Redstate

Overall I think immigration has been a big plus for America.  And the right immigrants in the right numbers will continue to be good for America. But I think you paint an overly idealized, unrealistic view of immigration.

First this both parties benefit in an economic transaction stuff breezes past the overall impact.  For example a farmer hires a bunch of illegal immigrants to work at lower wages and under worse conditions than his other alternatives - domestic workers, automation, or a combination.  Okay the farmer benefits and persumably so do his new illegal employees. Now how about everyone else.  The migrant workers now must be covered for some fairly expensive services: health care, education for any children etc.. The migrant workers probably have very limited education and English language skills, how well are they positioned to participate/contribute to civic activities and more importantly raise their children to succeed in an advanced, complex society.  And what about our own unskilled working poor who are dragged farther down the economic/social ladder?

I could go on and one.  Again I am for controlled immigration, even some controlled unskilled immigration from our neighbors.  But the idea that throwing the borders open and counting on economic transactions between U.S. employers and immigrant workers to lead to hunky dory results is a bit crazed in my opinion.  And I see nothing conservative about the President's reckless immigration proposal.  And I favor some form of recognition of the 6-12 million illegal immigrants, the recognition that they are in violation of the law.

"Max",

You said: First this both parties benefit in an economic transaction stuff breezes past the overall impact.  For example a farmer hires a bunch of illegal immigrants to work at lower wages and under worse conditions than his other alternatives - domestic workers, automation, or a combination.  Okay the farmer benefits and persumably so do his new illegal employees. Now how about everyone else.  The migrant workers now must be covered for some fairly expensive services: health care, education for any children etc.

We do all benefit.  Everyone else benefits through lower prices.  Farming is a very competitive industry -- the products are nearly interchangeable -- and the lower production costs would translate quite readily to lower prices for consumers.  That is an increase in economic income for anyone that buys food, i.e. everybody.

It's also not a given that we need to provide social services for those that come here.  To do so incentivizes their immigration and we don't need to do that.  Emergency healthcare, yes.  Schooling?  No.  Not unless they are here legally.

Increasing the number of legal immigrants also has security benefits.  We currently have the number set too low.  How do I know this?  Millions of illegals, that's how.  The current limit is unenforcable; even if it were, it wouldn't be desirable.

Voters in "red" states should send Bush a message.  Vote Libertarian - vote Badnarik (badnarik.org).  Badnarik supports open immigration AND strong borders.

http://badnarik.org/Issues/Immigration.php

THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS. Thanks for leading us through corporate troubles and into economic expansion, and leading us after tragic attacks and onto victories against terrorists.

You have done a great service to this nation, and you are certainly the best candidate to lead America right now. You are the Right Man for Our Times.

I hope and look forward to you staying President for 4 more years.

I agree. If one is in a strong red state, voting for Badarnik is one small way in which one can aid the Republican Party return to the principles of free market labor and small government.

I am in a red state (VA), but unfortunately, it may become a battleground in future elections. Therefore, to stem  the tide, I still am casting my vote for President Bush.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head with this post.  If capitalism is defined as the meeting of capital and labour in a free market it seems to me that by placing limits on the movement of labour and not placing limits on the movement of capital not only do you not have a free market but you are imposing restrictions on one aspect of the economy that you are not imposing on the other.  

The Bretton Woods system (1945-1973)was an attempt to liberalize trade while at the same time placing limits on the movement of capital that to some extent would mimic the restrictions placed on the movement of labour.  While this was obviously not a free market, at least globally, there was a acknowledgement that legal restrictions on one aspect of the economic system should be imposed on the other facet.  Since the ending of that system we have seen capital move about on a global scale unprecedented in human history.  At the same time, due to restrictions on immigration, labour has not been able to follow the globalization of capital and we are left with a system where capital is transnational while labour is almost entirely national.  Perhaps this is the reason that coporate profits have risen much faster than labour's wages during this time period, at least as compared to the Bretton Woods system.  Could open borders for labour and capital lead to not only a fairer system but also a more efficient system where both labour and capital are better able to enjoy the fruits of the system?

Of course even if all borders were open capital would be able to move about more easily than labour but that would not be a legal restriction.

It comes down to, of course, the political will to take the premises of capitalism to its logical conclusion.   On that point, I am not at all sure this would occur.

It's also not a given that we need to provide social services for those that come here.

This has been a long fight in CA. Not only have courts affirmed that illegals are entitled to such things as education K-12 but illegals of college age ALSO receive in-state tuition rates for all state colleges and universities! They use "emergency" services as regular health care (ERs are forbidden to refuse treatment to any person who shows up).

Coyotes are even using LAX and flying out groups of illegals to the east coast because they have so saturated the So. Cal area, there is no more work for them.

If you want free flow of labor, then the Mexican government should fork over $$$ in compensation for the American taxpayer services we provide. If not, either cut off those services or militarize the border (as it was in the early 1900's) and keept the illegals out.

It is estimated at almost 10% of Mexico's population is in the US working. We are keeping a third-world, corrupt country floating. We need to use this leverage.

Great post.  I've long wished that conservatives would fully embrace Reagan's vision of that "shining city":

And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

I never understood the logic that immigrants who arrived before a certain point in time were more worthy of being Americans than those who arrived after.  And I don't blame recent immigrants for our failures to assimilate them.

And as you explained, economically, free trade without free movement of labor just doesn't make sense.  

And another important element, if we had an efficient legal immigration system, it would greatly reduce the burden on border agents who would be more able to focus on preventing possible terrorists from sneaking through.

I look forward to the President moving his immigration proposal forward after the election.

I'm working with some Meskhetian (Ahiska) Turkish refugees from Russia (exiled to Uzbekistan by Stalin, pogrommed the hell out of there, and now suffering in a region of Russia).  They just got here and can't wait to get to work.  The grandfather of one family told me that they were not allowed to work in Russia (Krasnodar, specifically) and are chomping at the bit to do so here.  He's incredibly thankful that his son will be able to get a job here and that his grandchildren will be allowed to go to school.  He kept saying "Thank you America."  We appear to have made an impression on him and in a small way lived up to the "shining city on the hill" aspiration.

I'm not sure about the exact legal impact of legal immigration, but illegal immigration costs this country billions and billions of dollars a year. It costs people their lives, it shuts down our hospitals, overcrowds our jails, and costs the taxpayer in the process.

It's ridiculous, in fact, that so little has been done to curb the problem- especially considering the ease with which terrorists can cross from Mexico to the US. Bush has taken some small steps, but not nearly enough.

Since I'm in a safe state, I'm voting Peroutka. Open borders is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard, unless you want the US to approximate Brazil in 50 years. Mexico isn't sending it's top professionals here... we're getting the poorest of the poor. And there is an infinite supply of them.

There are some minor short term savings if you ignore all the ancillary costs (which would be stupid), but even those are not at all conclusive proof it's economically wise to import cheap labor. Doing so greatly reduces the incentive for companies to make technological advances- many of which do the same job a person could at less cost and less environmental impact.

People that immigrated here from Europe couldn't walk over.

I'm not sure about the exact economic impact of legal immigration, but illegal immigration costs this country billions and billions of dollars a year. It costs people their lives, it shuts down our hospitals, overcrowds our jails, and costs the taxpayer in the process.

It's ridiculous, in fact, that so little has been done to curb the problem- especially considering the ease with which terrorists can cross from Mexico to the US. Bush has taken some small steps, but not nearly enough.

Since I'm in a safe state, I'm voting Peroutka. Open borders is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard, unless you want the US to approximate Brazil in 50 years. Mexico isn't sending it's top professionals here... we're getting the poorest of the poor. And there is an infinite supply of them.

There are some minor short term savings if you ignore all the ancillary costs (which would be stupid), but even those are not at all conclusive proof it's economically wise to import cheap labor. Doing so greatly reduces the incentive for companies to make technological advances- many of which do the same job a person could at less cost and less environmental impact.

People that immigrated here from Europe couldn't walk over.

Sorry about the double post... is there any way to edit?

I'm willing to stipulate the following:

1. We're a nation of immigrants.
   
   
2. Immigration is good.
   
   
3. The Statue of Liberty is a shining beacon of hope to tired and oppressed peoples throughout the world who want to come here and live the American Dream.

Would you be willing to stipulate the following?

