Posted on 11/13/2008 4:02:22 AM PST by LS
If I see one more "we are doomed" or "we'll never again win an election" thread I'm gonna puke!
ANY reader of American history knows that going back to the 1600s, EVERY generation has faced (yes) a similar challenge, every generation has thought it faced the "end of the colony/state/country.
*John Adams and the Federalists were certain that Thomas Jefferson would destroy the country he helped build, and forge an alliance with that "terrorist" country France.
*Both Thomas Jefferson and Martin Van Buren said that the Missouri Compromise (that would be 1820, for those of you from Rio Linda) was "the death knell of the Union."
*All "men of standing" were certain that Andrew Jackson would destroy the nation---and thought he proved it when he allowed mobs into the White House to guzzle the wine stock while he high-tailed it out back to a nearby bar. Even Davy Crockett---hardly an effete snob---thought Jackson was going to destroy the country.
*EVERY major Republican except Lincoln thought they had permanently destroyed the Democrat Party by 1864. In fact, they had put into place such astonishing obstacles to the Dems EVER getting power that they were stunned when the Dems not only won congressional seats, but had to be swindled out of an election in 1876!
*The only way a Democrat even won the White House for 100 years was to either a) pretend to be a Republican (Cleveland---DINO); or to get the Republicans to fracture into two parties (Wilson in 1912).
*FDR put every obstacle to Republican elections in place from 1932-1944, and STILL couldn't prevent a Republican from being elected president in 1952, and it took a terrible TV debate and some fraud to keep Nixon out in 1960. It wouldn't have taken much, with a President Nixon in 1960, for Republicans to have held power throughout the 1970s.
Lenin took power in Russia with a mere 20,000 committed communists---smaller than my little Ohio township---in a nation of 160 MILLION. Commitment, determination, and above all, having an idea to fight for is the key to victory.
I'm going to end with a Bible story: Gideon was leading the Israelites against an enemy. He had an army of 30,000 and God said, "Too many! Your soldiers aren't all committed. Some are faint hearted, some are grumblers." God gave Gideon a test to eliminate 27,000 men from the ranks. With just 3,000, Gideon got ready to fight and God said, "Too many. There are still too many complainers, nay-sayers, men weak of faith." He gave Gideon another test, leaving Gideon with only 300. Then God said, "You are ready now to go and WIN." And he did.
If you are all through with your little hissy fits and "poor me/we'll never win another election" pity parties, I'm ready to join 299 of you to GO WIN.
Masterpiece of Modern Cinema Editing, bravo!!!!!!/Just Asking - seoul62.......
Where did I say it should be "closed?" I have suggested that we reduce our levels to 300,000 a year, down from the current 1.2 million annually and this number continues to grow because of chain migration and the lack of caps on certain categories of immigration. The rapid increase in immigration levels started in 1965 after the passage of the 1965 Immigation Act that ushered in mass immigration and abolished the national origin system. From 1924 to 1965, we were a low immigration country. If the annual level of net immigration was reduced to 300,000, future immigration would add 25 million people to the population by 2060, 80 million fewer than the current level of immigration would add.
From 1900 to 1920, nearly 24 million immigrants arrived during what is known as the “Great Wave”. The outbreak of World War I reduced immigration from Europe, but mass immigration resumed upon the war's conclusion, and Congress responded with a new immigration policy: the national-origins quota system passed in 1921 and revised in 1924. Immigration was limited by assigning each nationality a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. Also in 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol within the Immigration Service.
There was very little immigration over the next 20 years, with net immigration actually dropping below zero for several years during the Depression. Immigration remained relatively low during the 20 years following World War II, because the 1920s national-origins system remained in place after Congress re-codified and combined all previous immigration and naturalization law into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. American agriculture continued to import seasonal labor from Mexico, as they had during the war, under a 1951 formal agreement between the United States and Mexico that made the Bracero Program permanent.
In 1965, Congress replaced the national origins system with a preference system designed to unite immigrant families and attract skilled immigrants to the United States. This change to national policy responded to changes in the sources of immigration since 1924. The majority of applicants for immigration visas now came from Asia and Latin America rather than Europe. The preference system continued to limit the number of immigration visas available each year, however, and Congress still responded to refugees with special legislation. Not until the Refugee Act of 1980 did the United States have a general policy governing the admission of refugees.
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This legislation had two major facets: amnesty and enforcement. IRCA provided amnesty to aliens who had completed one of two stipulations: they had resided continually in the U.S. since January 1982 or they had completed 90 days of agricultural work between May 1985 and May 1986. The acceptance rate for amnesty applications was about 94 percent, eventually giving legal status to approximately 3 million. It is estimated that one-fourth of the cases accepted were fraudulent. In 2000, IRCA was extended through Late Amnesty, which allowed those fighting their original denial to reapply. As of June 2007, 15,000 Late Amnesty cases are still pending from IRCA. The 1986 legislation also contained enforcement provisions to prevent future illegal entry. The provisions prohibited the hiring and harboring of illegal aliens, but few resources were allocated to enforce these laws. Poor funding essentially tied the hands of enforcement officials. This created a lopsided ‘grand compromise’ that fueled later generations of illegal aliens.
