For our country to flourish, as it has in the past, we will need a vibrant economy, a strong national defense, and a strong moral fiber.
I am a strong believer in a free market system, with only limited regulations; only what is absolutely necessary. Over regulation gets into the area of the government telling entrepreneurs how to run their businesses and sometimes even picking winners and losers.
There is evil in our world. Other countries have the luxury of letting their guard down, only because we exist. We can not. There is nobody else to protect us. Why that is hard for some to understand, is beyond comprehension.
Our moral fiber can only be demonstrated by how we conduct ourselves in our dealings with others. The United States must be respected and seen as just. More importantly, we must be able to face ourselves in the mirror. We must be firm and consistent, but most of all fair.
Although jobs, the debt and entitlement reforms are considered to be our biggest immediate challenges. It is my belief that solving our problems of comprehensive immigration reform, vanishing liberties, a shackled economy, and a national narcissism epidemic will put us on the path required to meet those challenges and any others that lie ahead. With our hearts in the right place and our heads on straight, America can do anything.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
Illegal immigration is one area where I think many of us conservatives have misplaced our moral compass. I do believe that the border should be secure. I do believe that all immigration from this point on should only be legal. But I think we should approach our current problem with the understanding that we have made mistakes that helped put us in this situation. Making more mistakes going forward is not going to make things better.
Many of our positions on this issue in the past have not only been political mistakes, but were just plain wrong. The persona that we, as conservatives, project when discussing this subject is perceived by many to be cold, heartless and holier-than-thou, because, sadly, in some respects, it just is. Let me try to explain why I believe this to be true.
I believe that our country's policy of looking the other way for many a year, regardless of the reasons why, actually encouraged the increases in illegal boarder crossings. It created a mindset that proved hard to change. When a governing body encourages or sanctions an illegal activity, it becomes complicit in the breaking of that law. We therefore share in the responsibility for the problem that it has created. We should understand that our moral high ground was sacrificed long ago.
The argument that “granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be a slap in the face to immigrants who came to America legally and worked hard to earn their citizenship”, just does not hold water. That “slapping” has already happened. It took place back when we were looking the other way. It is now a part of our history. At this point in time we cannot change it.
There is another aspect that comes into play here. It is a common human trait for people to see nothing wrong with personally criticizing their relatives, but at the same time become quite annoyed when someone else does it. We need to understand that we cannot win the hearts of our hispanic citizenry, both native and legally naturalized, when we are demonizing their relatives. The very same relatives that we encouraged by looking the other way.
I do not pretend to know the exact details of what our Comprehensive Immigration Reform should look like. But to be "fair", we need to drop the holier-than-thou innocent party act. We need to acknowledge that we also made some mistakes, accept our share of the responsibility for the problem, forget the blame game, and work towards an equitable solution that solves the problem for now and prevents it from reoccurring in the future.
Vanishing Liberties:
I am afraid that we are losing our personal liberties at a steady rate. I believe this to be the biggest change in America during my lifetime. Every time a new law is written, somebody somewhere just lost what was previously a right. That is not to say that there are not any needs for any new laws. But it is to say that we need to be vigilant in the guarding of our rights. I understand that legislators legislate; that's what they do. Furthermore, when a crisis occurs, no government official at any level can afford to appear unconcerned. But, when an old law, already on the books, actually handles the problem just fine, why write a new one? It is never a benefit to the people, to be writing laws, just to be writing laws. Things, I think, would be better if congress followed the old axiom of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It almost seems that it would be a good idea to put a cap on the number of laws; meaning that before one can write a new law, one must first eliminate an old law.
For the most part, those that live in a country setting don't want anyone telling them what color they may paint their front door or whether they may have a rebuild-project-vehicle in their driveway. In contrast, those that live in more populated areas lean toward protecting their property value from the prospect of a "sloppy" neighbor. This can result in an urban citizenry that is predisposed to what would be considered a barrage of restrictive regulations by their rural counterparts. This conditioning tends to make the loss of more significant liberties easier to accept. With likely population increases ahead, this trend needs to be stopped and hopefully reversed.
