Redstate

I think this is a losing position for the Dems.

It can be, but only if Republicans make it one, by decisively splitting from President Bush, Senator McCain, and others who wish to legalize illegals one way or another.

the Democrats want to control immigration? I just hope they keep talking; long, loud and often.

that depend on labor that is mostly supplied from illegal immigrants, wouldn't it be hard for the GOP to take a hard line stance?

There was an article in my local paper this morning about President Bush's "guest worker" program, and it also talked about businesses in my area that depend on "day labor" (ie, illegal immigrants).

But yes, I also agree that the way Howard Dean is framing this is not going to help the Democrats (what else is new).

We briefly started discussing the idea of annexing Mexico a few days ago on another thread. Basically an "unleveraged" buyout, but without making the currency-conversion mistake that Germany made in 1989. Has anyone given this any more thought? I find myself kindof liking the idea.

We're having enough trouble assimilating people as it is, without trying to absorb a whole country.

Supporting illegal immigrants?

You are familiar with the stance of President Bush's Temporary Worker program? Was he "supporting illegal aliens" when proposing these changes?

"If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html

We share values with Mexico. They're common values -- values that unite people, whether they live in the United States or whether they live in Mexico. And what are those values? ... The willingness to work hard. America is known for our ability to work hard. Think about the Mexican worker who walks 500 miles across a desert to find work. Those are hard-working citizens. We share that very important value of people willing to roll up their sleeves and work hard.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010906-11.html

"Bush plan lets illegal workers keep jobs"

President Bush proposed a plan Wednesday that would allow illegal immigrants working in the United States to stay here if their employers vouch for their jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107644,00.html

I look forward to smarmy half-responses pretending as if I am a partisan and nothing more. Either that, or you can condemn President Bush's remarks in favor of supporting and encouraging illegal workers (because this is exactly what it does).

That's not part of the program. If we did this, we would have to accept a multi-national identity. (Guess what? We have that now.) But that doesn't mean that the masses of Mexicans would be inherently inimical to the American cultural ideals of freedom and individual enterprise.

It's a chance to prove what everyone says, that America is a country based on a proposition (freedom and democracy), rather than an Anglophone national identity. The big win would be exposing Mexico to American-style capitalism and management, which would wipe away Mexico's pervasive corruption and unlock the potential of the people. Ironically, I think the biggest problems would come from us: namely, our anti-business political and regulatory environment.

It's a shocking idea, isn't it! Wouldn't it be wild if it worked?

But the democrats don't stop at an amnesty program but the statements above point to more rights than simply the right to work in the USA.  I would bet that a big part of this is to eventually lobby for voting rights in the US for illegals as they know they would know they will vote democrat and they also know that they despite bushes approval numbers being low those of congress are even lower.  After that those of the democratic party in congress is the lowest.

they still call soccer football after 5 years! Then maybe we'll not do it and say we did!

...you've raised a very important objection, and one I happen to have made many times myself: linguistic diversity doesn't lead to big happy families.

I'd still like to leave the question out there and invite other comments, because the potential win of an annexation (perhaps after thirty years of preparing the ground) would be to wipe out a corrupt Mexican elite that keeps Mexicans poor, desperate, and eager to violate our immigration laws. The geopolitical considerations alone make it worth a look, I think.

I might be thinking too much like a business guy: it looks like a big vertical integration to me ;-)

with me that the only practical way to deal with the 11 million illegals already here is the Bush plan or a variation that encourages the underground workers to come out of the shadows is to offer the temp worker plan and then tell employers that they have a year or 2 to get their workers signed up or they will shut them down.

i think that could work. And it would identify workers and free resources to track terrorists and it would, after the two years, stop the massive illegal flow.

I do think we share enough values with the Mexicans, esp religious values and they are the best hope we have to ensure that America is America in 200 years from now given fertil;ity rates and our need for workers.

We just need to control the rate of immigration.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/4/172154/995/12#12

And, no.  We don't have a multi-national identity.  We have an identity as a culture that has incorporated themes from a number of other cultures (which happen to be mostly European), but there is definitely a distinct, unique, American culture.  

We can prove that America is what is always has been by continuing to be what it always has been, which is what the conservative movement is.

It would be highly shocking if it would work primarily because it wouldn't.  We already know that tolerating illegal, unassimilated immigrants doesn't work.  You think it would be better to extend amnesty to the entire nation of Mexico?  All the problems caused by our 10 million illegal immigrants would be multiplied 15-fold.

then the US also needs to make it easier for entire families (rather than unattached males) to immigrate. Obviously, this introduces all kinds of costs. I think Bush deserves credit for initiating a difficult political conversation.

Bush clearly understands the politics of the situation--he's from Texas, which I believe is either a white minority state, or soon to become one. In fact, Bush probably owes his presidency as much to latinos voting Republican as he does to evangelicals. He knows that if the Republican party is to have a future, it has to appeal to Latino voters. Otherwise, you can start coloring Texas blue. Bush's strategy here really isn't much different from his foreign policy--bold and risky.  But he probably sees it as necessary.

This is probably the reason for Dean's statement on the issue, which I'm sure is no more popular among the Democrat rank and file as it is with the Republicans.

Democrats need more voters, legal or illegal doesn't matter.

The Dems are desperate for voters. They think that if they can woo the illegals and get them voting rights then they will return the favor and vote for them. Fortunately, Mexicans overwhelmingly share conservative values. On the other hand, poor people looking for government handouts have always been prime targets for Dems.

For those who say, "They take jobs Americans won't" let me ask you this: How in the world did we ever get all this work done before the onslaught of illegals? How did we ever get our fast food made, our motels cleaned, or our houses built before millions of illegals poured across the border?

Yes, people have always snuck across the border. But over the past 10-15 years, we have witnessed this illegal entry into our nation at an accelarated pace.

They're not just picking lettuce anymore folks. They're taking more skilled jobs in the construction, plumbing, and electrical industries as well. I don't think we have an issue where Americans just "won't" take the jobs, but blue-collar Americans simply can't afford to compete with the cheap labor. Can any of YOU GUYS pay your bills on $50 a day?

You have to understand something about the Mexican culture. They typically live with 2-3 generations to a single household. How else do you think they can afford to live on such low wages? How many Americans are willing to live with 8-10 people in the same house?

So... do we just say "tough luck - lower your standard of living" to the working class? See my website for more. I write extensively about this very subject.

and the only thing more disturbing that illegals coming in from Mexico is the border crossing from California.  Of Californians moving to AZ.

Rounding up every illegal and shipping them home is a loser, too expensive.  Putting together a guest worker program with something that looks like a bulletproof id card that would not be issued to any worker already in the US is a start.  Coupled with a fence along the full length of the Southern border and really nasty penalties for hiring workers without id cards and you've got the genesis of a winner.

Supporting illegal immigrants? ... I look forward to smarmy half-responses pretending as if I am a partisan and nothing more. Either that, or you can condemn President Bush's remarks in favor of supporting and encouraging illegal workers (because this is exactly what it does).

Sure, I condemn Bush's proposal for de facto amnesty, as I have done before.

And yes you're obviously partisan if you can't see the Democratic proposal is even more extreme than Bush's bad idea. Dean's point was that Bush's proposal didn't go far enough in rewarding law breakers.

You also get partisan points for adhering to liberals' caricature of reality, i.e. that conservatives should think President Bush's disagreement constitutes a refutation of a conservative argument.

the potential win of an annexation (perhaps after thirty years of preparing the ground) would be to wipe out a corrupt Mexican elite that keeps Mexicans poor

Or the Democrat's could entrench themselves in power by allying with the Mexican elite and embracing the corruption that keeps the Mexican elite in power. Democrats who enjoy practicing the vote fraud we saw in Washington state and Wisconsin would be the natural allies of the corrupt Mexican elite, who together would have a majority in a combined USA-Mexico legislature. To preserve their power, the Democratic & Mexican elites would want to spread Mexican style corruption throughout the United Stats.

I'll dispose quickly of the parts of your comment that make no sense. Amnesty is something granted to those who break the law. To merge the Mexican nation with the American is to do no such thing, because the majority of Mexicans have not broken our laws.

Go to Miami or parts of Texas or California. We do indeed already have elements of a multi-national culture. I happen to think that the unique American culture, which I revere, is based on a love of freedom and self-reliance. I don't think these characteristics are incompatible with the spirit of the Mexican people. I would love to hear the reasons of those who disagree.

