Even to the extent that's true, it doesn't prove your original point that Mexican poverty is a direct result of US policy. That we may have benefitted in some way is incidental.
Mexico's poor fortune is a result of their own policies and corruption.
Posted on 05/16/2002 12:24:37 PM PDT by hchutch
For its political survival, the Republican Party must court the Hispanic vote. Totally shut out among black voters and badly defeated among Hispanics, the GOP is having a hard time finding enough white voters to overcome the deficit. With blacks and Hispanics casting one vote in four, a Republican must win two-thirds of the white vote to have a shot at 51 percent in the average election.
And the situation will only get worse for the Republican Party. The Hispanic population, which swelled from 7 percent to 12 percent of the U.S. population in the past 10 years, is forecast to grow to 18 percent by the end of the decade. If they continue to vote Democrat, the GOP will run out of white people — and face death as a political party.
Only by taking the bold and dramatic step of providing amnesty to illegal Mexican immigrants can the GOP, at a stroke, become competitive among Hispanic voters. This legislation, the equivalent for Hispanics of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for blacks, holds the potential to reposition an entire slice of the electorate and move Hispanics to the Republican Party.
But, at the same time, the Republican Party needs to hang on to its base of angry white men who largely oppose immigration — and illegal immigration most of all. They are the base that insisted on English-only initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s, battled to cutoff aid to illegal aliens, and demanded a halt to bilingual education.
How are Republicans to reach out to Hispanics while appeasing their truculent base?
President Bush has already taken the lead in pulling the Republican Party back from the issue precipices on which it was dancing. By stopping Republicans from opposing bilingual education or affirmative action, and by demoting English-only initiatives to the bottom of the party’s agenda, he has moved mightily to strengthen GOP outreach to Hispanics.
But it is his amnesty proposal for illegal Mexican immigrants that holds the real hope for his party to avert demographic extinction.
The key to resolving the Republican dilemma of having to choose between outreach to Hispanics and alienating its Anglo political base is to condition amnesty with good citizenship requirements.
Republicans should offer conditional amnesty to Mexican illegal immigrants. Here’s the deal: If you want to stay in the United States, you must enroll in a good-citizen program. The immigrant has to agree to become functionally literate in English within two years, work for six of the next eight quarters and pay taxes to FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) for each of these quarters — no off-the-books work — and avoid arrest for 24 months.
At the end of the two-year period, those who meet the requirements would become citizens in good standing, eligible to vote and participate in civic life. Those who refuse to enroll or who fail the meet the requirements would face deportation. If the program works, it can be expanded to other categories of illegal immigrants.
Polling shows that most voters, even among the GOP base, are willing to forgive the illegality of their arrival if these Mexican immigrants show a willingness to earn their legal status in America. The compromise has the contractual opportunity/responsibility formula that sold so many of Clinton’s programs and that lies at the core of the highly successful welfare reform program. By asking something in return for giving something, the resulting transaction acquires a moral impetus that it sorely needs to win national support.
At the same time as the Republicans offer the olive branch to illegal Hispanic immigrants, they must use this year’s review of immigration statutes to close down immigration from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists — including even such so-called allies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. By closing one spigot as they open the other, Republicans can master the political hat trick of reaching out to Hispanics while appeasing their political base.
Otherwise, the GOP will go the way of the Liberal Party in Great Britain, to the political grave.
Because unless we were willing to spend a LOT more money on defense than we actually do, a Mexico that had 35-40% of our GNP (in other words, one with per capita GNP parity to the US) would be able to mount a serious military threat.
If they skimped on the naval end of things, they'd probably be able to field more heavy divisions than we presently do--and I am talking first-rate armor and mechanized divisions, are equipped with equipment as good as our own and equally well-trained. It's MUCH better that they be too broke to afford a serious military force.
Even to the extent that's true, it doesn't prove your original point that Mexican poverty is a direct result of US policy. That we may have benefitted in some way is incidental.
Mexico's poor fortune is a result of their own policies and corruption.
If we wanted Mexico's corrupt oligarchy gone, they'd be gone. It would supposedly solve a lot of problems on the border. The fact that we DON'T get rid of said oligarchy implies that the US Government derives a large benefit from the corrupt oligarchy--and cheap labor flooding the Southwestern US is not large enough.
Most Americans know of the many negative consequences of mass illegal immigration. The only ones who benefit from the cheap labor that illegal immigration provides is American businesses. American taxpayers can get by just fine without the millions of illegal aliens currently in the U.S.
And you would be simply amazed at how many "little guys" hire non-English-speaking day laborers on a cash-only basis, then turn right around and piously demand an end to illegal immigration.
I feel that your proposal is both sensible and workable. I've always felt that the one area that "guest workers" would be fairly important is in agriculture. The reason that I say this is because many of the jobs in agriculture are seasonal, and American workers tend to not like seasonal jobs. Americans like to have a steady job with a set work schedule. We don't want to have to move every 3-5 months to "follow the crops" as a lot of Mexican laborers do who work in the fields picking our produce.
Basically, I want to use the stick and the carrot--if you make it easy and profitable to work within the law, most people will do so. Those apprehended in this country illegally would become ineligible for the bracero program for varying lengths of time or permanently, depending on the egregiousness of the offense. The big effect of this would be to get a LOT of folks out of America, because they'd want to be squeaky-clean before the bracero program started up.
Also, if you make it so that the braceros can make enough money to support themselves here and support their family in Mexico, the family is less likely to be up here--the mass illegal immigration problem didn't start until AFTER Congress killed the bracero program in 1965, because whole families started crossing so that the father wouldn't have to risk recrossing the border.
And you would be simply amazed at how many "little guys" hire non-English-speaking day laborers on a cash-only basis, then turn right around and piously demand an end to illegal immigration.
I think that hypocrisy is innate to human beings. If it benefits me, I'm in favor of it. If it doesn't benefit me, I'm opposed to it.
Good point. Even though I'm totally opposed to illegal immigration, I'm not opposed to some type of "guest worker" program as long as it was properly set up and strictly regulated and enforced, as was the pre-1965 Bracero program. As I mentioned in a previous post, I feel that this type of program would be somewhat necessary in the field of agriculture. But I haven't changed my feeling that mass uncontrolled illegal immigration into a particular geographic region can't help but have a negative impact over time.
But if you try to take away the perceived benefit of cheap labor as a side effect of ending illegal immigration, most people will suddenly decide that they weren't as anti-immigration as they thought.
You're dreaming, Dick. I don't care how many amnesty bills the Republicans sponsor, the hispanics will still vote for the democrats. Frankly, I think we have a better chance of reaching out to black and Jewish voters. Bush's support for Israel is changing a lot of minds among Jewish voters and many black people were very supportive of the President following the 9/11 attacks. I think it's too soon to predict extinction unless we give amnesty to illegals. Don't forget, once you set that precedent, everyone else will be screaming for equal treatment, especially the Muslims. I don't think we want to go there.
(1) legalizing some illegals now will NOT DISCOURAGE more from entering illegally (proof is how well the 1986 amnesty prevented more illegal entrants)
(2) Legalizing ANY illegals is admitting that we have lost the desire and/or ability to control our own borders
(3) It is not true that illegals are only doing jobs that Americans won't do. The truth is illegals are paid far less, often have no employer-provided health insurance which puts that burden on the taxpayers, and work in unsafe work conditions, fearing to complain for fear of being deported. Look at the construction industry. Americans used to make good wages in those jobs. Now they have been replaced by illegals. Same thing is true of meat packing industry, chicken processing industry, etc. Those injured get sent home: saves on the workmen's comp. claims!!
This nation won WW II. For heavens' sake, we should be able to beat Mexico at this game! Of course, it would be easier if our President and Republican leadership had some cajones!
Eisenhower deported illegal immigrants because he was not a coward. The GOP no longer has men like Dwight Eisenhower. Just pale imitations.
