Re: ASCERS BEGIN TO SWEAT!

"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<mickeys@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:at3342h24qul4bstllamgokbu4qhq6dats@xxxxxxxxxx
"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




1. A wall won't work. They never do. The Berlin Wall didn't work,
the Great Wall of China didn't work, the walls of the Jewish
ghettos
did not work.

2. Whatever method of protecting your borders you choose, it will
have
to have holes. There is simply too much legal movement of people
and
goods, not to mention entire US-owned industries in the border
regions
which depend on commuting employees.

Of course. Just as laws against murder, rape and drugs do not
completely eliminate these things. The goal is to reduce, not
eliminate.

Yep, and we can see how well the laws against drugs work ....

You (and Demonick) do see, I hope, that your proposals will involve a
significant strengthening of federal over state powers, a significant
increase in expenditure (and hence taxes) on all levels, and quite
certainly a very significant build-up in bureaucracy. IOW, what you
are calling for is the wet dream of big-government Democrats.
Remember the last time this happened? It was called "The Department
for Homeland Security", and it's still growing in all directions
without actually coming anywhere near fulfilling its job description,
let alone with anything approaching efficiency.

Ha! You won't trick me into saying something good about Abteilung der
Vaterland sicherheit.





3. Schools educate US citizens. Feel free to change the law, but
any
child born on US soil until the day the law is changed is a citizen
like you are. Bearing in mind Section 9 of Article I of the
Constitution, this means that you will be stuck with educating the
children of immigrants for the foreseeable future.

Barring an amendment to the Constitution (unlikely), you are right
here.

I hasten to add that schooling will, IMHO, also provide a huge
long-term benefit by way of helping to integrate these kids. Well, at
least they have the potential to do so: catch'em young, teach them
American values, and by the time they grow up they will be Americans.




4. Declaring English to be the national language may deprive
legitimate and long-settled communities of a vital means of
cultural
identification. Are you prepared to force the Amish, Cajuns or
Navajo
to give up their languages?

Please, Alex. You know they wouldn't have to "give up" their
languages. But the State would no longer be legally liable for
failing to produce documents in some obscure Navajo dialect.

Anyhow, it occurs to me that, considering the English versions of some
official documents, the Spanish may actually be easier to decypher ...
:-)

Nor is Spanish an obscure dialect. Legal Spanish-speakers alone make
up more than 10% of the population, according to the 2000 census.

(oh, and someone please inform the Fort Worth authorities that one
Hutch B. is in fact a native Navajo speaker and would like all
official communication in that language... )

<G>



One language, one country. You have to look no further than Canada
and
Quebec to see the rift language differences can cause.

That rift, like others, was caused by efforts to *suppress* the
minority language. The Basques in Spain, the Irish in Ireland --
language is the prime vector of cultural identity, and people know it.




5. Your country was built as much on illegal as on legal
immigration
(and sometimes unwilling). Like it or not, it is part of your
heritage. How willing are you to deny your own history?

No one said deny history.

You do, if you refuse to heed the lesson that it was always immigrant
blood which made America the success it is today. The pattern we see
today is there in your history ...

Yes, and that is why I am not against or even mildly opposed to
*LEGAL* immigration in any way. I think it is great.





6. Above all, it ain't ever going to happen. Legal Latinos are
already too numerous, and increasingly assertive. Anti-alien cant
may
work in states with small Latino populations but no politician is
going to risk career suicide if he at all needs to carry the vote
in
any of the South-Western states, or indeed if he isn't wealthy
enough
to be able to reject lobbyists' donations.

You are misreading the mood of your sister country. *Legal*
immigrants
of all persuasions are mostly on the side of eliminating *illegal*
immigration.

Didn't look that way when the news reported on the demonstrations ...

Of course not. You have to dig a little deeper that what the NYT says.





7. Vicente Fox isn't the problem.

He is part of the problem, Alex, in that he doesn't see a problem.
All
he sees is US dollars pouring into his country.

Can you fault him? It's his job to look after the welfare of Mexicans
and Mexico, and on those counts this huge migrant labour pool is an
unmitigated blessing. Hell, it even removes 12 million voters from
the equation!

Another as yet unspecified factor in the calculation: how many of
these billions of US dollars pouring into Mexico actually come back to
the US in form of purchases and company profits? However much (or
little), that sum belongs in the "pro" column.



His successor may be. So, in fact,
may be the rest of the continent. How well do you think a
perceived
anti-Hispanic policy will play in Caracas, Panama or Bogota, and
how
friendly will they be, do you think, when your diplomats come
calling
to negotiate access to the Canal, or continued support in the War
Against Drugs?

Which is why responsible individuals are going out of their way to
point out and repeat that the problem is not with Mexicans, Latinos,
Hispanics or whatever the hell you call them today.

Which is not going to matter one whit because not only are responsible
individuals not the ones making the biggest noise, your average South
American politician is in no mood to try and explain subtle policy
distinctions to his electorate. Much easier to sink to the level of
Sensenbrenner ....

Hmph. <-- Noise of general disgust whith politicians.




The problem is with people breaking the law with impunity, and
receiving rewards for doing it.

Such as the very founding of the United States?
Limeys everywhere agree with you!
Hand back the colonies!
:-)





2. "They do jobs US citizens and legal aliens will not do."

When picking lettuce pays $10-15/hour, people will line up to get
the jobs.
I DO NOT CARE what removing 12 million illegal aliens does to the
US
economy. Some things transcend profit. The rule of law is one
of
them.
If we do not enforce our own laws and our own borders we are no
longer a
country.

They used this argument in continental Europe to pass laws
requiring
farmers to hire native workers for farm work. The result: the
harvest
rotted in the fields. Turns out that there are some jobs our
well-educated and well-fed folks won't do, among them backbreaking
labour in the fields and orchards.

There is a difference between passing a law to force farmers to hire
locals, and eliminating the supply of illegals.

Not in the effect, there isn't.

The latest wheeze is to allow farmers to hire Eastern European harvest
help on the proviso that they pay the originating countries'
unemployment, pensions and welfare contributions. The result:
harvests rotting in the fields as wages effectively rise by more than
40%.



Whatever makes you think matters
will be different in the US?

No disparagement intended, but we're not Europeans. (any more) <G>

No, you're even fatter ...
:-))

Me, personally? Or 'Mercans in general?




I'd also like to ask you the same thing I asked Mickey: how far
will
your principled stand go if you have to bear the extra cost of
goods
and services out of your own pocket? What if it's not just a
matter
of paying a bit more for your barbecue meat but a matter of family
survival if your wife can't hire a Mexican nanny so she can work
and
help pay the mortgage?


It will not rise to that level. You're extrapolating to an
unreasonable degree. You might as well ask what we will do if they
cause the entire economy to collapse.

I am extrapolating, but not to an unreasonable degree.
What I am doing is extrapolate directly from the demands and proposals
floated by certain politicians who try to make political capital out
of outrageous and ruinous notions which really would cause the economy
to collapse, if implemented.



The prices on some things will go up, of course. The increase will
spread throughout the entire economy. But it will be gradual as the
supply of illegals disappears through attrition, and will have much
less impact than $70/bbl. oil.

That's what you hope.

For a start, prices will go up because taxes will have to go up to pay
for implementing all these wonderful plans before the first employer
is fined and the first illegal is deported.

Then, you will find that, at least in the beginning, even more
illegals will be tempted to cross the border because the higher risks
are now rewarded with higher wages.

You may also find that prices will increase more and faster because
without the safety valve of cheap labour, there will be far greater
pressure on wages (the rise of which is already unnaturally low,
thanks in part to illegal workers).



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ASCERS BEGIN TO SWEAT!
    ... A wall won't work. ... and we can see how well the laws against drugs work .... ... Declaring English to be the national language may deprive ... and eliminating the supply of illegals. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: nbc Full amnesty and a very tall wall nbc
    ... A wall is bullshit. ... Well, in reality, what's bullshit is our need to address this stupid ... million people can violate our laws with absolutely no penalties. ... illegals, because as a nation, we allow bullshit. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: OT: My New Bumper Sticker
    ... criminals but the way the loss occurs is quite different. ... It's one "set" of laws but why nitpick? ... think one on our border would be no less so. ... The Great Wall of China might have worked in its time but a Great ...
    (rec.arts.dance)
  • Re: Meaning, Dylan and his commentators
    ... philosophy of language and science ... ... something I'm making up because the wall really doesn't exist; ... Some roads lead to madness, true enough, but some lead to ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>rules that we have identified and refer to as the natural laws are the ... > motion were not expressible in any language prior to Newton's work. ... > exist if no natural language was capable of expressing them. ... > I am saying that it required the invention of the appropriate ...
    (sci.math)
Loading