56 Responses to “A 'Turning Point?'”

1. eh Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 3:07 am

   Yeah, the kind of “reform” you seem to have in mind will surely be yet another ‘turning point’, but in the wrong direction. Since most immigrants to America today are Hispanic (this is especially true of illegals), and when compared to the existing US population it is a fact that Hispanics are, on average, 1) significantly more likely to be criminal, and 2) significantly less likely to succeed academically, e.g. to attend and graduate from college (some might suggest this explains why the nations they leave behind are…well, nations you don’t really regret leaving behind), and these disparities persist for generations, indeed there is zero evidence they ever diminish significantly, some of us are wondering how it can possibly be a good idea for a nation to import, en masse, a population of people with such a comparative demographic profile? Aren’t we just importing another ethnic underclass? Do you really want even more American communities to have to form gang task forces in their police departments? Do you really want even more ‘bad schools’? Do you, a good liberal to be sure, really want to continue to shit on America’s own unskilled, especially its Blacks, by massively importing economic competition for them? And a final question: Regarding thinking and analysis on this issue, are you capable of anything other than the most shallow, politically correct knee jerk reaction, as exhibited here? One can acknowledge the emotional, human side of this issue without sticking one’s logical head in the sand about all of the obvious problems and coming up with some weepy ‘argument’ about the ‘undocumented’.

   The only ‘reform’ needed is to begin enforcing the immigration laws we already have so that more illegals will decide to self-deport, and others will be discouraged from joining them here.

   And we need to stop granting citizenship to any kid who happens to be born on US soil.

   Otherwise what is obviously a developing catastrophe for America will only get worse.

2. Cenizo in Austin Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 4:50 am

   There are three obstacles to immigration reform: 1) presidential inaction; 2) congressional dithering; and 2) the virulent racism (ooops, I mean “comparative demographic determinism”) of a small but vocal portion of the populace. You can study and act on facts, or you can press the fear button. Your choice.

3. Jim Russell Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 6:34 am

   “You can study and act on facts, or you can press the fear button. Your choice.”

   What button did you press to bolster your argument
   Cenizo? Jeez

   We have laws, passed by the representatives of the people of our country, that we expect to be obeyed, and if not, enforced with consequences. Because our immigration laws have not been for many years, for various reasons on both the Republican business lobby and the Democratic worker labor side, illegal border crossing has become a money making business in of itself and is now almost out of enforcement control.

   Just another example of government’s incompetence in doing almost anything that does not result in more income for them, like taxes and fines collection.

   The Katrina dikes at the borders have been breached. If only Mexico had enough money to by our border security, at least one our greedy international business in the USA could make a profit. Then after their tax lawyers mined all the tax avoidance loopholes, we would end up with something. Pathetic.

4. John S. Meade Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 7:22 am

   “…what Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called “the real enchilada”: ”

   I give Kennedy credit for being a voice of the unheard but I chuckle at his choice of words. Now admit it, if George Bush had used a common food product generally associated with a certain ethnic group he would be called out of touch and other negatives.

5. Jim Russell Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 7:40 am

   I thought you were referring to other times you could picture him uttering similar words after exposing himself to his nephews girlfriends.

6. Mark A. York Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 8:05 am

   I seriously doubt they would surface and pay the fines. There would be those who would, and many more who would continue to work illegally. No, without employer monitoring it won’t work.

7. Michael Balter Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 8:36 am

   “Hispanics are, on average, 1) significantly more likely to be criminal, and 2) significantly less likely to succeed academically, e.g. to attend and graduate from college (some might suggest this explains why the nations they leave behind are…well, nations you don’t really regret leaving behind),”

   This from eh is just blatant racist stereotyping of an entire group as should be obvious to everyone here. Some of the other comments avoid engaging with the legislation which Marc’s post describes and which is now very much on the table. For the racists, I remind them of the old adage, move over or we’ll move on over you. For the others, please present an alternative to what seems like a reasonable piece of legislation with bipartisan sponsorship.

8. IllegalImmigrationNews Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 8:47 am

   Kennedy’s “enchilada” remark is oddly similar to earlier comments from Mexico’s former foreign minister Jorge Castaneda. Castaneda also threatened that he was informing his consulates to “begin propagating militant activities” inside the U.S. Any kind of immigration “reform” will give Mexico even more political power inside the U.S.

   The immigration “reform” mentioned above will flood the U.S. with millions of new immigrants, legal and illegal. One estimate is 36 million over the next 8 years.

