http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5189638.html I guess we had to replace those 40 million aborted taxpayers with something. Just not sure if this was the best way to go.
At least the illegals work harder than the shallow end of the American gene pool. A generation or two on and they'll be successful Republicans. Irony writ large.
Working hard at low end manual labor and becoming tax payers on the high end of the scale in a generation or two is a bit of a stretch. Latino students are not pushed by their parents like Asian students are. Southern California is the future of the US at large if we don't do something about this now. Then again, maybe Del Taco isn't so bad.
You should be so lucky. Or didn't you notice that it's not just Mexicans who are scrambling to move into Southern California?
Don't be too hasty: these are devoted Catholics we're talking about here, many of them avowed cultural conservatives. They generally hate abortion, birth control, taxes and, yes, illegal immigrants (perhaps you've heard the phrase "slamming the golden door behind you" or noticed the highly-vocal hispanic members of the Minutemen?). On top of that, they love hunting, trucks and football, and have a proud tradition of service in the United States armed forces. They have long been courted by Republicans at the state and local levels. There have also been plenty of overtures at the national level, although not in election years. The only reason they vote Democrat nationally is that Republicans have built an electoral strategy around demonizing them as foreign invaders bent on destroying America. Should the Republicans decide that this approach is no longer working, they've already got a back-up plan in place to grab up the hispanic vote as an extension of the "cultural conservative" vote.
Bullshit. Is this why they have sky high illigetimacy and number of abortions? Perhaps you noticed the composition of people marching in favor of amnesty? The dickhead in charge of that party did everything he could to grant amnesty. I'll go into shock if that works. I agree that some Mexicans are like this and will vote republican. However, it is split about 70 / 30 in favor of democrats and I don't see that changing.
That's the first I've heard about that. Do you have any references to back that up? Again, amnesty would become part of the Republican platform if they ditched the "Southern Strategy." I never said is was going to happen next year, just that it would be an easy transition. Although, as you mention below, amnesty-by-any-other-name is almost part of their platform today. Exactly, and at a time of high passions on the issue amongst the Republican base, no less. The key thing to note, though, is that Bush never pushed Hispanic issues until *after* he'd been re-elected. The Republican treatment of the anti-immigrant vote is very similar to their treatment of the religious right: butter them up in election years, and then forget about them in between. It's the big business guys that influence the actual direction of the party, and they're all for more immigration. Keeps labor costs down, don't you know... Okay. I'll just add that these kinds of reversals happen all of the time. 50 years ago, the Democrats were the party of segregationist Klan members in the South, and the Republicans were still the Party of Lincoln. Again, it would require a serious change of heart on the part of the Republicans, but the point is that there's nothing in the Democrat platform that particularly appeals to them, other than the whole "not threatening to round you up and run you out of the country" aspect. On the other hand, it's definitely possible that, in the long run, the immigration/race issue is the only thing that will really polarize Hispanic voters, and, were that to fade away as a defining feature of either party, they'd vote in much the same way as anyone else in America.
http://www.amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/Hispanics.htm Families and Health At 43 percent, the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is twice the white rate, and Hispanic women have abortions at 2.7 times the white rate. Hispanics are three times more likely than whites not to have medical insurance, and die from AIDS and tuberculosis at three times the white rate. In California, the cost of free medical care for illegal aliens forced 60 hospitals to close between 1993 and 2003. A large majority of Americans don't want Amnesty passed. They also don't want large amounts of foreign immigration either. They have never wanted it. That goes for probably every other white country as well. The only thing that happened there was the Rats and Pukes traded constituencies. Are you kidding? They will vote for the Rats because they will pick Whitey's pocket more than the pukes and give it to them. Blacks are supposedly against abortion and homosexuality yet they vote 90% rat anyway. http://www.amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/Hispanics.htm Income and Wealth Per capita income of Hispanics is one half that of non-Hispanic whites, and household net worth is less than one tenth. Fifty percent of Hispanic households use some form of welfare, the highest rate of any major population group.
And how does this compare to the non-Hispanic Catholic population? And this has what to do with voting patterns? Or rather, they don't want it to be called "amnesty." Sort of like how a large majority of Americans favors universal healthcare, even while a large majority of Americans is against "socialized medicine." Uh-huh... Which explains why massive immigration has been supported by both parties for 4 decades now, with no serious attempt ever having been made to shut it off.
