Posted on 09/24/2005 2:11:22 PM PDT by mwfsu84
Listening to a conservative radio talk show today, I heard the host bash Bush and the GOP on their lax immigration policies. He stated that this issue threatened to tear the GOP apart. And he isn't the first person to make that prediction.
I'm a staunch Republican who would hate to see such a dire prediction come true. I also admit in many ways I share Bush's views on the subject. Since he has done a poor job defending his views, I'd like to explain my own. Let's have a discussion and see if we can find some common ground. Or perhaps I am misinformed on the subject, in which case, I'd appreciate your input. I'd like to find some common ground...because I don't want this issue to destroy the conservative movement. Only civil responses, please. I didn't come here to fight.
I've always believed that America should be open to anyone who wants to work hard, live in peace. And the vast majority of immigrants who cross our southern border fit that description. I know several small business owners who hire them - both legally, by the way. They say they can't find Americans do the jobs they hire immigrants for. And these owners are extremely pleased with the immigrants' work ethic. They bust their tails and never complain.
Hispanic immigrants, for the most part, place a high value on their families. That's why many of them come here. A high percentage of them are practicing Catholics.
In my view, these are not the kind of people we should be turning away.
As I understand it, those who oppose illegal immigration do so for the following reasons:
1. It's in violation of the law.
2. Illegal immigrants use up services they don't pay for - schools, health care, etc.
3. Open borders leave us vulnerable to terrorists.
4. Many immigrants are violent criminals.
There is some validity to all of these arguments. Here are my responses.
1. Most of the immigrants here are in violation of the law. But like Prohibition in the 1920's, or the 55 mile an hour speed limit, it's a law that can't be effectively enforced.
We share an 1800 mile border with Mexico. What kind of barrier - physical or human - would possibly suffice to seal us off?
2. It's true that many Hispanics use services they didn't pay for. And I would hold their employers accountable for that. Employers should be the ones to report immigrants, taking out taxes from their payrolls. If not, the government should shut those businesses down, or fine them severely.
3. Open borders leave us vulnerable to terrorism. While I agree with this to an extent, I'd be more worried of terrorists crossing our border with Canada...a much longer border than the one with Mexico, by the way.
As I see it, there are two ways we can fight terrorists. We can seal off our borders, which is a defensive move. Or we can go on the offenisve, as we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. But we can't do both. Doing both would be cost prohibitive.
I would suggest the reason we haven't suffered a major terrorists attack in this country in over four years - despite our open borders - is because our strategy of going on the offensive is working.
4. Many illegal immigrants are violent criminals. I have no doubt this is true, but I'd like to know what the percentage is. As I said before, I believe the vast majority of individuals don't fit this description.
Hispanics are already the largest minority in America. Who they vote for in the future will determine which party stays in power.
Time Magazine had the number 20 million. Maybe it is less, maybe more. In any case we ought to wonder how this has been allowed.
As long as it could be determined that we actually need that many additional legal immigrant workers, I would have no opposition to letting them into the United States.
I agree with you. Growing up in the mid 1980's, I had many different jobs from agriculture to restaurants. The people I currently work with, in a very liberal area, have very few of their children of age working. They somehow consider it beneath them. The teens in my area who DO want to work, however, have a hxll of a time finding opportunities at the entry level. I recall a woman at a local transit stop last winter trying to explain very loudly over her cellphone to her apparently liberal father why she couldn't find a job at the local fast food establishment. I see that at 20 she had learned quite a bit that her father had perhaps never grasped:)
I also agree with the poster that said that it isn't just an issue of Mexican citizens. Illegals, atleast in my area, come from each and every continent except Antarctica. I don't care where they came from, the fact is they are here illegally. If we decide we need an extra 20 million, I'd rather deport the 20 million illegally here and get a new 20 million who adhere to our laws and respect our sovereignty.
Obviously if we were experiencing a declining birth vs. death rate that could be a problem. However, we are not. According to CIA World Factbook: Population growth rate:
Definition Field Listing
0.92% (2005 est.)
Birth rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
14.14 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Death rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
8.25 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
So, I repeat, what do we need them for?
But please do let us know when you've beamed back to the Mother Ship for further instruction on debating the Gore-Bush election.
All I can say is that the CIA figures are from 2005, and the About figures are from 2002. The CIA website didn't try to interpret the data for us, just stated the numbers.
Why do you think we have a declining birth vs. death rate (as opposed to a declining birth rate)?
Quite frankly, I do, because culture DOES matter.
Fact is Western European emmigration has been curtailed since 1965 in order to "balance" America's demographics.
Today, emmigration from Western Europe to America is now mostly based on a lottery system. They await in an orderly fashion.
Meanwhile, Mexican immigration -- both legal AND illegal is unfairly and dangerously overwhelming America's demographics.
Bologna! It's the same as for construction jobs - foreigners work cheaper. The only difference is that technical and scientific jobs are filled by legal H-1B workers (or "outsourcing") instead of by qualified Americans - who do exist.
mwfsu84:
Actually, fifty years ago, most Americans were employed in manufacturing jobs, not landscaping or cleaning toilets
That's true, but I believe you just may have missed foobeca's point. Fifty years ago, the public toilets of America were cleaner than they are today, and they were not kept that way by citizens and a few legal immigrants, not by illegal border-jumpers. Homes were built by men who spoke English, or at least were doing their best to learn it. Most lawns were mowed by teenagers (and most people did their own "landscaping".)
In short, America functioned quite well without the invading hoards of foreign labor.
RightWhale:
McDonalds is of course not one of those Big Corporations.
Uhh - in terms of empoyees, it's not. McDonalds makes its money from franchise fees, paid by local restaurant owners, who are the ones hiring the people behind the counter.
NoControllingLegalAuthority:
They are entering the United States with communicable diseases such as tuberculosis.
Good point.
NoControllingLegalAuthority:
The borders can be effectively controlled by simply making it a felony to employ an illegal.
...
Illegals don't have to provide birth certificates required of American citizens
But here we disagree (not on goal but on means.)
Americans did not need to show a birth certificate to get a job (or to do much of anything) until illegal "immigration" became a problem. I resent having to prove my legal status in order to get a job. Regulation of immigration is a legitimate function of the Federal Government, and it is not doing its job. Punishing citizens and legal immigrants (mostly small business owners) for something actually caused by government negligence just doesn't seem right.
ROTB
Small quibble. I don't consider France to have a "protestant history"
Response: The desire to debate is often a symptom.
I can't argue.
I've had a gripe about how do we know how many illegal aliens there are in the US and how do we estimate them.
I remember Tom Tancredo talking about it on C-Span, and he is the biggest fighter for stronger borders in the house and has been the toughest guy on this issue.
I assume his numbers would be more accurate then anyone else, Pat Buchanan generally backs him and would have knocked him if his numbers were wrong.
Personally, I still can't figure out the methodology they use, but I'm following Tancredos numbers simply because, this is his issue and he has been the most die hard, solid supporter of border security and opponent of illegal immigrants in the last couple of decades.
The numbers he cites are generally in the 10 million to 11 million range....and growing.
There are 20 million illegal aliens --->>>
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:BtDXhY-CJCMJ:www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf+%22Underground+Labor+Force+is+Rising+to+the+Surface%22++%2220+million%22&hl=en
You would choose to live in France or Germany over Ireland? Oh, wait! Ireland is full of... Catholics! The horror!
Open bigotry is an ugly sight.
Since when have employees been important as human beings to corporations? The franchise organization does not imply any weakness of control from upper management and the board of directors. The franchise system is like the French or English system of buying posts in gov't.
He would have instantaneous access to FedGov resources. As such, he might still choose a low estimate from the FedGov resources as official, such as Census, as being on the safe, conservative side. Ten million is not a small number, but it is conservatively certain. Without a doubt many illegals would try to be invisible, especially to Census.
It's also like punishing drug sellers but not drug buyers. ... like punishing prostitutes but not johns. ... like punishing the person defending himself ... but not the home invader. Life is not fair.
1. You show your ignorance of the subject. Historically passing through "Customs" has nothing to do with being a legal or illegal alien. "Customs" has to do with imports brought into the country... fruit that might have insects, drugs that are illegal, liquor that should be taxed, that originated in a boycotted Cuba, etc.
2. Calling illegal aliens is equivalent to calling me a "criminal" for exceeding the speed limit. I speed and accept no negative label until the police catch me. And then only when I plead guilty or am found guilty in court. When I am let go with a "warning" or a "traffic school" that does not go on my record, I am not a speeder in the eyes of the law.
The same is true of illegal aliens. To deny otherwise is to be out of touch with reality.
Yes, there are problems with immigration. But arguments are not advanced on our side with over-the-top Al Sharpton type hyperbole.
Where is your proof?
Where I am I see illegal aliens doing 3 types of work:
- Computer programmer at the same rate paid citizens based on the same skill level, often 6 figure for the highly skilled or those in really short supply.
- Unskilled construction worker (eg carpet layer) in the $25/hr range.
- Unskilled cafeteria and cleaning crew in the $8-10/hr range.
In all 3 categories, the company spends large amounts of money and time trying to find people willing to work. The company clearly has a "prejudice" for non-immigrants. Especially the lower-middle management who control the actual hiring have a "prejudice" for non-immigrants. The simple fact is they cannot find people willing and competent to work.
There are many explanations for this. But the bottom line is there is a labor shortage. The law of supply and demand is at work. In a separate post. I'll propose a series of practical steps we could take to improve the situation. Each step could be implemented individually and improve the situation a little bit. But there is no one single step that is a miracle cure for all our problems. Some steps are more politically feasible than others.
Would you be opposed to letting the free market, the law of supply and demand, determine the actual need? Or would you prefer Hilary Clinton appoint a committee of campaign donors to deside who gets in?
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.