| Author |
Message |
    
sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish
Post Number: 127
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 8:23 pm: | 
|
BRAVO GEORGE.......BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!
now congress just needs to get there act together.
I can't wait to hear all you dems come up with off the wall comments about how GW is completely wrong on this topic. |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 385
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 8:29 pm: |
|
absolutely.
my president knows that the only solution for any problem is to deploy the military. the weak-willed libs would never be as bold as to employ troops along the border of an ally. thank God George W. Bush knows that a show of strength is important. hopefully all those criminals trying to run across the border will think twice when they've got an automatic weapon pointed at them.
GOD BLESS GEORGE W. BUSH AND GOD BLESS AMERICA! |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 444
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Please deport me to Mexico. I need a vacation. |
Project 37
Citizen
Username: Project37
Post Number: 86
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Mission accomplished. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5391
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Well, I just read it.
Other than having the National Guard running around the border area, what in the speech was new?
Oh, and good luck limiting that new national ID card to just immigrants. Once that gets going, everyone will have to get one. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
I remember one time the National Guard was deployed,,,,,,,,,
........... ahhh...............
it... was......... Kent State. May 4th 1970. |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 386
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:10 pm: |
|
I am proud of my president. As he said tonight we are NOT militarizing our border with Mexico, we are simply sending 6,000 National Guard troops there. thank God for George Bush. The libs could never pull off such a brilliant non-militarized deployment of the military. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 487
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:30 am: |
|
"up to" 6,000.
jd |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 387
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:04 am: |
|
Joel points out an good point. Our president understands how to use the bully pulpit, and how it is often as important, if not moreso, to say something than it is to do it. the president may or may not actually deploy all 6,000 troops to the border, but the important thing is, he has said he would. we all know the importance of words, and so does our leader. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:46 am: |
|
GOP Man-
You really need a new act my man, your current one is getting stale.
All wit, no bite....
-SLK |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3351
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:57 am: |
|
It was one of the best speeches he has given, and it was one of the few times he was actually trying to broker a policy by being more in the middle of the road, rather than ram it down Congress' throats. He actually looked and acted very Presidential--good for him; about damn time.
Unfortunately, as Jim Hightower used to say, sometimes all you find in the middle of the road are politicians and dead armadillos. He waited too long and the sides are too sharply drawn now, and he is being shot at from both sides with little cover other than his own innate sense of fairness on this issue (which came across loud and clear last night).
The problem with using the National Guard is that we are already using them in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we stretch them further, who is left to respond to floods in New Orleans and New England? Why use temporary soldiers to do border patrol, instead of hiring more permanent border patrol experts trained to do that job? Regarding the biometric ID cards, sounds good, but they can't even get them issued to airport employees, let alone produce and monitor enough to cover every immigrant (and probably every citizen eventually)--in fact, the whole program has been hijacked by a Congressman who has given all contracts to his own district (surprise, surprise). By trying to feed the right, he did not think the implementation through all the way, which is unfortunately par for the course for this administration.
Another problem is that this does not really solve the terrorism problem. Terrorists are not storming across our border--willing and needed workers are. The 9/11 terrorists were by and large here legally; they had passed whatever perfunctory background checks were required at that time. They are certainly smart enough and capable enough to infilrate our country without hiring a coyote to run them over the Rio Grande. Yes, beef up background checks on legal immigrants and visitors, and also beef up border patrols to watch the borders, but the two are not inextricably linked.
On the other hand, Bush is right on with offering citizenship to lawful, hard-working people who are willing to make a home here and contribute to our society. How this is done will be interesting and tricky, but it is the right approach. But it is wrong to have a "guest worker" program of temporary second class citizens with no hope of earning citizenship, as they do in Europe and the Middle East and Far East. Citizenship is the holy grail, the goal that makes workers committed to this country and its laws and ideals. Simply being able to work here but not get citizenship will lead to more people with no stake in America within our own borders, which certainly does not help security one bit.
