Posted on 01/06/2011 9:22:56 PM PST by presidio9
As the new Congress convened, a group called State Legislators for Legal Immigration proposed two laws. One would declare that children of parents who immigrated here illegally are not born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and so are not birthright citizens under the 14th Amendment. Under the other, states would issue two types of birth certificates, one for those born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and one for everyone else.
The states have no power to pass the first proposed law. Congress may be able to, but it is a bad idea that will not halt illegal immigration. It also has no chance to pass the Senate or override President Obama's certain veto. If it were enacted, the courts would strike it down. It is symbolic politics expressing special hostility to Mexican immigrants, who comprise almost 60% of the nation's undocumented population.
This is a the opposite of how we should be making immigration policy. The U.S. owes more, not less, to Mexico and its immigrants than it does to other nations.
Why? Because the U.S. has treated Mexico in ways that it has treated no other nation, creating potent incentives for Mexicans to move north. Yet our immigration policy applies the same per-country cap to Mexico that it does to countries from which few wish to leave.
If the U.S. apportioned more of its overall legal immigration admissions to Mexicans, it would do far more to reduce its numbers of illegal aliens than any change in birthright citizenship would.
To suggest that the U.S. privilege Mexicans over other nationals is heresy in Washington - not to mention in Arizona.
But it is common sense if one studies history.
The story begins in 1846, when partly due to concerns that Mexico had abolished slavery, the U.S. provoked a war that resulted in America acquiring half of Mexico's territory, including the vast natural resources of California and Texas. No other nation has lost so much land to the U.S. except the Indian tribes, whose members now all have citizenship. Mexicans could stay on their conquered lands if they became American citizens. But few could provide land titles to American courts, so most lost their lands and had to work for U.S.-owned farms, mines and industries.
In the late 19th century, the modernizing Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz drove many Mexican small farmers off their soil, turning the lands over to American-owned railroads and mining companies, who employed many of those they helped displace.
Patterns were set: Many Mexicans found they could make a living only by working for American companies, often moving to the resource-rich north to do so. Through the 20th century, American employers in farming, manufacturing and service industries often recruited Mexicans when cheap labor was needed - then callously supported mass deportations, even of Mexican-American citizens, when labor surpluses arose.
Meanwhile, many Mexicans in the U.S. suffered from severe discrimination, despite their desire to work hard and contribute to America. Many, therefore, had strong senses of their distinct cultural identities, developing a kind of cultural "dual nationality," American and Mexican.
In sum, U.S. policies have created to our south a large population that has strong kinship ties to Mexican-American communities and well-founded beliefs that they have better economic opportunities in northern areas, many once part of Mexico, than they do at home. They immigrate, more than any other nation's people - and most are then productive, peaceful residents who seek to retain their cultural identities, like many other Americans, but who are glad to become loyal citizens.
Not all Mexicans fit those descriptions. But if the U.S. altered its policies to expand opportunities for those who do, it would reduce illegal immigration and express the best American values.
America used to have a newspaper with this same name.
I wonder what happened to it.
Yeah, like we could have never picked our own fruit and mowed our own grass.
Whew.
Speechless.
False Premise. Mexican troops overran an American outpost and marched on the fort that was in Brownsville. This is 30 years after the border was settled with Santa Anna. The reparations for invading the US were severe but just.
Why? Because the U.S. has treated Mexico in ways that it has treated no other nation, creating potent incentives for Mexicans to move north.
Bad policy demands more bad policy?
this post needs a barf alert
You got THAT right!
X = 1000!
Irrational drivel.
But there was ONE line I found interesting as it (possibly) confirms my own observations.
The one about Mexicans comprising 60% of the illegal’s in the U.S.
I want the other 40% deported too, no matter Where they are from or what “Colour” they might be.
No exceptions.
Pass AZ type immigration enforcement, and ask EVERYONE who has “contact” with the police about their immigration status.
Maybe that way we can detect and kick out more of that other 40%!
I will tolerate the umbrage of having MY own citizenship questioned if it leads to deportation of illegals from all countries and of any “race”.
http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=73
Look who wrote this garbage. A professor sitting in his ivory tower. He doesn’t suffer at all from illegal immigration. Plus Mexico gets the lion’s share of our legal immigration slots
The pious hypocrites of the elites. Whatever would we do without them?
Where’s the Barf Alert?????
“There are families in New Mexico who have owned their ranches since the 1500s. They are good citizens and I doubt any of them want the corrupt Mexican government back in New Mexico.” — thank you for that information, I did not know that
Umm, if they didn't have title to the lands, then they weren't "their lands," were they?
>>The billions in wages sent to Mexico each year may also indicate a condition of citizenship. The drain on local economies would seem to point to a loyalty directed somewhere else.<<
Where are all the LIBs screaming “Commerce clause, Commerce clause”?
Ok..everyone has to go back home. Looks like I am going back to Germany.....
If one goes back far enough, there ain't no home for nobody. I'm just saying that the Mexicans illegally in the US need to be taken care of by their local gov't back in Mexico so the long standing social justice issues of Mexico are resolved there.
Amen brother. Since Mexico is like a welfare mom who would rather let someone else take care of their kids so they can go the bar and drink
There ya go. I guess he’ll be invited to the next Liberal wine tasting.
Rubbish!!!!!!! Which one of those Mexicans who would come illegally, would decide not to because "the U.S. apportioned more of its overall legal immigration admissions to Mexicans?"
That logic is saying that the solution to Mexican illegals is to keep increasing the number of Mexicans allowed until every Mexican who wants to come is allowed to come. That is merely legalizing open borders or advance legalization of all illegals.
But, after all, what the professor really wants to do is surrender American land and sovereignty to Mexico.
As for his history, the professor should save his Big Lie presentation for his uninformed and pliable students. To whom he can conceal such inconvenient facts as the following:
■ In 1821 - before Mexican independence - the Spanish Governor of Mexico granted Moses Austin a charter to settle Texas. He did this because the Mexico population lacked the right-stuff to settle and tame a wild and sparsely populated territory.
■ The story did not “begin in 1846,… when the U.S. provoked a war”, as the professor falsely claims. In 1836, Texas won its independence from Mexico - the same way Mexico won its independence from Spain. In 1845, the US granted Texas statehood.
■ The inhabiters of California were Spaniards ("Californios") who did not want to be part of the independent Mexico and openly rebelled. The Mexican presence there was not as settlers but troops sent to squelch the rebellion, collect taxes and seize church owned land. (The land was returned to the Church by President Lincoln.)
■ Mexico owes very its existence to the US. Mexicans lost their independence to France after Emperor Napoleon III's armed invasion and occupation during the US Civil War. The "Second Mexican Empire" (as the French rulers called it) only ended when after the Civil War the US sent troops to the border and asserted the Monroe Doctrine; the French troops were withdrawn; and the puppet government, forced to hold power without French troops, fell.
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.