Posted on 03/31/2006 5:42:28 AM PST by SJackson
Prominent on display at demonstrations around the country supporting illegal immigration has been the flag of Mexico. The last time demonstrators waved the flag of a foreign government in American streets on such a scale was during the Vietnam War when New Leftists were championing the cause of North Vietnam against the United States. Those street people were mainly mush-brained college students whose ignorance of world affairs allowed them to be manipulated by their Marxist professors. This time is different. The protesters are not just advocating a foreign cause, they are part of it. Most of the Latino students boycotting classes in California and elsewhere should not be in those classes to begin with, since they have no legal right to even be in the United States. Indeed, their enrollment has generated a financial drain on state and local budgets across the country.
When the demonstrations started, I was in England. Media coverage there combined the marches in the U.S. with the student protests in France over labor reform. Again, the symbolism harkened back to the chaos of May 1968 when student and labor union violence almost collapsed the government of Charles DeGaulle. Aging radicals on both sides of the Atlantic wish to recapture the dark chaos of the 1960s.
The United Kingdom has its own illegal immigration problems. On March 25, a Chinese gang leader was found guilty of the manslaughter of 21 Chinese illegal immigrants who drowned in Morecambe Bay two years ago while harvesting shellfish at night. I watched with a mixture of amusement and outrage as a self-styled spokesman for the Chinese community claimed that the British Home Secretary should have been the one indicted because immigration laws "forced" illegals to work under hazardous condition because they cannot work in the open. A dapper British businessman then argued for dropping the term "illegal" in favor of "economic immigrant" so that firms could have a ready supply of cheap labor.
These arguments are heard here too. But what may be "cheap" for a company can be very expensive for the larger society. Some 40 percent of the inmates in California prisons are illegal aliens, who saw America as the land of opportunity for criminal pursuits. Our de facto "open borders" policy cannot discriminate between those whose ambitions are honest or dishonest. And no new system can solve this problem if it is still possible to get into America and survive outside the parameters of the law. Truly effective border security is the pre-requisite for any system of legal immigration.
It is the prevention of border security that motivates both the street protests and the Mexican government which is helping to orchestrate them. The timing of the protests is not just connected with legislation in the U.S. Congress, whose deliberations are long and convoluted. The more direct link is to the summit between President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun March 30-31. Mr. Fox has activated his fifth column in America as a diplomatic weapon. He has been aided by a network of Spanish-language radio stations and newspapers, elements in the Catholic Church and the usual variety of left-wing "civil rights" groups like the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU. This movement poses a threat to U.S. security and sovereignty that makes even the risk of terrorist infiltration across the southern border pale in significance.
Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said March 27 that border security could not be the only topic at Cancun. He said all "must share responsibility so that those forced to migrate be regulated by plans that include respecting their dignity." But what has "forced" Mexicans to become illegal immigrants? The answer is the sad fact that Mexico has become a failed state, which hopes to push costs onto its northern neighbor so its corrupt elites can continue in power without having to risk domestic reform.
In a series of newspaper ads in U.S. papers, the Mexican government claimed it could do more to control its side of the border, but would only do so if the U.S. adopts "a far-reaching guest workers scheme" and that "Mexico should participate in its design, management, supervision and evaluation." In other words, Mexico wants a role in writing American laws for its benefit, and will use the pressure of mass migration and fifth column political warfare to pressure Washington into accepting its demands.
The proper response is to tell Mexico that if it is purposely refusing to act as a responsible neighbor along the border, then it will be held accountable for its actions and sanctions will be imposed. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration declared in its 2002 National Security Strategy a policy of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities." This is particularly applicable to Mexico, as it is a restatement of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine as applied to Latin America. "'Chronic wrong doing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation" is how Teddy Roosevelt put it. The Fox regime cannot be allowed to intervene in the U.S. political process or send its agents into American streets with impunity.
At a March 27 naturalization ceremony for new American citizens who attained their coveted status through the lawful process, President Bush said "The first element is securing our border. Our immigration system cannot function if we cannot control the border. Illegal immigration puts a strain on law enforcement and public resources, especially in our border communities. Our nation is also fighting a war on terror, and terrorists crossing the border could create destruction on a massive scale. The responsibility of government is clear: We must enforce the border." It remains to be seen if he adheres to this position at the Cancun summit.
If I had wanted a Vietnam Vet like Kerry (sarcasm) to run this country and make decisions for me I would have voted for him. I voted for Democracy, freedom, Security, Conservatism, I didn't want the socialist views of a lib, so what am I getting? Nor did I want the American flag desecrated!
Does ANYONE think that George Bush is up to giving the proper response? This is dreamworld stuff.
I don't know, ask Dane or another left wing Republican.
To this day Central and South American sh*t holes are just that....they never change..they never will..
They just come north thanks to weak and corrupt men running our country...
If we canno't find the will to do 'whatever' it takes to rid ourselves of all corrupt leadership and the criminal invaders...then we will end up just like them...
And they will do exactly as they say they will...conquer us
Mexico's and OTM passive agressive invasion must be stopped but Chrsitian America does not have the heart to make war on women and children ...and that is our enemie's greatest strength/evil they have no problem doing precisely to us..or using women and children as their invasion force...litle rattlesnakes grow up to be big ones..
