Amnesty

There’s been tons of stuff the awful amnesty bill (did they really think people would like it?!) so I haven’t bothered to write on it. 

The most disgusting thing is that it has gotten this far.  Both parties make me sick on this one.  The Democrats want the voting block and the Republicans want the cheap labor.  Neither seems to be able to think 90 minutes into the future.  It is truly sad when Radical Islam has a greater grasp on the concept of deferred gratification than we do.

Here’s the best summaries I’ve seen:

13 thoughts on “Amnesty”

  1. puke.
    you are so right ont his.
    the cheap labor thing really p’s me off. the voting blog too. i’m not sure which is worse. probably cheap labor.

    Like

  2. I think that Lou Dobbs would be happy if someone would just let him shoot an illegal immigrant for sport. Seriously, that guy appears to be off his nut.

    The immigration situation has changed so much since I took my Chicano studies courses in college. It’s a big criminal enterprise now. Before it was just guys coming here to help their families and getting the crops to market for struggling farmers. Not an ideal situation for anybody, but something that worked enough for enough people that the rest of the country could look the other way and pretend they didn’t see so they could get their 75 cent cabbages.

    Burt with the gangs running the people-smuggling operations, and adding in the drug smuggling and the deaths surrounding the whole thing, the tragedy of the immagrants losing their lives and the occasional frustrated rogue officer that goes over the edge…it’s a big hairy mess.

    I think there’s a hope that the amnesty bill will take the power out of the criminal element holding these people hostage. If they are not afraid of being turned in, the criminals lose their power to control and exploit the immigrants.

    But it’s obvious that the Reagan Amnesty only postponed the problem.

    Sad all around. Too bad we can’t do something to make Mexico a better place to live.

    Like

  3. wait. I thought the hispanic voting bloc went almost exclusivly to the Republicans because of the social conservative angle. I don’t think the Dem’s would get any action off of that.

    Like

  4. As a fellow Mexicano, I oppose the amnesty. I haven’t read the entire bill (nor do I plan to) but it really bothers me that no one holds the Mexican government accountable for its social and economic policies. I read the Mexican news regularly and it is sickening to read of the kipnappings, assinations, and cartel run commandos every day. Where is the Policia?

    Most immigrants wouldn’t come here to work if their native economies gave them the opportunities the U.S does. Sure, we would be coming to Disneyland, but just to visit and enjoy the shows.

    Though there are many that come in search of a better life, many more come escaping the law or in search of breaking it. Unless corruption stops, we will always have a huge influx of illegal immigrants from my paisanos, and many other countries.

    p.s. Neil – you may need to edit this comment – if I change my mind :-).

    Like

  5. Teresa, my only experience is from FLA, but what we found was that the Cuban-Americans tended to vote GOP, but that Puerto Rican Americans tended towards the Democrat. Here in the City of Lights, I am less sure. We are a very liberal county anyway (even with the Mormons) and most of our hispanic population is ineligible to vote.

    Like

  6. Teresa,

    The illegal immigrants aren’t social conservatives. They have a higher divorce rate and illegitimacy rate than do Americans (and legal Mexican immigrants).

    They look more like Democrats in terms of demographics: most lack a high school education (and even fourth-generation Mexicans tend to not go to college, if they even complete high school) and pay less in taxes than they take in social services. Republicans, who oppose social welfare programmes, would not be popular with the illegals.

    Sadly, the Republicans don’t realise that granting amnesty or giving voting rights would ensure that their party never sees office again. 😦

    Like

  7. E. I. Sanchez makes a good point that I had not thought about.

    In a way, the U.S. is an enabler for the Mexican government. Our lax border policies provide a sort of safety valve. Some of the people who escape to the U.S. might otherwise stay home and force change in their government.
    I would guess that there are probably people who stay home, but tolerate things they don’t like knowing that they can always escape.

    I know that this is not the whole situation, we also get drug dealers and fugitives, but I still think it is a good point.