So, if the Democrats can rise to the occasion and broker a good deal with the President that bails him out with his own party (and the McCain-Kennedy bill is a start down that road), and if they can show real leadership, we may get a more rational immigration policy which will become a counterweight legacy to his Iraq debacle. Man, re-reading this I realize how idiotically hopeful it sounds. More likely it all ends up in a bunch of posturing and we get bupkis.
Ok, rant over, off to work. Good day all.
|
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 388
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:57 am: |
|
I know what you mean slk, but I don't want my comments about our president to bite. I'm impressed by how much your comments bite, though. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:10 am: |
|
Gee, there are 12,000 border patrol agents assigned to protect our borders and now (up to) 6,000 national guard assigned to watch them work.
Seems to me that the president should be beefing up the civilian agency - border patrol - and keeping the national guard on call for what they will be required to do this coming disaster season.
It is a misuse of resources, once again, and accomplishes nothing.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4326
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
ES&L,
You are right. Bush delivered a good speech. For once, I had the impression that he was addressing a topic he both cares about and understands. On the downside, I had the impression that the timing was mostly political and I am not too impressed by the hasty proposal to use the National Guard in this role. |
Bailey
Citizen
Username: Baileymac
Post Number: 284
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:40 am: |
|
I wonder, what's the cost of deploying the Guard to our border, compared to hiring more border patrol personnel? It seems to me a waste of resources.
As Bush said, this is a temporary measure, he expects to remove the Guard in a year. The costs involved with deployment and then ending that deployment have to be enormous, and essentially wasted.
I have to ask, why did it take so long for Bush to address this issue? As Governor of Texas, he should have been more aware of the problem of illegal immigrants than anyone. I wonder if it has anything to do with the recent polling maybe? The urgency isn't greater today than it was yesterday, is it?
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1767
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
It is probably the only policy he knows in detail and truly cares about. But his stale middle-of-the-road approach is classically Clintonian. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2888
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
|
Who is so upset about illegal immigrants and why? I have to admit, I never paid much attention to this. I thought we were a pro-growth nation that loved low wages. Is anyone actually serious about this "cultural and language heritage" stuff? Mexican immigrants are often from an older, more cohesive, family-based culture than most Americans. It strikes me as absurd that they represent a threat to the culture of our nation. So the language drifts a little. That's what languages do. I see these kids riding bicycles in the rain delivering food to yuppies, and somehow I don't feel afraid.
On the other hand, uncontrolled population growth and wage suppression are real issues. If you are good enough to work here, you should be good enough to vote. The idea of populations legally laboring within our borders as "guests" without citizenship rights makes me a little queasy. Smacks of the Roman Empire or something.
I don't know the answer. I always assumed there was a certain equilibrium where the border patrol and INS create a brake on the immigration rate without stopping it, and life goes on. How did this become THE issue all of the sudden?
Funniest line of the night:
We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4916
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
In talking with my cousin who lives in San Jose, I learned that it's a much, much bigger issue there than it is here. Since we're got some geographic distance from the border it doesn't impact us that much, but in California there is a widespread feeling that illegals are absolutely flooding schools and hospitals. It's probably similar throughout the southwest. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 939
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
Flooding is a mild word.
Mexicans are the largest group in California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
They continue to be the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S., and are now spreading throughout the country.
They are the least assimilated. Many of them were born here, but speak no English.
Many of them speak openly about the 'Reconquista', that is, taking those states OUT of the U.S. and rejoining Mexico.
-Now go ahead, everyone call me a racist, hate-monger, reactionary whatnot.
|
ina
Citizen
Username: Ina
Post Number: 359
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
"Many of them speak openly about the 'Reconquista', that is, taking those states OUT of the U.S. and rejoining Mexico."
Add delusional. This is so outrageous, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, really.
"They're taking over" has been used against absolutely every outsider group since forever. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2893
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Flooding is a mild word.
Mexicans are the largest group in California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Someone has to be.
They continue to be the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S., and are now spreading throughout the country.
Someone has to be.
They are the least assimilated. Many of them were born here, but speak no English.
Sounds very subjective. They will learn it.
Many of them speak openly about the 'Reconquista', that is, taking those states OUT of the U.S. and rejoining Mexico.