1. Mexico has just revived their dual citizenship law.
   
   
2. Vicente Fox and his predecessor are claiming that all Mexicans in the U.S. - including Mexican-Americans - are part of the larger Mexican Nation.
   
   
3. A potential terrorist was caught recently after having successfully come across the Mexican border.
   
   
4. "Other than Mexicans" - including people from "special interest" countries - are increasingly coming over the border, some posing as Mexicans.
   
   
5. The FBI refers to the Matricula Consular card as a security risk. The Bush administration tried to pass a law allowing banks to accept the MC card.
   
   
6. Labor costs only comprise 10% of the cost of a head of lettuce.
   
   
7. Political pressure is used to retard research into farm mechanization.
   
   
8. Border Patrol agents criticize the DHS, saying they aren't allowed to do their job.
   
   
9. Mexican-"American" politicians consistently try to encourage illegal immigration and build up their power base. They even work with the Mexican government to do so.
   
   
10. Some of those politicians don't recognize the treaty that ended the Mexican-American war; they dream of a Chicano-only homeland in the U.S. southwest ("Aztlan"). Respected historians (Kennedy, Huntington, etc.) think Aztlan has the potential of becoming a reality.
    
    
11. Mexican consuls lobby local governments to get laws favorable to illegal immigrants. Sometimes they even bring a cheering section of said illegal immigrants.
    
    
12. Mexico's former foreign minister said he was ordering his consulates in the U.S. to "begin propagating militant activities" to get immigration reform.
    
    
13. When Mexico and Mexican-"American" groups complained about recent minor immigration sweeps, they were shut down over the protests of U.S. citizens.
    
    
14. "Multiculturalism" did not exist 100 years ago as it does today; now, there is much less pressure to become "American."
    
    
15. There are several cities considering giving local voting rights to non-citizens, even illegal aliens.

I could go on, but, frankly, I tend to dismiss this post as just more WSJ-style Open Borders drivel.

"1.  Mexico has just revived their dual citizenship law."

Relevance?

"2.  Vicente Fox and his predecessor are claiming that all Mexicans in the U.S. - including Mexican-Americans - are part of the larger Mexican Nation."

Cite?  Context?  Relevance?  Isn't the real issue what Mexican-Americans believe? Or shall I assume that Vicente Fox (who I'm sure you know -- since you're following Mexican politics so closely -- is not doing so well in the polls).

"3.  A potential terrorist was caught recently after having successfully come across the Mexican border."

A distraction, and not even an interesting one.  Do you know that potential terrorists were recently caught coming across the border from Canada?  Did you know that none of the 9-11 hijackers (IIRC) passed through Mexico, but rather flew into this country primarily through Europe.

"4.  "Other than Mexicans" - including people from "special interest" countries - are increasingly coming over the border, some posing as Mexicans."

Cite?  Context?  Relevance?  (On relevance point, among other things, please explain why we should punish Mexicans -- who only wish to work -- because we're doing a poor job of identifying the non-Mexicans.)

"5.  The FBI refers to the Matricula Consular card as a security risk. The Bush administration tried to pass a law allowing banks to accept the MC card."

Finally, one I can spot you on.  Yes, the MC card is imperfect.  Let's try to correct the issues with it.

"6.  Labor costs only comprise 10% of the cost of a head of lettuce."

Cite?  Relevance?  No, really, relevance?  

"7.  Political pressure is used to retard research into farm mechanization."

You're not from a farming state, are you?  (Or, if you are, you know absolutely nothing about the modern farm.)

"8.  Border Patrol agents criticize the DHS, saying they aren't allowed to do their job."

Yes, and DAs criticize the ATF because the bring a disproportionate number of crappy cases, and the FBI thinks the CIA is insane.  Is there a point coming?  For instance, what are the criticisms, and are they valid?

"9.  Mexican-"American" politicians consistently try to encourage illegal immigration and build up their power base. They even work with the Mexican government to do so."

I presume your charge is based on more than an insinuation, and that you have actual evidence to back it up.  Let's have it.  (Hint:  Michelle Malkin's opinions are not "evidence".)

"10.  Some of those politicians don't recognize the treaty that ended the Mexican-American war; they dream of a Chicano-only homeland in the U.S. southwest ("Aztlan"). Respected historians (Kennedy, Huntington, etc.) think Aztlan has the potential of becoming a reality."

