You Don't Speak for Me! (Americans of Hispanic/Latino heritage)

I thought we went over this...under current law mass deportation would be unfesiable...because in most cases illegal immigrants are required a trial from federal judges. Either way I find it an ugly process to go through.

Although if they really wanted to do it, they could. Operation Wetback (yes that's a real name), in 1954, deported one million illegal immigrants, in the span of one year. Some estimate that twice as many went back on their own accord. This was a previous probability under pre-1965 laws. With the numbers now, and the mind-set of the people, it's really hard to imagine that happening again. It stopped in it's own time due to perception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Is there a point where you would find it unpermissable to come? Current estimates say we'll reach half a billion (by 2050) if McCain-like bills get through. That's a huge increase in our population...200 million more in a very short time. Aimed almost entirely towards cheap labor.

Perhaps you're unaware that the legislation by McCain increases immigration as well.

Mind you I'm much more fair of those currently here. I'll give you a general plan of what I would do with the current situation in a little while.

This must be addressed to someone else, because I didn't vote for Bush. There's plenty of reason why Bush is at that number, and for the most part I think he deserves it.

 

If there's ever a reasonable comprimise on illegal immigration, I would support this.


If it was up to me, I'd first and foremost secure the border. ...prove that there's few illegals passing, and absolutely no drug smugglers/terrorists passing. Then we could work on a reasonable processes for the 12 milion (or more) here.

If the border was proven effectively sealed, here's what I would find permissable...

Note: The below must be taken in full context.

1)I would give a general permanent residence (to illegals), given: A--they'll never get a right to vote B-- they're sponsored C--they pay for their own medical insurance D--they're deportable if they commit three crimes (like California but deportation) E--they're not eligible for SS or medicare...(they still get taxed a similiar amount only to enforce illegal immigration both on the border and in the work place).


2)There's no guest worker program. Wage/inflation growth data in each industry is reviewed yearly. When ever a industries 'wages/inflation is out of control' (particular to a state), we offer permanent residence to a person whom takes a job in that industry (and in that state) for two years. After those two years, they could move to any industry and state they chose.

3)English is the language of the land.

4)I'll be the one of the few to say it, but if you came legally on a temporary visa, and you've graduated college here, you should be eligible to stay...I do think this should also be based on my wage/inflation concept.

5)Corrrespond with Mexico daily. Focus on their laws that impede private investment. Focus on making Mexico's police and politicians reliable agents of a benevolent government. Have measurements of economic and social success. Resolve not to move backwards into nationalization or corruption.

*In other words, they're forced to be responsible for themselves, but their tax dollars go directly towards making sure this problem doesn't come-up again. Also look primarily at the problem...Mexico's government is inadept, and is truely xenophobic. Make it an enviroment that isn't anti-business and anti-industry, but one that's willing to work within reasonable boundaries, which avoids corporate corruption but aspires to modern needs.

And it should focus on real immigration needs in America (ie the demands in educated fields), not fabricated needs. We can immigrate labor legally when ever we want to.

As always, it would be promoted that these individuals leave and apply lawfully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's my plan. Please offer your civil opinion.

 

If they take the steps to become a citizen, there is really no reason a person shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is unless there are other situations that would bar them from voting, such as we all are held to.

Operation wetback was a horrible stain for our government. Was actually just watching a documentary on it. Seems the 1 million included many that were here with legal status. Basically they shipped anyone that looked mexican back to mexico.

 

I think he means in a case of amnesty - no voting (this seems fair, a trade off for being illegal and given amnesty) - maybe put a timeframe on this, like 8 years or something then given voting rights.

With a name like wetback, it probably was messed up. Probably had some southern california racists snobs in charge.

 

That's it, they aren't taking the appropriate steps to becoming a citizen. My plan implies they've done it illegally, and there's some general penalties--much more strict than McCain. If they do it legally, that's a different story. I welcome any individual to sign up the real program, in their own country.

I mean what better plan to move the country left than to import cheap votes? This is not a legit way of changing our political views, and is one of the reason s we enforce immigration laws. Imagine I immigrate only people on the 'right'...million upon million of them...our country would be shifted without a real look at the ideas.

Numbers do not justify change, if it did the world would want us completely altered...and we would fail. Change must be justified by educated minds and peer review...or atleast that's my perspective.

Did you ever wonder why there's such a huge limitation on educated individuals coming here.....?

I don't know about the last part. It was a very abrasive program, and I don't agree with deporting people if there only crime was crossing the border.

Although here's something to keep in mind, if conflicts ever do arise, know it's obvious which side will prevail. If that does happen, bad things will happen regardless, and I believe it's in all our interests not to get to that point.

I'm sure you would agree on that....? So all I'm saying is we need to have a solution that will prevent future conflict.

 

Liberals already are buying the votes of the poor, uneducated, and minorities with programs, free this, free that, with their mouths, but not with votes in the senate, etc... that is why their grand FREE plans tend to fail, it is lip service to buy the votes. Rich liberals don't want to really improve the lives of the poor, because they can control them where they are at now. (Not saying this isn't happening with republicans either, just isn't the parties platform)

 

Actually the McCain bill has a longer extented time than even that. Although the McLame bill also increases immigration in a large extent. What's sad is that others in the world would like to come in, but we focus so squarely on Mexico that it's almost impossible to say we're being fair.

My thoughts are similiar to an amnesty, but not in a sense that they'll be given free reign over our political system. Completely altering our political system in a matter of a few generations is suicide, and could most definitely lead to civil conflict. I respect the law, and although it hasn't been enforced we can't show American flags in white...we must hold on to our political sovereignty, as anyother approach invites violence. My solution is the best way to prevent violence in America, IMHO. It's not idealistic,...but that's the point.

 

In almost every racial background poverty is diminishing (% wise). Americans of African ancestry used to be 60% in poverty, now they're 20% in poverty. While they're a little skeptical of Republicans (which I understand) , some are really starting to see the Democrats as out of touch.

Without importing poverty, the Democrats would be forced to change their platform....and become more politically-centered. Frankly I would much rather have this happen then the other way round. All I get a sense that many politicians like the status-quo.