Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much has been bantered about as to why none of our current presidential candidates seem to have a pro-enforcement stance on illegal immigration; and, some have wishfully suggested that the American people simply don't care much about the topic (while devoting a considerable amount of time to blogging about it).
Most of us on this board realize how illegal immigration affects so many aspects of life in America; and, I suspect that even those who don't fully understand the impact of illegal immigration don't want it or amnesty. So, why don't we have a pro-enforcement candidate? -Here are some possible explanations:
1. The media did its absolute best to promote the most liberal Republican candidates and to ignore or diminish the stature of real conservatives who would have done something about illegal immigration. Taking a "tough stance" on illegal immigration ensures marginalization by the liberal media.
2. Too many Republicans in the South are focused exclusively on abortion or their version of "Christian values" to recognize the significance of illegal immigration.
3. Corporate interests don't want an enforcement candidate.
4. The issue of illegal immigration is downplayed in the MSM so that many Americans who don't live in border states don't realize its effects on the economy, meanwhile the economy itself is a high priority. Illegal immigration is inappropriately divorced from the issue of our economic health.
5. There is no acceptable public forum in which to debate the issue honestly. The climate of political correctness vilifies any position that doesn't repeat the cliche about immigrants being nothing other than hard-workers who are only adding to our economy. The fact that we can't have an open public debate means that it's at the periphery of the political debate rather than being a primary focus.
If these factors were to change, I doubt anyone would even be able to run for president without being pro-enforcement.
Last edited by blue pekoe; 03-06-2008 at 12:45 PM..
Much has been bantered about as to why none of our current presidential candidates seem to have a pro-enforcement stance on illegal immigration; and, some have wishfully suggested that the American people simply don't care much about the topic (while devoting a considerable amount of time to blogging about it).
Most of us on this board realize how illegal immigration affects so many aspects of life in America; and, I suspect that even those who don't fully understand the impact of illegal immigration don't want it or amnesty. So, why don't we have a pro-enforcement candidate? -Here are some possible explanations:
1. The media did its absolute best to promote the most liberal Republican candidates and to ignore or diminish the stature of real conservatives who would have done something about illegal immigration. Taking a "tough stance" on illegal immigration ensures marginalization by the liberal media.
2. Too many Republicans in the South are focused exclusively on abortion or their version of "Christian values" to recognize the significance of illegal immigration.
3. Corporate interests don't want an enforcement candidate.
4. The issue of illegal immigration is downplayed in the MSM so that many Americans who don't live in border states don't realize its effects on the economy, meanwhile the economy itself is a high priority. Illegal immigration is inappropriately divorced from the issue of our economic health.
5. There is no acceptable public forum in which to debate the issue honestly. The climate of political correctness vilifies any position that doesn't repeat the cliche about immigrants being nothing other than hard-workers who are only adding to our economy. The fact that we can't have an open public debate means that it's at the periphery of the political debate rather than being a primary focus.
If these factors were to change, I doubt anyone would even be able to run for president without being pro-enforcement.
Great post!
I'm amazed at the MSM when you hardly hear anything about illegal immigration, and it's ALL OVER the internet. Someone who just watches TV or reads a paper has no idea about how bad illegal immigration is, although some finally found out when they marched last year with their Mexican flags.
5. There is no acceptable public forum in which to debate the issue honestly. The climate of political correctness vilifies any position that doesn't repeat the cliche about immigrants being nothing other than hard-workers who are only adding to our economy. The fact that we can't have an open public debate means that it's at the periphery of the political debate rather than being a primary focus.
.
This much is certainly beyond debate. The astonishing thing about the "controversy" is the fact that it's been allowed to become a controversy at ALL. Imagine a "controvesy" or a "debate" between the "anti-drunk-drivers" and the "pro-drunk-drivers"......or the "pro-unlicensed-contractors", as opposed to the "anti-unlicensed contractors".....or a raging debate between those promoting the right to "practice medicine without a license" and those AGAINST such a "right". The very idea is ABSURD, Yet that's what we have here....a raging, angry debate, involving every level of society from the most benighted 'trailer trash" to the Halls of Congress (AND the ivory towers of Academia) on "whether or not" we should enforce our immigration laws....that's right, we're DEBATING it.....and the fact that supposedly respectable people are debating it, is what's REALLY incredible. And, as the poster says, it's virtually impossible to even DISCUSS the subject in any rational way. (One is only left to believe that this MAY be the case, because it really isn't a "rational" subject)..
