Re-examining the Claims for Illegal Immigration

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Nov 10, 2006.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Rethinking Illegal Immigration
    By Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics
    November 10, 2006

    Now that the bitter election season is over, both parties will have to return to the explosive issue of illegal immigration.

    Increased border patrol, a 700-mile fence to stop the easiest access routes (something President Bush signed into law two weeks ago), employer sanctions and encouragement of one official language can all help solve the crisis. But once the debate is renewed, congressional reformers will be blitzed by advocates of the failed status quo with a series of false assumptions concerning the issue.

    Take, for example, the shared self-interest argument - that the benefits to both the U.S. and Mexico of leaving our borders open trumps the need for enforcement of existing laws and outweighs the costs to U.S. taxpayers that result from massive influxes of poor illegal aliens.

    Libertarian supporters of relatively open borders, for example, have long argued that illegal immigration is a safety valve for Mexico, one that prevents violent revolution south of our border. By allowing millions of poor people to cross illegally into the United States, we supposedly stabilize Mexico. Billions of dollars in remittances are sent back home to the needy left behind.

    For full article:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/rethinking_illegal_immigration.html
     
  2. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    What we need from this new Congress is not more hysteria about illegal immigration...

    This statement implies that we have had any hysteria on the issue at all. This is the doubletalking bullshit attitude that got the Republicans' clocks cleaned for them. The conservative base has the brains and the stomach for this war. Some Republicans will understand that - after their heads clear, their teeth are fixed, and their jaws are wired back in place. Others will not.

    Any Republican who ponders November 7, 2006 - and fails to see PRESERVE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, PROTECT OUR BORDERS, AND ENFORCE OUR LAWS in 100-ft. high, flourescent orange letters - is too stupid to even think about getting my vote. George Bush's grand vision of a global capitalist utopia - on the backs and at the expense of decent, productive Americans - has just been repudiated in the most unambivalent, unambiguous, and unmistakable terms possible. I have every confidence that a newly-awakened Republican Party will act accordingly - now that they know what time it is.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    If you only look at the snip, I see your point. In actuality Hanson is further repudiating that statement. The conclusion is that the exodus from Mexico to US has destabalized both countries.
     
  4. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Yeah, but I resent hell out of the snip. It encapsulizes the double-tongue cuteness of the neocon. Anyone who hopes for as much as a polite listen from conservative America had better start talking very plain, very straight, very soon. Cuteness is fatal; the Right is in a foul mood, as we have seen. Conservative America is through bullshitting.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I doubt anyone that had supported the administration, much less given hundreds of hours to it's election, was earlier than I in having a problem with how things have been going and making that clear. In many ways, from Schiavo to ports to the communications I've lost friends, here and in real life.

    The 'neo-cons' have some things right and some things wrong. Many of the ideas are correct, but the leaders have been condescending and tried to be 'off radar' way too much. It's what leaves them open to the conspiracy theorists, which I think has been a major unrecognized problem.

    But dealing with this article, it was not subtle and not 'neo-con.'
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I wonder why they don't recognize the conspiracy theorists criticizing the NWO?

    WHy do you think they ignore them? Maybe it's because both Major Bushes are on record talking about the NWO?
     
  7. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Just what is this "hysteria", then - that Hanson doesn't want "more of"?
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    My interpretation: The false arguments that have been used that the problem 'of those already here' and 'building a fence' are insurmountable.

    Likewise the way some on the other side act as if most or 'a great percentage' of the illegals are 'dangerous.' They are not in a physically criminal sense, but are to our economy and our legal system. A small percentage are 'dangerous' in either a criminal or terrorist threat sense, but all are criminal in a legal sense. The problem must be addressed and not with amnesty.
     
  9. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    I agree. And, I hope it dawns on the Republican Party that it has arrived at its defining moment. A candidate can blur his true self on a lot of issues - MOST of them, in fact. But, his stance on immigration is the window to his soul. Does he regard this country - this IDEAL - as unique, precious, fragile - worth protecting with his fortune and his life? Or is government of the people, by the people, and for the people a convenient springboard to his designs on power - a voting bloc - a trading bloc - a cheap labor pool? Does he cherish the specialness of America, or just mouth its pretty platitudes when that serves his greater agenda? On this issue alone, he cannot hide his true self. The manner in which he proposes to address immigration tells us who he is.

    That's why my eyes glaze over as soon as a pundit or a politician replies to plain questions of sovereignty, the sanctity of our borders, and the rule of law, with "Yeah, but...". At that moment, I've heard enough. I know who I'm dealing with - just another sellout. How can I trust him on anything else?
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    In many ways, especially regarding immigration and the WOT I agree. At the same time, the rhetoric on both sides has become toxic and is causing problems in and of itself.

    It's past time for thinking people to take some time to figure out priorities and prepare for not only the next election, but the threats and problems that confront us all.
     

Share This Page