Wednesday, March 19, 2008

ANTIs and PROs find Common Ground!

ANTIs and PROs agree on a few Immigration policies. I have published these policies before.

1. Secure Borders
2. Sanctioning Exploiting Employers
3. Deporting Felonious Criminals - No citizen wants felonious criminals here and we support ICE´s efforts to deport them.

Effort aims to stop re-entry of deportees
By ANNA GORMAN and SCOTT GLOVER Los Angeles Times - Article Last Updated: 03/17/2008 01:47:53 AM PDT
LOS ANGELES — Federal authorities are cracking down on immigrants who were deported and then re-entered the country illegally — a crime that makes up more than one-third of all prosecutions in Los Angeles and surrounding counties, a Los Angeles Times review of U.S. attorney's statistics shows. The surge in prosecutions reflects the government's push in recent years to detect illegal immigrants with criminal records in what may seem the most obvious of places: the state's jails and prisons. Immigration authorities have long combed inmate populations for illegal immigrants, but additional money and cooperation with local law enforcement have fueled an increase in such cases by the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. The illegal re-entry charge is the single most prosecuted crime in the office.
Targeting criminals Prosecutors filed 539 such cases in fiscal year 2007, making up 35 percent of the total caseload, compared with 207 in 2006 — 17 percent of all cases. Statistics for the first four months of this fiscal year show the trend continuing.
Federal authorities touted the recent effort, saying the prosecutions serve as a deterrent for people who see the border as a turnstile. They said they were targeting violent gang members, career criminals and drug dealers who have returned to the United States after being deported — many of them repeatedly.


Liquidmicro said...

I told you it was your order that you placed your terms in.

ultima said...

While certainly desirable, the problem with this approach is that these are the very people who are least likely to pay any attention to deportation orders. They'll be back in a heartbeat to continue their criminal activities.

The approach is too modest. We need to extend this idea to all illegals.

See my blog for additional discussion of why we must add this to the list of things we agree on.

Dee said...

If we followed your recommendations, put the jobs up for bids, the non felonious criminals will come forward and register. Gain Legal Status. These are the contributing, non felonious criminals. Then it will be easier to identify the felonious criminals and deport them, forever!!

Dee said...

Is it a start?

Anonymous said...

We are in a recession and do not need the 12 million plus in this country. I agree with Ultima, we must include all illegals. You say these are the contributing but do not mention how much they are taking in education, medical and other benefits. Legal status is for people who came to this country legally.

dianne said...

It is a start, Dee.

I am still having a hard time about what to do with those already here. I have had personal conversations this week and last with both of my state representatives because changes to the immigration laws are being debated right now in Kansas. I can tell you for sure the businesses are fighting it tooth and nail. They don't want the responsibility to use e-verify. They don't want any penalties for even knowingly hiring illegals. But, they don't care a hang about cutting off social benefits to the illegals cause that doesn't affect their greedy pocketbooks. And, law enforcement doesn't want to have to deal with the issue either because they claim they don't have enough people. Course if they got more money, they'd be happy to do it.

Fact is the federal government cannot do this alone. They have to put the responsibility on the states to some degree.

What a mess we have let this become.

Liquidmicro said...

It was a start when the laws began to be enforced, to fully reach the point of the terms of the topic, we still have a long ways to go. But then again, look to who Univision has contributed $1,000.00 to. Those terms may be reached faster once the Illegals realize that who they thought that they could count on, is also for the rule of law and may be throwing them under the bus, so to say. They should also ask why the Hispanic Caucus has played politics with the issuance of additional H-2B visas, lowering it back down to 66,000 from the 120,000 of the past few years.

Dee said...

You are right in saying there are many sides to this debate. From a citizen perspective, there are the PROs and ANTIs.

Then the government ($) and business ($$). Then the Duplicitous ($$$) or dupes for short. They are neither PRO nor ANTI but pretend to be both and prefer Status Quo.

Then the illegal immigrants, especially the hard working, crime free, themselves, some with nowhere to return.

You are right. Our country got ourselves into this mess. Based on what is happening now, I suspect we will stay status quo, demonizing the "illeeeegals" for quite some time. Very Sad!!

patriot said...

