That wouldn’t surprise me but I never heard it before. Cite?
What would be the “underlying causes”? I think Mexicans sneak into the U.S. because it’s a richer country and they can earn more money here. What can the U.S. government possibly do to make Mexico richer? Nothing comes to mind.
If the economic value of illegal-immigrant labor is so trivial, why is the Bush Admin so ready to bend over backwards to accommodate the employers of such labor, e.g., with his “guest-worker” program? (Somehow I don’t think concern for the laborers themselves played any kind of role in that decision.)
Migrant farm workers and other bracero labor *are *of benefit. But we’d do OK if all we had was just the LEGAL migrant farm workers/braceros. Bush is trying to increase the # of LEGAL “guest workers”. Got it?
NAFTA?
Not that. Doesn’t seem to have done Mexico a damned bit of good, so far. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315669
By granting retroactive amnesty to illegals. So what’s the difference?
Sure. This site provides a helpful chart showing from whence illegal immigrants come. Canada is fourth on the list with 120,000 illegal aliens in 1996. (I was surprised to see that Poland was number nine.)
This one has a chart which tabulates overall immigration by country of origin. Canada is number two.
This is a very interesting article on why the Canadian border should be monitored more closely.
Oh, stop with the racism accusations.
I have absolutely no problem with Mexicans. I go to their country regularly as a visitor, I’ve worked with many Americans of Mexican descent, and I dated a Mexican-American woman for two years. Most of them are fine people, just like most Americans are fine people.
I do, however, have a serious problem with people breaking the laws in this country and then being rewarded for it. My father was an immigrant (from Canada) who went through the appropriate procedures to become a U.S. citizen. After doing so, he paid taxes for the rest of his adult life. He got a driver’s license and paid for auto insurance and medical insurance. An illegal immigrant without drivers license or insurance hit his car. My father’s insurance went up and he paid the deductibles on his insurance policies. The immigrant got free medical care and wasn’t prosecuted for being in the country illegally or driving without a license and insurance.
In other words, the criminal who entered this country in violation of the law was rewarded, and the law-abiding citizen paid for it. How can I not resent that?
It’s not about racism or class hatred. I don’t care if you’re from Mexico, Canada, China, or Elbonia; whether you’re rich, poor, or middle-class. If you come into the U.S., you should obey the laws just like the rest of us do. There’s nothing racist about that whatsoever.
Why would they come here (illegally)? What’s wrong with the Canadian job market?
No, it isn’t. It’s about the sheer volume of people who are crossing the Mexican border and, essentially, invading America.
It’s also about employers who break the law to hire these people at the lowest of wages.
It’s also about a Mexican government who is more than happy to ship their pesantary north so that they can avoid their responsibilties as a government.
It’s about asking “how many are too many” and standing up and addressing what could be an near infinite problem.
So no, a pat answer of “racism and classim” just doesn’t work here.
The wall is the first step in controlling this issue. It alone, however, is not the only answer as much more needs to be done.
Not in all cases surely. But it certainly plays a part with some in the anti-illegal immigration movement.
I see it on conservative gun boards all the time. People are truly mad because Spanish is spoken on the Walmart intercoms; items are advertised and labeled in both languages; more jobs require a proficiency in the Spanish language; Hispanics generally have more kids; there are too many Spanish language radio stations; etc. These same people support English-Only movements; equate the illegal crossing of the border (a violation of a civil law) with heinous criminal acts; openly joke about the government machine gunning them or blowing them up with landmines, or just murdering them in cold blood. Maybe these are just a fringe portion of the anti-illegal immigration movement. But they are certainly a part of it.
I can’t help but think that the growing Hispanic population (legal and often wholly American) that has seemingly kept more of its language and cultural identity than many other immigrants while gaining political clout and not remaining second class citizens just angers some people so much that they lash out at anything concieved as possibly making the US more “Hispanic” in nature. And having more Mexicans certainly does that.
And having folks that aren’t from the border areas or even border states coming down to play Neighborhood Watch or Militia, that certainly sparks my curiosity towards the purity of their motives.
There is no fact there. That is 100% false. Foreigners cannot directly own property inside a certain distance from the coast or border. Other than that they can and do. Inside the restricted zone they can hold property through a bank trust (fidecomiso) which gives them all the rights of a property owner except the title is held by the bank that holds the trust. The owner btw can choose which bank he uses for the trust.
The law doesn’t discriminate against US citizens. It goes for all foreigners without distinction.
This is fast becoming the most tiresome and thoughtless argument ever. Nope, not everything to do with people who aren’t white can be so simply reduced to racism. Actually, I think there’s more bigotry in this post and others calling people “rednecks” than there are in any number of posts by people who oppose illegal immigration. Are some people who oppose illegal immigration racist? Sure. But I don’t think it’s the majority. There are racists who support illegal immigration as well. But again, not the majority.
And I’ve heard plenty of people calling to punish those who hire illegal immigrants. (Wasn’t there a political appointee a while back who lost her job because she had an illegal immigrant as a gardener…?)
Wanting “English Only” (or “English primarily” or however you want to call it) does not equal racism. If there were comparable numbers of lilly-white Swedes in the US and Swedish was as prevalent as Spanish is, do you really think it would meet any less resistance?? Wanting to murder people is simply crazy, and is not something I have encountered in my discussions with people on this issue. I do not think it is representative of most people who oppose illegal immigration.
Your cite seems to disprove your point more than prove it. 120,000 versus 2,700,000? It’s hardly comparable. And if there are towns up on the border where a lot of illegal Canadians are concentrated, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was opposition. (I, too, was surprised to see that Poland still ranks so high. I bet that’ll drop sharply over the next several years.)
Ditto what Age Quod Agis said.
Well, most private American citizens I’ve spoken with have indeed been ashamed of most or all of the things you listed. (I don’t know what the government’s official line on such things would be, if such a thing even exists.) Anyone know what your average Mexican (in Mexico) thinks about the massive illegal emigration from their country?
If I’m pulled over, should the cop speak English to me? Sure. But if two Swedish-American detectives discuss a case in Swedish, then what harm is there? Should they be barred from even speaking Swedish with a Swedish speaking suspect or witness? Should no interpertation be provided in a court of law because Swedish is not English? I’ve held the opinion before myself. Though there are legitimate arguments for it, my opinion was held more out of petty dislike than any real concern.
Spanish has an interesting case in that it was spoken in the US before English. Is a legal second language in at least one state. And through hook and crook, territory brought into the US in the Southwest had a large population of Spanish speaking folks, often with Mexican ties to begin with.
What about the government apploying lethal measures at the border to put a stop to illegal crossing? Is placing mines or shooting people, if done by the government also crazy?
My point was not that “English Only” is good or bad (its points are certainly debatable), but that it’s not racist. (And yes, again, for some people it is, but for most people it’s not.) It may have to do with linguistic chauvinism and xenophobia, or pragmatism and practicality, depending on which side of the debate you’re on, but race doesn’t have much to do with it. People are so quick to attribute everything to racism, and it’s such an emotional charge that it immediately clouds the real issue.
Less crazy than just “murdering people in cold blood.” I haven’t thought much about this proposal before, but off the top of my head I’d say I’d prefer some kind of non-lethal protective force first – stun guns, tear gas, etc. And only if there are clear warnings so people know what they’re getting into.
I’m sure there are racist elements in the immigration restrictionist movment. So what? I’m sure there are Stalinists in labour movement as well. Does that obviate the argument or make either movement any less important? Please don’t deflect his debate by hurling allegations of “racism”. This is too important an issue to let it get sidetracked like that.
Also, it’s a question of volume. Two Swedish detectives is one thing but 30 million plus is another. It’s neither practical or reasonable to expect a society to function where a significant number of people speak an entirely different language. Even a homogenous country like China has tremendous difficulty with the various dialects and versions of its language. English shouls be required as the business of commerce and government. There needs to be some anchor in society otherwise chaos will ensue.
To me, the numbers are not the most important factor. My grief is that the borders are unsecure, and with Canada’s lax asylum policies, those 120,000 have the greater potential to contain people who wish to do harm, as opposed to people who just want to settle.
So- US Citizens can’t own real Property (in that zone) can they? Although certainly it doesn’t single out Americans, it does restrict Americans from owning real Property. And, since it only applies to a border area, it is clearly aimed at Americans.
Does the USA have a similar law restricting Mexicans from owning real property? No. Thus Mexico restricts it’s foriegn residents in a way that it would call racist if used by the USA. And, like I said- the Mexican gov’t has very restrictive immigration polcies and controls over it’s own “illegal immigrant” problem from central America. Mexico asks for an open border with the USA and claims that we are being “racist” by arresting their illegals or building a wall- but* they* don’t have an open border from the south, now do they? Thus- hypocrites.
And Norse was spoken in the USA 400 years before Spanish was spoken- so?