Oh, criminy.  Am I in the twilight zone?  (If you'd like to stand on this point, we can discuss it further.)

"11.  Mexican consuls lobby local governments to get laws favorable to illegal immigrants. Sometimes they even bring a cheering section of said illegal immigrants."

Are you saying that Mexican counsuls are lobbying for the rights of Mexican citizens?  I am shocked, shocked, to see gambling in this establishment.

Oh, and cite?  Context?  Relevance?

"12.  Mexico's former foreign minister said he was ordering his consulates in the U.S. to "begin propagating militant activities" to get immigration reform."

Start with a cite (with necessary context); until then, I feel no compulsion to show the many ways in which this is an idiotic point.  

"13.  When Mexico and Mexican-"American" groups complained about recent minor immigration sweeps, they were shut down over the protests of U.S. citizens."

What're you trying to drive at?  (Out with it)

"14.  "Multiculturalism" did not exist 100 years ago as it does today; now, there is much less pressure to become "American.""

Uh-huh.  It all comes down to the multiculturalists.  (Amazingly, the most committed Americans I've met are recent Americans; amazingly, even many "multiculturalists" believe the US is the best country on the face of the planet, because it is one of the few "multicultural societies.)

"15.  There are several cities considering giving local voting rights to non-citizens, even illegal aliens."

Assuming this is true, what does this have to do with anything?

The cites are all in my Immigration category. Unfortunately, I'm not going to provide a link for each point.

It would be nice if anyone who replies in the future knows what they're talking about. If you don't follow that link above, try using google before replying to save all of us time.

My replies are preceded by =>>>

"1.  Mexico has just revived their dual citizenship law."

Relevance?

=>>> Obviously, anyone who is able to do some moderate thinking can see that having millions of Mexican citizens and dual citizens in this country  is a bad thing. What if we have a dispute with Mexico? What side are those dual citizens going to be on? If we hire a dual citizen for a job with security implications, can we be assured they're representing our interests or those of Mexico? This is an example of Mexico trying to gain influence over our internal affairs. If you can't see that, turn it around and suppose we tried to convince part of Mexico's citizenry to become dual citizens while still living in Mexico.

"2.  Vicente Fox and his predecessor are claiming that all Mexicans in the U.S. - including Mexican-Americans - are part of the larger Mexican Nation."

Cite?  Context?  Relevance?  Isn't the real issue what Mexican-Americans believe? Or shall I assume that Vicente Fox (who I'm sure you know -- since you're following Mexican politics so closely -- is not doing so well in the polls).

=>>> In this case we can assume that the Mexican government, and not just individual politicians, believe these things. Obviously, anyone who once again wants to do a bit of moderate thinking can see that when a foreign power claims part of your population as its own that's a bad thing.

"3.  A potential terrorist was caught recently after having successfully come across the Mexican border."

A distraction, and not even an interesting one.  Do you know that potential terrorists were recently caught coming across the border from Canada?  Did you know that none of the 9-11 hijackers (IIRC) passed through Mexico, but rather flew into this country primarily through Europe.

=>>> Actually, in the 9/11 report it says that if our visa rules had been followed 9/11 would not have happened. I'm sorry you aren't interested in potential terrorists and those from "special interest" countries coming over our border; those who visit the link above can decide for themselves whether they should be concerned. Three Texas congressmen are concerned at least.

"4.  "Other than Mexicans" - including people from "special interest" countries - are increasingly coming over the border, some posing as Mexicans."

Cite?  Context?  Relevance?  (On relevance point, among other things, please explain why we should punish Mexicans -- who only wish to work -- because we're doing a poor job of identifying the non-Mexicans.)

=>>> There are reasons to end illegal immigration apart from terrorism. Do you know how few Border Patrol agents we have? If only thousands of people were trying to sneak into the U.S., how much easier would their jobs be?

"5.  The FBI refers to the Matricula Consular card as a security risk. The Bush administration tried to pass a law allowing banks to accept the MC card."

Finally, one I can spot you on.  Yes, the MC card is imperfect.  Let's try to correct the issues with it.

=>>> No, let's outlaw it.

"6.  Labor costs only comprise 10% of the cost of a head of lettuce."

Cite?  Relevance?  No, really, relevance?  