Have we decided that being taken care of is of more importance than liberty? Do we really want one level of government or another to be making our personal decisions for us at every step along the way? I hope not. It is definitely time for the pendulum to swing back towards individual liberties. We need to understand that when any neighbor has lost a liberty, all of us have lost that liberty.
Shackled Economy:
Way too many of the tax breaks for businesses are conditional tax breaks. If you hire a minority or a veteran; if you retool your assembly line; or basically if you do what I want you to do, I will let you keep some of your money. And even worse, many are just of a temporary nature. As business decisions are made looking way down the road, temporary tax breaks are of no practical use at all. There should be no tax laws of any kind that influence the business decisions of any entrepreneur. It is his or her money that they are risking. Why should they not make their own decisions. As soon as "green energy" is feasible or profitable, it will flourish on its own. It will not need any government subsidies. The government should not be in the business of loans, subsidies or tax breaks. And they should not be in the business of condemning successful businesses in the court of public opinion. If being too successful is the problem, then there really is no problem. If a law is broken, punish the guilty, otherwise just sit back and watch your tax base soar.
Conditional tax breaks are Washington telling businesses what to do. Does anybody really think that Washington DC bureaucrats or politicians know more about tires than GoodYear or Cooper, more about cars than Ford or Toyota, more about computers than Apple, Dell or HP, or more about farming than farmers? If we want risk-takers to invest in America, then lets make it attractive for them to do so. Any fine, law or regulation that adds to the cost of doing business in the USA is a hinderance to our free market system. Any law or regulation that creates uncertainty does the same. In the end it is all invariably passed on to the end consumer; to us. Otherwise the business goes under. Hold on to your wallet, because it is just another tax on we the people; albeit a hidden one. As end consumers, we should all have a full and complete understanding of this basic fact.
National Narcissism Epidemic:
I have never once voted with the idea in mind of what is best for me personally, best for my family, best for my line of work, best for my state, or anything of the sort. I have always tried my best to only consider what I felt to best for the United States of America as a whole. I find it appalling when politicians try to appeal to our own selfish interests. It actually encourages citizens to believe that putting their own self interest above that of the country is a good thing. To their shame, many liberal politicians do this on a regular basis; and with way too much success. I am sorely disappointed when conservatives stoop to that level of conduct. We, the people, need to be reminded from time to time of what was probably best said by President John Kennedy. "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." I am begging our leaders, please, don't prey on our weaknesses. Moreover, scold and shame those that are guilty of that ploy. Always seek the higher ground; inspiring and bringing out the best in all of us.
I expect all of our elected officials to say what they mean and mean what they say; to consistently walk the walk. I expect state representatives and senators to be much more concerned about the welfare of their state, rather than their home districts. I expect U. S. Representatives and Senators to be much more concerned with the welfare of our country as a whole, rather than their individual districts or states. I expect each one of them to always vote their conscience; to do what they think is the right thing to do for this country of ours. I do expect them to be mindful of the views of their constituents. An honest change of heart after reading an insightful letter from a constituent is one thing. But taking a poll to determine which way to vote, is not what a leader is all about.
I don't expect or desire a government that solves all my problems. I do desire a government that does not make things worse than need be. There is an insightful line in the play Our Town that says, "Everybody has a right to their own problems". I fervently agree with that philosophy. I feel that the most we can realistically expect from any government, is to provide a setting whereby we, the people, have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is all that I have ever expected. And more importantly, that is my prayer for our sons, their wives and their children.
Simple solution to immigration reform.......stop paying for illegal immigrants. No medicaid no food stamps no education no welfare etc. You want to keep ****roaches out of your house, you cover the sugar. Time for us to do the same.
