Posted on 06/03/2010 6:15:54 PM PDT by pissant
Those conditions existed from prior to the 1960s to 1986.
During that period of time about 35,000 people came across our border illegally each year.
What changed?
During the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, we picked up illegals and deported them.
In the late 1980s, we stopped doing that. Our officials refused to enforce our borders and immigration laws. And we had some great laws.
1. Employers were on the chopping block if they hired illegals
2. Penalties for coming across the border were strengthened.
3. More border agents were added.
Well that was great, but nobody enforced the law.
Then Bush started mouthing off about amnesty, and all of a sudden we had between 2 and 3 million people coming across our border every year.
During this time our laws concerning illegal immigration went from the sane thing to do, to the most racist thing in North American history. And our leaders allowed the matter to be gamed like this. No matter what they Left, Mexican nationals, Mexican supporting activist groups, or the Mexican government said, it was crickets in response.
If we enforced the laws on our books uniformly, the illegals would go home, they would stay home, and our problems would be over.
People don’t break in when they can’t work, they don’t get freebies, they get busted, they cause trouble for their family already here, and they get no benefit whatsoever for having done so.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding[1]. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
as well as increased funding for all welfare benefits.
the reason that people didn't come emmass before 1980 was also economic. the Reagan economic reforms created a massive economic boom in this country making those in Latin America have more of an economic incentive to risk the border.
On top of that the Federal government starting giving huge amount of welfare to illegals again making the incentive to cross the border.
Like I said you can enforce all you want but if you do not change the incentives people will find a way to get here.
How did McCain get into the conversation? LOL. SoCalPol votes in CA, you know that.
Thanks again for the first hand information. You have my best wishes for a successful election. Iowa doesn't belong in the hands of democrats. Too many hard working, good people in your state to let the big city and university areas out vote you.
Onyx, read the comments here. Then use the link to see what he was responding to.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2527364/posts?page=238#238
Who is backing that candidate? Why it’s the same person backing John McCain isn’t it.
Fiorina sits on U.N. boards, helps it get it’s agenda passed, and has had long term relationships with some pretty bad critters. None the less, even though Boxer isn’t even running against Fiorina in the Primary, her name was used to run cover for Fiorina.
Yes, relatives are off fighting in theaters of war, and yet this person who wanted to overpower me by name dropping (family member dropping), doesn’t understand that the United Nations despises them, seeks to undercut them at every opportunity, tries to tarnish their reputation and character non-stop, and will try to prevent them attaining success by any means possible. And who was in there helping the U.N.? Carly Fiorina, that’s who. The canidate this person was trying to trash someone else for telling the truth about her.
McCain, Fiorina, and now Palin are fellow travelers. When John McCain teams up with Ted Kennedy to turn his nation over the illegal immigrants, do you think that’s looking out for our troops best interests? When John teamed up with John Kerry, the guy who called our troops rapists and baby killers, do you think that was supportive of our military? When John signed up with Joseph Lieberman three times to push global warming legislation, was that a big plus for our military members, not here to oppose those things in person? When John joined Russel Feingold to push through Campaign finance reform that limited corporate donations, but left labor union donations untouched, was that leftist favoring ploy something that was favorable to our troops who weren’t home to oppose it?
Why do I address John, because Fiorina was another John McCain confidant. Sarah Palin was too. Romeny is out here pushing for Fiorina. Condolezza Rice is out here pushing for Fiorina. These people are RINOs. I don’t like pointing it out, but Sarah finds no problem with John McCain pairing up with George Soros, Teressa Heinz Kerry, and the Tides foundation. She finds no problem with him signing up with a cabinet worker in the Mexican president’s office.
These folks walk on the same path. And if you can say they are no problem and play silly games like none of this matters, well okay. You go right ahead. Just don’t blame me for coming to the only reasoned conclusion there is in light of it.
You’re not fooling anyone. Acting as if you guys aren’t doing anything out of the ordinary is foolish. You either know exactly what you’re doing, or you don’t care enough to actually read what folks are posting to you.
Tell me, do you think the LOST Treaty is a big boon to our military members? Do you think joining the ICC is going to be a big boon to our military members? Do you think legalizing millions of people from foreign nations who will occupy the home towns of our military members while they are away is a boon to our military?
If this is what you think protecting our military members backs while they are away consists of, you’re mistaken.
I shouldn’t have to spend my time pointing all this out either. If you actually gave a damn, you’d already know it and would quit trying to play these stupid games that waster everyone’s time.
You guys are shilling for people who are anything but supportive of our troops.
IMO< the one thing Leftist do better than we do, is network.
They wanted to take over the world and they set it up so that leftist organizations across this nation are funded by tax dollars.
They wanted to minimize loyal American’s impact on this nation, and global dynamics, and so they encouraged people to invade our nation and try to take it over.
It should come as no surprise that the Left supports illegal immigrants, they subverted the system so they could prosper here.
I agree with you take on this. It goes much deeper too.
At ANSWER rallies they had U.S. union members, a member of a South American terrorist organization, a member of a muslim terrorist organization from the Philippines, avowed Marxists, Socialists, teachers union reps... I mean they had every variety of parasite known to man on their stage.
You’ve got to give them credit. They have networked amazingly. The only down side to that, is that we could execute a few raids and find out the global connections of these groups in about ten minutes. Sadly our side doesn’t play hardball.
I'm as conservative personally as they come and I get sick of these purists that believe they can put together enough pure lawmakers to create majorities and stop the evil of the Democrats.
It cannot be done. We must always select the best available.
The BVP people has been able to successfully convince a certain element that BVP is one of these pure candidates and Branstad is an extreme liberal. Of course, both statements are false. My take on the personalities involved are pretty much just opposite of this thinking among some people.
The VP people talk about Branstad growing the size of government. There is a heck of a difference between being governor for four years and being governor for SIXTEEN years, like Branstad. The BVP people do not care about the truth and the whole truth. I have a great problem with deliberately misleading. I view VP as someone who only cares about becoming governor. He is willing to tell gullible voters what he thinks they want to hear. Fortunately, it looks like their duo-campaign with the Democrats is not going to be successful.
Rod Roberts is a great guy but hasn't been able to gain much traction. However, IMHO, Roberts has the respect of everyone and will live to see another day. Perhaps Branstad will select him for his lt. gov. I don't know but regardless, Roberts has his self respect intact. Hopefully, we will not see VP again.
Agreed.
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.