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.
I would strongly recommend against that.
Yeah, but the racetrack is a lot more fun!
I really don't believe the "powers that be" care much about the signals We The People send them.............
How about this, I'll go vote early then meet you at Beulah Park around 11:00.............
I'll buy you a beer and a meatloaf sandwich!
The fact is, they have been giving in. The 9/11 bill contained border security provisions despite the strident opposition of the White House and the congressional leadership in both parties. Tom Delay has recently said that the American people will not accept a bill that does not have real enforcement. The Kyl-Corrin bill, while still woefully insufficient, is nonetheless a step further than they'd been willing to take previously. They can be made to go even further than that if we keep the pressure on and don't give in.
My world view is logically consistent. The real world is looney.
Many on each side are sincere and want what is best for the country. Calling those who disagree with us "racist" or "traitors" or other adhominen labels is not a rational discussion of the issue... and a few on both sides have been known to use ad hominen and irrational arguments. But most of us on each side ARE putting country over party.
The simple fact is that we have a disagreement over what is best for the country. I see freedom and a free economy run by the marketplace as best for the country. Others see a managed economy as best for the country. We are all pure in our intent. But obviously one of us just might be wrong.
I agree. But it isn't just illegals. There is a large underground economy for citizens and legal immigrants also. Numerous computer programmers, alley mechanics, construction workers, etc. are in the underground economy.
FAIR TAX advocates correctly state that the FAIR TAX will significantly reduce the underground economy of both illegals and legals... if tax evaders can be called legals after my comment on innocent til proven guilty of speeding.
I have followed the immigration issue closely since 1961.... Read books and papers on it in both English and Spanish. I've rented apartments to over a hundred illegals... and many legal immigrants and citizens as well. I've hired all types to work on my buildings.
I was extremely active in everything anti-Daley in Chicago for many years, which included building coalitions that included many illegals. For many years it was my job to inspect slum buildings and predict which ones would burn down for insurance companies. (Now I do the same on their databases working beside IT workers in a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Interesting how the unskilled are much more open to being honest about it than are the IT workers.)
I've lived with, eaten with, slept with illegals.
my experience is limited to IL and parts of WI,IN,MN, KS,MO,TX. I only know CA by what I read, and hear from legal immigrants, illegals and citizens who have been there.
I often post that immigrant culture is pro-family. To them, to become Americanized ... see movie Spanglish means to adopt the Hollyweird lifestyle of dis-epect of family and government replacing family as the safety net. I've had both illegals and citizens of Hispanic, Asian and European ancestry who have lived in CA tell me that CA tends to attract a slightly different type of Hispanic... one who is more open to becoming Americanized which again, means adopting the Hollyweird lifestyle of dis-respect for family. They associate Chicago with work. California with irresponsible fun.
My grandparents on my mothers side came into this country almost 100 years ago legally. I agree people must enter legally, but if someone wants to get into this country bad enough all they have to do is come through any sea coast area or any area where there is not border patrol. Canada alone has thousands of miles where anyone could just walk across. We cannot man every mile of the border.
(Just wanted to be first in line)
I actually agree with everything you said., with the additional restrictions that they should have to pass a mandatory health physical, and that they should have to fund the programs that check background, health, and fund the border operations.
I further believe that the illegals already in the country should be subject to the same "border" checks, but that their fee to fund the program should be about 3-4 times as high as those who waited to enter legally.
Finally, Proposition 200 should go nationwide, with NO fed benefits to non-citizens, and the visa they receive should be renewable, contingent on filing yearly tax returns.
It would be a plan that would work, with some tweaks.
The idea of simply rounding up people and dumping them on the other side of the border is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard of, besides being just plain wicked.
You will never get anywhere with these arguments with some of these people, and the fact that you are right only pisses them off more. Keep it up and they will accuse you of being a DU troll.
Only on free republic, in the immigration threads, can the desire to escape the most freedom choking tax system imaginable be termed "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican." I swear, these people are so rabid on the subject they will SUPPORT THE DAMNED IRS rather than back off on the immigrant issues. It is sad, really.
Well I guess one approach to test your anecdotal "evidence" is to make it very difficult to hire illegals, and see how high the wages rise. If "spic work" wages rise above 25 bucks an hour (that's 50K a year), I would be surprised. As I say, some of the work will become more mechanized over time. If the wages rise to 40 bucks an hour, then that would create a very good case to increase the number of legal immigrants.
I did not say our citizen birth rate is declining. I was trying to make two points.
1) Some anti-immigrant types make a big deal about anchor babies as if it is a major demographic phenom.
2) The fact is that immigrants have a higher child bearing rate than non-immigrants. There are two reasons for this.
a) More immigrants are in the right age group.
b) Immigrants practice much less abortion, birth control, etc than non-immigrants.
The "spic wages" were $25/hr for a job made in heaven for a young, healthy, unskilled, unemployed, no H.S. member of the National Guard.
more like a RLC troll
What is "RLC"?
My mom's family moves back and forth from ND to Sask to MT to Alberta to WA to BC many, many times over the past hundred years and nobody says boo. No notice to any government agency, ever, except to pay taxes. It's treated by everyone as no different than moving from one US state to another US state. But let a Mexican do seasonal work here and cross back and forth each season and some see him as one of the four horsemen.
Get a grip. Immigration problems exist. But immigration is no where close to our biggest problem.
RLC - REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS
A national group of libertarians who chose to work through the Republican Party rather than a 3rd party. Congressman Ron Paul is our highest profile member. Several other Congressmen and many State legislators and local officials are members.
Some states like FL and TX are highly organized. Some states like here in IL are loosely organized and inter-twined in many conservative-libertarian coalitions. Some states have only a token presence.
You can google the web sites. We also go by GOP-Liberty-*** as in the discussion group GOP-Liberty-Illinois@yahoogroups.com that I am in.
Note immigration splits both libertarians and splits other types of conservatives also. My local GOP leader is not very libertarian (eg seat belts). But he agrees with me on immigration from a "compassionate conservative" rationale. Other pro-immigrant Republicans come from the "Abolitionist" tradition. Other pro-immigrant Republicans come from a "mercantilist" anti-capitalist self-interest of a plentiful labor supply and are the ones most often attacked by the closed-border side, even though they are only a small part of the pro-immigration GOP.
Likewise the anti (illegal) immigrant coalition is a strange set of bedfellows that includes pro-abortion purify the race types and labor unions, as well as nationalists and libertarians and logical people and illogical people.
Outside of photographic evidence you cant make me believe any roofing company is hiring anybody without experience for 25/hr. Id believe the contractor was charging 25/hr for their 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.