Southern Appeal - "With a rebel yell, they cried more, more, more!"
I'm guessing the Libertarians support this policy
Seems to me our government is failing us on both ends.
How long has it been since someone posted about Iraq on SA? It's like the elephant in the room that no one wants to touch on this blog.
Maybe it's the whole "if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" thing. I know you've got some thoughts on it, William, esp. in light of recent revelations that we've pushed our reserves to the brink of collapse.
Jeff,
I agree there is a silence on the Iraq situation. I have made my thoughts known on that in the past. However, might be time for a good exit strategy post.
wjw
> Unfortunately, our government sits and does nothing as this invasion continues.
And, so, why aren't you complaining to the current pResident, Dubya, who has controlled the reigns of government for some 4 years?
Unless you are a total dolt, it should be clear to you that the Republican powers that be have no problem with what is referred to as "illegal immigration."
Raj
You know why. It's Clinton's fault.
The latest issue of National Review has a good essay about how this issue could cause a split in the GOP. I side with William and others who insist that we protect our borders. Illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Last I checked, individuals who broke laws were supposed to be arrested and prosecuted. So why the Bush administration continues to turn a blind eye to this issue baffles me. Even if Bush is trying to make nice with Mexico, they can't deny the national security risks that go along with illegal entry to this country.
Related to this, my brother-in-law immigrated from Scotland (legally, of course). The lengthy process he had to go through to get his green card was ridiculous, especially since Scotland is an ally. It seems the government is more willing to allow immigrants that pose a security risk than upstanding, hard working folks from allied countries.
Raj, Tomeck --
William didn't vote for Bush. Half his postings (and I say this with respect and much sympathy) are capping on Bush and the national Republicans for their copious failings, especially on this issue.
It's fun to vent randomly on other people's blogs, but it helps to know something about what you're posting.
Back to the issue.
The government of Mexico is encouraging its nationals to occupy the territory of a neighboring country, against that country's will, as expressed in its laws. Isn't that the very definition of aggression against another nation? What else IS an invasion?
As Dutch observes, even David Frum at National Review is starting to get freaked out by President Bush's policy of appeasement (if only because Frum smells a popular revolt brewing).
Plainsman
Nothing wrong with a little fun now and then, is there? And I've seen many similar comments from both sides on many blogs so what's the problem?
Anyway, without having seen the actual publication, I'd agree that Mexico is encouraging its nationals to reside in the US, to find employment in the US, against US law. And I'd quibble about "against that country's will" because it should be obvious that certain political (both sides of the aisle, for different reasons) and business powers want the illegal immigrants.
But I'd have to take exception to "occupy the territory" and "invasion."
An occupation is what's happening in Iraq and the West Bank and Gaza. An invasion involves military force. Is the immigrant situation bad? Certainly. But we don't have the Mexican army stationed here.
Certainly words are sometimes used outside their primary meaning, i.e. "A Revolution in Laundry Detergent." But this is a bit over the top.
'Pure and simple, this is the Mexican government encouraging a further invasion of the U.S. '
This is a common meme, that telling one how to do something, especially safely, is the same thing as encouraging that activity.
Plainsman | Email | Homepage | 01.07.05 - 11:16 am
>William didn't vote for Bush.
The relevance of this being...what? Surely you aren't going to deny the fact that Dubya has been head of state as well as head of government in the US for the last four years, are you? Or that, if Dubya had any interest in the matter, he could have at least made some effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration in the US? I guess that Republicans like to prattle on about the rule of law, but when push comes to shove, they really don't mean it. Unless, of course, they can whck a few of what they consider to be undesirables.
It should be evident to anyone paying attention that Dubya has little if any interest in stemming illegal immigration into the US. Various reasons as to why can be posited, but it would be difficult to deny the fact.
Regardless, one might actually wonder how the federal government might stem illegal immigration from the south. On another website, something tantamount to a Maginot line was proposed. Of course, the Germans went around the Maginot line. So why would anyone expect a Maginot line to help here? Wishful thinking?
NB: I'm sure that Plainsman knows which website I'm referring to regarding the Maginot line. It was in a comment thread on Publius's web site about a month ago. Some of us ridiculed the idea.
'What else IS an invasion?'
Maybe if they were the ones putting us in prison, rather than the other way around?
The US has had massive waves of immigration in the past. If it could handle the Italian and Jewish waves of immigrants, there's no reason it can't handle the Mexican waves of immigrants. Currently, most of us look back at the nativists of the late 19th and early 20th century with some embarrassment. I'm sure that 50 or 60 years from now, our own descendants will have similar feelings.
I'm with Bowmanguy. Anybody who wants to be here and work hard should be allowed. If these folks didn't have any worth to us in the USA then no one in the US would hire them.
This is a post for another time, but I must object to valuing individuals and society soley in economic terms. Such reasoning ignores the damage done to national and local cultures and a myriad of other factors. Again, this is a post for another time.
Agreed, William.
And, with a few obvious exceptions at the margins, I do not look back on the "nativists" of previous years with "embarrassment." This was their country, much as it is ours now, and they were under no obligation to admit anyone they did not wish to (including some of my forebears), just as we are under no obligation, moral, economic, or political, to swell our population of 290 million (!!!) with even more immigrants today.
America belongs to Americans, not the world. This is another way of saying that it is a nation.
We are not a "nation of immigrants"; half of the nation's current citizens are descended from people who were here at the Founding, and those people were settlers, not immigrants. We have had some periods of high immigration since then, and have always followed them, wisely, with periods of immigration restriction. The U.S. allowed virtually no immigration from 1924 to 1965, and somehow, we seem to have done rather well for ourselves as a nation during that forty-year stretch.
It is time to follow our traditional practice again today, by repealing the 1965 Immigration Act and imposing a moratorium of at least a couple of decades, giving the unparalleled recent waves of immigration time to assimilate.
This is common sense, at least if you are interested in America as a distinctive nation with its own culture, history and traditional identity, rather than as some sort of featureless global shopping mall with low prices, which seems to be the extent of Wodamark's interest in the nation. To me, it is a shockingly impoverished conception.
There is simply no sensible reason to support continued mass immigration into the US.
What about a realistic foreign workers program that would match the supply to market demand? All those businesses are hiring illegals for some reason. Allowing a supply of foreign workers to meet that demand would have the following benefits.
1. Workers could enter legally and INS would have a better idea of who's coming into the country and where they are.
2. Legal workers would be covered by labor law, thus ending exploitation of illegal workers.
3. Businesses could be held accountable if they are hiring foreign workers when American workers could fill the jobs.
4. You could still limit the number of foreign workers who become citizens, if you wish.
By the way, what's your source for
"half of the nation's current citizens are descended from people who were here at the Founding?" Statistically, that doesn't seem right to me, though I don't have any data to argue one way or the other.
Also, if you follow your analogy about our forebears and the natives, true they didn't have to admit anyone they didn't want, but we didn't exactly ask permission, either. We came in anyway and it could be said our neighbors to the South are following our example.
'We are not a "nation of immigrants"; half of the nation's current citizens are descended from people who were here at the Founding, and those people were settlers, not immigrants'
Those people were immigrants. Should we not excuse the natives for being nativists?
"Half of the nation's current citizens are descended from people here at the Founding and those people were settler, not immigrants"
How do you come by this information. Are you classifying everyone who came to America after the establishment of the first English colonies and before the Declaration of Indepence as a "settler" not an immigrant. Tom Paine would find that surprising. He referred to himself as an immigrant. Moreover he noted, "Europe, not England is the father of America." Moreover, even if this is the reasoning, I could be wrong, but I don't think the facts you present can be accurate unless you classify 19th century English and Sotts-Irish immigrants as "settlers," which strikes me as incredibly questionable. Finally, and most importantly, even if you're correct and only half of all Americans are the descendants of immigrants, explain to me how Irish-Catholic, Italian, Polish, and Jewish immigrants have dramatically warped American culture? Wouldn't any honest student of history have to say they've been pretty well assimilated?
Also, we did not "allow virtually no immigration between 1924-1965." The US government passed laws imposing extremely strict quotas on the number of Southern and Eastern European immigrants to the US, while allowing for much larger numbers of Northern European immigrants, and completely cut off all immigration from Asia. I think all right thinking people would agree that this was appalling bigoted.
Please don't tell me you're a fan of Peter Brimelow.
Plainsman - I have no idea how you came to this conclusion: "..some sort of featureless global shopping mall with low prices, which seems to be the extent of Wodamark's interest in the nation. To me, it is a shockingly impoverished conception."
You smack of a Know Nothing with your view of this country and immigrants.
Hard work and freedom make this country stronger (and wealthier). The more people that contribute in this way the better we all are.
Commenting by HaloScan