   The agency that would oversee a “guest” worker scheme is the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. They already have a tremendous backlog of applicants that they can’t deal with, and according to the GAO they’re unable to deal with fraud and won’t have a fraud protection program until 2010.

   So, we’d undertake a huge “guest” worker scheme that would barely be able to be administered and would be subject to incredible fraud.

   And, those “guests” will never go home.

   They’ll have U.S. citizen children, they’ll become part of the community, etc. etc. Even if they’re called “guest” workers now, there’s no way that we’ll be able to deport those who refuse to leave. Those same interests that promote illegal immigration now will continue to do so, and those same corporations that profit off illegal immigration will continue to do so.

   In brief, this new immigration “reform” scam would be a repeat of the 1986 amnesty. That amnesty was one of the reasons why we have millions of illegal aliens here now.

   Let’s learn from our mistakes rather than repeating them.

9. Mark A. York Says:
   March 17th, 2006 at 9:28 am

   Until someone mentions overpopulation the argument is moot. Resources are finite as is space. Humans are not.

10. BobH Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 10:07 am

    Thanks to Mark A. York for bringing the discussion down to ground level, where it belongs. It’s fine to talk in the abstract about immigration and its control, and about what might happen in the future. But what about RIGHT NOW, when (for just one example, but a good one) the Los Angeles Unified School District high school in which my wife teaches, built to accommodate maybe 2,500 students, has to be on a horrible, counterproductive year-round schedule to accommodate 5,000 kids, many of whom (and no, I don’t know how many, but it’s a LOT) are illegal immigrants or children of illegal immigrants? Who’s gonna PAY for all this?

11. Mark A. York Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 10:32 am

    There are 3 million uninsured legal residents of Los Angeles County relying on the county healthcare system. I think illegals have been denied access now, but I’m not sure. I’ll check and report back to be certain. Hospitals serving minority communities have closed for lack of funding. How can adding more people who lack funds help?

12. patrick neid Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 10:45 am

    all these articles, position papers etc are all big circle jerks. i’ve been reading these essays for thirty years. we all know the solution. we are just to pc to do it.

    1. build a double wide 15 foot fence with razor wire down the middle. access road with line of sight cameras. thank you east germany.

    2. after the fence is completed green cards for all illegals. 5-10 years to citizenship. any arrest, for even spitting on the sidewalk, and over the fence you go. no family members allowed to immigrate here during the green card period.

    everybody will be happy that there won’t be any gang bangers left in site. the police will be very happy that their arrests count. the new immigrants will be model residents or else and the current citizens will be forced to face today’s existing reality.

    sure folks will be upset that breaking the law is being rewarded. so what. hey moronski, if you leave the border unattended people are going to cross it. let congress feel like they are doing something by shaking down the illegals for a one time citizenship fee. whatever.

    all this other talk is just ‘jib jab’……….

    and finally the best result—with no outlet for its people mexico will finally have the economic/social revolution its been avoiding for over a 100 years.

13. Mark A. York Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 10:46 am

    Well apparently I was wrong. There has been no change in policy. Illegals are elligible for everthing without charge or asked for status information. Make of that what you will. It is what it is, but I remember my interview with the eligibility worker and the dialysis of Mexican nationals at Olive View. It’s a door wide open.

    http://www.ladpss.org/dpss/homepage/immigrant_info.cfm

14. EnforcementNow Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 11:02 am

    The majority of the “enforcement” provisions in both the Sensenbrenner and Specter bills are more punitive regurgitations of provisions mandated by the IIRAIRA and AEDPA of 1996. This draconian attempt at immigration reform is often overlooked in most discussions. Proponents of “enforcement-only” legislation always present the disaster of the IRC amnesty in 1986 as a foundation for their argument, but guilefully exclude the fact that the “enforcement-only” approach of the IIRAIRA and AEDPA has also failed miserably.

    Similar to todays political and social climate, the IIRAIRA and AEDPA was ushered in amidst an anti-immigrant wave and fear of terrorism stirred up by the Oklahoma City bombing. The act mandated:

    1) An employment verification system and fines for employers who hire illegals. Albeit, the fines are laughable and the system is voluntary. However, these shortcomings could be easily addressed without a complete overhaul of our system.

    2) Expedited removal of illegals and the end of “catch and release” for OTM’s. Recently, Michael Chertoff made it clear that the days of “catch and release” are over and has already began to enforce this law.

