I for one have no problem if the US wishes to give preference to Mexican and Canadian immigrants. The fact is that it is being imposed on the US by undemocratic and illegal means at the present time. That is the problem. A good part of the solution is to erect the fence as proposed by the Minuteman Project. It will not stop all drugs, illegals, and the like, but it will allow us to make better and more effective use of our resources.
If Alaska were to experience another massive earhtquake that raised the Bering Strait land bridge to Russia above sea level, we would get a massive influx of Russian immigrants as Western Europe is getting. I would also be in favor of a fence along that bridge to keep illegals from Russia out if there were one million coming across per year. I suppose that would be considered racist as well by most posters? They could also point out that Alaska used to be part of Russia a lot more recently than the Southwest USA was part of Mexico. We would have to have signs and other documents in Russian as well then. At least I hope that caviar would become more available and cheaper. The vodka would be the best part though. Tequilla isn’t bad either, but I like Russian vodka better.
But I never said that the Amendment was passed for the same reasons as the Proclamation. The Amendment was political expediency related to the war: the abolitionist groups in the U.S. used the war to advance their cause, then used the loss of votes from the South along with the attitudes toward slavery that were engendered in the North because the South chose to secede, to pass legislation that would not otherwise have been possible. That is political expediency that was driven by the fact of the war.
If Russians wanted to cross the Bering Strait, they wouldn’t wait for a land-bridge, as skin boats already make trips across on occasion. Of course, the first Americans that they would meet would probably have much more in common with them than those same Americans have in common with your average American in the mainland. I’m guessing that the Chuckchi don’t feel any more “Russian” than the Inupiats feel “American”.
Come election time I imagine that they feel American and on Apr 15th as well. I would think the same applies to the Russian side.
Usually I consider political expediency arriving at some compromise such as the 3/5 rule in the Constitution, or some other such thing. The fact is that war changes attitudes radically in all areas. A more accurate statement I think and one that is not as condescending or perjorative is that they won a majority to the anti-slavery position in the Union. It became possible with that change to pass the 13th Amendment. Lincolns assassination didn’t hurt the cause either. Indeed, Lincoln’s murder was provoked by his assertion that blacks would get the vote as well as being freed. The abolitionists simply used the opportunity of the change in attitudes to pass it. That is called democracy. It is not some backroom deal somehow slipped through in the middle of the night when nobody was looking.
Also, if Spain is to get credit for abolishing slavery in areas where there was little opposition, then the US should get credit for the abolition of slavery in the different states as well. Even though Mexico had outlawed slavery, they still allowed the colonists in Texas to keep theirs. Should they get credit for abolishing slavery then if they never enforced it in areas of their control? In any case, the fact is that the original statement that the US was not doing much different from the rest of the West still is accurate. Had it been doubled the time, I would agree that the US lagged well behind.
You infer condescension and a pejorative declaration that I have not made. I simply pointed out that the abolition of slavery was an expedient result of the conditions that occurred as a result of the war. I made no claims to conspiracies or backroom deals, so you are getting overly defensive for no reason, at all. Unlike you, I have not even resorted to sarcasm while making my point.
I find your condemnation of Mexico in regards to Texas interesting, since you seem to have a need to portray Mexico in as negative a position as possible, yet it was Mexico’s insistence that the Texans abandon slavery that was one of the reasons the Texans sought independence. The fact that the issue took six years to come to a head is easily understood in terms of the lack of absolute control and the absence of good communications between Texas and Mexico City.
This one culture is as American as Apple Pie or as American as Barabcoa on Sunday in South Texas or *as American Luminarias at Christmas time in Santa Fe, New Mexico
*. And that culture existed here before the Anglos landed at Plymouth Rock. It also existed here in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California before they even became US territories. It existed with people who were legally here. As it exists with people who are legally here today. And many of these people are in no way, shape, or form descendants of illegal immigration.
You are going to have to change some legislation and fight it out in the courts on the school thing. Are you including US Citizen children that have at least one illegal guardian or parent? Fingerprinting and changing the whole way that idegent care / medical billing works in the US will be fought tooth and nail by even non-immigrant advocates.
Good point. No. The child can stay in school. But I would deport the illegal parent(s), who may choose to either take the child with them or make arrangements to leave them with legal relatives or friends. As I’ve stated earlier though, I would work to for either a re-interpretation of the 14th amendment or an amendement that would exclude those born here to illegals from being granted birthright citizenship.
Nothing about this is going to be easy, and I have no doubt that the solutions I quickly offered here need tweaking, if not more substantive rethinking. The main idea, to which these were examples, is to make it less attractive for illegals to come or remain here. This would both help to slow the tide of illegals and encourage those illegals here to leave and come back through legal means.
And thus creating an underclass of stateless people. Genius.
Come, come, Der Trihs, at least he is finally acknowledging it is not going to be easy, the next step is for his side to acknowledge those ideas have a snowball chance in hell, it is still a long way to realize that many leaders on the extreme right are demagogues on this subject.
One of my main problems with the anti-illegal immigration movement is that they seem totally oblivious to costs and consequences, even to themselves. They have such a rabid concern over the law ( but only this law ) that they don’t seem to care if it’s a good idea.
How, exactly?
If that’s your goal, then the easiest solution is to just make it easy and legal for a foreign citizen to enter this country. If they can come here legally (which also allows them to go just as easily, and even return at their whim), it’s certainly a lot less attractive for someone to come illegally.
It seems you are advocating open borders, whoever want s to come in, can just come in. That denies a nation the right to control its borders and the flow of immigrants into its country. Do you not think that the governemnt has a right—and obligation—to do control how many and who they let in?
No, actually it seems you are. It would easily solve the perceived problem you seem to have, which is that they are breaking the law.
Do you think the rest of the world will automatically go along with your fantasy ? Why do you think that Mexico or Germany or Uzbekistan will acknowledge somebody who’s lived his whole life in America as anything but an American ? What makes you think they’ll even let our unwanted people in, or is it only America that’s allowed to control it’s borders ?
What? My idea includes having control of the borders. Please describe in more detail your idea, which would hopefully include an answer to my question.
You keep claiming that your beef is that what they are doing is illegal. If that’s your beef, then making it legal solves it.
If that’s not your beef with illegal immigrants, then what is?
Look, I said:
Your response was:
Then I asked for clarification. We’re talking about illegals in the U.S., that means they have been here a maximum of 20 years. They are not citizens of the U.S… They are citizens of the country from whence they came. Are you saying they would not be allowed to go back? And that they could not take their children with them. If so, that is a valid problem. But I don’t think it to be the case, so please provide a cite to the contrary. As far as their children, the Mexican Constitution states that their children are citizens of Mexico. Chapter II, Article 30, Section A-II states that Mexican nationality is acquired by: