It’s big.
 |
For a roundup on the illegal-immigrant amnesty marches, check Drudge for mainstream reports and Instapundit, Hotair and Michelle Malkin for updates and links to blog commentary. As an aside – it’s hard not to notice the complete and utter absence of the word “illegal” on local radio news. |
More: Tim Graham notices too
While the graphic on screen touted a “Sea of Humanity” at the pro-illegal immigration rallies yesterday, NBC’s reporter used the phrase “those whom critics call ‘illegals.'” This is a great example of how the PC police at minority-journalist groups have created a silly argot that places the reporter a ten-foot-pole away from reality. It sounds like “those whom smoking critics call ‘smokers.'”
No one seems to have noticed that the photo looks strikingly similar to those taken of the Manhatten peace march of Saturday, 29 April 2006. Hmmm …
The fact that millions of illegal aliens (most of whom criminally breeched border security) can ransome citizenship by holding government hostage to the embarassment of their numbers, tells me that US border security and immigration have been criminally neglected for a long time.
Bush will fold like a cheap hand towel on this. Of course they’ll trot out the typical pseudo-conservative rationale as an excise….round up and deportation is too costly….may as well make them legal so we can collect the taxes they have been avoiding…..humaine mush etc…..Welcome to the united states of Aztlan.
On May day, some where that demon Karl Marx is smiling knowing his desciples in the Aztlan, MECHA and La Raza demonstration ranks have stolen US border sovereignty, and cheapened citizenship to that of criminal immigration.
Any government that cans piss billions away in Iraq but finds homeland border/immigration security too “costly” should be thrown from power decisively.
Is it possible to be thrown from power indecisively?
Ya…look at the current liberal opposition.
Either enforce the border or abolish it.
This will be the issue that demolishes republicans in November. They need to get tough on ILLEGAL immigration and set out a clear, fair policy on legal immigration. Nothing worse than having unenforced rules.
Norman, wouldn’t you agree that having unjust rules enforced is worse than having unenforced rules? I used to have much the same opinion on this issue, essentailly that countries have the right to limit citizenship and that anyone circumventing the rules should be deported. The more I think of this issue, I think the underlying moral questions overpower the adherance to the laws as formulated. If I was living on the border in a Mexican town and barely sustaining my family and I saw that there was an opportunity for me to provide a better life to my kids by breaking the laws of the US, I would seriously consider this. It seems to me unfeeling for us to sit on our wealth and hold people away at the point of a gun. The west is trying to export democracy, lets put our money where our mouth is, throw open your borders. The difference in the standard of living cannot be sustained. My industry (software) is being moved overseas to a great extent and there are many in the industry that are wanting the government to protect the jobs, but what right do I have to tell people that they have to use my services with the threat of force. I saw bring them on, lets start a new chapter. To the extent that we can sustain the impact on our infrastructure, lets allow anyone willing to work and to pledge to uphold the laws and constitution of the country in question in.
Wlyonmackenzie – the US hasn’t ‘pissed billions away in Iraq’. It has freed the Iraqi people from a monstrous dictator and enabled them to set up a democracy. That seems to have escaped you.
Moving from a tribal dictatorship to a democracy isn’t easy; it isn’t a mechanical ‘flick a switch’ act. And, the old guard want their power back – and the other nations such as Iran, don’t want democracy in the area…So, they’ll fight it.
But – the freedom from a dictator and the establishment of a democracy – that’s an enormous achievement on the part of Bush.
As for Mexico- I don’t think it’s so much as ‘enforce the border or abolish it’. It’s deeper than that. As I said, Mexico gains enormously in this current system. It doesn’t have to provide jobs, housing, schooling, social services – zilch – for 11 million of its population. That’s quite an enormous economic gain for Mexico.
The US doesn’t gain as much as the emotive left asserts. As Warwick has pointed out, the cheap labour isn’t what makes the US economy run – and the costs to the rest of the citizens – the taxpaying ones – isn’t to be ignored.
I don’t know the solution – possibly transient worker’s visas – but – there are three issues, at a minimum, to be dealt with:
A. Mexico’s current enormous gains from not having to provide jobs and services for 11 million of its citizens.
B. The cost to the US taxpayer for providing the services to these 11 million, who pay no taxes.
C. The economic benefit of these low-wage workers, who are low-wage because their wage does not include taxes and benefits..but..they get the benefits anyway.