Sounds very very subjective and vague. How many? No Irish need apply. Japanese are disloyal. Jews are just different.
-Now go ahead, everyone call me a racist, hate-monger, reactionary whatnot.
Dope? |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 942
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Why dont you two dopes put away your weak adjectives and google the word 'reconquista'? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2894
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
"The Portuguese Reconquista culminated in 1249 with the subjugation of Algarve by Afonso III."
I will never bow to Alfonso III. Never! |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2895
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
You're in good company with your concerns. Good, stable, sane company...
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005121.htm |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2896
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/04/reconquista.html |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2897
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Hispanic rights leaders insist there's nothing to the so-called reconquista, sometimes referred to as Aztlan, the mythical ancestral homeland of the Aztecs that reportedly stretches from the border to southern Oregon and Colorado.
Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association in Los Angeles, one of the march organizers, was infuriated when a reporter asked him about the reconquista.
"I can't believe you're bothering me with questions about this. You're not serious," Mr. Lopez said. "I can't believe you're bothering with such a minuscule, fringe element that has no resonance with this populous."
More to the point, the reporter -- as well as Malkin, and most of the other reconquista theorists -- seem confused about a very basic point: The belief that the Southwest is part of their historical homeland is a legitimate belief for most Latinos, and the marchers they cite seem to be expressing that point. They're also expressing the belief that this historical claim overrides the latter-day borders that would deny them their heritage. What's utterly absent is any claim that they intend to retake the Southwest for Mexico, which is what the reconquista theory is all about. On the contrary, they seem intent on becoming American -- but they also are claiming they have a right, by virtue of their heritage, to become one.
That doesn't sound like an invasion to me. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 943
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
You, and all the other limousine liberals, just keep your heads buried firmly in the sand.
Believe what you want to believe, and the facts can go to hell.
Just do not do anything that would interfere with your supply of cheap labor, the country's future be dammed.
As long as you have $1.5 per hour nannies and gardeners, let them retake the entire southwest.
And California. |
Andy
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 650
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
My gardener is Guatemalan. And the house painter is Dominican. I don't think those are areas of Mexico, but you could be on to something. I'm not even sure if they're here legally or illegally, but you can bet they're trying to give New Jersey back to Mexico. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1771
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
"No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2898
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
"You, and all the other limousine liberals, just keep your heads buried firmly in the sand.
Believe what you want to believe, and the facts can go to hell.
Just do not do anything that would interfere with your supply of cheap labor, the country's future be dammed. "
1. I'm not a liberal. Just a Bush hater.
2. The 'facts" are in despute. I think the danger of reconquista is not really clear.
3. Liberals don't like cheap labor. Conservatives do. |
george H
Citizen
Username: Georgieboy
Post Number: 198
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
What an infuriating subject.Who among us does not feel sympathetic to the plight of the illegal? How many of us have parents,grandparents,etc.,who emigrated here,became assimilated,and raised families who in turn became us,the very people who now torn over the issue.Educational/Medical costs are a real problem,one that didnt exist 30-40 yrs.ago.I know my forebearers became tax paying,property owning,family raising citizens,who, while never mastering the english language,were still able to raise 8 children who were able to raise their own families.Times were different then and to apply 1950 standards to 2006 does'nt really work.The focus must shift for a while,from strict inclusion to selective exclusion.Any one remember the Mariella[?] boatlift,when Castro opened up his prisons and asylums and the U.S. was flooded with all the undesirables reaching our shores? I'm not for a minute implying that this is the case with Mexican immigrants.I'm using it as an example of the slippery slope we're heading down with unchecked immigration,and how we,as a nation,must decide when and if to put a stop to it,if that is even possible at this late date. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1772
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
C'mon. Everybody likes cheap labor. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2900
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
i meant dispute. I can't spell. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:07 pm: |
|
You forgot about Poland.
This reminds me of the mission to mars,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html
I'd (almost) bet money, this goes nowhere. It's just today's distraction. We're going to Mars! I mean Mexico!
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2903
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Mars. that was so brave. What a leader. |
sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish
Post Number: 128
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
What an infuriating subject.Who among us does not feel sympathetic to the plight of the illegal?
you must be kidding me. What is it about the word "ILLIEGAL" that you do not understand!!!!!!! Its about being a soverign nation with the right to control the inflow of people. The mexican government does not respect out boarders and encourges its people to come here so that they can infuse the greenback back into the mexican economy. These ILLEGALs are not paying taxes (most are paid under the table) yet they make use of our social systems. Along with not paying taxes, they do not infuse the money back into our system.
Let's say you went over to france, england or any other country. you have to "check in" and are granted the right to enter upon giving a reason for entering and an expected length of stay. do you think you have the right to just enter any country without being granted permission? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4927
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:04 pm: |
|
I wonder who it is doing all this paying under the table. But I have a feeling they're not paying their lawful taxes, either.
But then, I don't understand anything about the word "ILLIEGAL." |
sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish
Post Number: 131
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Now I've heard everything. Are you f'n kidding me. What is it about the term "SOVERIGN NATION" that these damn mexican's do not understand!!!!!
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.
President Bush announced Monday that he would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the 2,000-mile border, but they would provide intelligence and surveillance support to Border Patrol agents, not catch and detain illegal immigrants.
"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details.
Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths. Since Washington toughened security in Texas and California in 1994, migrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have spiked. Migrant groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. The Border Patrol reported 473 deaths in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
In Ciudad Juarez, Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, local representative of the Mexican government's National Immigration Institute, said Tuesday she will ask the government to send its migrant protection force, known as Grupo Beta, to more remote sections of the border.
Sending the National Guard "will not stop the flow of migrants, to the contrary, it will probably go up," as people try to get into the U.S. in the hope that they could benefit from a possible amnesty program, Nunez said.
Juan Canche, 36, traveled more than 1,200 miles to the border from the southern town of Izamal and said nothing would stop him from trying to cross.
"Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle," said Canche, referring to the drought-stricken Rio Grande dividing Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas. "My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it."
Some Mexican newspapers criticized President Vicente Fox for not taking a stronger stand against the measure, even though Fox called Bush to express his concerns.
A political cartoon in the Mexico City newspaper Reforma depicted Bush as a gorilla carrying a club with a flattened Fox stuck to it.
Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday that Mexico accepted Bush's statement that the sending in the National Guard didn't mean militarizing the area. He also said Mexico remained "optimistic" that the U.S. Senate would approve an immigration reform "in the interests of both countries."
Aguilar noted that Bush expressed support for the legalization of some immigrants and implementation of a guest worker program.
"This is definitely not a militarization," said Aguilar, who also dismissed as "absolutely false" rumors that Mexico would send its own troops to the border in response.
Bush has said sending the National Guard is intended as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up resources to more effectively secure the border.
In Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Honduran Antonio Auriel said he would make it into the U.S.
"Soldiers on the border? That won't stop me," he said. "I'll swim the river and jump the wall. I'm going to arrive in the United States."
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5616
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Times were different then? Poverty hasn't changed much, except the definition of 'poor' today has the chance for more amenities than the poor of yesteryear. The difference is people had to cross an ocean to get here a long time ago, and therefore I think make a more significant commitment to their new country than those working here, going back across the border occasionally and sending the loot back home. And many planning on retiring back in the •••• country they fled to boot. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4330
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:01 pm: |
|
We have every right to police our border as we see fit. Bush's speech was one of his better ones. I would prefer that we expand the Border Patrol rather than use the National Guard, but that is a tactical consideration. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 203
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
Still Dodging Immigration's Truths
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Page A23
President Bush's immigration speech mostly missed the true nature of the problem. We face two interconnected population issues. One is aging; the other is immigration. We aren't dealing sensibly with either, and as a result we face a future of unnecessarily heightened political and economic conflict. On the one side will be older baby boomers demanding all their federal retirement benefits. On the other will be an expanding population of younger and poorer Hispanics -- immigrants, their children and grandchildren -- increasingly resentful of their rising taxes that subsidize often-wealthier and unrelated baby boomers.
Does this look like a harmonious future?
