🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3d84ddd3.7357709@news.ev1.net>, montep@email.com (Monte) 
wrote:

> http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020915-492707.htm
> 
> Will Texas be the next state in the chain?  California long known for
> the birthplace of nutty ideas may be auger omens of the future in this
> instance.  The mexican lobby, and the politically weird, er sensitive,
> in their rush to embrace all things hispanic are trying to circumvent
> some fundamental constitutional guarantees.
> 
> If these jackasses prevail what you will wind up with is a country
> with absolutely no protections for any of its citizens, because it
> will be asked to embrace the planet.  A perhaps commendable goal, but
> completely flawed in the way it is being accomplished.  How is it
> possible to provide constituional guarantees, if at the same time you
> must respect, even place in the forefront all the beliefs and
> practices the immigrants bring with them, most of which are in direct
> opposition to rule of law and democracy.
> 
> Time to set the brakes on this drunken vehicle now.
> 
> We have an 'Alexander the Great' wannabe in the whitehouse who has
> left the ranch unattended and the south fence down.


Bush's stance on amnesty, etc dissapoints me greatly. But, both parties 
are embracing this absurd move in their pandering for the Hispanic vote.

The argument for amnesty is based on economics and compassion, but these 
arguments are opposite reality.

As Bob Ray Sanders puts it, "America has come to depend on the economic 
contribution of illegal aliens" (although he doesn't use this 
insensitive descriptive term, of course).

Gee, by all indications, statistics in CA point to quite the opposite. 
In fact, illegal aliens have come to depend on America's economy.

But of course, they do the jobs "no-one else wants to do". Well, 
certainly legal immigrants from Mexico want to do them, which is one 
reason they came here. One reason no-one wants to do these jobs is 
because the pay for them is quite far below that required to make ends 
meet in America.

So, rather than follow a controlled flow of legal aliens (which is 
neccessary to sustain a growing economy), both parties endorse a 
harebrained approach that assures the pay for the "unwanted" jobs will 
be even lower, which totally screws the immigrants that played by the 
rules.

So, where is the "compassion" directed? Not to legal citizens of this 
country. It seems the compassion is for citizens of another country, who 
are to be rewarded if they successfully break our laws for a set period 
of time.

In this compassionate act, our government encourages illegals to risk 
the desert in assumption that they will eventually get amnesty. Then the 
hand wringing starts every time the inevitable happens, and these 
desperate people die in the desert, or in the back of some coyote's 
truck.

They never seem to realize that the carrot-on-a-stick of amnesty and non 
enforcement of immigration laws are the cause of these deaths.

The assumption that this large group will somehow rise up to the 
standards, and eventually earn enough to give back to the government - 
which is a requirement for most of us that live here - is tremendously 
flawed.  The vast majority of these people will never rise beyond EIC 
levels. Their only tax contribution will be through taxes on goods, and 
poor immigrants don't often buy a lot more than untaxed foodstuffs.

Rather than a "trickle down" effect, we get a "trickle up" effect, in 
that those on the lower end of the economic spectrum must lower their 
standard of living to compete with the illegals, who will not follow the 
myriad and costly legal and social requirements the rest of us do. No 
car insurance (indeed, no registration), overfilled houses, etc.

Whwn you get down to it, the compassion is directed towards those that 
want to pay less for services. Cheaper lawn care, restaurant help, etc.

The true price of this "cheap labor" is an economy thrown completely out 
of whack due to the "deregulation" of immigration. Look at the stats in 
California alone, the costs of medical care, schooling, societal 
services, law enforcement, and you'll see that this labor ain't so cheap.

So, here we have Presidentes Fox and Bush hammering out a compassionate 
solution for these lawbreakers which completely ignores the US 
government's primary responsibilities - protections of our borders, 
protections of our way of life. Both parties seem intent on ignoring 
their mandates, all for the sake of votes.

Another great flaw in this reasoning is that many of the people who 
enter illegally do so not out of impatience with the pace of legal 
immigration, but becaue they simply would not meet the requirements for 
entry.

These people will never enter the system, they will never piny up their 
fair share. Instead, we pay higher insurance for their failure to have 
same, we pay their medical, etc.

And, since many will not qualify for entry due to criminal behavior, we 
end up paying the price for their crimes, and their incarceration.

Quite simply put, it an endorsement and reward for criminal acts which 
puts tremendous strain on our economy, and is a gross negligence of the 
responsibility that government has.


OTOH, Mexico is quite protective of its southern borders. Quite 
aggressive in capturing and deporting those that penetrate it, and they 
charge the home country of these people a tidy sum for their efforts.

Of course, their official stance is that they are doing this for *our* 
protection, assuming these people are bound for the US. Firstly, this is 
in direct contradiction to their appeals for compassion they direct 
northward - asking us for something they in no way will do themselves. 
And, it seems a bit racist as well, in their valiant efforts at 
protecting us from the "scum south of the border" while doing nothing to 
stem the flow of it's own citizens.


What a tremendous load of bullshit.

Well, here's a bit of the backlash: I never employ Hispanic lawn care 
people, nor do I use companies that employ Hispanics when I can avoid 
it. I cannot, and will not be put in the position of checking the legal 
status of the people I hire to mow my lawn, and I certainly cannot trust 
the government or employers to do that. So, I avoid the issue 
altogether. I draw from a labor pool less likely to be part of the 
problem - Black people and white people. Statistically, the chance of 
either of those groups being illegal are less.