Did anyone even bother to look at this report from an organization who's is against immigration legal or otherwise (one of their other articles posted is "Legal Immigration - The Bigger Problem")? One of the chapters of the report starts out with the reasonable observation that And then proceeds to explain the And what follows? Certainly no explanation for why we should assume that there are 3 illegal entries for every person caught. Still even if this is the case the large figure doesn't help make a case for massive deportations--the greater the number of illegal immigrants who are already incorporated into the US economy the less sense it makes to try to get rid of them. Consider what would happen if 38 million workers are removed from the US economy or even 30 million or 20 million. The latest unemployment figure for the US state that there are less the 8 million people looking for work. Talk about cutting your nose off in spite of your face.
If we got rid of slave laborers who get paid less than minnimum wage then the lower skilled laborers in the US who are citizens might make a living wage again. Wouldn't that be a shame.
It's compared to whites. People that use government benefits and are ill and more likely to vote for whoever promises them more government goodies. They didn't want that POS bill Bush was trying to push through which of course he didn't call Amnesty. My you are naive. Most Americans want us out of Iraq yet electing the democrats in 2006 didn't change anything. I guess we don't want out of Iraq after all. BTW, if the Hillary witch wins we'll stay in Iraq as well so I guess that means the American public wants us to stay. The same goes double for the people of Britain.
Yeah, and the actual rates of return to the homeland are pretty much unknown as well. I'm inclined to stick with the 12 million numbers everyone else has been using for the past few years...
Yeah, I got that the first time around. I'd like to know how they stack up against other Catholics, given that the rates of illegitimacy and abortions are heavily correlated with lack of birth control. Also, your statistic is problematic in that Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive groups. You'd think so, but people can be surprisingly irrational. Likewise, a higher rate of abortion doesn't necessarily imply a preference to vote Democrat. You might be surprised to find out how many abortions are performed on women who are pro-choice, for example. Moreover, the Democratic presidential candidates in recent years have been pretty equivocable on the abortion issue anyway... Two things: the short-term actions on a particular issue of a party that gains a slight lead in Congress in a midterm election cannot be taken to be directly indicative of national preferences as 4 decades of bipartisan consensus. Second, it may be that most Americans would like to be over and done with Iraq, but that doesn't mean that they're willing to accept the costs that a sudden (or even simply premature) withdrawl would entail. Which is to say that staying in Iraq does indeed reflect the nation's preferences, given that the President can't magically snap his fingers and make it as though it never happened.
I'm all for prosecuting employers who don't pay minimum wage, don't follow OSHA regulation, etc. The question is how do you enforce that if the employees who are working under such conditions are afraid to report them for fear that they will be deported. Keeping these workers "illegal" benefits the employers. This is why the United Farm Workers, the SEIU and a number of other unions are for amnesty. As for making a living wage, there are 2 problems that you need to address. One that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) drive down wages--so if that is your concern don't hide behind I'm just anti-illegal immigrant when you really mean your anti-immigrant (I'm not saying you do this but it certainly seems to be the case of many who argue against "illegal" immigration). Two, many of the jobs we're talking about can just be outsourced to Mexico if the need arises. There was a recent article in the NY Times about California farmers selling their land and leasing land in Mexico so they could avoid hassles related to worker immigration status. So any attempt to address the issue needs to take into account related issues such as NAFTA, which like most trade agreements is only concerned with benefiting industry and not protecting workers (whether in Mexico or the US). What I keep seeing are unrealistic attempts to address the problem of illegal immigration that don't take into account worker protection, trade issues, etc. Again, I'm not saying that's your response since I don't know anything about you, but it certainly is the response of media pundits, politicians, and lots of people I talk to.
You pay bounties to people who report employers who do this and you pay those bounties with the heavy fines you place on the employers you catch and prosecute. I am pro-America. I think a guy should be able to graduate high school and get a job which pays enough to get a home and raise a family. I am for legal immigration for a limited number of people who will make the country richer for their being here. Such as brilliant scientists, entrepreneurs, and talented artists. Some very limited immigration from poorer nations is also fine. NAFTA and other trade agreements which reward corporations for ignoring US environmental standards and encourage them to use slave labor outside the US need to be repealed and we need to impose tariffs on goods made under such practices. What I keep seeing are no real attempts to address the problem of illegal immigration from the top down. They seem to want the mess we have to get worse.