    3) Indefinate detention of illegals who can’t be removed as well as additional detention space. Again, Chertoff also stated that the funding for 4,000 more detention beds had been allocated in the budget. This probably isn’t enough, but this could be easily addressed without wasting time trying to pass a bill. Also, KBR has been given a contract to construct more detention centers.

    4) More secure immigration documents.

    5) The U.S. VISIT system at all ports of entry. Chertoff also stated that this system was being ramped up.

    6) Voluntary agreements with local law enforcement agencies that would allow them to enforce immigration law. Nothing in the Sensenbrenner or Specter bill would make this mandatory.

    7) The release of criminal aliens into the custody of the INS upon completion of jail and prison terms.

    The limiting of due process in removal proceedings for immigrants (both legal and illegal). In this respect, the Sensenbrenner and Specter bills both continue to gut due process and fairness under law.

    9) The expansion of the definition of an “aggravated felony” to include minor crimes such as shoplifting. Prior to 1996, an “aggravated felony” was reserved for serious crimes like murder and other violent crimes where the sentence imposed was 5 years or more. The IIRAIRA and AEDPA also made this change retroactive.

    10) The elimination of any form of discretion or relief from deportation for any immigrant (legal or illegal) with an “aggravated felony” conviction.

    11) The increase of border patrol agents and technology at the border.

    12) It’s already a crime to be illegally in the country or to aid and abet anyone who is.

    So what happened? One would think that with all these laws on the books we would have reined in our immigration system. The fact is that these provisions are not being enforced or funded properly in order to work. Now, Congress stands ready to institute tougher versions of these laws claiming that the current system doesn’t work. Maybe if they actually enforced the laws on the books they would change their minds and turn their attention to the more pressing issue which is what to do with the 12 - 20 million people illegally in the country instead of wasting time with all this political grandstanding as they try to reinvent the wheel.

    As for the IIRAIRA and AEDPA, it just shows us that the laws arn’t what are failing us. 1986 and 1996 were disasters due to our inability and unwillingness to enforce these laws. All we have accomplished with these acts is the continual degradation of due process and fairness in our immigration system. Along the way we have left a trail of broken American families and heartbreak as we deported individuals for small crimes committed far in their past even if the crime was not then defined as an “aggravated felony” and regardless of having lived an exemplary life since.

    I agree that we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. However, if we truly believe in the latter then we must also subscribe to justice, fairness, and due process. Something that both the Sensenbrenner and Specter bills are missing. I believe that before we rush to make things worse, we stop and demand that our current immigration laws be corrected and enforced. We don’t need “enforcement-first” we need “enforcement-now”. That way Congress can focus on what to do with the millions of illegal aliens.

15. patrick neid Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 11:26 am

    this is just more jib jab.

    without a fence there is no enforcement of any kind short of gestapo tactics against small business operators. when you find yourself in a hole stop digging. a complete fence stops the inflow. that is a must. after that you then face the reality of the 10/15 million illegals that are here–they are staying! they are becoming citizens! during that time frame if they break the law above a misdemeanor they are gone for being two time losers. the first time was when they broke the law coming here. the fence keeps them out permanently. now they just walk back in.

    this is not a complicated issue. your common sense tells you that. occam’s razor………..

16. David Cummings Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    “Who’s gonna PAY for all this?”

    Well, as Harvard public policy professor George J. Borjas of the John F. Kennedy School of Government suggests, why not the businesses that encourage them to come here? In the midwest, the meat packing plant IBP (now owned by Farmland) would pay out of their own pockets millions of much appreciated dollars to each school district where their plants were at on a yearly basis. Hospitals and health care? The real health care crisis lies in the fact that the U.S. has the most inequitable and corrupt health care system in the world, where 40% of patient costs are spent exclusively on billing paperwork.

    Seriously, do we really want to watch seven year old children dragged crying from the schools that they attend because they are “illegal?” Do we want to deprive people of services because of this?

    In 1848, the U.S. annexed California, Arizona, New Mexico; all of the modern southwest away from Mexico in a war that any historian worth his salt will tell you was in pursuit of manifest destiny. There were some notable objectors to that war (including a younger Abraham Lincoln, as a budding congressman from Illinois), but most simply bought Pres. Polk’s story about Mexicans coming over the border to attack innocent Americans (though when asked to prove that, no one could).

    So, in the case of California, Mexicans are being deported from a land that arguably was never the truly rightful possession of the U.S. government anyway.

    Of course, I am not advocating that we give it back, but at the same time it is hypocritical for us - unless we are non-native Americans - to be chastising people for wanting to come here to make a better life.

    Really reforming the system in a fair and truly effective way requires reformation of the power structure of this country, including distribution of capital and resources. This is why Republicans and (most) Democrats alike are, and never will be, completely serious about humanely solving the immigration challenge.

    Personally, I would almost be in favor of granting citizenship (and depriving it from current American citizens) based on a national citizenship test: “Can you locate Iraq on a map?” “How many states are located in America?” “What is the capital of the U.S.?” “Who is the Vice-President?”

    After all, who deserves citizenship more - Beavis and Butthead, or Baba-Looey?

17. Mark A. York Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    “So, in the case of California, Mexicans are being deported from a land that arguably was never the truly rightful possession of the U.S. government anyway.”

    And there you have it. This is what it’s really about with far fringe liberals. The sort of folks the wingnuts love to hold up to the slaughter.

    Count me out.

    “but at the same time it is hypocritical for us - unless we are non-native [?] Americans - to be chastising people for wanting to come here to make a better life.”

    So only the mongolian first-wave should be allowed to stay? And anyone is else is a hypocrite? What about the ancestors of slaves? Hypocrites all I suppose. Wow. Cummings never ceases to amaze with his Noble Savage hypothesis. This really as example of white self-loathing.

    As I showed the welfare road is already open so let the innundation roll on. Nobody has to pay now. It’s all borrowed.

18. IllegalImmigrationNews Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    “So, in the case of California, Mexicans are being deported from a land that arguably was never the truly rightful possession of the U.S. government anyway.”

    According to a poll done in Mexico of Mexicans, 58% think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.

    Let’s say that people like Cooper and Instapundit get their wish and 1 million more illegal aliens move from Mexico to California.

    That means that over half a million new residents of California think the land where they lives belongs to Mexico instead of the U.S.

    Obviously, that’s an extraordinarily foolish thing to allow to happen. Even grade school children can see that’s a stupid idea.

    Yet, Cooper and Instapundit support allowing all those people to resettle their lands without making sure that they first recognize that California is part of the U.S. and not part of Mexico.

    And, regarding the comment above about not enforcing the laws, the reason that isn’t done is because of political corruption. It would be nice if the Dems could gain the IQ and other things necessary to come out against illegal immigration and use talking about corruption to do it, but it would be very difficult since they’re just as corrupt.

19. Mark A. York Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

    The idea that you can compare two centuries without regard of context will always register false. Mark Twain self-published is an example. 1870 ain’t 2005 and he was already a best-seller at the time. Context.

    Expansion is a reality for human movement. The whole southwest was conquered by Spain as a part of the South American conquest. Hence the term “Hispanic.” Well, America removed Spain as we did the English and the French. That’s what new countries do. The border is a natural division. Why is it that the Gadsden Purchase did not include all of Chihuahua? You can’t rewind the film I’m afraid. Relativists and racsist nativists don’t know the difference.

20. David Cummings Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 9:31 pm

    “Relativists and racsist nativists don’t know the difference.”

    “Noble Savage”

    “white self-loathing.”

    I don’t think its nutty to try and brainstorm alternatives to building a wall around America, or deporting families and individuals from their homes and schools….I am not trying to sound all sixties and stuff, but why is there so much hate here?

21. David Cummings Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 9:55 pm

    It is ironic that the name of Mark Twain - a prominent member of the Anti-Imperialist League who wrote essays against manifest destiny and U.S. expansion - would be mentioned in an argument for the odd notion that “expansion is a reality for human movement.” Some might call it “chutzpah.”

    “And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.” –Mark Twain, New York Herald, 15 October 1900

22. David Cummings Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pm

    “What about the ancestors of slaves?”

    Historically speaking, the ancestors of slaves might be interested in knowing that the people who really pushed for this war - “human movement” - were pro-slavery expansionists. Mexico did not recognize the slavery of any human being; the U.S. (excluding free states) and Texas, however, did. If Mexico had prevailed in the war, it would have meant immediate freedom for slaves in Texas, and in those small settlements in the rest of the southwest.

23. David Cummings Says:
    March 17th, 2006 at 10:43 pm

    I might add that most of the north was against the war, yankees resented sending their sons to fight in this pro-slavery, pro-imperial war.

24. Michael Balter Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 12:23 am

    “I am not trying to sound all sixties and stuff, but why is there so much hate here?”

    Thanks Dave for putting your finger on nativist essence of so much of the immigration debate. Immigration is here to stay and the main question is how we are going to adapt to it.

25. Jim Russell Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 7:20 am

    “If Mexico had prevailed in the war, it would have meant immediate freedom for slaves in Texas..”

    Good point Dave. Now back to the subject at hand. We can see a hundred years hence the descendents of these free slave would be having to join the descendents of Indian Mexicans risking their life and life’s saving trying to get out of Texas.
    Stop this relentless criticism of your country. A country that has freed more people in the world than any other in it’s short existence, that is exceptionally generous. and clearly where the majority of people in the world want to live if they can, or can’t(the problem at hand).

    This is the main reason we must have immigration laws. The kind that controls the influx for common sense assimilation purposes and to evaluate any negative impact on our security and its debt base.

    “Immigration is here to stay and the main question is how we are going to adapt to it.”

    Good point Mike. Most all here agree with that. Now back to the subject at hand. What is your ideas to stop the illegal immigration into our country. Jeez….

26. Sylvanus Kwame Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 7:58 am

    Is anybody saying anything about those of us here LEGALLY who have been struggling for years to get permanent residency and citizenship but have been stymied by myriad of insensible regulations which only serve to exhaust the limits of our temporary LEGAL stay and make us become ‘ILLEGAL’.

    For example I was denied permision to adjust status from temporary residency to permanent residency on a technicallity: Even though I had been an employee for Organization A for over 20 years overseas, I was denied because I had been working for Organization B, for under 2 years. The two organizations recognize each other and my membership in both; they belong to the same industry-religious, and there is an sponsorship agreement between the two concerning my temporary assignment in Organization B.

    In all these debates on Immigration reform, those of us who are not permanent residents are sometimes treated as if we are also ‘illegals’.

    Please shed some light on the plight of those with LEGAL status who will otherwise become ILLEGAL by a glut of impractical regulations in the present system. The effect of unnecessary denials of otherwise law abiding, tax paying, non-permanent residency is creating more backlogs in the system.

27. Mark A. York Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 8:45 am

    Yeah to hear Cummings tell it Amercia is the the worst idea in human history. I’ve never been much of a flag waver even with participants stretching back to the American revolution and beyond, patriots all, but this is enough to convert me.

    “What is [sic] your ideas to stop the illegal immigration into our country. Jeez….”

    I’m with Russell on this. What are your ideas Michael, other than let them all in? The lifeboat effect won’t work. It’ll sink the ship. Of course that would require high birthrate minority groups to self-examine. I won’t hold my breath. America will come to the rescue.

    As for Twain, while that is true he wrote of the Phillipines on that point, but not of the American West to my knowledge concerning our manifest destiny between the coasts. Seelctive cherry-picked arguments are common these days. Legality matters as the last poster shows.

28. David Cummings Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 11:23 am

    “Stop this relentless criticism of your country.”

    You take what I say out of context (or twist it) if you call it criticism, Russell. I am not criticizing my “country,” I am criticizing polticians, their hypocrisy, and their refusal to deal with this issue in a fair way.

    For crying out loud, the people of Texas (a solid “red state”) are more tolerant than you and York on this issue. Sheesh.

    America is and always has been a melting pot. Get used to it.

    “negative impact on our security”

    Millions have come through Mexico, and to this day the only security threat that has even come close to fruition happened on the Canadian border one time. But, we don’t hear about that.

29. David Cummings Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 11:27 am

    “he wrote of the Phillipines on that point, but not of the American West to my knowledge concerning our manifest destiny between the coasts.”

    Twain was a member of the Anti-Imperialist League and wrote essays against American expansion in general. I am not going to bother posting any links, it is superfluous. The information is readily available if you care to look. Anyway you slice it, it is ironic that his name would be invoked in an argument like that.

30. David Cummings Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 11:32 am

    “Yeah to hear Cummings tell it Amercia is the the worst idea in human history.”

    I will put my service to my country up against yours any day.

    Yours is a typical jingoistic comeback: if you suggest ways of solving problems facing all Americans, you hate it. It is as insipid as saying that I am against the people of Iowa. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

31. Mark A. York Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Have at it. Criticsim is what the country is about but christ on a cracker not everything is either bad or our fault. You’re for giving the West back to Mexico. Fine but don’t expect people to agree on merit. Please. Get a grip man and take logic course. You’re continually off the rails. I’m afraid Bush is to blame for much of this. His stereotypical behavior makes it all too easy for folks like you to repeat the same tired imperial lines. Try some original thought for once. Real solutions please. You have none.

32. Mark A. York Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    “Anyway you slice it, it is ironic that his name would be invoked in an argument like that.”

    Not at all it assumes one century is no different than another; conditions are the same. That is contexless which is why self-publishers use him all the time, falsely yet he had what they don’t: bestseller status and still he went broke. His politics has nothing to do with this issue as it exists now. The realities, like in the publishing example are worlds apart, except to those who won’t see it.

33. David Cummings Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    “Criticsim is what the country is about but christ on a cracker not everything is either bad or our fault.”

    And not everything is a “right” vs. “left” issue.

    Since no one else has pointed it out, can I bring everyone’s attention to the 800 pound pachyderm standing in the room? Mexicans would not be flowing over the border by the millions if it wasn’t for Washington’s interventionist, neo-liberal economic policies toward Mexico and other third world countries. These policies are, frankly, undemocratic, unChristian, and, to be perfectly honest, anti-capitalist.

    You see, Mexico’s agricultural base used to be its bread and butter - more so than tourism, manufacturing, you name it. My ex-fiancee (who died from breast cancer in 2002) came from Mexico on a college student visa in 1999 when I met her. Her father Santo - who I still phone and write to regularly - was a corn farmer in the 1960’s to the early 1990’s. He and his family had to scrape and save, but they were able to eke out a living growing corn for Tortilla manufacturers (as was the case with millions of other Mexican farmers, workers, and harvesters dependent on the corn crop).

    However, American policy makers for the past several decades have designed a global system in which unfair tariff protections and obscene subsidies given to American agribusiness and farmers has driven Mexican agriculture into the ground, including Santo’s once thriving 800+ acre farm.

    This violates not only the spirit of so-called “Free Trade,” but it goes against everything that Adam Smith - the father of capitalism - talked about in his masterpiece, “The Wealth of Nations.”

    Furthermore, we hear so much about how American businesses should be able to locate to other countries because, they say, “capital is by the rules of classical capitalism, fluid rather than rigid.” Well, that’s true, but they leave out a crucial second point: Smith said the same thing about labor.

    This issue is being called “the immigration problem.” This implies that this is a problem that only lies with the Mexicans, and not the U.S. - “its a problem with them, not with us.” This is what I seem to hear Jim Russell and you saying to me.

    But all the name calling (”anti-American,” “hate-America first”) won’t change the fact that what we have here is as much an ECONOMIC problem as it is anything. Until we acknowledge it as such (and Marc Cooper, I am sure that you probably have….your stance on immigration is quite similar to mine concerning undocumented workers), then you will never be able to constructively confront this issue which affects not just us but the world around us.

    Again, I ask - where does all this hate come from? Would J.D. Hayworth (whose state of Arizona is a huge beneficiary of U.S. economic protectionism) or any of you be able to look at young family fleeing the mafia-ridden wasteland of Mexico and be able to look at them straight in the eye to say, “You have no business being here, go back to where you came from?”

    As bad as Bush has been to help continue this economic neo-liberalism in violation of Adam Smith’s principles, Clinton was as bad. In fact, some have said that he and Gore were the architects of this racket. When Florida tomato growers complained about the cheaper (and much better tasting) tomatoes coming in from Mexico, Clinton - with his eye on Florida’s electoral votes for his relection campaign, used the power of Washington to intervene, and he established market barriers that prevented Mexican tomatoes from saturating the market after that….driving more Mexican farmers into poverty, or deeper poverty.

    “Try some original thought for once. Real solutions please. You have none.”

    I have said over and over again that immigration needs to be addressed on a global context. The other developed countries need to get together with the south and establish economic reforms, as well as guidelines for immigration. Until immigration is acknowledged as an economic problem, though, we are left with the typical redneck solutions which don’t solve anything: Border walls, deprivation of medical and education services, shooting border crossers, etc.

    If those are your kind of solutions, Mark York, then I would respectfully suggest that you are the one who is being unoriginal. It is also apparent that your inability to analyze problems objectively and with insight is the primary reason for why you have been denied journalism jobs - not your age.

