Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: daviddennis
"Maybe that's partially because I actively dislike the institutions that are mentioned as being hurt by them. Our schools were lousy before illegals. Our hospitals were overpriced before illegals. Far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed. We just have a scapegoat to blame for the problems. Get rid of the scapegoat, and I guarantee you our hospitals won't get any cheaper, and our schools won't get any better."

How old are you? I'm 60, and I know we had problems before the illegals, but they have clearly aggravated the situation.

If we need more workers, as I have said before, you raise the quotas of LEGAL immigrants, you DON'T reward people, either the invaders, or those who employ them, by allowing them to continue to break the law.

A nation can't survive if its government can not or will not provide the most basic function of any government in history - secure its borders against invaders/
It would be a very easy thing, and one of the easiest routes to follow, if some Arabs learned Spanish, dressed like Mexicans, and moved nuclear material across our southern border to build a bomb to annihilate one of our cities. The Mexican border is the easiest place to do it.

And by the way, Pennsylvania and the northeast have their own problems with illegal invaders - they are everywhere now, thanks mainly to the current administration and its Attorney General.
58 posted on 11/29/2006 4:15:34 AM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: ZULU

The Islamists are more likely to choose the Canadian border than the Mexican. It's been quite easy for them to get citizenship and the active support of the Canadian government, even as they train in Al Queda camps.

I'm 44. I have not been alive during a time when the US has not had substandard schools and absurdly expensive healthcare. It seems like this anti-illegal crusade started maybe three years ago and got really intense in about the last year and a half.

One problem is that the typical guy on the street has no real prospect for changing the law. For instance, I'd like to see speed limits raised on my local streets. What chance do I have over the auto insurance nazis, Ralph Nader's people and all the other groups arrayed against me?

In order to raise the speed limits, I would have to find a whole bunch of like-minded people, lobby my local representatives and senators, and raise huge amounts just to get a hearing.

If you look at the medium sized company I was working for, I don't see it having much of a chance at gaining a greater quota of workers. It would probably go bust without illegals, or have to do the manufacturing in China. I think that would be a sad moment indeed.

So you can see that I'm a person who doesn't like government and doesn't trust bureaucracy. The immigration system is, of course, a big government bureaucracy that by most accounts does a terrible job.

So gee, why not let the free market solve this problem instead of some distant governmental organization? That solution is illegals. They are attracted by the market and the market pays them.

Really, the market is a more democratic system than bureaucracy. If I want to hire illegals, I do. If I don't want to hire illegals, I can. People can do whatever their individual philosophy dictates, instead of taking a single policy dictated from Washington, that we have little to no control over.

I think you can see why the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the like are pro-illegal. They're thinking like I do, as they do on most issues. Illegals are the free market. The INS is government.

Now, where I am on your side is that once they're in, and break the law, this should be sternly dealt with. This is especially true in cases of criminal gang activity and the like. That is a legitimate problem, but I would solve it by changing the behavior of law enforcement, not by trying to prevent illegals from coming.

Likewise, for terrorism, you would get far more mileage out of hiring task forces to deal directly with terrorism than building a huge multi billion dollar fence, which is highly unlikely to prevent any terrorists from visiting.

I think that on the whole, the anti-illegal crowd wildly overestimates the costs and underestimates the benefits of having illegals around. I believe their research is tailored to match conclusions already made. If you can find some impartial research I'd certainly look at it.

But there is a highly emotional argument too. This is a country of immigrants. They came from all over. They settled here to find a better life. Now, you're suggesting that we change from an open-handed, amiable philosophy, which matches my own, to a close-hearted "kick the bums out" philosophy I find most unappealing.

I liked the old America a great deal more than the new.

D




59 posted on 11/29/2006 1:18:17 PM PST by daviddennis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson