Hey, here is one way to get more voter support

[LavCat]

...instead of jumping boat to hold their ground.

That's quite a metaphor.

[Jester]

Sadly, it seems here that when parties start to drift ideologies, the voter base tends to follow. In the last 10 (20?) years, we've seen the Right move more right, and become more affiliated with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. The perception is that the more moderate republicans have now been pulled more to the right, instead of jumping boat to hold their ground.

You're sure this is the voters moving to the party, and not the party moving to the voters?

-Jester

[RiotInferno]

Sadly, it seems here that when parties start to drift ideologies, the voter base tends to follow. In the last 10 (20?) years, we've seen the Right move more right, and become more affiliated with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. The perception is that the more moderate republicans have now been pulled more to the right, instead of jumping boat to hold their ground.

You're sure this is the voters moving to the party, and not the party moving to the voters?

-Jester

That is a good distinction to make, and I was a little vague. When the party does shift (regardless of cause), they have a tendency to drag people with them.

[kandrathe]

That is a good distinction to make, and I was a little vague. When the party does shift (regardless of cause), they have a tendency to drag people with them.

Or, bump them out. Hence, the rise of the independents.

[Occhidiangela]

JUst remember, there is a distinction between immigration and illegal immigration. Oddly enough, an awful lot of Hispanic pundits, and their allies in the political circle, are apologists for illegal immigration, which puts them in the odd moral position of advocating breaking the law.

My grandmother was an immigrant. A legal immigrant.

I am distressed at how that distinction keeps getting glossed over.

I am still annoyed, however, at President Reagan, who chose a short term fix, amnesty of law breakers, rather than the more difficult but more satisfactory policy, which would have been immigration policy reform. And his successors have kept up on his example, kicking the can down the road, and sustaining informal support for breaking the law as the solution to a given problem.

The rhetoric seems to keep ignoring that core issue, and core internal conflict and policy shortcoming. Pols are too lazy, however, to fix the underlying problem, which is a policy that has not kept up with the last fifty years of change.

Gee, there's a surprise.

[Jester]

The rhetoric seems to keep ignoring that core issue, and core internal conflict and policy shortcoming. Pols are too lazy, however, to fix the underlying problem, which is a policy that has not kept up with the last fifty years of change.

Certainly, I agree that the US (and all developed countries) need to get serious about immigration reform. But, the devil is in the details. How would you change the laws?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

The rhetoric seems to keep ignoring that core issue, and core internal conflict and policy shortcoming. Pols are too lazy, however, to fix the underlying problem, which is a policy that has not kept up with the last fifty years of change.

Certainly, I agree that the US (and all developed countries) need to get serious about immigration reform. But, the devil is in the details. How would you change the laws?

-Jester

The core issue to be addressed is seasonal labor on a formal basis. The other issues are actually shooting people who cross the border illegally. That would catch some drug runners, some human traffickers, and sadly some folks who are chasing a dream against desparation. That last group, however, once the blood began to flow, would finally have a disincentive to play the underground exploitation game, that costs them thousands and leaves some of them dead on our side of the border anyway. It's sick. I don't know how much you think you know about all this, but if you live in the border zone, a hell of a lot of the seamier side of this crap confronts us day in and day out.

The other problem is that Mexico's government has no incentive to unfork themselves, in terms of how the prospects for advancement are so dim for so many.

THAT is what is called the Root Cause.

But I have no desire to go on a pages long discussion about this. Our border was drawn in blood, that of Mexicans, Americans, and some folks in between. I suppose it has to be reaffirmed in blood, since other means have not sufficed.

Sad but true.

I don't see the liars and crooks in both our governments finding an alternative solution. As I said above, too damned lazy.

[Taem]

Our border was drawn in blood, that of Mexicans, Americans, and some folks in between.

Let's see, Mexico just ended it's war with Spain (who is not a key player in this debate) in 1821 when Texas split from Mexico in 1845 which greatly displeased Mexico. So you have the Republic of Texas (legally recognized by the US at this point as their own country which further angered Mexico), the Mexicans (a combination of Spaniards and Natives of the land), and of course America. Mexico, because of it's war with Spain, had diminished resources so when all was said and done, Mexico lost big time with Texas and Alta California joining the US essentially doubling the US size and more than halving Mexico's size. Very interesting bit of history. Considering most of America had Mexicans in it, I wonder why our language isn't Spanish, or at least required to have both, like how Germans must learn both German and English. I wonder if there's a bit of anger towards America towards the whole thing. You wouldn't think so being so long ago, but then again, look at the Middle-East. I think most of the problem is the authority in Mexico that cares doesn't know what to do, and the ones who don't care, well that's part of the problem.

[Jester]

I don't see the liars and crooks in both our governments finding an alternative solution. As I said above, too damned lazy.

I guess that's what I'm asking about. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they're stupid, or maybe there's no good solution. (Or all three, of course.)

If I'm reading you correctly, the proposal is a broader, regulated, seasonal labour program, and a policy of shoot to kill at the border?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Very interesting bit of history.

You lack a little bit of context. In the early 1840's rebellion was widespread across many Mexican states, all of whom were unhappy with their rulers. Texas was sparsely populated. The reason the US ended up with Texas was more that Texas was looking to leave, than that the US was looking to expand. Nothing describes the conditions at that time better than Santa Anna's self serving duplicity towards both sides of the conflict.

The continuation of the Mexican-American war (fighting over the loss of Texas) resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which ceded the large territory of Alta California. Alta California was also mostly unpopulated by Mexicans at that time.

[Jester]

You lack a little bit of context. In the early 1840's rebellion was widespread across many Mexican states, all of whom were unhappy with their rulers. Texas was sparsely populated. The reason the US ended up with Texas was more that Texas was looking to leave, than that the US was looking to expand. Nothing describes the conditions at that time better than Santa Anna's self serving duplicity towards both sides of the conflict.

The continuation of the Mexican-American war (fighting over the loss of Texas) resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which ceded the large territory of Alta California. Alta California was also mostly unpopulated by Mexicans at that time.

What happened in Texas was manifestly not the same process that happened elsewhere in Mexico in the 1840s, if only because Texas was populated by an entirely different group of people: protestant, slave-owning, English-speaking settlers. (Both their protestantism and slaveowning were illegal under the terms of the settlement contracts, interestingly - making them illegal migrants.)

The concept that westward expansion was not Polk's agenda in annexing Texas is simply ludicrous. Manifest Destiny, right? Polk could have prevented war, or fought a much more limited war, over the Texas border. Instead, he crushed the Mexicans, and took the entirety of Alta California. He had already offered to buy the territory once. I think his objectives are clear as day - expansion, to California at the very least. Texas was both a territory to be added to the US, and a key piece of his diplomatic and military scheming, providing the nominal excuse for war.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What happened in Texas was manifestly not the same process that happened elsewhere in Mexico in the 1840s, if only because Texas was populated by an entirely different group of people: protestant, slave-owning, English-speaking settlers. (Both their protestantism and slave owning were illegal under the terms of the settlement contracts, interestingly - making them illegal migrants.)

Yes, spot on. I should have been more clear that it was more likely populated with indigenous people, and immigrants from the US, rather than by Mexicans (or formerly Spaniards).

The concept that westward expansion was not Polk's agenda in annexing Texas is simply ludicrous. Manifest Destiny, right? Polk could have prevented war, or fought a much more limited war, over the Texas border. Instead, he crushed the Mexicans, and took the entirety of Alta California. He had already offered to buy the territory once. I think his objectives are clear as day - expansion, to California at the very least. Texas was both a territory to be added to the US, and a key piece of his diplomatic and military scheming, providing the nominal excuse for war.

If there had been TV or Radio then, I doubt a person like Polk could be elected today. Although, his firm support for westward expansion is the reason he was nominated to be President. Polk's foreign policy was dominated by his willingness to wield the military as a blunt instrument and it reminds me of our recent history.

Mexico had made it clear prior to 1845 that adding Texas as a State would be an act of war. I remember there being an issue with the rebuff of James Slidell, who was there in 1845 to negotiate the fair purchase of Alto California.

[kandrathe]

I guess that's what I'm asking about. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they're stupid, or maybe there's no good solution. (Or all three, of course.)

Or, none of the above.

I think the biggest issue with our border is that everyone in power benefits from the exploitation of illegal immigrants. It has become an issue only because of the recent prominence of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling into the US. They have no rights, and as such are victims (with little recourse) of exploitation both by our government systems, companies, and by individuals.

Do we care about human trafficking? I don't think so, because it happens everywhere and not just across that border. We have as big, or a bigger issue with human trafficking from Asia.