You suppose that the entire nation of Mexico, if incorporated into our own nation, would present the same problems as the 11 million current illegals, but magnified 15-fold. (By population, 10-fold would probably be closer.) But this is a point worthy of debate. Does the illegal population cause problems because they are illegal, or because they are Mexican? The Fox government is currently exporting troublemakers to the US as a deliberate policy. In return, these illegals send back remittances of perhaps $17 billion a month, which is an enormous chunk of Mexico's GDP. All of this props up the current Mexican government by keeping the country stable. The cost of this is borne directly by Americans, and we get nothing in return. The Fox government also encourages Mexicans in the US to vote in both American elections and in Mexican ones. In effect we are fighting a soft war against the government of Mexico. An annexation would have the effect of annihilating this corrupt, hostile government.

The Mexican regime is run for the benefit of an insular oligarchic elite, in a totally classic Latin American pattern. These people have no ability or desire to improve the conditions of life for the rest of Mexico's population. They deal with the resultant social pressure by leeching from us. Now it may be the case that most Mexicans are shiftless, lazy, uneducated, and worthless, and so deserve the conditions they live in. If that's true, then your objections to an annexation make a lot of sense. Do you agree with this? I don't. I think that, given an honest chance, the cream will rise to the top and Mexico can develop a healthy society that would be entirely compatible with our own. (Of course, I'm a doctrinaire capitalist, so I have to believe the best about people.) Your response?

Now there is another entirely cogent objection. You came very close to it, but not all the way. And that is that the unique American culture, which we must preserve, is defined fundamentally by its European and, more particularly, its Anglophone character. I've generally believed this (and yes, that means that my arguments in favor of annexation go against my own feelings). But is it really true? What do you think?

In case no one on this blog has noticed, the United States currently owns a Latin American colony known as Puerto Rico.

I'd hardly characterize that experiment as a success. Not only do Puerto Ricans vote overwhelmingly Democratic, the island is a giant welfare case. This is not to disparage individual Puerto Ricans, as I work with many of them and that are wonderful, upstanding members of the IT community. I also have some good customers in Puerto Rico such as Banco Popular, and I enjoy visiting the island.

However, the annexation of Puerto Rico has not worked out in terms of the island adding positive Economic Value to the United States. There is still an independence movement, and there has traditionally been a terrorist movement dedicated to severing links with the United States.

And this is a small island, with a small population. Any idea of 'annexing' Mexico or joining together with that nation is a 'super state' is purely insane.

In addition to our Puerto Rican experience, the United States also owned the Phillippines at one time. Again, that did not work out well at all.

The United States is an Anglo-heritage nation. It needs to stay that way. I say this as a first generation Polish American with dual citizenship who is married to a Polish wife. She got her U.S. citizenship July 2005. I am tri-lingual, as is my wife. My children spoke Polish as a first language, but speak excellent English as does my wife.

In Poland, we speak Polish. In the U.S., we speak English. When visiting Russia, we speak Russian. What is the big deal with this? Why do Latin Americans come to the U.S. and expect special treatment that immigrants from Central European states, for example, would never dream of getting?

The United States is not a Latin American nation, and converting it to one will not be a benefit to us. We will not end up helping Mexico, we will end up hurting ourselves. The same plagues that haunt Mexico will be imported here to the United States.

Mexico is next door to the United States. Mexican elites already attend school here. Many of them get MBAs and return home. If they can't import American ideas into their native country, then how could we ram them down their throat?

Canada may disintegrate in the next few years. Bosnia, Kosovo, Czechoslovakia, an ongoing terrorist war in Turkey, Ireland's ongoing troubles, Israel, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the list goes on. All over the world, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic states are disintegrating. Now is not the time for conservative Republicans to start believing that we are so special and unique that it can't happen here.

It most assuredly can happen here. If you create a large, unassimalated minority in your midst, then your nation will be eventually be destabilized by it.

The 'man in the street' understands this, though it appears that most bloggers on this site do not. That is why there is tremendous anxiety about immigration. However, the two major parties differ only in the degree to which they want to cater to illegals and to import more.

Whichever party gets its head out of the sand on this issue will win, and win big. As long as both of them are out-to-lunch, then there is the chance that a 3rd Party could find daylight on the issue. I won't hold my breath on that, however, but will instead hope that the party to get its act together is my own - the Republican.

