The Democrats and Hispanics...
... the ones at home, that is. I have pointed out the problem Republicans are having maintaining their gains in the hearts and minds of Hispanic voters here in the US, but Democrats are shaping up for their own version of this: Free trade.
The incoming Demos want to role back the tide of free trade treaties with Latin America. They have a constituency that has been hurt by jobs leaking out of the US to Latin America, or at least such is the perception. This will cause all kinds of problems for friendly governments there, many of which have staked the economic health of their societies on close ties with the US. If that collapses these governments will be discredited and Hugo Chavez and his ilk will reap the benefits.
If we want to put an end to unrestrained immigration from the south, one way to do it is to help beef up the economies, and jobs, down Mexico way and points south. If economies collapse or retrench, more people will be headed our way.
posted by Clemens @ 1:20 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
NAFTA (which is Canada, US and Mexico) was passed as legislation rather than ratified as a treaty (it didn't have a 2/3 majority of the Senate), if I recall correctly.
Though I think you make a good point. The most effective way to combat illegal immigration, is to have thriving local economies.
--Joey
Yep - but votes are coming up on new treaties and that is what the Demos are expected to have problems with.
And yes, if you want to combat illegal immigration, dry up the source with a solid economy in Mexico and points south. Simply building a wall, or any othr plan that simply wants to use brute enforement to stop the illegals has numerous problems. Like, are you really anxious to see Mexico erupt into another full bore Revolution? And are you willing to pay the $$ to beef up the enforcement mechanisms needed?
Besides, all the huffing and puffing about the Fence and more border guards misses the point: Its the EMPLOYERS. Show the same backbone and animus towards them as some people want to show towards the illegals themselves and you might have an 'enforcement' policy I could respect (and one that might have a chance of suceeding).
Of course, you'd have to be prepared to accept the coming mess in Mexico. And I really don't want to deal with a world where Hugo Chavez is seen as the new Che.
BTW, how's the Spanish coming along?
[...]are you really anxious to see Mexico erupt into another full bore Revolution? And are you willing to pay the $$ to beef up the enforcement mechanisms needed?
I am not anxious to see a revolution (of the violent variety) south of the border. And yes, I am willing to pay for enforcement mechanisms (on our side of the border... on their side I am willing to buy Mexican products as I buy American, Japanese, and Chinese products)
Besides, all the huffing and puffing about the Fence and more border guards misses the point: Its the EMPLOYERS.
I agree. I support a fence eventually (primarily for security reasons), but in the mean time we should give employer penalties a shot first.
BTW, how's the Spanish coming along?
Desafortunadamente, es en declinar. Necesito leer mas periodicos an espanol.
--Joey
Well, I believe there would be a major social revolution if we stop the flow of workers from there to jobs here, or stopped the flow of money from Mexicans here to Mexicans there.
As for paying for enforcement, allow me to be skeptical. You may understand what is involved, but if we don't have the money to pay for our war in Iraq, I am not sure where we will get the money for closing off our borders. Americans don't seem to be in much of a mood for higher taxes.
The only credible threat from terrorists that has wandered over our borders came from Canada. Do you want to seal off that border, or merely the one in the south? Or are you under the illusion that only legals come down from Canada? Do you have any idea of the scale of the enforcement problem? Or the cost?
While I think you and I agree about employers, I honestly don't think our government is going to do much about it. One example: here at the local Chicken Factory it was an openly accepted fact that Tysons used illegals. A ring was busted, including some execs with close ties to Tysons (they were former managers who 'quit' to run labor services whose only client was - Tysons). The Feds brought the case, in a state where Tysons has a lot of clout and a lot of jobs, and lo and behold - the jury found them all innocent.
And the Feds made it clear that the case was ONLY about the guys arrested, not their ties with Tysons.
Well, I believe there would be a major social revolution if we stop the flow of workers from there to jobs here, or stopped the flow of money from Mexicans here to Mexicans there.
I support free trade, so no I would not be in favor of either of those options.
As for paying for enforcement, allow me to be skeptical. [..] if we don't have the money to pay for our war in Iraq [..]where we will get the money for closing off our borders. Americans don't seem to be in much of a mood for higher taxes.
I am not sure you need to/want to raise taxes. If a business is struggling the answer isn't to raise its prices. This will be very expensive, you are right. However, defending the borders is one task that should fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. We could use the border as a training ground for the National Guard.
The only credible threat from terrorists that has wandered over our borders came from Canada. Do you want to seal off that border, or merely the one in the south?
The seal on Canada's border doesn't have to be quite as tight as Mexico, but we need to do a better job.
Do you have any idea of the scale of the enforcement problem? Or the cost?
No and no, but we don't have to reduce the number to zero we just have to reduce it significantly.
--Joey
Post a Comment
<< Home