=>>> Useful idiots frequently say things like "I don't want to pay $3 for a head of lettuce." Weren't vegetable prices discussed above?

"7.  Political pressure is used to retard research into farm mechanization."

You're not from a farming state, are you?  (Or, if you are, you know absolutely nothing about the modern farm.)

=>>> Once again, read the link then comment. See the NYT article about orange groves; see the Mirage of Mexican guest workers article.

=>>> [deleted; see the link]

"10.  Some of those politicians don't recognize the treaty that ended the Mexican-American war; they dream of a Chicano-only homeland in the U.S. southwest ("Aztlan"). Respected historians (Kennedy, Huntington, etc.) think Aztlan has the potential of becoming a reality."

Oh, criminy.  Am I in the twilight zone?  (If you'd like to stand on this point, we can discuss it further.)

=>>> Sure, go ahead. I've got lots of links I can provide if need be.

"11.  Mexican consuls lobby local governments to get laws favorable to illegal immigrants. Sometimes they even bring a cheering section of said illegal immigrants."

Are you saying that Mexican counsuls are lobbying for the rights of Mexican citizens?  I am shocked, shocked, to see gambling in this establishment.

Oh, and cite?  Context?  Relevance?

=>>> No, they're meddling in our laws. They aren't just trying to protect their citizens. Doing things like this is at the least a violation of consular protocol. Once again, imagine U.S. consuls going to local civic meetings in France trying to pass U.S.-friendly laws.

"12.  Mexico's former foreign minister said he was ordering his consulates in the U.S. to "begin propagating militant activities" to get immigration reform."

Start with a cite (with necessary context); until then, I feel no compulsion to show the many ways in which this is an idiotic point.  

=>>> Please, how is this idiotic?

"13.  When Mexico and Mexican-"American" groups complained about recent minor immigration sweeps, they were shut down over the protests of U.S. citizens."

What're you trying to drive at?  (Out with it)

=>>> Well, once again, perhaps you should do some research before writing. The point is that Racial Identity groups and foreign governments have more pull than U.S. citizens. And, people should be worried about that.

"14.  "Multiculturalism" did not exist 100 years ago as it does today; now, there is much less pressure to become "American.""

Uh-huh.  It all comes down to the multiculturalists.  (Amazingly, the most committed Americans I've met are recent Americans; amazingly, even many "multiculturalists" believe the US is the best country on the face of the planet, because it is one of the few "multicultural societies.)

=>>> Apparently you're unable to understand what "multiculturalism" means in this context. I'm referring to the current definition, not the definition of "many cultures."

"15.  There are several cities considering giving local voting rights to non-citizens, even illegal aliens."

Assuming this is true, what does this have to do with anything?

=>>> See the answer to #1

Obviously, anyone who is able to do some moderate thinking can see that having millions of Mexican citizens and dual citizens in this country  is a bad thing. What if we have a dispute with Mexico? What side are those dual citizens going to be on?

You said it. Given the serious damage caused by Japanese, German, and Italian Americans in the 40s, we can't be too careful with the Mexicans.

Excellent arguments, Doverspa.

It would be nice as a party not only to be on the correct side of morality and economics, but also have politics and demographics on our side, too. The Democrats' strong ties to organized labor will only allow them to go so far as a pro-immigrant party. Why not put them on the defensive, especially as it's the right thing to do for all the right reasons?

If you have no point, or you're ignorant, why respond at all?

History shows that having people in one country who have allegiances to another country is a dangerous thing. That doesn't concern loyal Mexican-Americans, just those who have divided loyalties. Any attempt to create divided loyalties should be fought rather than being PC'ed over.

You seem to be confusing Americans of foreign origin with citizens of foreign nations -- something the person you're replying to does not do.

Respectfully, I'd submit that the cheap smear is the one you make targeting Mexican-Americans. Why, again, are we supposed to fear them? Where is the "history" you mention that would justify suspicion of this group? I rightly pointed out America's experience (much of it shameful) with immigrant groups during WWII to counter your claims. Is this example faulty? If so, why? And how exactly is the government supposed to guard against the "divided loyalty" of immigrant groups?