In 1990, Congress again reformed immigration statutes. The 1990 Immigration Act modified and expanded the 1965 act; it significantly increased the total level of immigration to 700,000, increasing available visas 40 percent. The act retained family reunification as the major entry path, while more than doubling employment-related immigration. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from "underrepresented" countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow by creating a lottery system. The 1990 Act also mandated a study of immigration, later known as the Jordan Commission.
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, named after its Chairwoman, former Rep. Barbra Jordan, ran from 1990 to 1997. The Commission covered many facets of immigration policy, but started from the perception that the “credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in, are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.” From there, in a series of four reports, the commission looked at all aspects of immigration policy. In the first, it found that enforcement was lax and needed improvement on the border and internally. For internal enforcement, it recommended that an automated employment verification system be created to enable workers to distinguish between legal and illegal workers. The second report discussed legal immigration issues and suggested that immediate family members and skilled workers receive priority. The third report covered refugee and asylum issues. Finally, the fourth report reiterated the major points of the previous reports and the need for a new immigration policy. Few of these suggestions were implemented.
In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The act added to border controls by mandating the hiring of more Border Patrol and Immigration and Naturalization Service agents. Repercussions for entering the country illegally were increased and a border fence was planned for San Diego. An automated employment verification pilot program was created in the hopes of easing worksite enforcement. The Act also allowed state police officers to enforce immigration law using the 287(g) program. Although the IIRIRA boosted de jure enforcement, poor funding again hindered the actual enforcement of the laws.
Also during the 1990s, a series of four smaller amnesties were passed. The first, the Section 245(i) amnesty, was passed in 1994 and pardoned approximately 578,000 illegal aliens, who were each fined $1,000. This amnesty was later renewed in 1997 and again in 2000. The second, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), was passed in 1997 and gave legal status to approximately one million illegal aliens, mostly from Central America, who had lived in the U.S. since 1995. In 1998, the Haitian Refugee Immigration and Fairness Act (HRIFA) passed after it was argued that excluding Haitians from NACARA was discriminatory. The most recent amnesty, passed in 2000, was the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE). The LIFE Act was a mini-amnesty aimed at those illegal aliens who hoped to become green card holders through marriage, employment or other categories, but who were not anywhere near approval yet, due to the long line of people ahead of them. It was sold as a way around the growing processing backlogs that were the result of previous amnesties. During the time of this legislation, from 1994 to 2000, millions of hopeful legal immigrants waited in line overseas.
The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 affected perspectives on many issues, including immigration. A total of 20 foreign-born terrorists were involved, 19 of whom took part in the attack that caused 2,974 civilian deaths. The terrorists had entered the country on tourist or student visas. Four of them, however, had violated the terms of their visas and become illegal aliens. The attack exposed long-standing holes in our immigration system that included failures at visa processing, internal enforcement, and information sharing.
I am in favor of a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration. This is in the best interests of the nation and does nothing to compromise our deserved reputation as the most welcoming and least xenophobic nation on earth. I say that advisedly having lived in nine different countries for a total of 25 years of my adult life and being married to an immigrant.
Ok, I agree with that. A “draw down” is desirable, and overhauls of the incentives for WHY people come here is necessary.
I think Congress will increase the immigration quotas on the rationale that young workers are needed in order to maintain the Social Security and whatever other Ponzi schemes have been erected.
Although I agree with you, a "draw down" is more desirable, and IMO, more responsible. But Congress treats the country the same way a CEO and board of directors treats a company. The prime directive is "grow," and that means numbers.
ITEOTWAWKI !!!
Immigrants get old as well. And they won't bail out the SS system, which is structurally unsound. In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today there are 3.3, and by 2030, there will be two.
Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation’s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
At the current level of net immigration (1.25 million a year), 61 percent of the nation’s population will be of working age (15-66) in 2060, compared to 60 percent if net immigration were reduced to 300,000 a year.
If net immigration was doubled to 2.5 million a year it would raise the working-age share of the population by one additional percentage point, to 62 percent, by 2060. But at that level of immigration, the U.S. population would reach 573 million, double its size in the 2000 Census.
Although I agree with you, a "draw down" is more desirable, and IMO, more responsible. But Congress treats the country the same way a CEO and board of directors treats a company. The prime directive is "grow," and that means numbers.
If Congress passes amnesty, they will not only legalize the status of the 12 to 20 million illegals already here, they will also enable these 12 to 20 million to sponson another 66 million to 100 million more LEGAL immigrants thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification. The country would be destroyed with the stroke of a pen.
We don't need "incentives" for people to come here. We can have the pick of the litter. Hundreds of millions want to come here. We need an immigration policy that serves the interests of this nation, i.e., a merit based system that provides us with the skills and expertise to compete in the global economy.
Currently, of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives. The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
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.