First generation immigrants seldom become masters of the English language, but to get ahead in the United States (and even the modern world) one has to be literate in the Anglo-American tongue. Those who have lived a long time along the border speak English, Mexican-Spanish, and a mixture of the two. Our Southwestern culture isn't Anglo and it isn't Mexican or Indian, but our own unique blending of these rich cultures. Personally I love it, and would not willingly live elsewhere.

Those who fear that large numbers of immigrants (legal or otherwise) would spark some sort of separationist move shouldn't worry about it. After all the Hispanic immigrants went to a lot of trouble and risk to get into this country and away from conditions in Mexico. Even if the Hispanic population in a State were to rise to 80%, most would not favor changing from U.S. sovereignty to Mexican sovereignty. Lets suppose that happened, the State could not leave the Union for the reasons cited above in several posts. No particular State nor its people can legally choose separation from the Union. What is the Hispanic population of Kansas, 1%-5%? Those population rates are as unlikely to drastically change the national culture as the number of Irish was able to change the blue-nosed Bostonians. What will almost happen is that the new immigrants will blend into the larger culture, which will be enriched by the new blood and ideas. Current chauvinism regarding people of Hispanic origins is no more likely to prevail than the mid-19th century prejudices against the Chinese, Southern and Baltic Europeans, and Shetl Jews. The Know-Nothing Party isn't likely to be revived.

The issue, if there is any real issue at all, is how should the United States deal with a flood of illegal immigrants across a border that is difficult, if not impossible to properly police. As long as conditions in the United States are so much better than they are in Mexico, there will be people who will cross over in pursuit of a better and happier life. They will come so long as there are jobs that need to be done, and for which few legal citizens will compete.

Under current conditions, the communities and States along the Mexican border are bearing an unreasonable and disproportionate burden in providing law enforcement, health, education and other benefits to those coming across the border illegally. Arizona and New Mexico especially are hard hit and do not possess the tax base necessary to shoulder a burden that properly belongs with the Federal government. The Border Patrol, and the policies by which it is managed, is in desperate need of reform.

Some would deny public services to illegal immigrants, and would treat them as criminals with no inherent rights. In a strict legalistic sense, that approach may be justified. It would be a poor, ineffective, and ultimately unenforceable, public policy to pursue this course. It would require some sort of National Identification system that would be a much greater risk to our civil liberties than the monitoring the communications of those suspected radical Islamic terrorists. Federal sweeps of Hispanic communities would be probably necessary to administer such a policy. Suspected illegals might far exceed the number of Japanese interned during the Second World War. Mistakes would inevitably be made and regular U.S. Citizens would get caught up in the net. Forbidden access to the court system, how would Joe Mendez whose Texas citizenship predated Texas Independence assert his citizenship rights?

Do we want more unlicensed and uninsured drivers on our roads? Would we expect that emergency room doctors would turn away broken people rather than be a party to a crime? Is it good public policy to exclude children from becoming literate and acquiring the skills necessary to becoming a good citizen because their parents crossed the border at night and hiked across miles of desert in search of opportunity? What politician is likely to chance offending voters of Hispanic background in States like California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? This strategy is neither practical nor likely to be effective.

An open border with no controls is also bad policy, especially during a time when the nation is threatened by an determined enemy whose terror tactics are carried out by small numbers of anonymous murderers. It is important to national security that traffic be through recognized portals where effective efforts are made to identify who is entering and leaving the country. We need to know the citizenship status, destination, and expected length of stay of those crossing our borders.

I think that President Bush's proposal for a guest worker program is a reasonable and practical place to start. There should be a very stiff penalty for anyone caught in the process of crossing our borders illegally, no matter where that point of entry is made. Restrictions through legal portals should not be so difficult that people resort to going over the wire, or across the Rio Grande, but everyone crossing our borders needs to be documented effectively. Once inside the U.S., we need to keep better track of visitors. To achieve this would be difficult, perhaps even impossible to approach truly effective border controls, but it does need to be attempted.

BTW, it may be that I'm more "liberal" on this issue than Setanta ... doesn't that appear strange? It really isn't, because people aren't all one thing or another. We and our opinions are mixed, and sometimes even contradictory. Humans, go figure.

Let me suggest New Mexico. A lot less stress, but then I'm retired. The cost of living is much less than in California, and this State has a lot less State regulation. Here you can get much better housing for a great deal less money than in California. When we left California we sold a house that was no larger than our current garage for enough to buy Corazon. On the other hand, wages are lower here and there probably aren't as many opportunities to make big money. Perfect for a retired civil servant though, and Albuqueruqe is filled with retired AirForce, Navy and Marines.

The Albuquerque continguent of A2K is now at least six, and growing.

and, for the most part, quite civil. (except for The Dys of course)

a good friend and his wife moved over there a year or so back. his wife is from albequerque; she wanted to be near her family and he has none remaining. we're trying to plan a short visit over there.

the house they bought, built to their specs, is unbelievable. you're right. they paid far less than they would have here.

i lived in tucson for a short while because of business. that was in 1979. i liked desert living far more than i ever thought i would. as long as ya have a.c. and maybe a pool, yer in business..

if we get over there anytime soon, i'd love to meet up with you and dys. see what mischief there is to be had.

