- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."
There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.
:roll:"cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."
I think we need a much different approach these days. For one thing, with the anchor baby so popular, what would you do with parents who get rounded up but have underage kids that are legal citizens that cannot be deported, and yet have no one to care for them.
Unless the states are prepared to take care of all the underage children of illegals that would get deported, it could not work
What we need to do is take away the incentives that bring them here. Heavily fine all business that do hire illegals and then monitor and follow up on companies to make sure they are not hiring anyone that is illegal. That would be the best way to start.
I think we need a much different approach these days. For one thing, with the anchor baby so popular, what would you do with parents who get rounded up but have underage kids that are legal citizens that cannot be deported, and yet have no one to care for them. Unless the states are prepared to take care of all the underage children of illegals that would get deported, it could not work.
What we need to do is take away the incentives that bring them here. Heavily fine all business that do hire illegals and then monitor and follow up on companies to make sure they are not hiring anyone that is illegal. That would be the best way to start.
Also what a crock-
:roll:
What a good guess. not.
Most of the illegals are not relatives of those whose families have lived in the US areas since before those areas were the US, so that argument is silly.I don't think it's as easy as removing incentives. People forget that the whole border area was originally Mexican. There are mixed bloodlines on both sides of the border, and families that live in separate countries. Of course the ones who live in the U.S. historically are going to try and help their relatives come across to a better life.
The border has always porrous and transient, and it will always remain that way. You can mine every inch of it (which is not possible fiscally) and people will still find a way in. If the illegals that are already in the U.S. are a drain on the system, then it makes no sense expend even more money in rounding them up and sending them back, separating more families, etc.
I say integrate the, and acknowledge their existence. It's the cheapest way, and the less bloody way.
Most of the illegals are not relatives of those whose families have lived in the US areas since before those areas were the US, so that argument is silly.
What you are basically advocating is that the US gives up on its borders which is a nonsensical approach.
You made the claim, it seems absurd, you prove it.Really? Can prove that to be factually true?
So? None of this seems to indicate what you seem to be talking about ie that most of these illegals are descended from those who lived in the area when it was still Mexico.The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo brought 8,000 Mexican families to the American side, often incompletely. It also displaced trade routes and businesses that had used the region for centuries. You expect that to all just dry up over night?
In the decades after the treaty, the border was a transient place. It still is. The treaty itself was written in an unauthorized way, favoring American business and aggrandizement.
What are you talking about? America wants to maintain its own culture and society and to do this it needs borders that mean something. It is quite simple.No, what I am suggesting is that America quit the nationalized outcry that the border belongs to it and it alone. It has always been a joint border, culturally, economically, and yes even in labour. It's only recently because of economic problems that right wing idealists are being made to shift their focus to border security... and why? Because the media told them to do it.
So? None of this is a decent argument that the Mexican border be basically adandoned.Illegals count for a miniscule percentage of drain on the American economy, and the basis of American cities was done upon immigrant labour. Maybe a lot of those people were legally accepted, but nonetheless, immigrants built America and continue to contribute, illegal or not.
You made the claim, it seems absurd, you prove it.
So? None of this seems to indicate what you seem to be talking about ie that most of these illegals are descended from those who lived in the area when it was still Mexico.
What are you talking about? America wants to maintain its own culture and society and to do this it needs borders that mean something. It is quite simple.
So? None of this is a decent argument that the Mexican border be basically adandoned.
Certainly but you invoked centuries old familial ties, I see little evidence for that on a large scale.Is it not logical that a lot of illegal immigrants crossing the border are relying on support from their relatives on the other side to harbour them? Or companies? Or sympathetic organizations?
You implied a large proportion. Otherwise it wasn't even worth mentioning. I know on message boards when someone is called on something dodgy they imply they will try and pretend such things don't exist, and hence presumably half of literary criticism doesn't either.That is what you read, but that is not what I said. I said that of course families who descend from the treaty era are going to be helping the rest of their relatives to get across. Nowhere did I say that most illegal immigrants are related to the treaty families, now did I?
Obviously no one can define a culture in a few paragraphs, that is against the fundamental nature of culture, that doesn't mean it isn't there. I could not define British culture or Australian past a few phrases but that doesn't mean that is all there is to it. Sure the American culture of this area is influenced by Spanish factors but it is not Spanish and the massive influx you welcome will overwhelm it. Just as British culture is influenced by Europe but it is not helped by massive influxes of Eastern European immigrants.Can you even define what "American culture" is? Last time I checked, Hispanics have been an integral part of the American Southern cultural landscape even before the American-Mexican war. Even putting aside the issue of illegal immigration, all border downs have Spanish speaking individuals, many of whom rely on a mix of American and Mexican based economy. (i.e. trade.) The cultural carryover is very obvious.
The idea that you can make a 3000km border impenetrable is just silly. It is a waste of money and there are bigger priorities.