But you couldn't glean the danger from Bush's speech Monday night. Nor will you hear of it from most Democrats and (to be fair) the mainstream media. There is much muddle to our immigration debate. The central problem is not illegal immigration. It is undesirably high levels of poor and low-skilled immigrants, whether legal or illegal, most of whom are Hispanic. Immigrants are not all the same. An engineer making $75,000 annually contributes more to the American economy and society than a $20,000 laborer. On average, the engineer will assimilate more easily.
Testifying recently before Congress, University of Illinois economist Barry Chiswick -- a respected immigration scholar -- said this of low-skilled immigrants:
"Their presence in the labor market increases competition for low-skilled jobs, reducing the earnings of low-skilled native-born workers. . . . Because of their low earnings, low-skilled immigrants also tend to pay less in taxes than they receive in public benefits, such as income transfers (e.g., the earned income tax credit, food stamps), public schooling for their children, and publicly provided medical services. Thus while the presence of low-skilled immigrant workers may raise the profits of their employers, they tend to have a negative effect on the well-being of the low-skilled native-born population, and on the native economy as a whole."
Hardly anyone is discussing these issues candidly. It is politically inexpedient to do so. We can be a lawful society and a welcoming society simultaneously, to use the president's phrase, but we cannot be a welcoming society for limitless numbers of Latin America's poor without seriously compromising our own future -- and, indeed, the future of many of the Latinos already here. Yet, that is precisely what the president and many senators (Democratic and Republican) support by endorsing large "guest worker" programs and an expansion of today's system of legal visas. In practice these proposals would result in substantial increases of low-skilled immigrants.
How fast can they assimilate? We cannot know, but we can consult history. It is sobering. In 1972 Hispanics were 5 percent of the U.S. population and their median household income was 74 percent of that of non-Hispanic white households. In 2004 Hispanics were 14 percent of the population, and their median household income was 70 percent of the level of non-Hispanic whites. These numbers suggest that rapid immigration of low-skilled workers and rapid assimilation are at odds. Some immigrant families make huge advances, but many don't and newcomers represent a constant drag.
The difficulties are obvious. Competition among them depresses wages. Social services are stretched thin. In 2000 children of immigrants already represented a quarter of all low-income students in U.S. schools, an Urban Institute study reports. The figure is probably higher today. The study also reports that immigrant children are rapidly spreading beyond the six states where they had traditionally concentrated (California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New York and New Jersey). This may explain why immigration has suddenly become such an explosive issue. A reader e-mails: "There are children in my son's school who aren't able to speak a single word of English, and it is causing such frustration amongst the staff and other children . . . I am afraid for my son's future."
There are striking parallels between how we've treated immigration and aging. In both cases, the facts are hiding in plain view. But we've chosen to ignore them because candor seems insensitive and politically awkward. Who wants to offend the elderly or Latinos? The result is to make our choices worse by postponing them. A sensible society would long ago have begun adapting to longer life expectancies, better health and greater wealth by making careful cuts in Social Security and Medicare. We've done little.
Unfortunately, the two problems intersect. Just coincidentally, the Census Bureau projects both the 65-and-over population and the Hispanic population to be about a fifth of the total by 2030 (the elderly population is now about 12 percent). The tax increases that will be required to pay for existing federal commitments to the elderly are on the order of 30 to 40 percent. People who don't think there will be conflicts between older beneficiaries and younger taxpayers -- Hispanic or not -- are deluding themselves. People who imagine there won't be more conflicts between growing numbers of poor Latinos and poor African Americans for jobs and political power are also deluding themselves.
As the president says, we need a "comprehensive" immigration policy. He's right on some elements: controlling the border; providing reliable identification cards for legal immigrants; penalizing employers that hire illegal immigrants; providing some legal status for today's illegal immigrants. But he's wrong in wanting to expand the number of low-skilled immigrants based on the fiction of U.S. labor "shortages." In his testimony, economist Chiswick rightly argued that we should do the opposite -- give preferences to skilled immigrants. We should be smart about the future; right now, we're not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601367. html |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5395
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
From another column by Robert Samuelson -
Quote:Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's "bracero" program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964 Congress killed the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's tomato output has risen fivefold.