You folk continue to mis-state the issue. I would think we could chose to take a permissive stand with respect to immigration from and to Mexico. Take a North America as opposed to the rest of the world position. The EEC as a model.
Or we could take a stand that we will remain a tight and insular nation with reasonable rigid immigration laws and immigration law enforcement.
For a lot of reasons I would think the former makes more sense. This deals with issues such as security and social policy which might work better with the EEC model.
However what we could not do is 25 years of permissive policy and then decide we did not mean it. Certainly the failure to properly enforce the immigration laws after the late 80s amnesty has created the situation we now have.
I do not believe the situation is simply reversed. We have simply allowed these people to integrate into the society. They cannot be reversed without damage to them and, particularly, to their citizen children. There is no solution that both protects those children and forces the parents from the country. There are numerous lesser problems with a reversal of the prior policy.
I would still much prefer a policy to reverse the social conditions in Mexico that lead to the immigration. A reasonable "Marshall Plan" sort of action could reverse the trend. Send Mexicans back for the increasing opportunity in their home country.
But, if we are not willing to do this, we need some sort of a rational plan. Given the lack of support by the existing Hispanic community it will be a very difficult if not impossible task. Sealing the border fully is probably impossible. And if you do new mechanisms will appear. Internal enforcement with an unfriendly Hispanic community is also problematic. It likely could work only with draconian economic control...full control of cash for instance...or its practical discontinuance.
The task as proposed is pretty close to impossible. At best it is very impractical. We are not going to embark on such a course without a much more aggresive view than the population has. Mere disapproval of illegal immigration is irrelevant. You really have to be willing to take strong and unpleasant actions to end illegal immigration. The populaton has no taste for such a position.
We certainly can make it very hard to get across the border and then make it were they can't get work if they come with very serious fines for those who hire illegals.Then of course those caught have to know they never can live here legally if caught.I think the mood of the country is definely changing with regards to illegal immigration.
You folk continue to mis-state the issue. I would think we could chose to take a permissive stand with respect to immigration from and to Mexico. Take a North America as opposed to the rest of the world position. The EEC as a model.
Or we could take a stand that we will remain a tight and insular nation with reasonable rigid immigration laws and immigration law enforcement.
For a lot of reasons I would think the former makes more sense. This deals with issues such as security and social policy which might work better with the EEC model.
However what we could not do is 25 years of permissive policy and then decide we did not mean it. Certainly the failure to properly enforce the immigration laws after the late 80s amnesty has created the situation we now have.
I do not believe the situation is simply reversed. We have simply allowed these people to integrate into the society. They cannot be reversed without damage to them and, particularly, to their citizen children. There is no solution that both protects those children and forces the parents from the country. There are numerous lesser problems with a reversal of the prior policy.
I would still much prefer a policy to reverse the social conditions in Mexico that lead to the immigration. A reasonable "Marshall Plan" sort of action could reverse the trend. Send Mexicans back for the increasing opportunity in their home country.
But, if we are not willing to do this, we need some sort of a rational plan. Given the lack of support by the existing Hispanic community it will be a very difficult if not impossible task. Sealing the border fully is probably impossible. And if you do new mechanisms will appear. Internal enforcement with an unfriendly Hispanic community is also problematic. It likely could work only with draconian economic control...full control of cash for instance...or its practical discontinuance.
The task as proposed is pretty close to impossible. At best it is very impractical. We are not going to embark on such a course without a much more aggresive view than the population has. Mere disapproval of illegal immigration is irrelevant. You really have to be willing to take strong and unpleasant actions to end illegal immigration. The populaton has no taste for such a position.
Finally your reason for supporting massive illegal immigration becomes clear. You're a Robert Pastor-loving, NAU-supporting, globalist sovereignty-stealer.
Finally your reason for supporting massive illegal immigration becomes clear. You're a Robert Pastor-loving, NAU-supporting, globalist sovereignty-stealer.
Thank you for clearing that up...
Pastor is a theorist. I could not give less of a damn. Practicallly however the continent is much more protectable in a security sense than are the components.
We need not make a deal with Mexico. Just conquer them. Less trouble and expense than sealing the border. We did it once before and it proved quite straightforward.
There is already a de facto "North American Something". I can see little advantage in increasing the separation...other than making our jingoists happy.
You folk continue to mis-state the issue. I would think we could chose to take a permissive stand with respect to immigration from and to Mexico. Take a North America as opposed to the rest of the world position. The EEC as a model.
Or we could take a stand that we will remain a tight and insular nation with reasonable rigid immigration laws and immigration law enforcement.
For a lot of reasons I would think the former makes more sense. This deals with issues such as security and social policy which might work better with the EEC model.
However what we could not do is 25 years of permissive policy and then decide we did not mean it. Certainly the failure to properly enforce the immigration laws after the late 80s amnesty has created the situation we now have.
I do not believe the situation is simply reversed. We have simply allowed these people to integrate into the society. They cannot be reversed without damage to them and, particularly, to their citizen children. There is no solution that both protects those children and forces the parents from the country. There are numerous lesser problems with a reversal of the prior policy.
I would still much prefer a policy to reverse the social conditions in Mexico that lead to the immigration. A reasonable "Marshall Plan" sort of action could reverse the trend. Send Mexicans back for the increasing opportunity in their home country.
But, if we are not willing to do this, we need some sort of a rational plan. Given the lack of support by the existing Hispanic community it will be a very difficult if not impossible task. Sealing the border fully is probably impossible. And if you do new mechanisms will appear. Internal enforcement with an unfriendly Hispanic community is also problematic. It likely could work only with draconian economic control...full control of cash for instance...or its practical discontinuance.
The task as proposed is pretty close to impossible. At best it is very impractical. We are not going to embark on such a course without a much more aggresive view than the population has. Mere disapproval of illegal immigration is irrelevant. You really have to be willing to take strong and unpleasant actions to end illegal immigration. The populaton has no taste for such a position.
I think the population has VERY aggressive views about illegal immigration - we are fed up. The problem is our so-called "representatives" who are so disconnected with the people that they won't do what WE want. Apparently, these elites like McCain, Kennedy, etc. think they know better than us what to do. They KNOW what we want, but won't take care of it.
Also, they are politically correct lily-livered yellow-bellied cowards. They don't have the gazumbas to do what they're supposed to do.
I think the population has VERY aggressive views about illegal immigration - we are fed up. The problem is our so-called "representatives" who are so disconnected with the people that they won't do what WE want. Apparently, these elites like McCain, Kennedy, etc. think they know better than us what to do. They KNOW what we want, but won't take care of it.
Also, they are politically correct lily-livered yellow-bellied cowards. They don't have the gazumbas to do what they're supposed to do.
Which of course says the issue was not important enough to play a definitive role in the coming election. Similarly the economy and war are very likely to elect a Congress that will tend toward some form of amnesty. Note that one can solve the illegal issue very quickly by making those illegal legal.
Which of course says the issue was not important enough to play a definitive role in the coming election. Similarly the economy and war are very likely to elect a Congress that will tend toward some form of amnesty. Note that one can solve the illegal issue very quickly by making those illegal legal.
Sorry, we've been there, done that back in 1986 and now it's expected by Mexican Nationals and the elites who have benefited from the catastrophe known as amnesty. As a result of this blunder, we are financially and fast becoming a morally bankrupt, multicultural cesspool filled with 3rd grade educated, over abundantly breeding, anti-assimilating poverty stricken Mexican nationals.
I'll take a merger with Canada with whom we have far more in common any day. I think I speak for the majority of Americans in saying that an open border policy with the over populating, organized crime wave known as Mexico is by no means beneficial, nor worth America's consideration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