Mexico won’t do anything about the problem unless we incentivise – cash transfers from illegals in the US is the second largest cash flow in the country, right after oil exports.
How about a 50% tax on cross-border money transfers? That ought to garner some attention in Mrxico City…
As I said, Mexico gains enormously in this current system. It doesn’t have to provide jobs, housing, schooling, social services – zilch – for 11 million of its population. That’s quite an enormous economic gain for Mexico.
And……
The biggest gain Mexico gets is it can postpone the inevitable revolution that should befall it for another generation. That’s the biggest reason the politicos there want an open unrestricted border. Take away access to US jobs and the mass demonstrations would and should be on the streets of Mexico City.
We aren’t doing Mexicans any favors in the long run. Vincente Foxe piddled his time away. The American taxpayer subsidizes the corruption in Mexico ultimately. Not smart.
We have no moral obligation requiring us to surrender our borders to citizens of a failed state any more than my neighbor has squatters rights on my property because he’s not as successful financially. Only a birdbrained lefty in their dangerous emotive illogic fails to see that point.
steve d,
“At last count there were 750 laws broken by the man (Bush)”
Blogwell Fray,
“I’m leaving this site…the level of discourse keeps spiralling downward.”
You don’t say.
Penny.. “We have no moral obligation requiring us to surrender our borders to citizens of a failed state any more than my neighbor has squatters rights on my property because he’s not as successful financially. Only a birdbrained lefty in their dangerous emotive illogic fails to see that point.”
Ouch.. I am about as much of an anti-government liberaterian as you can be and still manage to stay sane in this country. I don’t think your analogy holds, in that there is no reqirement for me to surrender property rights (as if we had them in Canada) to anyone emigrating to my country. I just wonder if your view would be different if you happened to be born in a country where you might live in mortal fear of your children getting sick and see if it still makes perfect sense that, because of where you live and the government that is thereby imposed upon you, you must live within that context. Lets allow true freedom to citizens of the world to choose how they are governed. How much power would tirants have if their people had freedom of movement?
I am off to munch some granola 😉
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, What part of illegal don’t you understand? I’ll be the first to say that hispanics, and that is what we are mostly talking about, are hard working basically good people but they are still breaking the law. Also along with the honest folk there are gang members, drug runners and a whole lot of unsavory charactors. The legal taxpayer is also footing the bill for these people , don’t forget. Even if you are a nice person, if you don’t pay your taxes you are breaking the law. If you want amnesty then you should have been a bigwig liberal because it ain’t going to happen anytime soon.
This is a large problem with no simple answer but something has to be done on many fronts. Simply forgive and forget simply doesn’t cut it.
“How much power would tyrants have if their people had freedom of movement.”
There lies the crux.
Who is responsible for the mess these people are leaving? Could it be themselves? Who elected or allowed tyrants to govern?
Let’s take Canada for example – if it was solely up to them, what kind of government would Muslims want here? What would happen if they gained the majority vote? Think France in 20 years.
Generally, people get the governments they deserve.
Irwin, that is indeed the question. Do you think you deserve the government you have? or something better? Just think, we have a process whereby we can change the label of our gladhanding simps. What would you have the people in Indonesia do. It is somehwat blithe to suggest that just because we happened to be born in Canada instead of Darfur, that people who find themselves in the grips of a repressive regime somehow deserve what they get. In the final analysis, when I put myself in the position of the Mexican, I cannot say I would not subject myself to the risks involved in breaking the immigration laws in order that my children born on US soil would become citizens of that country. Very complicated sure, but I think that there is a real international/human rights/freedom argument that says that immigration laws can be looked at, in and of themsleves, to be immoral.
Lets allow true freedom to citizens of the world to choose how they are governed
You do surrender your property in that you surrender your money via taxes to support illegal immigrants. They don’t pay taxes. We do. You surrender the wages of native non-skilled workers as wages fall. Take a look at the construction industry here. Oh, and if you are a rancher/homeowner at the border your property value has been surrendered.
“How” is far different than “where”?, which is the crux of the matter. So, are you suggesting that we live in a borderless world? “anti-government liberaterian” means no laws, no sovereign nation state, no community that can defend it’s culture or economic system?
How much power would tirants have if their people had freedom of movement?
More, in Mexico’s case. You didn’t get my point. The ruling elite stay in power because the US solves their economic problems. If we had a real wall on the border, trust me, the marches would be in Mexico City directed at the corruption at home.
The poor will always be among us. Diluting the standard of living of all makes us all the poorer. What’s solved there? I can’t fix Africa and I can’t fix Latin America. At some point in time, their citizens need to deal with the rot where they live.
You are hardly a Libertarian, my friend. You’re closer in thinking with lefties who feel their way through life cluelessly without facts or principles.
“off to munch some granola”…..perfect exit. My bet is that you live off mom and dad’s allowance.
Jeff – how are immigration laws immoral?
What you don’t seem to realize, and what many of us are pointing out, is that the illegal immigrants from Mexico, both the hard workers and the criminals, are releasing MEXICO from its obligations to its citizens. It need not provide them with a sound economic infrastructure to build jobs; with education; with medical care; with roads, housing – anything. So, Mexico remains impoverished. And its citizens, rather than demanding change in Mexico – simply run, illegally, to the US – where the US citizens are obliged to support their needs.
This enables more and more corruption in Mexican gov’t – as they are released from accountability, by their citizens having an ‘out’.
You ask – how much power would tyrants have if their people have freedom of mov’t? As Penny points out – more. Because the people who need their gov’t, can’t get their gov’t to do anything..and so, if they can, they leave. That means that the tyrant doesn’t have to do a thing. He and his cronies can take taxes from the city people who remain…and..build roads and schools only for them..but not develop any economy for the majority of the population.
What do you mean by ‘true freedom to choose how they are governed’? Can Mexicans get their gov’t to develop an industrial infrastructure that enables the majority of them to get jobs? Or, is the economic infrastructure confined only to a small elite segment of the population, in the cities – and totally, completely, ignores the worker class – who have no jobs, no schools, no medical care…and get all of that in the USA.
Irwin, I don’t think that people get the government they deserve. No-one deserves, for example, the Taliban, or the Iranian gov’t or Stalin and etc.
Penny’s implication that, without the safety valve of illegal immigration to the U.S., there would be a revolution in Mexico is probably correct. What’s more, it would probably be a Communist revolution.
I doubt that the U.S. would welcome the development of Venezuela North right along the Rio Grand!
Mexico doesn’t wield as big an energy stick as Venezuela, but it is very important to the U.S.
Very complicated sure, but I think that there is a real international/human rights/freedom argument that says that immigration laws can be looked at, in and of themsleves, to be immoral.
Are you for real??
There isn’t a damn thing complicated about this issue. It’s real simple. It’s about laws. It’s about sovereign borders. Only a muddled mind like yours could make it complicated.
Who and what entity in your numbskulled universe are you invoking to arbitrate between the illegals and the objecting nation’s rights.
Tell us, Jeff, as a wage earner, taxpayer and property owner – hey, maybe you have some kids too – more about how your more “moral” borderless world would enhance your life and finances. We are all ears.
Penny, you have me all wrong my friend, I am a liberatarian much like what you describe, I oppose the government in my life to a great extent, I do believe in a set of minimalist laws that set about the rights and responsibilities of each citizen and do nothing more than that. I do understand that the governments of the fleeing people would be ambivilent in the short term, but the long term prospects for Mexico are dire, because the people with initiative, the human capital that is needed is leaving, only the dregs would remain if people had freedom of movement. I do not ask that my government protect me against myself nor protect my standard of living beyond my ability to compete with anyone in the world. I do not at all beleive that my standard of living is protected by the government, quite the opposite, if the government would perform only as an arbiter of justice, my standard of living would improve quite a bit. I did not say that I supported the idea of illegal imigrants, I think the government is going about it all wrong. I say c’mon in, live by our laws, contribute to our society. My suggestion is that everyone who wants to, can become a citizen; not that we have a government-created class of people who are living in the country and not sharing fully in citizenship.
btw, my parent’s allowance is not enough for me, so I am thinking of getting a paper route 😉
My suggestion is that everyone who wants to, can become a citizen
“everyone”? What if the US doesn’t want or need all of these “everyones”? Not everyone has a good motive in being here. Some are drug peddlers. Some have criminal backgrounds. Some have mental health and substance issues. Most are uneducated and unskilled, a big drag in a skill-based economy.