34. Mark A. York Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    I don’t know any newspaper who would print this drivel you just outlined. The tomatoe conspiracy. Yeah right. All you have is personal attacks. Moreover, you have a family bias which makes you completely unobjective. No one has called you anti-American but you clearly don’t like the place and blame our business practices for virtually every problem in the world most of which, stem from ecological devastation and overpopulation.

    Your arguments are nothing but bias. It’s fantasyland. The solution is to fix Mexico.

    “fleeing the mafia-ridden wasteland of Mexico and be able to look at them straight in the eye to say, “You have no business being here, go back to where you came from?”

    Yes. Otherwise they will face face up and fix their problems. They’ll just keep bailing out. Anyone who doesn’t think their labor drives down wages is clueless. For me it’s just a space problem more than anything else.

    As for my journalism career, my clips don’t cover this particular issue. I acknowledge your uinsult though unfounded as it is. You’re so far in the wrong there’s no rope long enough. Stay there and quit talking to me. Good riddance.

35. Mark A. York Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 6:47 pm

    “fleeing the mafia-ridden wasteland of Mexico and be able to look at them straight in the eye to say, “You have no business being here, go back to where you came from?”

    I forgot to source this. Appeal to pity fallacy.

    http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/logic.htm#misericordiam

36. Thurston Says:
    March 18th, 2006 at 9:52 pm

    Thank you, David Cummings, for being the first to point out so eloquently and brilliantly that dirty little secret that very few people want to admit - that immigration problems are economic problems. Fantastically stated.

37. Jim Russell Says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 6:38 am

    “Mexicans would not be flowing over the border by the millions if it wasn’t for Washington’s interventionist,….”

    No,,, what he is saying Thurston, that it is the US A’s fault. Not just Mexico’s problems but his and the whole damn world’s.

    I don’t know how he arrived at this point. My guess is indoctrination from an early age in one of our left wing Universities, in front of anti-capitalist
    professors, subsidized by the golden goose they all want to kill.

38. Mark A. York Says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 8:58 am

    Yeah imagine: it’s the economy stupid. Duh. Cummings is most negative ideologue I’ve seen in quite a while. USA=culprit in every case is not anlaysis. In the first throws of globalization the real victim is the American worker. They won’t be able to sink low enough to survive the lowering of the US standard of living to third world levels.

39. David Cummings Says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 10:27 am

    What a couple of silly bollocks. Russell and York, instead of refuting what I have said about neo-liberal economic policies (which, as I have stated, are actually ANTI-capitalist), instead depend on character assissination. Take your own advice, York, and don’t communicate with me unless you can refute my arguments, or refrain from character attacks. I don’t wish to waste my time with tosspots who don’t wish to engage in meaningful dialogue.

    I will put my service to my country - the greatest country in the world - up against these two curmudgeons anytime. Now buzz off trolls.

40. David Cummings Says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 10:33 am

    “In the first throws of globalization the real victim is the American worker.”

    The victime who is hurt the worst? The out of work American worker? This is the last time that I will communicate with this person, but I have to say that this ridiculous statement is an example of why this person really doesn’t merit my attention. I cannot even take a person seriously who states this.

41. David Cummings Says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 10:45 am

    Let this be a lesson to you, kiddos: Beware of being out of work. You will find yourself “worse off” than the millions of Africans with AIDS and without vaccines.

42. Mark A. York Says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 11:31 am

    What a coincidence Russell is my father’s name. All he did was walk fron Utah Beach to Buchenwald.

    “Now buzz off trolls.”

    Perhaps DDT would help? Or fire to burn up all that straw you’re throwing around. Another appeal to pity. I guess that’s the take home lesson in debating with Cummings. False comparisons where there’s always a victim worse off than another, and it’s always the fault of some Schmuck out of work in Dubuque, or Skowhegan. Indoctination indeed. And at our expense to boot.

43. Mark A. York Says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 11:33 am

    http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-hs-ai-home.htm

44. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad Says:
    March 20th, 2006 at 7:08 am

    Great progress — but the $1000 fines are too small.
    I think $40 000, minus taxes paid, is more like it, and more feasible, politically.
    And “sell” immigration work visas for $20 000 to any and all who want them.

    And fine employers of illegals $40 000 for each one — with bounties payable to those who report the employers.

    But it doesn’t look like it will happen this year; though it might!

45. patrick neid Says:
    March 20th, 2006 at 6:09 pm

    here, sign this petition and do something instead of yapping…..

    http://www.weneedafence.com/

    as i said earlier………..