1st: Being afraid to do the right thing plays into the enemy's hands. Their cries of "racist" will have worked. But...
We don't have to let them win.
2nd: A round-up of 10 million isn't necessary. There is a way to get the Illegals to Deport Themsleves. We'll probably need to round-up a few hunderd thousand. We'd need more infrastucture, but I'm sure we could could find plenty of volunteers for a Border Patrol Deputy Force.
3rd: Therefore, no police state is necessary.
4th: Having deported themselves, the Illegals won't come back, and will spread the word south of the border as to why.
This idea that they will “deport themselves” is a theory (and in my opinion a fantasy). Perhaps they would just decide to go into hiding, lay low and find ways to survive and live here? What if they decide to take a chance and come back? What if people decide that it is better to hire low wage Mexicans and take their chances? What if this happens instead of your theory?
This sounds like drug and booze running to me, risk/reward. The result will be a police state, because to remove these folks requires identifying them, finding them, grabbing them, trying them, deporting them and making sure they do not come back. And because it must be done systematically and fairly, EVERYONE will have an ID, be subject to search, have their place of employment raided, face the “border police” and be in the database.
It will just never happen; the people will not allow it. Why don’t we work toward a true solution to the problem, integration, instead of the dead-end approach of deportation?
Morris has outlined yet another scheme for defining deviancy down. That's playing on the Democrats turf, never a smart proposition for the GOP. We're better off when we act like Republicans without acting guilty about it.
It's foolish to say pursuing a policy favored by 70% of Americans in wartime is suicide. If the President and the Vichy Republicans would grow spines and make the case for deportation, Democrat opposition would wilt.... Just as it has throughout this war.
Quit cowering.
This idea that they will “deport themselves” is a theory (and in my opinion a fantasy). Perhaps they would just decide to go into hiding, lay low and find ways to survive and live here? What if they decide to take a chance and come back? What if people decide that it is better to hire low wage Mexicans and take their chances? What if this happens instead of your theory?
What you describe is the current status quo.
My "theory/fantasy" is that enforcing laws and punishing lawbreakers discourages lawlessness.
History suggests there is merit in the Rule of Law approach to governance.
This sounds like drug and booze running to me, risk/reward. The result will be a police state, because to remove these folks requires identifying them, finding them, grabbing them, trying them, deporting them and making sure they do not come back. And because it must be done systematically and fairly, EVERYONE will have an ID, be subject to search, have their place of employment raided, face the “border police” and be in the database.
You're crying wolf, so lets call your bluff. How many Illegals would you Amnesty annually? A million? 10 million? 20 million?Unless you're an open-borders fanatic, you know full well you'd draw a line somewhere, and our real dispute is where to do it. I submit that another Amnesty now, just as the one I foolishly supported in '86, would invite yet another wave of Illegals. Then we'd be right back where we are now, but multiplied worse. All you're really advocating is abdicating our responsiblity until the problem gets so bad we finally have to deal with it anyway.
I've proposed a solution that promises to be largely self-enforcing, precluding the need for police state tactics. You advocate simple surrender, and call it a day.
So tell me, speaking of fantasies, how will letting the problem of Illegals grow far worse generate a "kinder, gentler" solution?
It will just never happen; the people will not allow it. Why don’t we work toward a true solution to the problem, integration, instead of the dead-end approach of deportation?
Don't kid yourself, deportation hasn't happened because corrupt Democrats and dilettante Republicans flaunt the will of the people.
You have less faith in the Ameriucan People than I do. Bipartisan malfeascence is the real dead-end.
I'd be against the INS going door to door dragging people out of homes but I'm all for letting them deport themselves. When there are 5 families squeezed into a one-family housing project apartment, when any type of crime is committed, DWI, driving without insurance then we should deport them. We should also quit promising amnesty to people who don't respect our immigration law and get a lot tougher about breaking laws. Integration is out because Fox insists that they not integrate.
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.