There are times when a simple solution is the best solution. Times when we make things more complicated than they need to be. However, in my opinion, this is not one of them. Your solution, I feel, ignores our complicity in the creation of our dilemma. How can it possibly be fair or just to heap all the punishment on one party when both parties share the guilt? I believe that President George W. Bush is correct when he says that this country "can be a nation of law and be a compassionate nation at the same time."
Living in Texas, I have been around a large Hispanic population, including illegal immigrants, all of my life. As a whole, they are a very hard working group of people. Typically, rather than raiding the sugar bowl, they would more likely be the ones replenishing its contents.
What a blessing it is to be American citizens, where we are both entitled to freely express our opinions. Thank you for your comments. We can always agree to disagree. Merry Christmas to you and all those that you hold dear.
Yarman, I'd like to say I agree with you 100% but I am not quite there.
First: I don't think that the immigration "problem" ranks so high -- the current situation is not all that unbearable. I would say that the problem is not so much that we've looked the other way while (reasonable) laws have been flouted but, rather, we've had unreasonable (too restrictive) laws. We seem to focus less on keeping out criminals and welfare-seekers and instead on keeping out people from locations viewed as having "undesirable" potential immigrants, such as Mexico. I don't see why a Mexican is, per se, less desirable as an immigrant than someone from England or Germany. My vision of what comprehensive immigration reform should look like is that an application for immigration should be treated by default as favorable unless there is good reason to believe that the individual requesting to come should not, rather than assuming that that the potential immigrant is undesirable.
On national narcissism and, specifically your JFK quote, I'll offer a quote (well, paraphrase) of the late economist Milton Friedman: a free man asks neither what his country can do for him or what he can do for his country. I would propose that rather than voting for what you think is best for the US as a whole, you (and everyone else) instead vote for what is in you own rational self-interest: not necessarily what will make you feel good right now ("goodies" from the federal government) but instead what is in your long-run, intelligent self-interest (a strong, free economy and political liberty). After all, you know a heck of a lot better what is good for you than you know what is good for the USA as a whole! :)
Other than these points, on which I hope you'll find you agree at least in part, I think that most of what you've written is not only correct but clearly and thoughtfully expressed -- thank you!
Concerning our immigration laws, I do agree that they have been too restrictive and also that they have had a tendency to favor some nations over others. But I also believe that we chose to ignore the illegal boarder crossings for many years. Both political parties, each for their own reasons, were guilty of this. We helped to create this mess and the quicker we can straighten it out, the better off this nation will be. It is an important issue in my area of the country, as I thought it was in most. As long as it goes unresolved, it will eat up a lot time and energy that could be better used elsewhere. And how we go about solving it, will say a lot about us as a country.
Concerning national narcissism, your contention is completely new to me and intriguing. I am not sure if I have ever heard that before... or if I did, I guess that I didn't get the point. I understand that everyone acting in their own self interest is what makes capitalism work. And it does work great. But capitalism is an economic system... not a form of government. If my primary goal as a student is to get an "A", instead of learning as much as I can; if my primary goal in the practice of my religion is to assure my own salvation, rather than to love my brother as myself; or if my primary goal when I vote is to improve my standing in my country; rather then to improve my country... well, I just feel that I have missed the point totally. I would never support the idea of improving my lot in this country, through the electoral process, at the expense of others. I do feel that I have a better idea of what is better for me personally than the government does. I think that we all do. That is why I feel we need a government that stays out of our way as much as possible. Maybe I missed your point completely. I appologize if I did. Thanks again.
