I welcome the opportunity to debate based on logical, honest inquiry. And debunked, you are right - the word "bigot" is as loaded as any number of racial slurs. Mojo, I apologize. Let's proceed on different tack.
OK well firstly, show me why mexicans should be given even more immigration preferance over other peoples of the world trying to come into the USA. Every nation is alloted a very specific number of peoples allowed to emmigrate here every year. Latin America (and in part, 3rd world asians) seems to have it in it's mind that these laws, don't apply to them. So show me, how is this: 1)fair 2)realistic 3)beneficial to the USA
Superior? I wouldn't use that word. If this were superior, would this rate be a bit lower? This a bit higher? And this much lower? I would think supporting ones family, setting a good example, and caring for ones children would make for 'superior' family values. Using that word almost implies it's better than....one should avoid that sort of usage, especially when by all reasonable standards they're wrong. So just create huge subsidizes to help-out mexico/mexicans. Not a big believer in individual rights, are you? You would like others to pay for your ideals? If you review the average wages or potential earnings of illegal immigrants, you'll find they don't contribute very much in taxes (and I'm talking about the ones that do apply). One of the biggest cost is their children (sometimes as many as 2-3). They in no way will pay back the costs their children will consume. So that means someone else has to pay for it. As I asked: Do you believe in individual rights?
3) beneficial --- I think it can be beneficial to make it easier for Mexicans to come over legally. They want to come and work, let them - legally. Keep it easy to renew and stay legal by reasonable time frames to work and return. This will make it less work dealing with the lower number of illegals - which are the ones who will HAVE to break the law to enter because of their record, etc..
Well thats the tricky part that most people overlook... it isn't actually as beneficial as the democrats have tried to make it appear. Again, every nation is alloted X number of legal immigrants every year into the US. The reason for this is that it takes a toll not only on the US economy (in many many ways) but also the "from" nation's economy, and that must be balanced by the Fed. My problem isn't with latin illegals, either, it is with ALL illegals. However, seeing as mexicans make up the far and vast majority..well, you can see how that works out. To give you an example of exactly HOW bad the illegal immigration problem is: from 1890-1970, there were 10 million italian immigrants that came to the US. from 1970-2004 there were 32 million illegal (not counting legal) mexican aliens. 32 million illegals just from mexico...that is a problem.
What makes you think they would return? How exactly would that be enforced? Thirdly, why do we care less about our poorer citizens?
I think people are not realize that the necessary infrastructure that illegal immigrants create a demand for, can not be paid with the amount of tax revenue they create. A high wage, and a low demand infrastructure means less taxes...less welfare,...better education...and so on and so forth. Till the courts decided illegal immigrants deserved an education in America, our education system was the best of the best. Now it's shit.
What are you basing a "preference towards Mexicans" on? Prior to 1965, from the late 19th century onward, there was an immigration preference - against such groups as the Chinese (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and other ethnic groups and groups from other national origins than Western/Northern Europe (Immigration Act of 1924) and decidedly in favor of Western/Northern Europeans. With the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, the immigration by quota - preferential immigration policy - was repealed. From my understanding of the law, since the late 1960's, all immigration is on a first come, first served basis, regardless of country of origin. "Preference for Mexican immigration"...source, please?
It is difficult to avoid your attention on race, Mojo - you seem to place this as a "Mexican v. white" argument - (1) Have I mischaracterized this? (2) What defines "white"?
Not just them...poor black american...poor everyone else but illegal immigrants. Why does it seem that people care more about illegal immigrants than bring-up our own citizens?
Refer to the 1965 legislation, that enacted family 'chain immigration'. Family immigration is our primary form of immigration in America, sadly. If you look at the stats, you'll see that there is far more people coming from Mexico to immigrate here legally, than most other countries.
I figure the goal of America is to have no poverty or almost none...and it's feasible goal. Our poverty levels have significantly shrunk since the 50's. Black Americans have gone from 60% poverty to hovering around 20%. We as America can atleast focus on our own, before we subsidize foreigners. I'm not big for socialism, and public school is a form of socialism. I can see the arguement that we need to eliminate poverty for Americans, but we can't reasonable do that for everyone else. And the people that favor illegal immigrants, seem to forget the people that are here, and try to work their way out of poverty. I think they, as Americans, deserve more attention, than foreigners.
Are you referring to preference given to those with U.S. citizen family? O.K. - but this isn't preference to "Mexicans," but rather, well, those with U.S. citizen family. As obtains in most countries (take many post-Soviet republics, for instance, and their problems with what defines "citizen" - much of it comes down to "have your parents lived here?"). Also, have I gotten the right act in mind, the 1965 legislation specifically, for the first time, limited Mexican immigration?
Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[77], [78]) (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[ Does that work?
Well I'm left without recourse because the majority of illegals are from mexico. If they were from canada, then it would be canadians... germany, it would be germans..etc. The preferance speaks for itself in that, people bend over backwards to ensure that illegals breaking the law go unpunished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States perhaps this will explain it better than me typing the whole thing out on how it is designed to work. Having completely open borders (as it appears you believe it to be) would be disastor for any nation. Mexico, first of all, is not a race.. it's a nation. There are white, black, brown and asian (as well as mid eastern..etc) mexicans as noted here: http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/tilan/reports/rtf359/mexico1.html That said, the organisations that protect various peoples exist for all races...except for caucasions. As an example, I, a white male in Los Angeles am a minority... yet, under the law, I am given no preferances.. because I am white, even though the law clearly stipulates that minorities be given "favored" access to govt contracts, jobs..etc. explain that?
I would say my graph (^^^^) says there's a favor or national origin being used. Legal immigration shouldn't draw from one pool of people, it should be limited and more rational.
But it wasn't Canadian, German, etc., national character you were speaking of. You specifically listed Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, as uniquely "ill-suited," to paraphrase. You indicated there is a preferential immigration policy in place. Your link above does nothing to support that. The brief history I provided shows there is no such policy in place - though there used to be, and it was not in favor of Mexicans or Latin Americans; rather, Western and Northern Europeans. Have you got another source, one that supports your position? Yes, exactly, which is precisely why I was puzzled by your posing "white" as a counterposing category in a discussion of Mexican illegal immigration benefits. Then your issue is with affirmative action, which covers all historically underepresented groups. I thought your issue was with illegal immigrants; primarily, if I have read your posts correctly, those from Mexico and Latin America. Is your issue now with minority treatment generally, and affirmative action for (legally residing), non-caucasians? Please let me know what we are actually debating, and I'll be glad to enter into a dialogue. By the way, Mojo - I work with cops. I know how tough your job is, particularly in your neck of the woods. Thank you for your service.
If it is on a first come, first served basis - it is impossible to construe favorable treatment. As you say in your second paragraph, you are arguing for limitations - not the end of favorable treatment, which has only existed, historically, for folks of Western and Northern European origin.