The commies and islamo-fascists borrowed Ghandis knowledge of European virtue-weakness...Ghandi could never have won using his 'non violence' against the Chi-coms, or Soviets.
We need to 'Term Limit' all our so called leaders...put up that wall and deport every single one of them ASAP...
Let them back in one case at a time with scrupulous screening for crime,drugs,skills and diseases...
We also need to bring our troops home from places that don't want them, don't need them, and where they are not welcome
And allow them to defend their own homeland for a change
imo imo
Does ANYONE think that George Bush is up to giving the proper response?
------
No. Bush is pawn to Fox -- obviously. If the proper response was going to happen, it would have happened six years ago. Bush is down there pandering right now. Nothing of any consequence will happen -- the ONLY step that MUST be taken right away, is the closure of the border. If that does not happen, we are doomed, and Washington gets the "TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL TRAITOR" badge pinned on them.
Speaking of the organizers and threats to U.S. security, if you want to see something really frightening, see my post #14 on the thread about Hezbollah operatives being caught at the border. One of the organizers of the Detroit immigration protest admits to being a supporter of Hezbollah.
Maybe we should add up all of the Mexicans and then claim a portion of Mexican territory as compensation before we build that wall. For that, I'd support using the military. They invade us and we retailate.
Or any response. If he wants legislative action, he has to get out there and sell it, even if all he has to offer is a deferred citizenship program, aka "guest worker". While the status quo may fit his mindset, it's not going to work politically. The Dems will take the liberal position away from him.
The Aztlan movement has had contact with palestinian groups for decades. Anecdotally, I've been told the northern border is a greater risk in that regard, as Canada has large Muslim communities in which a terrorist can live undetected till the need to cross presents itself.
I intend to bump this most accelent article several more times.
bttt
What we are witnessing here is the formalization of the federal government's refusal to defend our borders and the open claim to our stuff by the invaders. The result will be local, even individual, "turf wars" where citizens will have to make that most difficult decision of whether they prefer to be "judged by 12 or carried by 6". And, make no mistake, if you defend yourself against one of these people, the government is coming after YOU - not them.
Lock and load, give it up or die - it's all on you because your government is entirely against you.
Actually, no. The pre-requisite for any system of legal immigration is to address the demand side of illegal immigration.
For example, the idea that illegals "impose" health care or school costs is incorrect. The cost is assumed, and the benefits are offered, by American politicians.
Also, the illegals aren't coming here for no reason: they're coming here because Americans give them money to come.
The question of criminal activity by illegals is an interesting one, and it certainly does pose costs. But it doesn't answer a basic question: what is it about the US that encourages these criminals to operate here? We know how they get here -- the more important question is: How is it that they're able to stay here?
One answer is certainly to close off the border, but it's not a very good answer, because it ignores the thousands of miles of coastline available for those who would still come north.
More importantly, it doesn't do anything about the people who are already here.
The pre-requisite is really to KNOW who's here, and to know where they are, and to understand where the supply side (the immigrants) is meeting the demand side. Which points to something along the lines of the "guest worker" program. Once you've got the information on people, you can address costs by taxing the guest workers. You can audit the demand side, and punish violators. I think it probably makes it harder for criminals to live here, though I think they're lured by the easy pickings in America, more than anything else.
The downside is that it requires us to adopt a "papers, please..." policy -- which any other approach would also require.
bump
I dis-agree, the logistics of deporting everyone of them make it an immposiblity. Want a workable solution? Make living here unteniable for illegals. How do we do that?
1) Enforce the laws that are on the books in regards to hiring illegals. Punish the corporate lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the law. No white collar manager, or small business owner wants to go to jail over an illegal. Also, when the fines outweight the money saved by hiring them, economics will force them to stop the practice.
2) Deny any and all government largess to illegal imigrants. If they can't get free medical, educational, etc there will be less enticing them to come and/or staying.
3) 50% surcharge on all electronic money transfers from indiviuduals going to Mexico, and any other country that is actively underminig our efforts. You could also put a surcharge on postage going to these countries.
4) Sanctions against countries that are actively underminig our efforts. Hit them in the pocket books.
5) Special jails for illegal immagrants that break other laws, after they enter the country illegally. In order to be culturally sensitive, conditions in these jails should be exactly like those in prisons and jails in their homelands. If you've ever been in a Mexican jail, you'll know what a deterent this is.
I'm sure that there are many more legal, cultural sensitive, and creative ways to handle this issue.
A 'papers please' approach is not a bad thing, but if there is no sane naturalization process accompanying the registry and accounting, the effort is wasted. If a worker with 'papers' pays taxes for five years, learns an acceptable fluency in English, stays out of crime, then he is a worthy person to become an American, in my book. But the control of whom enters from the South is essential in any new approach, as Reagan's failed amnesty proved. Frankly, if I were sending terrorists to the U.S. for ops, I'd send them through from Canada, the placid and just as porous border. If I were shipping drugs into the U.S., I'd run them through the Southern border. And if, like Fox and his feudal lords, I was shipping the peoni class out to prevent overthrow of my feudal rule, I'd send them over my border with America, counting on my friend Bush to make room for them and allow the free flow of dollars back to Mexico. And, as John Huang2 says, that's my two cents.
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.