Our resources are finite.
“Everyone”? If you’re not a US citizen effected by this mess, I guess “everyone” is cheap and easy to wish upon us.
Grab your paper route fast, Jeff, an illegal may get there before you. Ooops. Your extra spending money will be gone.
Penny, not cheap nor easy. I don’t wish anything upon anyone. I just wish that if there was a way that everyone born of this world had the right to self determination. I have alwas been an internationalist and I understand that that puts me offside with most of the people I run into. Believe me, I understand the concerns that you raise, and I am not proposing this as a practical matter, even in my “numbskull universe”, I understand that the nanny state that our countries have adopted cannot sustain such a course of action. I was just proposing that there is a way of looking at this issue that does not force me to subject people to the conditions in which they were unlucky enough to be born into.
Zog- why would you assert that a possible revolution in Mexico would be communist? I strongly doubt that; no-one in their right mind now moves a country into communism, for it is well known that it is useless. Only small pockets of renegades opt for communism, and their income is usually tied to drug running and hostage taking (really valid communist economic endeavours!).
Your hypothesis that the US OUGHT to take the Mexican illegals, to prevent a presumed Mexican communist take-over – is, to say the least, pretty far-fetched.
Jeff – you are not interested in Mexico’s gov’t and citizens developing their economy. You are asking that the US citizens both remove the ‘excess’ Mexican population and provide work and services for that population – even though those illegals don’t pay any taxes towards the services that they use.
You seem to be a romanticist – not an internationalist.
And remember, if those illegal Mexicans become citizens, then – they pay taxes, and their wages must increase to pay those taxes..and that also means that they won’t have enough to send millions back home to Mexico, as they do now. So- even with higher wages – the now-legal Mexicans will be in trouble – because of that lost income formerly sent home to Mexico.
Mexico won’t like losing that income from those illegals…because it supports a large segment of the Mexican population for whom the Mexican gov’t doesn’t provide services, education, jobs.
Jeff, give it up.
Your “Libertarian”….”internationalist”…”immoral” borders….yadda, yadda, yadda…shtik is tiring.
“I was just proposing that there is a way of looking at this issue that does not force me to subject people to the conditions in which they were unlucky enough to be born into
Life’s not a zero sum game. What I have isn’t taken from another’s mouth. Got that. Life is tough. So are cancer, hurricanes, famines and all bad things visited upon the human condition. Being the virtucrat that you represent yourself to be, incapacitated because of misplaced guilt that the world’s problems aren’t solved, everyday is a bigger struggle for you than most. Ever crossed your mind that people in the Third World might have, in spite of political and economic deficits, fuller lives than twits who wallow in guilt and spout useless utopian dribble from their little towers of phoney virtue?
ET
O.K., perhaps “Communist” is a bit hyperbolic. Try “extreme left wing” and look at recent events in Venezuela and Bolivia as prime examples.
Even in Latin countries not in the grip of demagogic idealogues, the shift to the left has been pretty well defined lately. Could Mexico follow the trend? Damned right!
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that the U.S. OUGHT (capitalization yours) to take illegals to relieve internal pressure in Mexico, nor would I presume to do so.
I do believe that the potential for a real blow-up is one of the considerations which have disuaded the U.S. from taking any serious measures to stop the unarmed invasion of the country. The others are the more obvious ones – the addiction to cheap labour and pandering for votes among former illegals legalized in previous indulgences (and their millions of American-born
children). If large numbers of the current crop are also given the opportunity to become citizens, the party that does it will be assured of their support too.
Penny, “Life’s not a zero sum game. What I have isn’t taken from another’s mouth. Got that” I certainly do, I wonder if you do. If that were true universally, then there would be no problem with welcoming all immigrants. As it is, the problem with immigration is that as soon as someone is on Canadian or US soil, they somehow have a claim on my resources. I don’t agree that anyone has a claim to my resources, but my government sees fit to give a good portion of my income to other people. So don’t get all tied up, I know it cannot work, but what I am saying that if we were a truly just society, we would be able to have an immigration policy that was welcoming, just another artifact of the statist country we live in.
Thanks for your obvious concern, but my days are fine. No guilt here, just occasional frustration with the state. It has crossed my mind that some people in this world are perfectly happy where they are… I can even see some of them from my tower of phony virtue 🙂