The illegals have no where to return? What about their homelands?

Illegals should be demonized. They violated our immigration laws. Our government and the employers should also be demonized. Nothing sad about demonizing ALL of those who have broken our laws.

Status quo is better than legalizing 12-30 million illegals and then having them petition to bring in 50-100 million of their relatives into this country later.

Pro Inmigrant said...

I am totally disagree with you Patriot regarding to demonizing undocumented Immigrants. Did you believe the title and punishment fit the crime?
Why not ficused on the real benefits to implemented a real reform on the dysfunctional and obsolete Immigrations system.

patriot said...

Depends on what you mean by "demonize". Probably to you it means all kinds of nasty stuff. To me it just means calling a spade a spade and nothing more. They violated our immigration laws. It isn't anything personal with me. I am sure many of them are basically nice people but that doesn't excuse what they did.

I don't agree that our immigration laws are obsolete, they just weren't enforced. If employers can prove we don't have enough American workers for certain jobs even while paying them a decent wage, I have no problem with increasing our guest worker's program but we must ultimately stabilize our population growth to fit a smaller economy for the future health and welfare of this nation.

Liquidmicro said...

Dee says:
"Then the illegal immigrants, especially the hard working, crime free, themselves, some with nowhere to return."

None of the "Illegals" are crime free, they are fully aware that they need documentation to work here. They know that they can purchase the required documents, and circumvent our laws. They are living here under lies that they themselves have told and are living under, all done by the choices that they made. Parents chose to come here and either bring their children with them or have children here, thus putting undue hardship on their children as the parent hopes for an Amnesty. It is not demonizing the "illeeeeegals", as Dee likes to use trigger words to portray "HATE", but to hold "Illegal Aliens" accountable for their own choices. So when E-Verify is used to enforce our employment laws, or ICE pursues those with outstanding deportation orders, and comes across other "Illegal Aliens" in the process of searching, they are within the Federal Governments Right to detain and deport them. They all have somewhere to return to, they may not like the place they are going back to, but they do have a home elsewhere.

Why is it that you think the Immigration system is in need of reform? Just because we do not need other countries poor here? We have our own poor that we can't even deal with, importing more is of no benefit.

Why don't you blame the farmers here in the USA for not using the H-2A visa, it has no limits on the amounts issued per year, yet only 2% of our farmers are using it.

Why don't you blame your own organizations: the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and its allies have blocked voting on legislation that would allow employers to rehire foreign seasonal nonagricultural workers independent of a 1991 quota.

As a result, the government is limited to issuing the 66,000 seasonal work visas set when the visa program, known as H-2B, became law — 33,000 for winter workers and 33,000 for summer workers. Last year, more than 120,000 foreign workers entered the country on H-2B visas.

So please answer the questions about the Hispanic Caucus, the Farmers, and the "Illegal Aliens". Then, tell me again why we need CIR, when all we have to do is amend, tweak, and add a few laws here and there.

Dee said...

You act as if you want me to be Dorothy and all I need to do is take a list to the Wizard with my 3 demands!

I do agree with you (a little). We could make signficant strides in Immigration Reform if only we could amend, tweak, and add a few laws here and there.
This is what CIR is all about. There never was anything such as Amnesty. The Sensennbrenner bill was all about tweaking and adding a here and there.

ultima said...

"If we followed your recommendations, put the jobs up for bids, the non felonious criminals will come forward and register. Gain Legal Status. These are the contributing, non felonious criminals. Then it will be easier to identify the felonious criminals and deport them, forever!!"

I think you may have misconstrued my proposal. There is no registration involved although I would be willing to listen why registration would be appealing if it could lead to repatriation. My proposal is to re-advertise the jobs held by illegals and if they cannot be filled by citizens if offered a living wage and a hiring preference, those illegals who survive this process would offered temporary work permits and relieved of the anxiety of potential repatriation. Those whose jobs are filled by citizens must then be quickly and humanely repatriated after fingerprinting, photos, and DNA samples have been taken and after they have been admonished that if they return without the proper papers, they will face a minimum of two years in jail. That's my proposal. It is fair both to illegals who are doing jobs citizens won't do and to citizens who can't find work.

ultima said...

"They don't want the responsibility to use e-verify."

Surprise, surprise! E-verify would be simple and painless but the results might deprive employers of their cheap labor supply.

ultima said...

"I am still having a hard time about what to do with those already here."

To help you make up your mind here are some criteria to use:

1. Are they in jobs citizens would do if offered a living wage?
2. Will allowing all of them to stay assist or take away from border security?
3. Will what would be tantamount to amnesty encourage or discourage more border violations?
4. Can our borders be secure if illegals believe they will be safe once they escape the immediate environs of the border?
5. Can border security be achieved by physical and staffing improvements alone or is internal enforcement essential to border security?
6. What policy with regard to those already will create the greatest disincentive to further border violations?
7. Is there some middle ground between mass legalization or amnesty and mass deportation?
8. Should our policy regarding illegals be dictated by employers only or should labor and professional organizations be consulted?
9. Should we allow employers and labor and professional organizations to propose a policy for the peoples' consideration?
10. Should we expect Hispanic citizens to give some consideration and support to the desires of their fellow citizens instead of the desires of foreigners?

I am sure there are other criteria or questions that could be added but these would be a start to answering your dilemma.

ultima said...

What are the choices that we must make if our country and society are to succeed rather than fail? For our society as a whole, the failures and successes of past societies are instructive. Two types of choices have been crucial in their outcomes towards success or failure: long-term planning, and willingness to reconsider core values.

It takes courage to practice long-term thinking, and to make bold, courageous, anticipatory decisions at a time when problems have become perceptible but before they have reached crisis proportions. This type of decision-making is the opposite of the short-term, myopic, reactive decision-making that too often characterizes our elected politicians. Set against the many depressing bad examples of such short-term, myopic decision-making are encouraging examples of courageous long-term thinking in the past, and in the contemporary world.

There are some organizations, businesses and departments of government that promote the long-term environmental policies essential to success. Although some, like the Sierra Club, steer clear of population control, other more forward looking organizations like Planned Parenthood freely provide information and counseling to enable family planning. Strangely enough, Muslim Bangladesh, formerly the eastern part of over-populated Pakistan, has seen the light and has adopted effective family planning. This is unusual for a Muslim country where such matters are often left in the hands of Allah. Pakistan in the West has not taken this necessary step and as a result has become the world’s sixth most populous country. Although the intrinsic rate of population growth (i.e. excluding net immigration) in the U.S. is small compared to that of some of the more populous countries of the world, our population is still expected to double again by the end of this century. This is the result of legal immigrants, illegal aliens, their progeny and their higher fertility rates. To avoid the fate of other failed nations, dramatic changes in immigration policies and border security are needed, as well as effective family planning. This means we must discard ancient and outmoded religious doctrines and dogma that have condemned so many to a life of poverty and suffering. If overpopulated Muslim countries can do this, others should be able to do likewise.

The other crucial choice illuminated by the past involves the courage to make painful decisions about values. Which of the values that formerly served society well can be continue to be maintained under new changed circumstances? We once welcomed immigrants with Emma Lazarus’s poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty. This is a treasured remnant of our past but it now must be jettisoned, figuratively speaking, and replaced with a different approach.

In other societies, people did reach agreement to subordinate their individual rights to group interests. Individuals in this country have a right to promote any sort of immigration reform they see fit but in doing so they should give consideration to the interests of their fellow citizens in maintaining some semblance of the quality of life we have all come to enjoy. By thinking in terms of long-term group interests instead of narrower short-term, myopic individual interests we can manage our shared resources and avoid the common problems and fate that have befallen some other societies.

The government of China restricted the traditional freedom of individual reproductive choice, rather than let population problems spiral out of control. This is an example where the need for a change in values was recognized and implemented. While we may not admire the methods used, we must recognize the huge problem that would have resulted in terms of human suffering if nothing had been done. Similarly, the Brits have had to come to grips with the values and long-held beliefs associated with their vast colonial empire and the one-time dominance of their political, economic and naval power that disappeared after World War II.

A reappraisal of values associated with our immigrant past will be exceedingly difficult. Likewise, we will agonize for a long time before we find the courage to make the most fundamental reappraisal regarding how much of our traditional consumer values and high living standard we can afford to retain? Politicians like to preach about "more" rather than "less" in this regard. Therefore, the seeming political impossibility of inducing citizens, businessmen and politicians to lower their expectations and their impact on the finite resources and environment of our country and of this planet is always foremost in our minds. Yet, the alternative, of continuing our current impact and increasing it by faulty resource management, immigration, tax, and population policies, is even more impossible.

Churchill’s response to criticisms of democracy is often quoted: “It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” In that spirit, a lower-impact society and a stable population constitute the most impossible scenario for our future—except for all other conceivable scenarios.

While it won’t be easy to reduce our impact on the environment, it won’t be impossible either. Remember the impact is the product of two factors: population (which I have been pontificating about for a long time) multiplied times the impact per person. Population growth, except for the impact of immigration has recently declined in all of the First World countries. So, if we could solve the immigration conundrum and properly manage our arable land, minerals, water, forests and fisheries, we might just be able to succeed in preserving our society, our quality of life, our country and the planet itself in all its infinite variety of species.

--Excerpted, supplemented, modified in part from views expressed by Professor Jared Diamond in his book, Collapse

ultima said...

An Interview with Walter Klondike

Ultima: Mr. Klondike, why do you believe it is just not feasible to send the 12 million illegal aliens back to their homelands?

Mr. Klondike: Assuming a bus with a capacity of 30 passengers, it would take 400,000 trips to move that many people. If the goal was too accomplish this in one year, it would take 1096 such trips every day of the year. Where would we find that number of buses? For the illegals that are from South America, Africa or Asia, we would need to use airlines or shipping lines. It would be an expensive, logistical nightmare.

Ultima: Following the end of World War II,in 1945-6, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated from the Eastern Territories back to Germany’s heartland in less than a year. That proves that the repatriation of millions of people is indeed feasible from a logistical point of view. Also, our transportation systems today are much improved over those of immediate post-World War II Europe.

The illegals paid coyotes and transportation costs to get here. Presumably they are now better off than they were then and should therefore easily be able to pay their way home. Failing that approach, we could always charge the employers of illegals for the costs of repatriating them or negotiate bi-lateral treaties with their homeland governments to enable us to obtain reimbursement for those costs.

Mr. Klondike: It still seems to me that this would be a very difficult undertaking if one wanted to accomplish it in a fairly short time. How many more government employees would it require?

Ultima: Few people are suggesting that all 12 million illegals could or should be returned to their homelands over a relatively short period of time. Rather, they believe that once we begin the process of: (1) verifying the work status of illegals and (2) apprehending and repatriating them, many will choose to leave on their own. This is sometimes referred to as enforcement through attrition.

We could put this task up for bids by private enterprise, with all costs to be recovered from the illegals, their families, their employers or their homeland governments. Private enterprise has a way of getting any job done quickly and efficiently when there is a dollar to be made. There is no need for additional government employees. It would be helpful if deportation laws were simplified so that each case could be decided on the day it is presented with only a week for any appeal. Agreement to self-deport and not return could shorten the process even further.

ultima said...

Mr. Klondike: If one were to admit the logistical feasibility of such an effort, there is still the human side. The vast majority of people crossing our borders illegally are poor and desperate to better the lives of their families. They are not law-breakers by nature. As Senator John McCain put it, “We need to sit down and recognize that these are God’s children as well.”

Ultima: No one has suggested that we ignore the human side of the illegal alien equation. There are 6.5 billion of God’s children in this world. Which of them did Senator McCain have in mind? Where do we draw the line on how many of them we should accommodate? Should we give preference to those of God’s children who happen to live just across the borders? It has been amply demonstrated that even if we continue to take a million legal immigrants each year, we cannot make a dent in the number of poor people in the world because they are reproducing at an even faster rate. Unlike the German repatriation in which each person was allowed to take only one suitcase with nothing of value, our process could be much more compassionate. Many of those in our prisons may not be lawbreakers by nature but when they do break the law they must be required to pay the price. Illegal aliens are no different in this regard.

Some favor a process that would require employers to re-advertise all of the jobs that are currently held by illegals to determine how many of those jobs could be filled with citizen labor if the employers offered a living wage. A living wage could be determined by local labor unions in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Labor, using historical data going back to the 1950s as adjusted for inflation. The illegals who survive this process could be granted temporary work permits to relieve them of the anxiety of being deported. After taking finger prints, photos and DNA samples, those who are displaced must be treated humanely but expeditiously repatriated, with the admonition that if they return without the proper papers they will face jail time.

As opposed to citizenship, most illegals, especially Mexicans, would be content with some sort of legal status that would eliminate their anxiety over potential deportation. If they just come here to work to improve the lives of their families, that sort of arrangement would be satisfactory to many.

Mr. Klondike: I’m not sure there is any humane way to repatriate illegals, especially if they have children born in this country who are birthright citizens. However, giving some of them a chance to stay with temporary work permits is a step in the right direction.

Ultima: Of course, birthright citizenship for minor children is a problem which could be easily solved by a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to require that at least one of the parents be a citizen before it applies. Moreover, if we delay the award of birthright citizenship until the child reaches age 21 or enlists in the armed forces for at least four years, we would no longer hear protestations about family separations due to the citizenship of the children being different from that of their parents. At any rate, repatriated parents must take their minor children with them regardless of citizenship or be considered guilty of child abuse.

ultima said...

Mr. Klondike: Today, there are numerous organizations devoted to limiting or ending immigration altogether. And there are movements to require government agencies to use English only in official publications and documents. Such a measure would handicap any immigrant—legal or illegal—who does not read English well enough to understand official forms.

Ultima: There are very good and substantial reasons for restricting immigration and securing our borders. These reasons have nothing to do with racism, bigotry, or nativism. Those terms simply divert our attention from all the problems of excessive population growth which are due entirely to legal immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny.

We once were a nation of immigrants. That historical fact does not constitute a valid argument for continuing a policy that allows an ever increasing number of the foreign-born to enter our country.

Although the indigenous Indian tribes might quarrel with this, to varying degrees,a vast, unsettled continent lay before the pilgrims, the explorers, the colonists, the founding fathers, the pioneers, and the immigrants of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Our situation today is much different from those earlier periods in our history. Therefore, there is no reason why we should continue the outmoded immigration policies of the past.

The rich natural resources of our country that seemed inexhaustible in the beginning are now being rapidly depleted, destroyed or fully committed. Everyone should realize that natural resources like petroleum, arable land, water, and other minerals are finite. They are not limitless. Some minerals like coal are still in plentiful supply but even that resource will one day be gone. Coal also creates significant pollution problems by poisoning our air and acidifying our lakes and streams. The toxic air of some Chinese cities is a good example of how shortsighted population and environmental policies can compromise the quality of life and increase the death rate.

The mathematical concept of a "limit" is a useful way to look at the problem of finite natural resources. The "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. In other words, the more people there are the fewer finite natural resources there will be for each of us. The question is how far down that road do we want to go? Our country is totally different now than it was when the great waves of immigration occurred. Changing our immigration policies to match our new situation makes eminent good sense.

ultima said...

Mr. Klondike: What about the Official English initiative?

Ultima: Neither legal immigrants nor illegal aliens would be seriously handicapped by the repeal of Executive Order 13166 and the enactment of an Official English law or constitutional amendment. A Public Interpreter, just like a Public Defender, could be provided to anyone who cannot afford one. And billable interpreters could be on staff at hospitals, emergency rooms and police stations, as necessary.

Mr. Klondike: Even though the Public Defender approach is a fixture in our society, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide Public Interpreters at every polling place and still maintain some semblance of a secret ballot.

Ultima: Informed voting would be difficult for those who are not fluent in English but the ability to read and write English has long been a requirement for citizenship. Official English would strengthen that requirement and provide an incentive, for those who can, to learn English as soon as possible. Those who cannot understand the ballot issues in English should not have the right to vote. This may mean that voting privileges may have to be postponed for some families until the second generation. This is a positive because it would mean that those who are voting would have more knowledge of our history, civics and our democratic form of government. We should note, however, that the printing of ballots and the prescription of voting procedures are the province of state government not the federal government. The federal legislation could do no more than grant states the authority to dispense with state and local documents and forms in other languages without fear of lawsuits.

ultima said...

Mr. Klondike: You stated that there were many good and substantial reasons for restricting immigration and securing our borders. You mentioned our declining natural resources as one such reason. What other reasons are there?

Ultima: Among the other reasons, the environment is perhaps the most important. Over the 30 year period beginning in 1975, a sustained effort by the U.S. government has reduced levels of six major air pollutants nationally by 25%, even though our energy consumption and population increased by 40% and our vehicle miles driven increased by 150% during those decades. Yet, we still remain far from achieving the goals established in the Kyoto Protocol.

According to such empirical concepts as those inherent in the Gompertz or logistic curve and Pareto's Principle, often most of the results, say 80%, is achieved with the first 20% of the effort. In other words, the easiest and most obvious things are done first to gain quick results. Subsequent improvements come at a much higher cost. In the case of the Gompertz Curve, slow initial progress is made followed by a period of rapid growth or improvement and then a final slow period of slow growth as the curve bends over at the top. As that final period is approached further improvement comes very slowly and at a much higher cost. Given the progress that has already been made, it would not be unreasonable to predict slower progress in the future. For example, some current action is being taken to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to another 20%. Accomplishment of this goal is likely to be a very difficult and expensive technical problem. Each incremental reduction will be more difficult to achieve than the one that preceded it.

But it would be unfair to view this effort in isolation. What are the chances that this 20% goal will be achievable if our population increases by yet another 100% by the end of this century? No ones talks about the impact of population growth greenhouse gas emissions. Not even the Sierra Club. The UN says that people -- too many of them -- are the primary cause of these emissions. The things demanded by people such as autos, appliances, water, apartments, energy and even beef from flatulent cows are the reason. So why do we ignore this fact when we talk about immigration policies?

The growth in in the number of hybrid vehicles on the road is often mentioned as a sign of progress in the fight against carbon pollutants. But any reduction in emissions due to hybrid vehicles was more than offset by the large number of gas-guzzling SUVs that were being sold.

The UN estimates that, on average, every American produces a minimum of 20 metric tons of carbon pollutants every year. Even if we were able to reduce that figure by 20%, 300 million more people would still mean 4.8 billion additional metric tons of carbon pollutants per year (16 metric tons per person x 300 million additional people). This would be partially offset by the 20% reduction in emissions from our present population. If achieved, that would amount to 1.2 billion metric tons per year (4 metric tons x 300 million people) leaving a net increase of 3.6 billion tons per year when our population reaches 600 million, with no end in sight.

Another aspect of the concern about the environment is the extinction of species like the magnificent polar bear. Concern about these matters is not a sign of morally culpable or conscious selfishness.

ultima said...

Mr. Klondike: Since the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, there seems to be an anti-Hispanic undercurrent driving all the anger of those who favor internal enforcement and secure borders. This has resulted in an increase in the number of hate crimes against Hispanics.

Ultima: First of all we should make it clear that we do not condone or advocate criminal behavior against any segment of our population whether they are citizens or not. Yet, as you have pointed our in relation to the treatment of earlier immigrants of Irish, Italian, Chinese or other descent, this anger and resentment is nothing new. But the term "hate crimes" is not an appropriate description of the criminal acts committed by the few as a result of their resentment of illegal aliens. Many who perpetrate these misdeeds do not hate the individual illegals but they do hate the fact that they have no regard for the rule of law and are involved in an unarmed invasion with deadly consequences for everything we hold dear.

There are two aspects to this problem. The first is the sheer numbers of Hispanics flooding our country from south of the border. This gives them a high profile in our society that serves as a focus for pro-legal and anti-immigration movements. The large numbers of these illegals and their real threat to our language, culture, political processes, and jobs presents Americans with a serious dilemma. We appreciate their hard work and desire to improve the lot of their families but insist on the rule of law and a recognition our national borders and sovereignty must come first.

The second aspect of the resentment of Hispanics arises from the largely monolithic support Hispanic citizens give to the illegals. It is as though they put La Hermandad de la Raza well ahead of their regard for their fellow citizens, the rule of law, the national interest and our national sovereignty. Some give lip service to border security but would withhold the tools necessary to achieve that goal. They believe nothing is needed beyond the immediate environs of the border. Or they favor employer sanctions but none for the illegals themselves. They oppose work status verification and internal enforcement even though these are the essential tools needed to buttress the physical improvement and staff increases at the border. Is this opposition a form of disloyalty? Are Hispanic citizens fellow travelers with the illegals? They do not seem to appreciate the negative impact excessive immigration, legal and illegal, will ultimately have on their quality of life. Some believe that their somnolence on this issue will result in the re-creation of the very conditions they fled their homelands to escape: poverty, pollution, disease, joblessness and government corruption.

Two things could relieve this problem. First, more Hispanics and Hispanic leaders should be speaking out against amnesty and de facto open borders. Second, if they were to endorse the Official English initiative, many of the remaining problems of illegal aliens could be quickly solved. It is their failure in both areas that generate much of the heat being focused on them by other citizens. They are their own worst enemies.

ultima said...

Mr. Klondike: Opinion polls show most Americans believe that tightened border controls plus some accommodation for those already here should be the solution to this problem.

Ultima: I agree, with the caveat that most polls give respondents exceedingly narrow choices and therefore the accommodation Americans would like to see for those already here is not well understood. I have already suggested one such accommodation that would probably be acceptable to the majority of Americans -- the idea of re-advertising jobs held by illegals at a living wage with a hiring preference for citizen labor. If a poll could be taken with 50 – 100 unbiased questions related to actions needed to solve the problems of immigration and illegal aliens, we would soon have a much better understanding of what most Americans favor as an accommodation.

Mr. Klondike: This issue could well decide the election.

Ultima: Yes. It is deplorable how all three presidential candidates have pandered to the Hispanics in our society without even a fleeting thought about the long term consequences for our country. Election is more important to them than the future of our country. They all should be reading: “Mexifornia: A State of Becoming” by Professor Hansen, "Collapse” by Pulitzer Prize winning Professor Jared Diamond, “The Coming Economic Collapse” by Leeb and Strathy, and “How Many People Can the Earth Support?” by demographer Joel Cohen.

If California is any guide, the term “Mexico Norte” may be an apt descriptor of our future. Perhaps that is the most important aspect of our resentment of Hispanic illegals and those who aid and abet their violation of our borders and displacement of American workers.

ultima said...

"And, law enforcement doesn't want to have to deal with the issue either because they claim they don't have enough people. Course if they got more money, they'd be happy to do it."

I don't think anyone is expecting state and local law enforcement to do much except keep our highways safe from overloaded vans and checking the status of anyone apprehended in the normal course of their duties. The cost would not be large. Put the dispatcher to work on E-verifications while he or she is not busy on other matters. Have a hot line to the ICE and an arrangement to have any illegal picked up ASAP. If necessary, confiscate whatever funds the illegals and coyotes have on them through locally imposed fines to house and feed them while waiting for the ICE. All we need here is a can do attitude and a willingness on the part of locals to do the right thing.

ultima said...

"But, they don't care a hang about cutting off social benefits to the illegals cause that doesn't affect their greedy pocketbooks."

One social benefit that would get their attention is if we required employers to provide full family health care insurance for all foreign employees or enabling legislation that required all those who show up in emergency rooms to show employer identification so the employers could be billed rather than the taxpayers.

ultima said...

"Fact is the federal government cannot do this alone. They have to put the responsibility on the states to some degree."

You got that right Diane. The sooner the feds provide enabling legislation to allow state and local communities to charge illegals with trespassing, etc, the sooner the states can begin to help.

ultima said...

"None of the "Illegals" are crime free, they are fully aware that they need documentation to work here." etc.

Hear, hear! Micro.

Dee said...

Is this the Walter Klondike you were interviewing??

from wikipedia:
Don Wilson´s final on-camera appearance was in two episodes of the 1960s Batman as newscaster Walter Klondike (spoofing Walter Cronkite).

Anonymous said...


Page Hits