-- Edited by yarman on Friday 4th of January 2013 04:18:56 PM
Your replies suggest to me that you have understood the points I was trying to make quite well, for the most part. :)
Immigration: we seem to have a (small) difference of opinion on the significance of illegal immigration. I apologize if I am inappropriately "putting words in your mouth," but what you say seems to suggest that you believe that there is some rational justification for the rules regarding the numbers of immigrants and the process of gaining legal status, whereas I believe both are at best absurd and at worst immoral. I believe that the ignoring of the rules is to a large degree an acknowledgement of those points in conjunction with the fact that the cost to enforce the rules all along our huge national border simply does not justify the "benefits." I just don't see it as that important of an issue or that it "eats up a lot of time and energy that could be better used elsewhere." Better to continue to ignore it, except for any feasible steps to improve our ability to keep terrorists and other criminals out, than to eat up a lot of time and energy trying to fix it, especially because the debate tends to cause Hispanics to despise conservatives, most of whom seem to want to make the system even more difficult and discriminatory towards Hispanics, as the furor over the Arizona law demonstrated.
Concerning national narcissm, I don't believe that the "capitalist" economic system and our political system are easily separated. Both involve liberty and are interconnected. How many countries have one without the other? When you say, "if my primary goal when I vote is to improve my standing in my country; rather then to improve my country... well, I just feel that I have missed the point totally," I would ask: what do you mean by improving your country? and how do you know what will improve your country? What if you concluded that the country would greatly benefit if everyone calling herself/ himself "yarman" in an online forum were deported (yes, I know, not likely, but this is an entirely hypothetical thought experiment, so please "go with it" :) )? I wouldn't want you to vote for a candidate espousing such a program! What if I came to believe, as many seem to, that the federal government providing "inexpensive" medical care for all US citizens (and illegal immigrants) wouldn't improve my own lot (because I already have inexpensive medical service through my employer) but would improve my country more generally? One thing on which you seem to have missed my point: one of (my) definitions of "rational self interest" is that it excludes "improving [one's] lot ... at the expense of others" (that's one of the reasons that it's "rational" -- it excludes harming others unless the beneficiaries can compensate the "victims").
All that said, you and I are clearly in synch, especially as opposed to most others who have posted in this Forum regarding immigration, and in synch with pretty much everyone here with regard to politics in general. :)
I agree with you completely. Conservatives are having some difficulty in separating our moral responsibility to deal honestly with the problem that has been created (or has been allowed to be created, if someone prefers to see it that way) and our legal duty to stop it from continuing to get worse. Comprehensive Reform will have to do both.
In my discussions with other conservatives the very mention of anything less than prosecution and or deportation of current illegal immigrants is denounced as amounting to a form of amnesty. They point back to past reform actions to point out (and rightly so to a large extent) that the very action taken to resolve the issue, itself ensured that a new wave of illegal immigrants would come forth in hopes of similar future gratuities.
I see a possible solution which would as least address the repeat of history syndrome. It would require a little multi-tasking on the part of Congress. Congress could adopt a proposed amendment for state ratification which would prohibit any future acts of amnesty, pardons, or reprieves by the Congress, The Executive, or Judicial branches of government.The effective date of the prohibition would be set to a date certain (perhaps a retroactive date such as December 31, 2013). Legislation dealing with those currently here which is passed and signed into law before the amendment is ratified would be unaffected by the new prohibition.
I know the exact terms and provisions of any such proposed amendment would be subject to much debate and wrangling, but the effect I would like to see would be something in the form of the following:
[As you read this keep in mind that those will are here now would not be subjected to the provisions of it—if Congress adopts a comprehensive reform law which includes an acceptable plan for the treatment of those cases.]
“United States Citizenship shall include and, be limited to, every person who is a child of an American Citizen, whether by natural birth or by adoptions; and, every person who fulfills the Naturalization requirements shall be granted Citizenship status.
No person who has entered or remained in the United States illegally after the effective date of this Act shall ever be eligible to become a Citizen of the United States.
No person who, as a child, was brought into or remained in the United States shall be eligible to apply for Citizenship except that such person leave the United States for a minimum of five years prior to re-entering legally as an adult. No preference or other advantage shall be given to any such person during any process or procedure in furtherance of this provision.
Neither the Condmentgress nor the President nor the Supreme Court of The United States shall grant any immunity, pardon, or other legal relief to any person who has entered or remained in the United States of America illegally.
All Provisions of this Amendment, upon ratification by The States, shall become effective December 31, 2014,with provision that if the Amendment shall be ratified after that date then the effective date shall be retroactive to December 31, 2014.”
Do you think such an approach might be effective in giving us a window of to fix the old problems without opening the door to future ones?
Your suggestion seems very inventive. Unfortunately, it also has a number of provisions I, personally, consider to be somewhat scary.
No person who has entered or remained in the United States illegally after the effective date of this Act shall ever be eligible to become a Citizen of the United States. This is far too broad, in my view. Terms like "shall ever be eligible" suggest far more present knowledge of all possible situations than I would find acceptable. Unintended consequences are so frequently the result of such blanket provisions.
No person who, as a child, was brought into or remained in the United States shall be eligible to apply for Citizenship except that such person leave the United States for a minimum of five years prior to re-entering legally as an adult. Punish a child for an act of her or his parents? This seems rather draconian to me.
Neither the Condmentgress [sic] nor the President nor the Supreme Court of The United States shall grant any immunity, pardon, or other legal relief to any person who has entered or remained in the United States of America illegally. Same problem as #1.
To be fair, my views of your proposal are colored by my entirely non-Conservative opinion of the immigration issue which was most strongly influenced by "Chicago School" economist Julian Simon, a colleague of Milton Friedman. Generally speaking, I believe that the principle of "no prior restraint" or "innocent until proven guilty" should be applied to immigration -- that is, that unless some harm can be shown to come from an immigrant's entry, she or he should be allowed to enter (and no fair counting as "harm" the collection by the immigrant of "public goods" such as welfare and public schooling -- if we're stupid enough to provide such services as "public goods" when they could better be provided by private organizations, that's on us, not the immigrant ).
Thanks for your critique of my trial balloon. I have floated the idea in close circles but this is the first time I have tossed it out for public discussion. Your response to the specific provisions of the suggested amendment is along the lines of what I had anticipated. However, on reviewing my original post I now realize that I did not make my intended objective as clear as I thought, so I will need to do some revision there. Your general comments in your last paragraph did surprise me so I will comment on that first.
Your “non-Conservative” opinion of the immigration issue is very much like my own and I could not have expressed it better myself. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”-- should be the mission statement of our immigration policy. The only requirement for entry should be to provide positive identification and disclosure of prior criminal history. I believe any meaningful immigration reform “package” should be in that direction.
That being said, I do not believe we are ever going to get the differing factions of the immigration debate to adopt (or allow to be adopted) any real changes without some provision to prohibit future acts of amnesty for those who violate our entry laws—whatever those laws may be. Where you and I see the need for a more compassionate immigration policy that opens the borders to the huddled masses, others see that leading to the specter of automatic in-mass citizenship status by means of some grant of amnesty or exemption from the Laws of Naturalization. And, there are some valid reasons for fearing that politicians at some point in the future would propose such in-mass grants if they deemed it beneficial to their political interests at the time, allowing large numbers of people to become voting citizens without having gone through the lawful process to become a citizen. So any stand-alone reform has very little chance of becoming law.
That is why I mentioned the need for multi-tasking. The drafting of the specific provisions of the proposed amendment must be done in tandem with the drafting of the proposed immigration reform legislation and the effective dates of each must be calculated to coincide with the other. The amendment could relieve the specter (real or imagined) of future fast-tracking to citizenship/voter status while the reform act would afford easier entry to all people of good will and would formulate the appropriate distinction between legal-entry and path-to-citizenship.
Now as to your comments on the specific provisions of the suggested amendment.
First, I disagree that either of the provisions you cited are too broad. They are narrowly constructed to apply only to those who enter illegally. And they would only become effective at a time when the comprehensive reform laws had liberalized the entry requirements so as to make it unnecessary for any person of good will to enter outside the lawful process. (That is a point which I may not have made clearly enough in my original post.) Obviously, the law would afford exemptions for those seeking political asylum under bona fide circumstance. Moreover, because the law which defines legal entry can be changed by legislative action (as opposed to the amendment process) adjustments could be made to deal with unforeseen consequences. In the worst case scenario someone would be denied access to citizenship—not deportation or imprisonment.
As to the act of punishing a child for the sins of the father, God has Himself forbid that we do any such thing. But this has nothing to do with punishment. It has to do with the right of the Sovereign Citizens of a sovereign nation, to determine among themselves under what circumstances and by what processes the title of United States Citizen shall be granted to others who have not shared in that two hundred and fifty year history of struggle and bloodshed that is the heritage of every American. Moreover, the provision does allow the child, at the age of adulthood, an opportunity to become eligible by complying with the laws of the nation he wants to become part of. Have the actions of the parent made it more difficult for the child (who is now an adult) to apply for citizenship? Perhaps so, but it is the nature of parenting that parents do not always make decisions that will ultimately be in the best future interest of their children. That the laws do not provide offsets for every such instance does not constitute punishment of the child. Even so, I personally am not convinced that such a provision relating to the children is absolutely necessary. Others I have discussed the subject with have argued that something of that sort is needed to deal with the anchor-baby issue. At this point I think I would support an otherwise sound amendment with or without such a provision.
Please understand that what I have laid out is intended as a starting place for discussion to begin. Understanding that what would ultimately be proposed for ratification would most certainly differ from what I have tossed out—do you consider the strategy of an amendment in sync with comprehensive reform legislation to be a viable means to bridge the gap between the two sides of the debate and possibly open a door though which a resolution might be achieved?
I think it could be, and that the comprehensive reform legislation could—should—contain well reasoned special “grandfathered- in” measures to address and mitigate our complicity in encouraging some ten millions of people to come here illegally creating for us the dilemma of either continuing in our errors of omission or to abruptly begin enforcing our immigrations laws, imposing what I would consider to be grave injustice toward people who are no more at fault than we are. To be sure, their coming here was illegal but our decades long wink-and-nod attitude of non-enforcement which encouraged them to come here was immoral. That is something my conservative friends do not like to hear but it is a truth that eventually we must face up to and find a righteous remedy for.
Well, I can hardly believe what I am reading here in this topic -- no fewer than three AMAC members (yarman, you and I) actually advocating more relaxed immigration policy; even the fourth participant, oldfart, who has not disclosed in great detail his views on immigration, has opined a suggestion that does not blame the immigrants! I thought at first that you were here to support the positions that seem to be most prevalent among our fellow conservatives but now you've convinced me that I was quite mistaken. I believe I was "fooled" by what turns out to be a proposal you actually hope might be sufficiently acceptable to all sides to actually become law and not which you would propose if you had absolute authority! A worthy goal, I think -- nay, hope.
When I wrote that two of your suggestions were "too broad," I didn't mean to suggest that I thought that they weren't sufficiently focused in scope as to class of people or time, it was that they were too absolutist in that they would not allow exceptions. No matter the degree of "liberalness" of the immigration policy we would have, unless it were absolutely permissive (which I think we agree will never happen), there will be some cases that can not be foreseen by the law and therefore best left to discretion, subject to review. I would move to amend the proposal I labeled number 1 by softening "shall ever be eligible" and I would move to amend number 3 by adding some allowance for immunity, pardon or other legal relief in a "separation of powers" form so that one official, small group or any body dominated by members of one political party can not grant the immunity by her/ him/ itself. Your proposals as originally written didn't seem to recognize this but your latest post seems to, so that makes me feel much better!