As long as we don't have a radical turn in the US toward socal democracy, I think most of Mexico would benefit post-annexation from a huge pulse of investment capital that currently has nowhere in particular to go. Since this would be private capital, it will be beautifully managed, well-directed, and will unlock the talents and energy of Mexico's best and brightest. Private capitalism is really good at that.

But as I said, if the Democrats return to power here and move us in a European-style direction, then it's not as likely to work.

One of the things I really enjoy doing is finding out what people think is insane. A tiny percentage of all insane ideas turn out to be right. And the ideas that change the world generally start out as insane. :-)

It'll take decades before the idea gets a chance, but I've got an intuition that there is some logic to annexing Mexico. There are also geopolitical reasons to consider it, and these may come to the fore over the next 20 years or so.

You would be better off calling for an annexation of the Western Canadian provinces, which will be free soon enough. That would make some sense.

I also forgot to mention Hawaii, which is shortly to begin allowing self-governance to native Hawaiins. That one will probably turn around on us before it's over also.

If you are going to put forward something like this, then you are going to have to come up with something other than bold assertion. All of the test cases in history are running against you, so it would need to be good.

Please name an 'insane idea' that changed the world for the better? I seem to recall insane ideas like Marxism, Nazism, and others that did a whole lot of damage.

If you could come up with one example in history that would serve as a successful model of this idea of yours - then I would be willing to give it more credence. But as a conservative, I believe that past is prologue.

perfectly last week.  If you do not provide any government benefits and go after those who employ illegals then they will leave and return to their home country.  We create the problem by giving them the arena to suceed and live a higher lifestyle than their home country.  But if they cannot find work because companies, in fear of huge fines, will not hire them and you do not allow them free health care, housing, drivers licenses, etc. then the environment will be very unfriendly and will not allow them to make a living.

We have the laws right now, we need more enforcement agents and the will at the national and local (no more sanctuary cities like LA, San Fran, etc.) to go after companies and the illegals.  When an illegal is pulled over for speeding, don't give them a ticket, arrest them and deport them.

But what is the sibstantive difference between their position and the official Administration position?

On a seperate but related note: The Minutemen need a credible leader.

Just curious about your thoughts.

Statements such as "they are willing to do jobs americans won't take" or they are "hard working", is just a nice way of saying "people willing to work for below market wages".

From the official Website of the state of Texas:

"In the 1830s, seeking additional settlers as a means of stabilizing the area, Mexico reached an agreement with Stephen F. Austin that allowed several hundred American families to move into the region. This move would backfire, however, as word of mouth about rich lands in Texas would spread across the United States. Thousands of additional settlers flooded into Texas, many of whom were not interested in being ruled by Mexico City. Mexican efforts to tighten political and economic control over the territory would only rouse emotions in the settlers, leading to the Texas Revolution."

It seems that Mexico lost Texas as the culmination of the process of immigration. Similar thing happened in Hawaii.

In the situation with Texas, we annexed a nation that had been founded by Americans and was being run by Americans. Sam Houston was from Virginia.

These two events should be cautionary for any immigration enthusiast. We exploited immigration to basically seize most of Mexico and all of Hawaii from the natives. What goes around can come around.

Find me a situation in which two unrelated peoples with different nationalities, different cultures, and different languages were able to voluntarily unite in a democratic fashion and then live together, harmoniously.

As I mentioned, Canada is perpetually on the edge of dissolution. They are not the only multi-ethnic state teetering.

The net result of bringing in Mexico would probably be to erect structures like those in the EU that would then entrench the Democratic Party in power. Unless, of course, the Republican Party has by then completely become the party of big government and socialized medicine. Economically, we could expect massive transfers of wealth towards the south as we built up Mexico at the expense of former U.S. taxpayers.

None of this appeals to me. But then, I'll probably be dead by the time this could ever happen and my future descendents will probably be living in Central Europe that will be blissfully celebrating the death of the EU.

saudi arabia for the oil. nopt serious though

You should have seen this panel discussion on c-span last week on immigration which included Michael Barone who said that he expects the Mexicans will assimilate as well as other immigrants who also had enclaves for one generation that spoke the native language,  but that at least by the 2nd generation  the children will be almost as american as natives

BUT

barone emphasized that our schools arent teaching any children our history and values and that the real assimilation job is with the elitists in academia.

BTW

One of my best female friends here from Brazil got her green card after a long l;gal process!

How many ways to go on the topic of immigration... E Pluribus Unum... Well no, that won't work, its a nice idea, but PC politics stress diversity which means that this principle just doesn't work.  Open borders, well no, that won't work either, unless the goal is to destroy the economy (day laborers sending all their excess funds home, not paying taxes but living off the system, etc).  IMAO, there is only one way to deal with the immigration problem; and its quite a capitalist idea: change the neon sign to state "NO VACANCIES".  A nation of immigrants this may be, but back when that motto was coined we were starving for citizens, for people to fill jobs of all walks (there weren't enough people to fill even vital jobs, just ask someone of Irish heritage about their grandfather police officer).  Whatever connotation you would like to put on it, the simple fact is that this is not the case.  We have immigration laws for a reason; if you want to come to this country do it legally.  All we get from open borders is importing other countries problems (see the movie Scarface and pay attention to the prologue if you don't believe me).  I know it is the most anti-PC thing you can say, but close the bloody borders and round up/export the illegals already here.  The way capitalism works is simple: if there is no cheap labor then the lazy high school kids will do the job (and they will because wages will go; look up the reasons why minimum wages aren't needed) and whatever the consumer cost may go up, this money will now stay in the country and get reabsorbed into the system instead of being exported.  Now couple this with the fact that we would 11 million less people who don't pay into the system no longer drawing on the system.  If America has a conscience problem that makes them feel we should destroy our nation and our culture to allow illegal immigrants to have a marginally better existance remember the two pronged counter argument: 1.) we export more aid to foreign nations then every other nation put together (don't get me started on that one), and 2.) look to the worst example of the culture they bring with them: MS-13.  I live in the DC area and have to hear about their members killing or raping daily.  Build a fence.  Scratch that; build two and put some surplus bouncing betty's in the middle...

I'm know I'm on very thin ice with this discussion, and I don't even quite buy it myself. I'm not afraid to get shot down, but avoiding crazy ideas is no way to learn anything really new.

If you're thinking of a dissolution of the Dominion of Canada via a linguistic split, followed by a push for annexation to the US by the western provinces, well, it's not novel. I've been hearing western Canadians talk about that for more than twenty years. And it doesn't give us the bang for the buck that a Mexico linkage would. That's not a reason not to do it.

The Hawaii situation is a prospective breakaway, not a merger. Are you suggesting that a merged US and Mexico would similarly fall apart someday because of the ethnic tension? That's a possibility worth discussing. But we face that problem now because of the illegals.

Historical examples of mergers of distinct cultures: the business world is stuffed to the gills with them. Some work, many do not. It's a rich, readily accessible history. There are many examples in history of multinational states. All experience significant tension as a result. But don't forget, we're in the middle of that now. I haven't seen any credible solutions to the problem of assimilating the millions of immigrants we have now, and I'm not just talking about Mexican illegals. I don't think we will succeed in closing our borders or restricting immigration. We're stuck with this problem, and wishful thinking doesn't solve it. That's why I had the annexation idea in the first place. Can we accept a multi-national identity without losing what is uniquely American? I think that's an interesting question.

I don't rate either Marxism or Nazism as insane ideas, but rather as projections of existing trends. The movements of history often seem inevitable in retrospect, which makes sense because human nature is a constant. But when new things appear, they are rarely recognized for what they are, and generally resisted strongly. By "insane," I mean ideas that are immediately denounced by knowledgeable and intelligent people as obviously wrong. There are innumerable examples from science and technology, starting with fire, and going down through the telephone, the automobile, radioactivity, quantum mechanics, and personal computers.

Here's another example: "The Soviet Union is an evil empire and will shortly be consigned to the dustbin of history."

our schools arent teaching any children our history and values and that the real assimilation job is with the elitists in academia

This is so true, but what it means is that America's social cohesion is in deep trouble today, even without any more immigration, legal or otherwise.

I had an executive assistant once who became a naturalized American. She was thrilled. So was I. And I got the feeling that she knows more about what makes America great than most of the born-and-bred Americans I know. She certainly knows more of our history, and our structures of government.