It's a story worth remembering, because we're being warned again that we need huge numbers of "guest workers" -- meaning unskilled laborers from Mexico and Central America -- to relieve U.S. "labor shortages."
In other words, who needs farm workers when science can give us the tasteless tomato?
Brilliant! |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2907
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:38 am: |
|
Michelle Malkin: "platitudes, non sequiturs, and recycled rhetoric I've been deconstructing the last five years."
John "The Rocket" Hinderaker: "He had his chance and he blew it . . . President Bush is being destroyed by vicious people who hate him. So far, he hasn't seemed to notice. Apparently, he doesn't think he needs any allies. He certainly didn't win any with tonight's speech . . . . President Bush doesn't have many chances left to salvage his second term. After tonight, he might not have any."
Paul "Deacon" Mirengoff: "President Bush did wimp out, and fatally so I think, on his fourth point, i.e., what to do about illegals who are already here. . . . This means that Bush's proposal taken as a whole is probably self-defeating."
Ankle Biting Pundits: "Whether he likes it or not, the president did not carve out a 'centrist' position at all. He articulated one of the two conflicting positions in this debate. And by pretending to be a 'middle grounder' I believe he cheapened his argument."
Misha at Anti-Idotarian Rottweiler: "long on blather and emotion and amazingly short on actual solutions. . . . Take your 'virtual' fence and your hi-tech vaporware coupled with your amnesty plan and shove them up your •••, Jorge."
The good news for the President is that he is prevented from ever reaching zero on the approval rating scale thanks to the existence of Hugh Hewitt, who swooned: "President Bush did exactly what he had to do tonight . . ." But after he posted that, Hewitt fundamentally reconsidered his assessment as a result of his interview with Julie Myers, the nepotism-based appointee at Bush's Homeland Security Department:
My interview with Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers staggered me, undoing in a handful of minutes my confidence in the president's commitment to border security first. Either the president's team had not communicated effectively with sub-cabinet appointees about the fence, or the president doesn't really believe in the fence, because Assistant Secretary Myers is clearly not a proponent of the fence.
Mark Levin, National Review: "I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this. . . . This is pure idiocy, and it has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetrated by any previous president and Congress."
Dave Riehl: "Unfortunately, visitors to a Bush '43' Library may have to cross the border into Mexico to take it all in. In a speech which was as much a eulogy for the so-called Reagan Revolution, as it was an unfortunate beginning to a pending political battle on immigration, President Bush all but declared himself irrelevant to the conversation. In essence, the sitting President of the United States through (sic) up his hands and declared, 'No mas.'
John Hawkins, Right Wing News: "After the speech last night, I took a look around the right side of the blogosphere to get a sense of what people thought. The reaction was probably -- oh, let's say somewhere between 75-90% negative and to be truthful, as often as not, I got the impression that the bloggers who said they liked the speech were reading out of the old "root, root, root for the home team playbook" rather than genuinely being enthused about what Bush had to say." |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2704
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:07 pm: |
|
There used to be a TV Show (might still be in re-runs) called The Lawrence Welk Show. He was a band leader. He spoke with a German accent. He was born and raised in the USA!
He was born and raised in an all German speaking community in the USA.
Point? Nothing new. Old issue. Old argument. War in Iraq is important. Islamo-Fascist Terrorism is important. Iran is important. Deficit is important.
Immigration? This is America. Old story. |
Nancy - LibraryLady
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3461
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:19 pm: |
|
I am pretty sure Mr. Welk's family didn't sneak across the border illegally and enter the United States without following the proper procedures. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15036
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Minor detail. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2706
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |
|
I am pretty sure Mr. Welk's family didn't sneak across the border illegally and enter the United States without following the proper procedures.
Maybe they came before there were "proper procedures". At one time all you had to do was show up. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Some folks apparently think that Hispanic immigrants want to change our culture and "latinoize" our country. They see this as a threat. I was just trying to point out that in the "debate" about innigration, nothing is new. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page