I never cease to be amazed!

[Nick]

In view of some of the comments on this thread I find the last sentence in the paragraph below interesting.

Taken from the Gulf Oil rig disaster thread

"Don't you just love it. We spend Billions on aid to 22 countries(those offering aid for a price) including relief efforts(on top of the aid) to many of these countries(floods and earth quakes). That includes China for two earthquakes and they want to sell us the equipment we need. I don't know all the countries, but some are supposed to be our closest allies. France, Croatia, Netherlands, Britain, China, Viet Nam, and Israel, to name a few. I think it is appalling that one of the poorest countries in the world, Mexico is the only one to have offered their aid for free."

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Surely you all know that people who are citizens of Mexican, Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are Americans.

Let me help you who are geographicly challenged. We live in North America, they live in Central America and Brazil is in South America.

All the people you speak of are "Americans".

If you all know so much why do you not know this?

They are from South America, but their countries are Brazil, Brazilians, Ecuador, Ecuadorans, Argentina, Argentinians, Mexico, Mexicans, etc. They are the country of their origin. We are from The United States Of America, thus Americans. You would be hard pressed to tell Canadians that they are Americans. What the hell are you drinking!

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I just think it's funny how, as mentioned before, we have helped NUMEROUS countries throughout the world with relief money for disasters, and now when we need a little help, no one steps up to the plate. Maybe the High Up's should take note of this and remember it for next time. The world sees the USA as the nurturing mother, if you're in need, we'll help you out. Well, maybe not the nurturing mother, more like the divorced father. Know how he's usually the one who won't spend time with the kids, but he'll sure as hell buy them whatever they want? Yeah, we're that to the world. LOL But seriously, this is a disaster. I am just sitting here absolutely amazed at the real lack of effort I'm seeing to stop it. The ideas to stop it are frigging retarded!! "Let's pour a bunch of mud on top of it." Seriously?! "We got this big ol' bell shaped thinggy and we's gonna drop it from a ship and it'll land on top of that pipe down there and it'll seal it off. Only problem is there's a whole buncha currents that could throw the whole thing off." What?! "Let's throw a metric sh*t ton of human hair into the ocean to soak up the oil, cuz we all know Cherokee hair is the most absorbant material on earth. (South Park Reference)" Are you joking me?! And these are the brightest minds on earth? These are the multi-billion dollar companies who run the world? You have got to be joking me!! If you jerks seriously want a way to stop the leak, come to me. I have a few cooking in this noggin of mine and they're a whole lot better than a bell, hair, or a stupid garden hose stuck in the end of the pipe to reduce the volume of oil leaked.

Oh, and don't EVER tell me we're running out of oil. I never want to hear that bullsh*t again in my lifetime!!

 

[Jim Craik]

They are from South America, but their countries are Brazil, Brazilians, Ecuador, Ecuadorans, Argentina, Argentinians, Mexico, Mexicans, etc. They are the country of their origin. We are from The United States Of America, thus Americans. You would be hard pressed to tell Canadians that they are Americans. What the hell are you drinking!<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Oxford Dictionary:

American:
Of, relating to, or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants or relating to the continents of America (Latin America). A native or inhabitant of the continents of America.

Would you consider Canadians to be inhabitants of the continents of America?

By the way Al, Mexico is in Central America, not South America.

So Al, anyone who disagrees with you must somehow be impaired.

 

[Garry]

Jeff,
I am an economist. I love Friedman, but he, like a lot of economists, is attempting to reach a quasi-scientific solution with his math. The problem with most economists, is that from the first studies in college, you are innundated with ideas and theories that suggest a central authority is the best solution to all of our problems. The thought process is that human behavior can be quantified and measured and the solutions can be extrapolated from these numbers. Some of this "science" works when you are working in the population at large, but Economics has yet to explain the complex actions that individuals take to create a sense of well-being.
I say quasi-science because the school of economics, while taught in business classes, is rooted in the Social Sciences. That term, Social Science, assumes that social behavior can be quantified, verified, and predicted. I dissagree. Most of the math today is just good guessing, like picking a winning horse based upon statistics. And we all know that Statistics can be manipulated to present one point of view or another.
That is where I disagree with some of your fine research regarding immigration. Talk to any public hospital administrator about the number of babies born in the southwest that are from mothers who are not US citizens or do not have a legal status to the US. These admins have seen double digit expenses since the US passed a law that everyone is entitled, regardless of citizenship or the ability to pay, access to emergency healthcare. In El Paso, over 90% of the newborns are from mothers who, in their final trimester, cross the border on a 'shopping trip' and disappear only to show up at the hospital to deliver their baby. The admins have no way to refuse them and collecting money from a person who gives a fake address and name is impossible.

Just so that you get where I am comming from, most of the statistics that you are quoting are from studies regarding LEGAL immigration. Any data that claims to be accurate that measures Illegal immigration is extremely suspect. Even assuming the teams collecting that data had good intentions, by definition, sample pool for data extrapolation is too small and subject to false information since the subjects being studied are attempting to hide from this type of scrutiny. Legal immigrants can be tracked, interviewed and documented. For most of us against ILLEAGAL immigration it is not against hispanics, despite the fear mongers in LULAC, but it is exactly this tracking and documentation that we want and deserve. We want accountability, trackability,and the unvarnished truth regarding who and where our money is going to.
Anyone who lives in California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and most large metro areas has seen the "barrios" that have sprung up over the last twenty years. This growth of predominatly spanish speaking people (who have forced our schools to adopt second-language classes) has not been because of normal population growth from hispanic families although they typically have larger families that the native US population. It has grown exponentially because of ILLEGAL immigration and the inability or lack of will from our Central Government to stop it.
What a majority (56%-another stat) of Amercans (read US and Naturalized citizens) want is to put an end to open borders and controll the rate of expansion that favors one ethnic group over another. Let's take race out of the discussion and focus on the type of immigrant that we want. There is a difference between an educated engineer from China or India, or even the middle east, from an immigrant with less than a high school education and unable to communicate in our adopted language. One last thought, we have found thru trial and error that the US cannot assimilate 20 million immigrants with their own culture and language in so short a time. the truth is it takes at least two generations to do this. So the arguement that US citizens don't want hispanics is so wrong. We just want everyone to attempt to reach a legal staus, learn the common language, respect the laws, and be good stewards of the rights and responsibilities of the privelege of living in the US.

Garry

 

[Jack]

Well stated Gary...

 

[Jim Craik]

A few years ago, my family spent a week at Christmas time in southern Texas with my wifes sister (outside Brownsville).

When we were there they took us across the border into Mexico as my sister-inlaw needed some dental work and wanted to fill a perscription. When we got to the border, there were literally hundreds of good US Citizens going to Mexico for similar reasons as she said everyone goes there as it is much "cheaper than in Texas".

So we have good US Citizens crossing the border for ECONOMIC reasons, taking jobs from US Dentists, Doctors, Pharmacists and of course cheating the US and Texas out of their needed tax $

Can you say hypocrites

Say Al, do they do this in Arizona?

 

[Jeff Young]

Gary, I appreciate the thoughtful post. Some quick responses:

1. I fully agree the economics is a social science and more of an art than a science. In fact, that is something I basically preach to the folks I call "marketistas" who think the market can solve all problems.

2. I also fully agree that we have an illegal "problem" in the southwestern part of the country. But I am convinced the reason for it is not because Hispanics come here for welfare or to give birth but for one very simple, single reason: the labor market. They come here because employers in the US are willing to hire illegals at rates that exceed what they are paid in Mexico. I've seen studies (and I also agree any statistics about illegals are suspect on both sides as it is hard to quantify them) that suggest upwards of 95% of the illegals in this country would not be here expect to work.

So in that regard, it will be almost impossible to stop the illegal immigration unless you cut off its source -- US employers. Walls, border guards, guns, etc. -- they won't do it. People will find a way to come here to work.

That's why i say regulate it, let them in, and tax them.

The last part of your post is nice sounding, but I've heard it before and the undercurrent is the basic Caucasian fear of a Hispanic voting majority. Would you be comfortable with a LEGAL Hispanic majority in Texas? I think the answer to that question dictates in many ways people's response to the illegal immigration problem.

 

[domtoni]

One point Jeff that no one has discussed and its the labour rate in Mexico. I favoured NFTA because I expected Mexican wage rates to rise, but they didn't. If wage rates rose in Mexico, Mexicans would stay home, build their economies, infrastructures etc, and wouldn't flock to America or should I say the USA.

 

[Garry]

The last part of your post is nice sounding, but I've heard it before and the undercurrent is the basic Caucasian fear of a Hispanic voting majority. Would you be comfortable with a LEGAL Hispanic majority in Texas? I think the answer to that question dictates in many ways people's response to the illegal immigration problem.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Jeff,
Where do you get that understanding? Nothing I have said would indicate that I am caucasian or that I have a fear of the hispanic vote. It may surprise you to know that in the southwest, there are a large number of hispanic surnamed peolpe who are elected officials, not to mention those who lead key areas of the region in schools, hospitals, law enforcement, churches, etc, that were HIRED from a long list of qualified candidates, often by decision makers that are not hispanic. You will also find a large population of non-hispanic surnamed people that have a hispanic parent or grandparent in their gene pool. The southwest has always been a melting pool of different races and ethnic backgrounds and we celebrate that diversity.
The discussion is on legality, not ethnicity, is what has Americans upset. We want to control the rate of immigration before it overwhelms the social services net and stop the driving down of wages for agriculture and blue collar workers that ARE citizens, both native born and naturalized. That has nothing to do with the vote. It has everything to do with sustaining and growing our way of life.
Your arguments regarding employers is fair and one of the key elements in getting a handle on the problem. Employers will always gravitate to cheaper labor if they have the option. After all, it means more profits reach the botton line. But what is the use of a Federal Minimum Wage if there are more workers than jobs? How do we expand the job market? How do we raise income for hourly employees? These are the question that we need to be looking into.
Garry

 

[Jeff Young]

More later, but to help me with the discussion, can you tell me if you would accept a situation where 51% of the registered voters in Texas were legal Hispanic immigrants?

 

[Doc Kaler]

Jeff,

I would wholly accept the fact that 51% of the registered voters were of Hispanic origin IF they are legal US citizens and not legal immigrants. You have to be a legal US citizen to vote.

 

[Jeff Young]

Thanks -- I appreciate the answer. And to take it the next step, if that 51% majority of legal Hispanic immigrants obtain citizenship, and vote to say change the official language of Texas from English to Spanish, you would accept (not saying you'd be ok with it but would accept) that as the will of the majority?

 

[Jack]

+1 Doc!

 

[Jack]

And, I never ceased to be amazed at our administration's policy and actions, period!
Guess you simply have to follow the money/influence/greed/power...You know, the "Chicago" way.

All to the detrement of the good 'ole USA.

 

[Doc Kaler]

Jeff,

Well....I'm no legal expert (although I stayed at a Holiday Inn once) but I believe the official language is not a state issue. But, assuming you are correct that a state can vote on an official language I would feel "uncomfortable" enough to have to move to a place where I can effectively communicate with my peers and accept the mandate of the majority.

 

[Jeff Young]

Thanks again for being upfront.

Yes, the Constitution contains nothing on an official language. Congress could probably do it if they wanted, but have not.

Until that point though, it's up the states.

Where I am going with this is like it or not (and I'm guilty of this too), since the beginning of this country, the "old" immigrants have feared the "new" and what they might do to the political structure of the country.

I frankly think that most Hispanics who became citizens would be just as opposed to having Spanish as the official language as anyone else. So I think the chances of this happening are very low.

But, the fear of it -- and not a lot of the surface explanations we get -- are what drives our immigration (both legal and illegal) policy.

That I'm opposed to. Immigrants have always strengthened this country, and I disagree with Garry that we need to be picky and choosy about who comes in (beyond trying to prevent criminals, sex offenders, etc. from entering). That opens the door to favoritism and market distortion.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff, you have posted a well thought out plan.

I wish I could make points as clear and insightful as you, but alas I can only irritate people. But then again some people need irritating.

 

[Garry]

Jeff,
You are entitled to your opinion that we should accept all people that want to immigrate as long as they are not criminals. We already have the criminal laws on the books, so you will get no dissagreement with me or the majority. However, there will be some limitations on immigration whether you want it or not. if we don't use education as a benchmark, what other benchmarks will be acceptable? I fear that a pandora's box will be opened and sure enough we will quota by country, ethnic or other unfair rules that will favor one group over another. Education is available to all in some form or another. Every country has that obligation. If a country such as Mexico, cannot educate their people to a degree of some satisfactory level that would qualify them, then they will have a population that will suffer more than they already do.
The US is a relief valve for Mexico so that they do not have to solve their own internal problems. And they do have internal problems. At some point, the citizens of the US should not have to be responsible for the shortcommings of a few countries that have a population that wants to migrate away from poverty, crime, and corrupt political leadership. Especially in Mexico, where the population has had the right to vote change. The sad fact of their plight does not excuse the US leadership from acting in the interests of its own citizens. We will demand and we will get a change in policy and then action or there will be politicians looking for a job.
I say bring on the immigrants, but set a standard that is fair for all. Every major country that I can think of has rules that are very strict for immigration and we should not be the exception. I really understand the people who just want a job and the opportunty to pursue happyness (sic), but I feel more compassion for the lost opportunties that our citizens sacrifice so that we can accomodate this migration. I do not buy the arguement that Americans will not work at some jobs. They will work at the jobs if they are paid a decent wage, given a safe work environment, and the opportunty to grow their futures.
Garry

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Oxford Dictionary:

American:
Of, relating to, or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants or relating to the continents of America (Latin America). A native or inhabitant of the continents of America.

Would you consider Canadians to be inhabitants of the continents of America?

By the way Al, Mexico is in Central America, not South America.

So Al, anyone who disagrees with you must somehow be impaired.

They are American by continent, not by country of origin.
It doesn't say American on their birth certificate, just as it doesn't say European on a German birth certificate. They are Europeans by continent, but of German descent, or Germans. What is the end result you want to get from this definition? Are you trying to imply that we are one big happy American family?