Immigration and the GOP
SEARCH BLOG: IMMIGRATION
Given the tough talk by some Republicans about illegal immigration, one must wonder about the anemic efforts to address it by the Bush administration. Is there or is there not a security issue? If there is, then why an amnesty program for illegals? Shouldn't illegal aliens be deported? Shouldn't they be stopped from returning?
Why was there more effort to punish two border guards for shooting a drug dealer who was illegally in the country than there is to punish the illegal aliens that are here?
Okay, enough questions. You want the answer so here it is: the Bush administration and the Republican party is deathly afraid of the legal Hispanic citizens being driven into the permanent ranks of the Democrat party... a second minority bloc, if you will. As a result, the Bush administration and the Republican party want to be seen as openly pro-Hispanic and protectors of Hispanic interests in this country. Actions that are seen as remotely anti-Hispanic are to be avoided and disavowed. Hence, two border guards convicted and jailed for shooting an armed, Mexican drug dealer who was illegally in this country (shooting Mexicans will be dealt with harshly). Hence, placing the national guard at the border, but only as observers who cannot actually do anything to stop illegals from crossing the border.
GOP... party of national security... unless it means they might lose some votes.
Some thoughts about immigration:
As the U.S. has matured... ceased expanding its boundaries and become a more stable society... a new sudden influx of immigrants creates a different dynamic than experienced in the 3 previous centuries.
1. Immigrants cannot simply move toward newly opened and free land (e.g., Sooners and 49ers); poor immigrants are shunted to the worst situations until they are able to work their way out.
2. Past immigration, while including "groupings" from various nations, tended to be a mixed bag of backgrounds who were forced to assimilate to the dominant culture (yes, they lived in enclaves, but then dispersed quickly).
3. There was a distinct lack of social programs which may have caused temporary hardships, but the lack of which served as a significant incentive for individuals to adapt to their new surroundings.
4. Immigrants came with the intention of becoming Americans, not with the intention of moving in temporarily in order to funnel funds back to the homeland, use social services while in the U.S., and then return to their homeland when they had accumulated enough money (no this is not necessarily the "norm" for current immigrants, but a phenomenon that has been documented). In other words, past immigrants had a greater commitment to becoming Americans as quickly as possible and worked within the system to do so.
5. Undocumented or illegal immigrants were a very small, insignificant, issue until recently. Past immigrants had to move and work within constraints until they became citizens and they had to pay their share of taxes. With 1/4-1/3 of recent immigrants (about 10 million) entering illegally, the immigration system has broken down and these people cannot be normally assimilated into the population.
6. Without controls that are normal placed on legal immigrants (and citizens as well), the illegal subculture has created various strains on the communities in which they have settled... legal, social, political, and economic.Immigration itself is not the issue; neither is population growth. Illegal immigration is. The legal infrastructure cannot deal with the illegal masses in an effective manner. What many do to provide social services to illegal immigrants may be called "humanitarian", but it is dysfunctional from a social and economic point of view because it supports a phenomenon that is greatly disruptive.
The best action possible is negative reinforcement for both the illegal immigrants and Mexico which has not only not attempted to control the situation from its side, but actually promote illegal immigration into the U.S. Mexico is sending its problems to the U.S. rather than addressing them there.
From 