"How are we going to control illegal immigration if the leadership of the Democratic party supports it?"

Produce a credible solution that acknowledges that many -- if not all -- of the currently illegal immigrants are necessary to our economy. I haven't followed the stories closely, but Bush, at least, has made honest efforts in this direction.

there are only a limited number of voters who die each year so they need to pump up the numbers some other way.

That the political elites in both parties are trying to out-do each other with positions that are increasingly further from what the general public wants.

Agri-business supports it, the corporate meat processors support it, the construction industry supports it, etc.

Big business wants / needs the labor.  You can argue then that America needs it.  

Until DelMonte, or Tyson decide they can do without, nothing will change.   The lobbyist in Washington will see to that.

Originally the goal of many of the 1846 Warhawks.  If we hypotheticaly did it today we would only succeed in blowing open the welfare state, making Germany look like a national Scrooge.

With that logic, we may as well bring back slavery. After all, the slave owners made the same arguements before the civil war. They "needed" the cheap labor.

"How are we going to control illegal immigration if the leadership of the Democratic party supports it?"

and...

"First we can all get real.  Agri-business supports it, the corporate meat processors support it, the construction industry supports it, etc."

Of course they do. Child labor and dangerous working conditions also persisted throughout the 1800s and early 1900s for the same reasons.

"Big business wants / needs the labor.  You can argue then that America needs it."

and...

"Until DelMonte, or Tyson decide they can do without, nothing will change. The lobbyist in Washington will see to that."

Nobody "needs" ultra-cheap (below market) labor but there's no questioning that the business owners want it as cheap as possible. With your argument, we may as well just go the way of China and employ sweat-shop labor.

It would give us complete control of that huge diamond mine in the NorthWest corner of British Columbia.  As it is, we're only getting a small percentage of the even smaller part of the mine that is in Alaska.

immigration is to block money transfers to Mexico.  Require proof of legal immigrant status to make a money transfer and allow it only thru depository banks.

Currently every "check cashing" store in Phoenix ships literally zillions of dollars to families in Mexico every week via Western Union.  US dollars sent by illegals are propping up the Mexican economy, that's the major reason illegal immigration has so much support from Fox (Vincente, not FNC).

The best way to combat illegal immigration is just like combating drugs.  Follow the MONEY!!  Inhibit the flow of $$ by seriously penalizing employers and stopping money transfers without proof of immigration status and you will put a major dent in the flow of illegals.

...Mexicans would work hard and create enough economic value to offset the cost of their social services? In other words, that we would be annexing a culture of dependence? That may be a reasonable argument, but I want to hear you say it in so many words.

If you're going to compare them to the illegals that are here now, just remember that if we annex Mexico, we get everybody, not just the malcontents.

It makes sense to enable Mexican laborers to cross the border to work legally--and then go back home to Mexico.

I tend to think the DNC wants their votes, however.

Most of my family came from Germany (quite a few fought in the American Revolution). Some came more recently from Eastern Europe. Probably some are English, however, the fact is, this country is part of the Anglo Saxon cultural tradition, even if all of us can't trace our genes back to England.

Latin America is pretty consistent from the Rio Grand to the tip of Argentina, and I don't want this country to become part of that.

are not "Mexican malcontents" nor are they suffering from a "dependence culture".  They come here because they believe they will be able to improve their economic situation.  They could be viewed as the "entrepreneurial class" of Mexico.

Some are coming because they are criminals, some are drug runners.  Most, and in my opinion the vast majority, are simply trying to get ahead.

IMO, the problem with annexing Mexico isn't "their" culture of dependence, it's ours.  the LLL will find a new class of impoverished folks who are significantly further below the "poverty line" than poor people in the US and we will be looking at a whole new poverty program.

That's why when I think about an annexation of Mexico, I'm thinking thirty or so years from now. By then, either the Democratic Party will be history, or else I'll be calling you comrade. If it's the former, then an annexation might make sense.

is being considered, no doubt.

But I'm not in favor of empower trans national elites, which is the route the corporatist GOP and Dems want to go.

We should be encouraging sound north american government. There is no need for more than that at this point.

Furthermore, I have may doubts about the bennefits of a continent spanning single government, unless federalism has a serious revival.

That would happen.

this analysis

absolute welfare corrupts absolutly, or something like that.  Blackhedd I think mbecker908 is on , or near, the same page as yours truly.  Welfare will be sold better than boxed cereal,temptations will arise in this country that were never present in Mexico.  A vanguard of agitators, already present, will talk of "rights". Vast opportunities will present themselves to demogogues in the media and politics.  And you can bet your last stick of chewing gum that many will succumb.   I may missed it, not having read all the posts, but what if Mexico doesn't want to be annexed?  I mean if your in the O'Bannion mob would you welcome the Capone mob? Both pride and turf are at stake here.

Anyone who calls them "temporary" or "guest" workers is lying to you.

Six years - or even three years - is a very very long time. Long enough for people to put down roots, have U.S. citizen children, buy houses, etc. etc.

Don't you think it's going to be a bit difficult to deport people like that? Especially since the GOP is unable or unwilling to take on those Dems who support illegal aliens staying here now, what makes you think they would take them on later?

Once again: if someone says they're "temporary" workers, they're lying to you.

Combining blackhedd's ideas with your own, how about this: we cut a deal with China to take their "malcontents" and "troublemakers". We house them, feed them, clothe them, and work them in the fields.

They do better here than in "factories" in China. Sure, some of them will turn out to be spies, but many of Bush's "kind-hearted people" think the U.S. is Mexico's property, so what else is new.

And, best of all: they'll do the jobs that Mexicans won't do.

Awesome bro and thanks. This has been a difficult issue for me all along and I think you have stated a moral truth that too many of us have been blind to PRECISELY as those born and raised in the ante-bellum south as well as in the Jim Crow south.

Now, I do think that emplpyers should be given a 2 yr warning in conjunction with the temp worker program, AFTER we FIRST secure the border, since an immediate enforcement of a law that hasnt been enforced that allowed a massive dependency to occur, could cause great damage to the economy.

I think under those conditions we could at l;east get many workers identified as they signed up before the enforcement deadline.

I heard a great argument related to yours By George Will I think, that higher wage costs would spur technological advances that arent pursued now.

I am talking about political reality here in the US, and you are talking about an abomination called slavery.

Oh yes, sending these Illegal aliens (specially Mexicans) home is easy. Easy as sending forces to Iraq or Afganistan (considering that illegal immigration is a threat to national security)But do you think the Federal Government will risk losing BILLIONS $$$$  remitted by these useless aliens thru IRS' ITIN's..?  Come to think of it..Who knows these illegal aliens might be risponsible in subsidizing the stay of your Moms and Pops in those Government funded Home For the Aged  cause you cant afford to take care of them no more..

Its easy than get done ..I think we need to consider the good and the Bad sides. Dont get me wrong . Im against amnesty.

Who needs a temporary worker program - lets shift those administrative efforts over to something like this:

INS Application for permanent residency.:

5-year processing-$3,500

4-year processing-$4,500

3-year processing-$5,500

2-year processing-$6,500

1-year processing-$7,500

6Month Processing-$10,000

If you have already broken the law and entered illegally then your only option would be :

6Month Processing-$10,000

A fine of  - $2,000.00

Any and all back taxes due to the US government

 ---

Believe me when I say most illegal's can easily afford the hefty fines. And as for the ones looking to cross - why pay $3500 to a smuggler and risk your life when you can pay and wait 5 years!

---

Something like this coupled with

*DETAINMENT of illegals on the spot (by police)

*HEFTY fines on businesses if they are found guilty of employing illegals

*INS Deportation to the CITY of origin not just the border.

*INCARCERATION for multiple offenders

       (1st offense-Warning)

       (2nd offense - 3 Month INS Detention)

       (3rd offense - 12 Month INS Detention)

       (4th offense - Leave it up to a judge)

I'm open for discussion on the specifics, but we MUST have a carrot and stick approach to this issue.  Our decisions should be driven by two goals:  (1) stop illegal/undocumented immigrants for national security reasons, and (2) try to assimilate all immigrants as early as possible, to promote a sense of national unity.

We will never accomplish goal #1 unless we BOTH allow some way for illegals who are already here to pay a fine and become legal, AND really crack down on immigration enforcement going forward.  

We will never accomplish goal #2 unless we bring the illegals who are already here into the open.