First, allow me to note that i don't consider myself a "liberal." If you doubt that, just ask that left-wing wacko gun-lover Dys.

Second, you're gonna hafta bend over really, reallky far back, Ash . . . i think we should just open the borders, and check everyone who crosses for reasons of security and smuggling. If your baggage is clean, and you're not on anybody's wanted list--you're in.

Poll: Most Open to Letting Immigrants Stay

good article ,revel.

how's things down your way ?

Well, spring is starting to get here in truth and I have been out planting flowers and the like. Don't do my alergies any favors, but I enjoy it. Do you miss the changes of seasons being in California?

I was surprised at the poll results, I would have figured it would have gone the other way in larger numbers.

Americans are freedom loving people. They love an underdog, someone fighting to find their own way. I'm not surprised at the poll numbers.

Joe

NRO article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are we going to let non citizens lead the way in such an important debate? It is the American people who should have the say on what laws are passed, not non-citizens. Come here the proper way or risk being sent back to your own country. I won't feel bad about it because you did it to yourself. You took a chance and lost not my fault.

I didn't vote in Foxfyre's poll because my answer was missing: Legalize it.

It is already legalized Thomas. I believe the United States takes more legal immigrants than does any other country. That falls under the option that existing laws are okay.

The issue is those who come uninvited, (theoretically speaking) and illegally, some 12 million or so of them so far and more coming every day, every week, every month. I have read that these represent not just Mexican nationals but people from dozens of other countries, most coming through Mexico.

By some accounts, 33% of our prison population now consists of people here illegally and some 36 to 42% of the illegal immigrants already here are on some kind of public assistance mandated by the courts. Those in prison are not there because they are illegal but because they were caught and convicted of drug trafficking, grand theft auto, burglary, robbery, and worse. Just the costs to California alone as of three years ago is detailed here:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-09-25.html

A recent incident in Arizona is reported here, and unfortunately, it is not all that unique:
http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=4700403

Ebrown, for instance, thinks we just accept and take care of all these people out of Christian compassion. (S/he does not say whether s/he would favor just changing the law to let everybody in.) Others who have marked the polls suggest we send all illegals packing and make them get in line to come into the country legally like the millions who do come legally. Still others are looking at the logistical impossibility and the economic impact of rounding up and deporting 12 million souls.

And finally there are those who believe we cheapen and weaken ourselves if we do not enforce the law that is already in place. We are either a people governed by the law or we are not.

So, could you expound a bit on what you mean by 'legalize it'? Do you mean more than we already do? What do you think our policy should be?

Latest Rasmussen Poll:
Enforcement First Favored on Immigration
Survey of 1,000 Adults

March 30-31, 2006

Possible to Reduce Illegal ImmigrationYes 68%
No 20%


Before debating new laws, first control borders/enforce existing laws
Agree 66%
Disagree 21%


Forcibly Require All 11 Million Illegal Aliens to Leave US
Republican 40%
Democrats 44%
RasmussenReports.com

April 1, 2006--On the divisive topic of immigration reform, the latest Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey found at least some common ground among the general public.

Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.

A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.

However, those who are seeking a compromise on the issue may be underestimating the public desire to reduce the number of illegal aliens already living in the country as well as stopping the flow of future illegal immigration.

In our survey, we informed respondents that there are 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States and that more than half have lived here for more than five years. Upon hearing those facts, 40% favored forcibly requiring all 11 million to leave the United States. Just 44% are opposed to a forcible removal of illegal aliens.

This does not mean that 40% would support whatever actions are required to remove the current population of illegal aliens. However, it clearly indicates that there is no broad support for a policy that begins with an assumption that those who already live here should be allowed to stay.

Survey data released last Thursday showed similar underlying attitudes. In that survey, just 39% said there should be some way for illegal aliens with a job to stay in the U.S. legally. Forty-four percent (44%) disagreed.

A slight majority (54%) agree that the "goal of immigration policy should be to keep out national security threats, criminals, and those who would come here to live off our welfare system. Beyond that, all immigrants would be welcome." Thirty percent (30%) disagree.

A look at all of our research on this topic makes it clear that neither political party has yet developed policy or rhetoric that reflect an understanding of the nuances of the immigration debate.

More immigration polling data coming on Monday, April 3.

SOURCE

Rasmussen Reports (not Polls) is quite an interesting sites. Lots of opportunity to sign up with them, and pay them to send you data you would like to read (if you're a conservative Republican). Lots of opportunity to advertise with them, and put more money in there pockets.

Opportunity to read an "About Us" link which would tell you who operates "Rasmussen Reports," what their other sources of funding are, what their "mission statement" is?

Zero . . .

I believe your policy should be the same as your pre-1922 policy. From 1789 to 1922, all immigrants could come if they could show $20 per person on entry ($20 in 1900 would be about $500 today), and if they were healthy, sane, and non-criminal. (After the 1880s, they also had to be non-Chinese. I consider this amendment racist garbage, so would oppose reintroducing it.) I beleive the US policy in those days was a huge success in terms of both humanity and business sense, which should be gradually reintroduced. The Kennedy-Specter Bill could be a good, practicable step in this direction.