Do we (the Feds) care about illegal immigrants? No. In fact, in the border states it has become a joke -- the Brewer brouhaha in Arizona is due to the local and State police attempting to enforce the Federal immigration laws.

The politicians are making hay with the immigration issue from the growing voting bloc of Latino-Americans. Which, in fact, is why it's on our radar again. Barrack Obama is making political hay, without resolving the issue.

So what do we do?

To clean up the current mess, I think;
1) If you are a juvenile, you will go wherever your parent(s) go -- If one stays in the US you can stay too.

2) If you are illegal, and have been convicted of a violent crime you will be deported (once you've served your time).

3) (Application for Permanent Residence) For a period of one year, if you have lived in the US for 10 years, and have been an otherwise productive contributor to the society you can apply for a Green Card. This will require documentation of your source of income, taxes paid, and etc. Amnesty will be shown to anyone having illegally employed the illegal immigrant. The Green Card to Citizenship process is already in place.

4) (Application for Temporary Residence) If you have lived in the US for less than 10 years or cannot otherwise prove your residence in the US for the past 10 years, and have been an otherwise productive contributor to the society you should apply for Guest worker status. Fundamentally guest workers (going forward) should have a visible, legal means of support, and demonstrate that with a legal job history, and taxes paid. I would give them a short time period (possibly 3-6 months) -- during the application and review process to demonstrate how they will legally support themselves. Once they've been through the review process, and have proven they can sustain themselves in the US and will be positive contributors, then they should get full guest worker status which would give people a 5 year (license) period to live and work in the US -- it should be renewable, and a path to citizenship once they have a documented history of gainful participation. Each application will need to be scrutinized with in person interviews by the immigration department to determine if this person will not negatively impact our society. Of course that is subjective, so guidelines will need to be made to determine "who do we want to be here". No one would be deported unless they were found to be undesirable (whatever that means).

5) Once there is a working process for guest workers, and sufficient time has been given for people to get themselves legal, then illegal immigrants should be deported (to their local embassy) until they follow the guest worker process. Anyone enabling illegal immigration will need to be dealt with harshly. Of course, this will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis (there will be exceptions e.g. older retired couple, living with and supported by their kids, etc).

6) You can deal with the border incursions more effectively (and harshly if needed) when otherwise decent people will opt to use legal channels, rather than subject themselves to the abuses of the coyotes.

So, what does this mean for US citizens? Nothing really changes for from the way things work now, only perhaps things would be simpler. Creating a more streamlined process for what would otherwise be illegal immigration may slightly affect the employment rate (of US citizens) for low-skilled jobs. Currently in the US, the H visa (temporary worker) requires a business to sponsor the individual. Opening that up by putting the onus on the individual to show means of employment, and an employment history will reduce the barriers the individuals. It would also protect those H visa holders who want to change companies, or allow them to continue to stay if the company finds they are no longer needed. Currently, if an H visa holder has their employment terminated (for any reason) they lose their visa.

[RiotInferno]

The only thing I don't understand (as someone who lives in the Northern Mid-West, very removed from the border), is that Mexico right now seems really bad off. The news is constantly reporting on what seems to be a civil war being waged by the Drug Lords vs the Mexican Government. If that is the case, and people truly are fleeing for their lives, why aren't we treating them like refugees?

Also, I do not agree with a Shoot-to-kill policy, as I do not agree with Capital Punishment ( I don't wish to get into that long-drawn out debate, just making my thought known ).

[kandrathe]

The only thing I don't understand (as someone who lives in the Northern Mid-West, very removed from the border), is that Mexico right now seems really bad off. The news is constantly reporting on what seems to be a civil war being waged by the Drug Lords vs the Mexican Government. If that is the case, and people truly are fleeing for their lives, why aren't we treating them like refugees?

Nothing is different. You are only hearing about it on the news, because the corruption and gang activity is spilling across the border. Mexico has 31 states, but most of the violence we've heard about and the extraordinarily gruesome stuff has been in Chihuahua, Durango, Guerrero and Sinaloa. Because it's spilling across the border, the US has been on the federal Mexican government to do something. They've responded, sending in national troops, which has temporarily increased the violence. I'm not sure if they'll do anything permanent. Once the feds get tired, or give up and go south, the "La Linea" type relationship with the drug lords will go back to business as usual.

In many parts of regional Mexico, for the past 150 years, the government and it's officials have been corrupt and colluding with the criminals. Life is cheap, and murder is rampant. The weak are exploited by the strong and powerful. It is cruel and barbaric -- US dollars will buy you anything including freedom, or the deprivation of it from others.

I would recommend everyone get an educational experience and spend a day in a border town. If you are close to Texas, try El Paso, Laredo, McAllen or Brownsville. Other bad cases are, Nogales - Arizona, Columbus - New Mexico, Calexico - California, or my favorite, Tijuana/Imperial Beach - California. One of my BIL's lived in Rosarita, Baja California for awhile -- and we've visited Baja frequently. I could write a book based on the stories he's told of his encounters, and my own fun in the sun in Mexico.

[RiotInferno]

The only thing I don't understand (as someone who lives in the Northern Mid-West, very removed from the border), is that Mexico right now seems really bad off. The news is constantly reporting on what seems to be a civil war being waged by the Drug Lords vs the Mexican Government. If that is the case, and people truly are fleeing for their lives, why aren't we treating them like refugees?

Nothing is different. You are only hearing about it on the news, because the corruption and gang activity is spilling across the border.

In many parts of regional Mexico, for the past 150 years, the government and it's officials have been corrupt and colluding with the criminals. Life is cheap, and murder is rampant. The weak are exploited by the strong and powerful. It is cruel and barbaric -- US dollars will buy you anything including freedom, or the deprivation of it from others.

I would recommend everyone get an educational experience and spend a day in a border town. If you are close to Texas, try El Paso, Laredo, McAllen or Brownsville. Other bad cases are, Nogales - Arizona, Columbus - New Mexico, Calexico - California, or my favorite, Tijuana/Imperial Beach - California. One of my BIL's lived in Rosarita, Baja California for awhile -- and we've visited Baja frequently. I could write a book based on the stories he's told of his encounters, and my own fun in the sun in Mexico.

I can only read that as "yes, we should be treating them as refugees", is that correct?

At the end of the day, the congress does seem too lazy/ignorant/corrupt to do a damned thing about it though, which at the end of the day, applies to most of the problems that the US is currently facing.

[kandrathe]

I can only read that as "yes, we should be treating them as refugees", is that correct?

No. What I was saying was that the people in Mexico have lived with their corrupt police officials forever. What is different is the press coverage. You are I are cloistered in our idyllic and mostly peaceful communities, and rarely see or hear about the ugliness of our world. A good many areas of our world are filled with potential refugees, if that is defined as living in an area rife with a violent crime per capita rate like Juarez. The innocent victims are not being persecuted, but are usually either caught in the cross fire, or working against the status quo to clean up the corruption.

At the end of the day, the congress does seem too lazy/ignorant/corrupt to do a damned thing about it though, which at the end of the day, applies to most of the problems that the US is currently facing.

Again, no, I wouldn't call it lazy, or ignorant, or corrupt -- at least in the US -- I don't know enough about Mexican national politics to comment on them.

Our politicians are just manipulative, self-serving, and/or craven. If you side against illegal immigrants you risk losing 9.7 million registered Latino voters. Or, do you side with tougher immigration policy to attract the majority opinion? It is easy to be against crime, or illegal drug use. It's not that simple to be against an opportunity for hard working family man Mr. Lopez and his family seeking to leave their hard life in Oaxaca. Now, if Raul Castro became the supreme dictator of the Communist States of Mexico, then you'd have asylum seekers and Republicans working tirelessly to drain Mexico of its repressed workers, and Democrats deporting them back to their socialist nirvana.

[RiotInferno]

Thanks for the clarification. That does make a lot more sense.
It's hard to keep up to speed on politics and world events with all the double-talk and spin-doctoring going on these days coupled with the 'picking and choosing' that the Mainstream Media does.

[Jester]

Now, if Raul Castro became the supreme dictator of the Communist States of Mexico, then you'd have asylum seekers and Republicans working tirelessly to drain Mexico of its repressed workers, and Democrats deporting them back to their socialist nirvana.

To put a question to your answer in terms of Jeopardy: Who was Bobby Kennedy?

When has it ever been Democratic party policy to deport Cubans back to Cuba?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

When has it ever been Democratic party policy to deport Cubans back to Cuba?

Party? No. That is too bold a stance for the party.

But, to answer your question with some questions... Who is Greg Craig? Who is Eric Holder? What did they have to do with Elian Gonzalaz deportation to Cuba? How are/were they connected to the Obama administration and the general Democratic power elite?