....I don't think it was a smear at all.  Implicit in our assumption of American citizenship is the idea that the United States receives our full and undivided loyalty.  The same thing is implicit in the assumption of any nation's citizenship: which is why noncitizens or dual citizens -- particularly in this age when we do such a comparatively poor job of assimilation -- present the unique problems that have been mentioned.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

Responding, point-by-point:

1.  On 1 and 15, dual citizenship:

Obviously, anyone who is able to do some moderate thinking can see that having millions of Mexican citizens and dual citizens in this country  is a bad thing.

Yes, that would be a bad thing.  Of course, for it to happen, the U.S. would have to drastically change it's citizenship laws two, since you can't be a dual citizen without two agreeable soveriegns.  And I'm not aware of any such change in U.S. law.  But, hey, don't let the facts stop your fulminations -- or conclusions drawn by a quick perusal of a 30,000-foot, anecdotal report.

2.  On Mexico claiming that former Mexican citizens are part of a "Mexican nation."

Again, cite and context, please.  As for what Vincente Fox's comments may represent, assuming you're even 1/10th accurate, once again:  what matters is not what Vicente Fox believes, but what the immigrants who have chosen to become U.S. citizens believe.

3.  On terrorists coming from Mexico:

Actually, in the 9/11 report it says that if our visa rules had been followed 9/11 would not have happened. I'm sorry you aren't interested in potential terrorists and those from "special interest" countries coming over our border

You're going to have to tie this one up to your original point, bub, about why we should be specially concerned about Mexican immigrants (based upon one incident) and not travelers and immigrants from Europe and Canada (based upon multiple incidents).  Then we can get to the Visa rules, and how I think they should be reformed.  But, hey, since you can't seem to even support the merits of your position -- much less win on them -- why not insinuate that I don't care about protecting Americans from terrorism?  While you're at it, why not question my patriotism?  Ooh, and for the trifecta, call me a Commie!  

On #4, you switched the subject from we must stop immigration to protect us from terrorism to "There are reasons to end illegal immigration apart from terrorism."  I assume, then, you concede the point.

On #5, I don't have the time or inclination to debate the MC card with you, except to note that I presume that when you say "outlaw it" you mean "outlaw, and don't replace, it."

On #6, (a) what makes you think Mexican immigrants only work at lettuce farms? and, (b) Why do you think lettuce costs 10 cents a head?  Because of hardworking immigrants willing to do the job for less, or because of improved farm machinery?  (Before you answer, "improved farm machinery," remember that elsewhere you've argued that farm machinery is not being used on the U.S. farm because of the "powerful immigrant lobby.")

On #7, I stand by my comment.  And, yes, you know absolutely nothing about modern farming methods.

[You skip 8 and 9, and, from my perusal, the answers ain't at your blog.]

On #10, direct me to the militia and insurgents who are fighting for an "Aztlan" state.

On #11, Mexican consuls advocating for the rights of Mexican citizens:

No, they're meddling in our laws. They aren't just trying to protect their citizens. Doing things like this is at the least a violation of consular protocol.

You don't know much about what a consul does, do you?

On #12, you accused the Mexican consulates of advocating an armed insurrection into the US.  I asked for a cite before I responded to your idiotic comment.  You declined to provide a cite, and instead asked "Please, how is this idiotic?"  Without a cite, you'll just have to take my word for it.

On #13, you contend that "Racial Identity groups and foreign governments have more pull than U.S. citizens."  I'm sorry, that's not my experience.  Nor does it appear to reflect the views of any mainstream news source.  So, here's the only question I'd like answered:

Why do you believe that "Racial Identity groups and foreign governments have more pull than U.S. citizens"?  I'm honestly curious.

On #14, I'm also referring to the current definition of "multiculturalist."

**

Finally, in an attempt to narrow and advance the dispute:  Are you bothered by the fact that there are large numbers of illegal immigrants from Mexico, or are you bothered by the fact that there are a large number of immigrants from Mexico.  In other words, were we to expand legal immigration and increase the quotas for citizenship, while, at the same time, strengthening cross-border protection, would you have an objectiopn?  

Lonewacko seems to believe that dual citizenship can be accomplished via directive from Mexico City.  It cannot.  And I do not suggest changing the citizenship oath (nor is it under consideration).

I see this repeated many places, but it baffles me.  My ancestral hometown, Highland IL, was a German-speaking town until WWI, when such things became unfashionable.  There was a German-speaking regiment of immigrant Americans during the Civil War.  (Their motto was "I fights mit Siegel!")  The folks who come over learn a little English, their kids learn it as a native language, and after four generations, the home country is a distant memory.  This is how it has always been, and the only place it is even a little different is just near the Mexican-American border, where people don't settle here, they just work and then head home.  And it's not like that is a particularly new phenomenon, either.

Of course, neither is the endless claim that the newest batch of immigrants is somehow different from the last fifty.  

So you think the Citizenship Oath is a smear, Von? Or did I misunderstand you?

First of all, when someone says "You're living up to your name" it generally means they don't have an argument.

Mexico offers those people who become U.S. citizens the opportunity to vote in Mexican elections and be dual nationals. For the reasons stated by others above, that's a bad thing. And, when a country with a history of trying to have control over our laws does it, people who are concerned about threats to our sovereignty see that as a problem.

From this: At a ceremony commemorating the opening of a new $8 million Mexican Consulate [in Chicago], Fox also called on municipalities to recognize cards handed out by Mexican consulates as legal forms of identification... Opponents contend the ID cards, called matricular consular, allow illegal immigrants access to services they aren't eligible for... "We are Mexicans that live in our territories and we are Mexicans that live in other territories," he said in a 20-minute speech in Spanish. "In reality, we are 120 million people that live together and are working to construct a nation."

2000 or so people successfully cross our southern border illegally each day. If there were only 20 each day, how much easier would it be to spot potential terrorists? If we could stop everyone trying to illegally cross (rather than giving the wink and nod to cheap labor), wouldn't that fill a gaping security hole?

I concede none of your points; I follow this issue quite closely and I don't state facts that are not backed up with at least one newspaper report. If it's opinion or rumor, I state that.

We should not accept the Matricula Consular card. Legal immigrants have acceptable documentation and they have no need for the MC card. The only people  who need the MC card are illegal aliens.

The two articles linked to from here discuss the political side of farm mechanization. As you can see, it's not favored by politicians when it should be. That doesn't mean that many farms aren't mechanized. However, in CA and FL some people prefer stoop labor rather than machines.

I didn't say lettuce cost 10 cents. Geez. I said labor costs were 10% of the cost of a head of lettuce.

There aren't militias fighting to establish a Chicano state in the U.S. southwest ("Aztlan"). However, there are many Chicanos who would like to see that happen. You can start here. Why take up arms when demographics and far-left politics can get you what you want?

Once again, Mexican consuls attend city council meetings and try to get laws passed favorable to illegal aliens. That's not what consuls are supposed to do. See this: Last week, in a letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, 12 House members questioned the propriety of the [Matricula Consular] cards, describing them as an "issue of enormous significance that has massive implications for the nation."... The lawmakers said that in addition to Mexican authorities, officials in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras had increased their efforts to provide "identification cards to their nationals living illegally in the United States." They also said Mexico had undertaken "a massive lobbying effort" to persuade local authorities to accept the cards for identification purposes... "While the issuance of national identification cards is nothing new, providing them with the express purpose of evading U.S. law is something entirely different," the lawmakers said. "The active lobbying of local and state governments by consuls of foreign countries is, at least, a breach of international protocol deserving of a serious response by our government."

Why do you believe that "Racial Identity groups and foreign governments have more pull than U.S. citizens"?  I'm honestly curious.

How many times do I have to write this? There were recent minor immigration sweeps in SoCal. 12 BP agents arrested 400 illegal aliens.

The usual suspects were up in arms. Editorials were penned, marches were held, a Mexican-American congressman complained and, perhaps most important of all, Mexico complained.

At the same time, thousands of U.S. citizens emailed and phoned in their support for the raids.

You might think the DHS would say, "We've got broad support from U.S. citizens, and all we're doing is enforcing the laws."

That, apparently, is not what they said. The sweeps were stopped.

Really, this was in all the papers. My coverage starts here. After reading up on this incident, you decide who has more pull with Washington.

Please remember: if I provide a link and you respond, everyone will expect you to have read the link. Otherwise, you're responding to a strawman. However, I see that my immigration category is about 1.2Megs, so I realize it's a bit difficult to learn about this matter in a short period.