    As usual I think theobromophile is exactly right.

    Like

  8. Theobromophile,

    I’m astonished at your generalization of liberals. I forget where you live, but the demographic is the opposite where I live (as far as conservative/liberal..we don’t have a lot of illegal immigrants).

    the social conservatives tend to be poor, uneducated, with a surprisingly high divorce rate, domestic violence rate, problems with chemical addiction, teen pregnancy, etc…despite their opposition to these things. I understood that the anti-abortion, anti-contraception thing alone would scew a largely Catholic population toward the Republicans, as it seems to here.

    The fiscal conservatives tend to be the rich and upper-middle-class, and not care that much about social issues as long as they don’t pay many taxes.

    The welfare cases tend not to vote.

    The middle class tends to be liberal, and have some sort of post-secondary education (vo-tech training to PhD), and support social services because they realize how easily they could end up in poverty if something went wrong for them.

    I think that’s why the Republican Party loves so many policies that put pressure to shrink the middle class. and aim their tax advantages at the top 1%, whereas Democrats want to enlarge the middle class as much as possible by giving tax advantages to the working poor and the middle class.

    Anyway, I think the real solution to the immigration problem is to pursue foreign policy that requires Mexico to fix itself. The tougher you make it to get into the country illegally, the more crime will surround the issue.

    Of course, tougher actions are a short-term solution because foreign policy takes a while to accomplish anything, and we need solutions now…but tougher laws and tougher enforcement is not a viable long-tern solution. We would have to be inhuman to make coming here worse than the alternative, and I’m not sure very many people are willing to go there. Though I have heard people joke about executing illegal immigrants. So maybe not.

    I’m pretty sure that if Mexico were a better place to live, we wouldn’t have that problem. Look at Canada…not too many illegal immigrants coming in from there.

    Like

  9. Excellent points about the need for Mexico to fix their problems. Yet it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. If we had better border enforcement it would force more of the issue back to Mexico.

    As it is, they have no incentive to fix things. They let people come here and send money back to Mexico. It’s a win-win for them. Less people to support, more money coming in, less protests, etc.

    Shut the borders and let the protestors do their work in Mexico, not here! Push the Mexican gov’t hard to follow free market principles.

    Like

  10. Teresa,

    It’s not about where you live. It’s actually national. Look at the 2004 exit polls:
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

    Latino: 44% for Bush, 53% for Kerry.

    By Income, for Kerry: 63% of those earning less than $15,000/year; 57% of those earning between $15,000 and $30,000/year; and half of those earning $30k-$50k/year. (Bush took 49% of those.)

    Bush got at least 55% of the vote for everyone over $50,000/year.

    Kerry took 58% of the single vote; Bush took 57% of the married vote.

    Bush took 59% of the married with children vote; Kerry took 51% of those who are not married with children.

    Like

  11. Actually, those divides don’t look like the sort of difference that you could draw much of a conclusion involving the word “most” from.

    Here, the areas that went for Bush were mostly poor rural areas, or the uber-rich suburbs.

    *shrug* doesn’t matter, we all have to live with the results.

    Like

  12. Well, your area is clearly different from the national averages, which is really all that matters. Furthermore, the wealthier people in the poor, rural areas may be Bush voters, while the others may be more liberal.

    There’s a 10-point difference between conservative and liberal voters when salaries get above $50,000/year. There’s a 14-point spread in marriage and a 16-point spread in being married with children.

    There was a 3% difference in that election. So we’re talking variation on the order of three to five times the margin of victory. That’s significant.

    It’s significant enough that Republicans should care about it. They should understand that the illegal immigrant family structure closely resembles that of inner-city African Americans, who go about 80-20 for Democrats.

    Like

  13. Theobromophile,

    ” Furthermore, the wealthier people in the poor, rural areas may be Bush voters, while the others may be more liberal”

    Could be. Although you would think that their churches would not be made out of pole barns, were that the case. 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s