News-Record.com

H. Nolo Martinez: "The country demands more in-depth debate because we do not have real reform yet or a comprehensive solution to illegal immigration."

Martinez is right. The immigration debate is so anemic, that few politicians --- let alone citizens --- have have even a rudimentary grasp of the origins of our immigration crisis/dilemma.

How can one resolve a crisis without understanding it?

For example: How many readers have a basic understanding of the milestones --- on our politcy journey to today's open borders reality --- that I list in my letter published in the Raleigh News & Observer:

The immigration farce
Lead Letter, April 28, 2007
(Raleigh) News & Observer
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/568497.html

"People are here without papers," says Duke anthropology professor Charles D. Thompson Jr. in his April 18 Point of View piece "Lessons learned on immigration," because "massive historical and economic forces push people around."

Humbug. "Massive historical and economic forces" didn't:

* Push through the 1965 Immigration Act with its chain migration provisions that made Latin America and, secondarily, Asia the near-exclusive sources of legal and illegal immigration.

* Grant citizenship to children born to foreign nationals illegally in the U.S.

* Hand down the 1982 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision (Plyler v. Doe) ordering taxpayers to educate children brought illegally to the U.S.

* Grant amnesty in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens.

* Strip effective employee verification from a 1996 immigration bill.

* Permit banks in 2002 to accept easily forged Mexican matricula consular ID cards used almost exclusively by illegal aliens.

The actors in this farce are not mysterious "historical forces." They are familiar characters: short-sighted politicians, corporate and ethnic lobbyists, overreaching judges.

Tom Shuford
Lenoir

* * *

For mass public ignorance, who is to blame? What can be done? What can you do?

Agreed, Tom.

Maybe we can swap our losers in exchange for highly qualified immigrants?

JDR: "Maybe we can swap our losers in exchange for highly qualified immigrants?"

The second part of your "exchange" is a real issue.

There will be, of course, no swapping out of "losers." But with enough political heat on Congress, there could be a shift in current U. S. policy in favor of skilled immigration.

Economist Robert J. Samuelson, a columnist for the Washington Post, was blunt recently in describing current immigration policy:

"By default, our present policy is to import poor people . . . We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They will assimilate quickest and aid the economy the most."

Immigration policy in the U. S. is designed (since 1965) to benefit of immigrants --- hence: generous family reunification/chain migration provisions, allowing one person to bring in as many as 80 family members over time. Immigration policy is NOT designed to benefit U. S. citizens.

And there are very few politicians --- and close to zero editors/news directors (gatekeepers of information/analysis) --- with the courage to go against politically correct tides and press for a change in policy to favor U. S. citizens.

In fact just the opposite: Most in the media use their platforms to champion amnesty for illegal aliems. I don't know that I've ever read an editorial favoring changing fundamental immigration policy.

[Now there IS a hi-tech visa program (H-1B) to allow corporations to replace U. S. tech workers with foreigners who will work for less. But it is insignificant --- 65,000 per year ---compared to family-based legal immigration, which brings in about 1.1 million new legal immigrants each year.]

But things change, as people begin to wake up. The Internet has empowered such organizations as NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform to at least slow down open borders politicians and their media backers.

The game is not over.

Here's an idea....why not annex Mexico into the United States as the 51st state? That would make the many millions of now Mexican citizens - American citizens. Then, they would have to pay taxes like all Americans. They would have to pay into Social Security. The properties would have to be developed up to U.S. minimal standards. A huge gob of money can be saved by not needing that border and the guards that patrol it. Dad-gum, the Mexicans want to be in America, here's their chance, without traveling. The only one's in Mexico that would object? The corrupt Mexican government officials that got rich sucking the life blood out of the working class. Puts the bad guys out of business. Of course, there are a lot of other logistical problems that can't be discussed here. But, the idea is something. What do you think? The Dog's outa here.
Crime Dog

Dog, sounds like an idea.

However, were Mexico to be come the 51st State; the US southern border will still need monitoring/patroling. Remember, it is not just Mexican Latinos coming to the US illegally.

Shalom

Doggie, your idea is very similar to one that I often post (stolen from others of course):

Why do Immigrants come here when there are ample opportunities and resources in their home land? The corrupt south-o-the-border government officials (and that means many other besides Mexicans) that REMAIN rich sucking the life blood out of the working class - supported by Global Corporations (read Banana Republic types).

You wanna stop imigration? Help them develop their own lands without being raped by Machine Gun Federales backed by Corporate Greed.

JDR: "Why do Immigrants come here when there are ample opportunities and resources in their home land? The corrupt south-o-the-border government officials . . . that REMAIN rich sucking the life blood out of the working class . . ."

Exactly (apart from the "ample opportunities" slip of the pen). Excerpt from a letter I had published in the Utah Spectrum:

"Mexico has many quasi-monopolies in vital services. These keep prices high, make the nation uncompetitive and maintain a parasitic class of multi-millionaires and billionaires. Mexico has 11 billionaires, in fact, including the world's third richest man, Carlos Slim, worth an estimated $49 billion.*

"Professor George W. Grayson, senior associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies, elaborated on Lou Dobbs Tonight (May 3):

"Lou, Mexico's elites live like maharajas. But they spend extremely little on education and health care and transportation to upgrade the quality of their citizens. They pay about — as a percent of gross domestic product — the same percentage that Haiti pays, 10.4 percent. So as a result, even though it's an immensely wealthy country — gold, silver, beaches, oil . . . they prefer to neglect their problems at home, turn a blind eye to them, and let U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab."

"The U.S., you see, is the maharajas' safety value.

Tom Shuford
Lenoir, N.C.

Another reason I support the Fair Tax.

`

Nitwit,
I should have known you were a disciple of Neal Bortz. Are you also a follower of Michael Savage?

`