Posted on 07/30/2015 8:49:47 AM PDT by conservativejoy
Can we be honest about illegal immigration?
It is a common challenge to almost every advanced Western country that is adjacent to poorer nations.
American employers and ethnic activists have long colluded to weaken border enforcement and render immigration law meaningless. The former wanted greater profits from cheaper labor, the latter wished more political clout for themselves.
Mexico conspired, too. It received billions of easy dollars in remittances from its expatriates in America. Mexico had few qualms about letting millions of its own citizens illegally cross its northern border into the United States — even though the Mexican government would never tolerate millions of Central Americans illegally crossing the border to become permanent residents of Mexico.
For better or worse, illegal immigration is tied to race and ethnicity. No doubt, ignorant racism drives some to oppose illegal immigration. But by the same token, the advocates of open borders, many of them with strong ties to Mexico, would not be so energized about the issue if hundreds of thousands of Europeans or Africans were entering the U.S. illegally each year.
There is too often a surreal disconnect about the perception of the U.S. in the immigration debate.
Millions, we sometimes forget, are fleeing from the authoritarianism, racism, corruption and class oppression of Mexico. They have voted with their feet to reject that model and to choose a completely different — and often antithetical — economic, social, cultural and political paradigm in the United States. Somehow that bothersome fact is lost in the habitual criticism of a hospitable and magnanimous America.
Then there is the matter of law. America went to war over the Confederate states’ nullification of federal laws. A century and a half later, do we really want hundreds of sanctuary cities, each declaring irrelevant certain federal laws that they find bothersome?
For every left-wing city that declares immigration statutes inoperative, a right-wing counterpart might do the same with the Endangered Species Act, gun registration laws, affirmative action or gay marriage. The result would be chaos and anarchy, not compassion.
Controversy has arisen over the number of undocumented immigrants who have committed felonies or serious misdemeanors, such as the Mexican national — a repeat felon and deportee — recently charged with the fatal shooting of a young woman in San Francisco. But the furor begs the question: Why would any guest violate the rules of his host? And why is the data on such violations so hard to come by and so prone to controversy?
Either the number of undocumented immigrants who commit crimes is so vast that no one knows the extent of the problem, or there are political hurdles in determining that number — or drawing politically incorrect conclusions from it.
We should not minimize criminality. Creating a false identity, using a fraudulent Social Security number and knowingly filing inaccurate federal forms are serious felonies for most Americans. They are neither minor infractions nor simply the innocuous wages of living in the shadows, but undermine the sinews of a society.
Numbers also count. When millions come to a country illegally, integration breaks down and tribalism takes over. Do we really want permanent Balkanized ethnic lobbies, frozen in amber — another century of a monolithic Asian, white or Latino vote? Are Americans to fragment even more, as they collectively sigh, “If they vote predictably along ethnic lines, I guess I should, too”?
President Obama talks grandly of “immigration reform.” But he apparently does not mean what most Americans would assume from that faddish catchphrase.
Reform should first include strict enforcement of the border. A new, ethnically blind immigration system would select from among applicants based on skill sets and education, and consider candidates from all over the world — not on the basis of ethnic identity or proximity to the border.
Immediate and lasting deportation would ensue for those who committed crimes or cynically chose to receive public assistance rather than work while here illegally.
Many Americans are in favor of offering a path to legal residence to those undocumented immigrants who have long lived and worked in the U.S. and have crime-free records — after they pay a fine for breaking federal law and then wait patiently in line while the legal process plays out — as long as the border is sealed to prevent future illegal immigration.
If some newly legal residents wished to become full-fledged citizens, then they could pass citizenship and English tests and assimilate into the American body politic.
Somehow I doubt that this fair, reasonable process is what the president really wants.
Posted early this morning by Kaslin....
lets start right there.
DEPORT.
I've always expected of FR to be mature and educated
WHY would the question be worded so obliquely and then posted to FR for us to discuss a stupid situation?
I don't think we need to "approach" illegal immigration ... I think we should prosecute it
If someone thinks we should approach prosecution, they are on the wrong side of the rule of law.
It IS, after all ... illegal ... against the law
Maybe this is what we have become or will soon be ... like timid cops (unfortunately justifiably so) who hesitate to act/respond because of a pre-conceived and the planted-in-their-brain seed that the monster they face may not be eliminated or incarcerated because of its color or something
And THIS, I think, is why Donald Trump is so popular
He talks plainly about a situation and poses a solution that looks like it just might work and it doesn't need a committee to study it or a Congress to enact a new law
I am in agreement with you, certainly. In fact, I very early on voiced my problem with VDH in his appeasing column about this in Kalin’s thread.
You can’t say it enough: ILEGAL IS ILLEGAL!
It isn’t “immigrant”, it isn’t “undocumented”, it isn’t any of those words Democrats and RINO appeasers use to try and diffuse the real problem by hiding “illegal” under “immigrants” as a group.
ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL. How hard is that to understand?
So far, Trump is the only person to use the word “Deport”. The rest of the candidates are as scared of the word as Obama is of saying “Islamic terrorism”.
And then they bring it here.
IF WE (traditional Americans) had 'Sanctuary Cities' that negated liberal laws and memes, the New York Times would be screaming bloody murder. As is, the little effers say nary a word...
Round them up, send back to where they came...charge the countries that they came from room and board for them being here, if they come back again, take em out....
WHY should we spend our tax dollars and retirement funds for people that are criminal, dirty, stupid, and demented when we have people that are Veterans that are on the streets that need our help....to hell with that....our people are more important....
Round up and shoot the gang-bangers and drug dealers with drumhead trials and help the decent industrious portion of the population get established and grow.
Within a generation, that portion of Mexico would be a functional state well on its way to first world status and serve as a buffer between us and points south, sort of like Santa Ana envisioned a Texas settled by Americans as a buffer between Mexico and the Comanche. Only we would exploit them and would draw down the military occupation as we did in the Philippines as they became functional and self-governing.
If that's what you call bombarding an army fort, then yeah.
It should also include a strict crackdown on companies hiring illegal aliens as well. If people faced jail time for hiring an illegal then they might be motivated to ensure their status.
The sensible approach is to build a border and enforce our laws, including deporting the illegal aliens. If denied welfare and jobs, many will self-deport. No legal immigrants from enemy nations; likely terrorists; and those taking jobs from Americans and/or wanting welfare.
One can only hope that White people are waking up.
He's lived his entire life in the heavily Hispanic agricultural region of central California, and in nearby Santa Cruz and Palo Alto.
He's also affiliated with National Review, which means he supports total Amnesty, but he's required by NR to work really, really hard to camouflage that fact.
I barely read these anti-illegal immigrant essays and comments anymore.
Every national candidate in the Republican Party is against illegal immigration these days (and every candidate supports some form of Amnesty).
The true test is how Republican pundits, candidates, and voters feel about massive LEGAL immigration.
Thanks to 20 million immigrant citizens and their children, the Democrats have enough LEGAL voters to take permanent control of the White House, the Senate, and, after the 2022 redistricting, the House of Representatives.
When the Democrats figure out how to consistently get their core voting groups to the polls, the game is over for Conservatives.
And, for reasons I cannot understand, a solid majority of Republican voters do not seem to care.
Exactly to the point. I wonder why it is so hard for a candidate to articulate a plan that straightforward? Of course, most of them are controlled by the C of C.
I think Trump agrees with what you said and I do, too.
I hope it doesn’t come to that, but it may if the government doesn’t start upholding the law. I think all legal American citizens are fed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.