Leave a comment below!
The catch is in actually doing what he proposes. Sure we can say we want to try to assure the "Americanization", but is that really going to happen on the street level? I doubt it. ICE can't even handle the load they have now.
To give Leon credit, he at leasts calls his proposal amnesty, and perhaps an amnesty is necessary, but it shouldn't even be looked at for a few years, by which time the government will have had enough time to show that it can control immigration.
Also, enforcement needs to be more than just a wall. It needs to include serious interior enforcement. The people who hire illegals should pay such an exhorbitant penalty that the risk of hiring an illegal just won't be worth the reward.
And let me also note that the people we do amnesty are just the tip of the iceberg. Not only will we legalize 12-20 million illegal aliens, but we'll also have to include their families, who'll be eligible to come in under the "family reunification" clause--and this is not just immediate family, but also includes extended family members. We may be looking at about 40 million new instant Americans (on the low side) if this law goes through.
Americanization happens when illegals can't send a lot of money back to their country of origin.
Mexico especially must be made to solve its own problems and not dump them on the US.
Congress will not pass any law before the November 06 elections.
Democrats only see Hispanic immigrants as a new "entitlement" voter block for them. Republicans only see them as cheap labor.
Schoolteachers teach immigrant children about their entitlements and not about their responsibilities.
The issue is a defining one, literally. What is citizenship and therefore what is America. It has to be more then rewarding law breaking and expanded welfare, increased ethnic division, voting by linguisticly estranged people, and an essentially alien population. If not then the process of decay in this country accelerates. Which for reasons Freud may understand might be what some want.
Paul Cella:
I agree with you that illegal immigration is wrong because it involves breaking the law. However, that is why immigration laws should be changed to allow unrestricted immigration.
Do you have any evidence that immigration harms American culture or values?
What is more, this immigration is good for the economy. Cities like Miami prosper. Remember, wealth is created, so the more people we have, the more wealth is created.
There is simply no argument against amnesty. I don't even know why people are talking about it.
Waiting for your comments,
Ben B.
Besides, regarding Xixi's comment I'd like to point out that immigrants pay more taxes than they take from social services.
"...illegal immigration is wrong because it involves breaking the law. However, that is why immigration laws should be changed..."
Beautiful!
Hey, but why stopping at that?
Let’s loosen all restrictive laws. The less restrictive they are the less likelihood they can be broken.
A perfect way to reduce transgression of a law – redefine it!
Ha, that isn't what I meant at all. I don't think laws should be abolished because they are hard to enforce. If it's a good law, it should stay on the books and be enforced anyway (like the speed limit.) However, laws against immigration, even if they were totally easy to enforce, still harm the nation because immigrants benefit us economically.
That silly nation doesn’t know what is good for it, at least economically, and insists on enforcing immigration-limiting laws which are bad because they limit immigration which is good and that’s really bad.
There should be a law against bad laws!
Glad you see it my way.
Do you have any evidence that immigration harms American culture or values?
There is ample evidence. Here is a good place to start looking for it. More evidence is in the spectacle of millions of people marching under the flag of a foreign power and demanding that we ratify their lawbreaking. More evidence is in our unwillingness to enforce our duly-enacted laws; to maintain our territorial integrity; to protect our border -- all of which amounts to the admission that we are no longer a sovereign nation.
What is more, this immigration is good for the economy.
I dispute this. Robert Samuelson's recent column refuting the "we need guest workers" argument is a good place to start. But moreover, I dispute the principle behind this claim, namely, that economics is king; that the desire for wealth should be master of our polity. The reduction of all politics to mere economics is a Marxist principle. No where in our Constitution are we obliged to liquidate our territorial sovereignty, our commitment to law, our integrity as a nation, in order that some of us might prosper. This is an alien idea, and a usurpation of the first magnitude.
Thanks!
Have you guys seen the articles from the Society of Americans for National Existence? www.saneworks.us This is an interesting site.
Commenting by HaloScan