Say what you will about not punishing the child for the sins of the parents, I believe that your provision I labeled number 2 does just that in imposing a likely expensive and certainly inconvenient (to use a highly understated term) requirement -- to leave for five years (and go where, some alien and perhaps even dangerous place that just happens to be the country from which her/ his parents immigrated?) and apply for citizenship as an adult. Especially when, as is most often the case (I would assume), the child having grown up in the US is just as much an American in every sense that matters as you or I who were born here. In other words, I have a hard time understanding any "anchor baby issue" as anything other than nativist discrimination against certain (especially Mexican) immigrants and not as "good will." In any event, I am pleased you are willing to support a reform that does not include that provision. On the other hand, in the spirit of getting something better than we now have, I might be persuaded to support a reform that does include something like it, perhaps by softening it to allow some form of naturalization program for such children of illegal immigrants that they can complete while remaining in their nearly lifelong home inside the US.
Could this be "a starting place for discussion to begin.... [A] strategy of an amendment in sync with comprehensive reform legislation [that might] be a viable means to bridge the gap between the two sides of the debate and possibly open a door though which a resolution might be achieved?" I don't see why not, provided those "on the other side" don't see it as such a compromise of their principles (which, as I have indicated above, I fear might be more discrimination than real reservations about the public policy) that they refuse to even consider it as a starting point. I would not be surprised if FAIR and their supporters did just that.
Regarding "there are some valid reasons for fearing that politicians at some point in the future would propose such in-mass grants if they deemed it beneficial to their political interests at the time, allowing large numbers of people to become voting citizens without having gone through the lawful process to become a citizen," I gladly welcome as allies in this debate those that think, probably correctly, that allowing immigrants unrestricted entry to the US is a short-term benefit to them -- in a generation or two, the large plurality of immigrant votes for Democrats and liberals has been said by researchers to disappear. My avowedly socialist granduncle is whirling furiously in his grave at my conservatism (and my mom, brother, uncles and aunt, most of my cousins, wife and daughter are none-too-happy, either, although my sister, some of cousins and my son are much more moderate -- I don't know how they learned to think for themselves! ).
-- Edited by SteveT on Saturday 26th of January 2013 12:28:40 AM
Hi Steve, It seems that we agree on more than we disagree on and our differences could be worked out. I think you, I and Yarman could probably devise a plan that Oldfart and other members of AMAC might sign onto. Which gives me reason to think that a solution can be found by members of Congress that all interested parties could sign onto. In fact, according to today’s news reports a group of Senators believe they have arrived at such an agreement. I haven’t had time to dig into the details of their plan yet so I don’t know whether they are being overly optimistic or not. We shall see.
In the meantime I will make a couple comments on two points used have raised. Discrimination and Anchor-babies.
Your fear that there may be more discrimination than bona fide concern over policy is not unfounded. I have seen evidence of it in a number of ways. Many in the anti-amnesty group do harbor a different attitude toward Mexicans than other immigrants whether they be legal or illegal. To be sure, some that attitude (I believe very little) is simply racial. And some of it due to the violent Mexican drug wars that are taking place on both sides of the border. But the most of it is because of concerns created and fed by radical Latino Racist groups promoting an agenda that is seen by many as contemptuous of American law and hostile towards America itself, and include aspirations of “reconquering” much of the American Southwest for Latino Occupation. Using Anchor-babies to secure their claim to stay here is a part of those agenda’s as is bringing in young children, who after being raised and educated here will be more problematic to deport.
I believe such stated agendas are being pursued by relatively few radical activists in the Latino community and they should not color our view of the Mexicans as a group, just as the agenda of white-supremacy groups should not be the standard by which others judge all White Americans. Those who purport to know more about those groups than I do assure me that I am naïve in my understanding of the groups involved. In any case, whether their concerns are out of proportion to the actual threats posed by such radical agendas, it does remain as their reason for having a different attitude toward Mexican than other immigrants. Personally, I would like to see La Raza, a group which does provide positive benefits to the community, do more to help dispel some of those fears by denouncing the radical groups which attempt to operate under La Raza’s shadow. Perhaps in the interest of improving the chances of seeing meaningful immigration reform they will begin to do so. Again, we shall see.
).