    March 17th, 2006 at 10:45 am
    all these articles, position papers etc are all big circle jerks. i’ve been reading these essays for thirty years. we all know the solution. we are just to pc to do it.

    1. build a double wide 15 foot fence with razor wire down the middle. access road with line of sight cameras. thank you east germany.

    2. after the fence is completed green cards for all illegals. 5-10 years to citizenship. any arrest, for even spitting on the sidewalk, and over the fence you go. no family members allowed to immigrate here during the green card period.

    everybody will be happy that there won’t be any gang bangers left in site. the police will be very happy that their arrests count. the new immigrants will be model residents or else and the current citizens will be forced to face today’s existing reality.

    sure folks will be upset that breaking the law is being rewarded. so what. hey moronski, if you leave the border unattended people are going to cross it. let congress feel like they are doing something by shaking down the illegals for a one time citizenship fee. whatever.

    all this other talk is just ‘jib jab’……….

    and finally the best result—with no outlet for its people mexico will finally have the economic/social revolution its been avoiding for over a 100 years.

    and again………

    March 17th, 2006 at 11:26 am

    without a fence there is no enforcement of any kind short of gestapo tactics against small business operators. when you find yourself in a hole stop digging. a complete fence stops the inflow. that is a must. after that you then face the reality of the 10/15 million illegals that are here–they are staying! they are becoming citizens! during that time frame if they break the law above a misdemeanor they are gone for being two time losers. the first time was when they broke the law coming here. the fence keeps them out permanently. now they just walk back in.

    this is not a complicated issue. your common sense tells you that. occam’s razor………..

    ——————————————–

46. Jim Russell Says:
    March 21st, 2006 at 5:56 am

    “…..without a fence there is no enforcement of any kind short of gestapo tactics against small business operators.”

    Gestapo tactics are not necessary Patrick. Apparently small and big business still have no way to verify valid social security numbers, and in our high tech internet age.

    This has to be the ‘first’ step before any other in control of illegal migrants. With a valid SS database, it becomes an employers responsibility to verify only valid people are employed or hired, backed up up with stiff enforcement and fines.

    This must be followed up with an easier way migrant workers can get temporary work permits to satisfy the seasonal requirements of US employers. Permanent citizenship must follow our current or revised immigration laws, starting with ‘getting in line’.

47. patrick neid Says:
    March 21st, 2006 at 10:27 am

    Jim

    i still say you are putting the cart before the horse. the majority of all illegals work in the underground economy. social security cards mean nothing. until you control the border you control nothing. in fact, with no disrepect intended, your solution/ideas continue in a long line that guarantees nothing ever gets done. i put it to you and others, why are you against a secure fenced border?

    your social security (SS) is gestapo–you are talking about an enormous government intervention in the workplace, fining and locking up possibly tens of thousands of small business owners throwing tens of thousands onto the streets with its attendent crime because the federal government has refused to enforce the border over the last forty years letting this problem fester. your remedy– you want the individual citizen to shoulder the penalty. as i said i think you have got the cart before the horse. close the border now and the problem will start to take care of its self………

48. Bulworth They Talk About It While We Live It Ringtone Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 7:47 pm

    Bulworth They Talk About It While We Live It Ringtone…

    Download the ringtone of the popular song: Bulworth They Talk About It While We Live It …

49. atlanticcity Says:
    August 8th, 2006 at 6:41 am

    atlanticcity atlanticcity

50. visacard Says:
    August 9th, 2006 at 4:53 am

    visacard visacard

51. www.hqpicture.com Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 1:40 am

    Penis enlargement pills are supplements designed to improve every aspect of a man’s sexual function, performance and enjoyment.Visit http://www.penis-enlargement-dream.com

52. Sgu Medical School Says:
    May 17th, 2007 at 6:22 am

    approved medical school foreign medical schools foreign…

    100% residency placement. or January. Our campus is located in Aruba, Dutch Antilles. Our campus is located in Aruba, Dutch Antilles. Of course, Sphe……

53. loss pill weight zantrex Says:
    May 29th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    loss pill weight zantrex…

    Bucharest contrasted conform winers prejudice …

54. Lisa Says:
    June 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am

    Lisa…

    For years IÂ’ve been a stay-at-home mom, and I have only recentlygone…

55. cart cover Says:
    June 29th, 2007 at 3:24 am

    cart cover…

    Hi. Thanks for the good read….

56. visa business card Says:
    June 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    visa business card…

    Hi. Very nice blog. I\’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol….

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website