You implied it again. Exactly what suggesting 12 million illegals be allowed to stay is otherwise I don't know.I never said abandoned... again, you think you read it, but I never said it. I am in favour of integrating and acknowledging the current immigrants under some kind of new system. They are clearly going to keep coming, and if it's such a dire issue for the right-wing, then some accommodation will have to be made. Otherwise, accept the reality that they will just keep coming.
Certainly but you invoked centuries old familial ties, I see little evidence for that on a large scale.
You implied a large proportion. Otherwise it wasn't even worth mentioning.
I know on message boards when someone is called on something dodgy they imply they will try and pretend such things don't exist, and hence presumably half of literary criticism doesn't either.
Obviously no one can define a culture in a few paragraphs, that is against the fundamental nature of culture, that doesn't mean it isn't there. I could not define British culture or Australian past a few phrases but that doesn't mean that is all there is to it. Sure the American culture of this area is influenced by Spanish factors but it is not Spanish and the massive influx you welcome will overwhelm it. Just as British culture is influenced by Europe but it is not helped by massive influxes of Eastern European immigrants.
You implied it again. Exactly what suggesting 12 million illegals be allowed to stay is otherwise I don't know.
The best method is to not give in to this liberal nonsense and in stead enforce the borders and remove incentives. It wouldn't be perfect but it will most likely make the problem a little more managable.
It was obviously implied. You did just as I said and then, which is funny with your track record, accused me of flaming for it.What you think I invoked is a result of your reading between the lines, and your wrongful assumptions. I mentioned it as an example of why the borders are violated, but it is not the only one.
Aren't you paying attention? The American culture of these parts. Of course you can't define it, that is retarded. Define Welsh culture for me? A lot of it is intangible but it still exists and massive influxes of immigrans don't help it. They will only cause tensions and create a hybrid culture which Americans are more than justified in not wanting.If you can't even define American culture, then how can you prove that Mexican immigration is displacing it, and therefore it is a reason that border security should be increased? You yourself cited sociocultural factors for why America must enforce the border... but the Southern border regions are a mix of Hispanic as well as white Americans. So what is being displaced?
You basically admit here that it is because they are shetlered by businesses. The solution, as has been known, is to crackdown on said businesses. It is people like you who keep this from happening.I don't necessarily think that letting them stay in perpetuity is the answer either, but I think it's better than the current status quo of wasting tax dollars hunting them aimlessly, only for them to be replaced by more later. Clearly, at least in the South, they are part of border economy in the companies there. If the U.S. government really wanted to seed them out, it would implement widescale and unannounced searches of business... but that would be unconstitutional without a warrant. Plus, it would alienate business from growing anyway. So what do you propose?
The border as wel as those who shelter them inside the US are not policed anywhere near as much as they could be. As this OP seems to show a crackdown might well be what is needed.There is no cure all solution. If there were, it would have been implemented a long time ago. The idea of the fence has been scrapped... it would alienate relations with the Mexican government. You can't shoot them on sight or dangerously mine the border, as both are against international law; you can continue hunting them and shipping them out, but more will come.
:roflOne big way to slow the rate of immigration would be to address the economic inequities caused by NAFTA, then there would be not as much dire poverty in Mexico driving people to flee for their lives. Only the truly desperate would cross a desert into a foreign land, they have to be the poorest of the poor.
It was obviously implied. You did just as I said and then, which is funny with your track record, accused me of flaming for it.
¯Aren't you paying attention? The American culture of these parts. Of course you can't define it, that is retarded. Define Welsh culture for me? A lot of it is intangible but it still exists and massive influxes of immigrans don't help it. They will only cause tensions and create a hybrid culture which Americans are more than justified in not wanting.
You basically admit here that it is because they are shetlered by businesses. The solution, as has been known, is to crackdown on said businesses. It is people like you who keep this from happening.
The border as wel as those who shelter them inside the US are not policed anywhere near as much as they could be. As this OP seems to show a crackdown might well be what is needed.
What an absurd argument. They are illegally coming into the country so let's reward them by throwing money at their country.
Of course you implied, it wouldn't worth bringing up otherwise. Try for a bit of common sense.I said: "There are mixed bloodlines on both sides of the border, and families that live in separate countries. Of course the ones who live in the U.S. historically are going to try and help their relatives come across to a better life."
You said: "Most of the illegals are not relatives of those whose families have lived in the US areas since before those areas were the US, so that argument is silly."
Do you see the difference? I wasn't speaking to a majority. You assumed that I implied that, and even after I correct you, you are clinging to that assumption because you just don't want to admit that you misinterpreted what I said. As I said before, I was using it as an example.
The flaw in your argument revolves around the fact that the borderlands may have a hybrid culture but that culture isn't almost completely Spanish, which is what will happen if you get away with your plots.The border lands already are a hybrid culture, as is the rest of America for that matter. The only people who are truly from America are the aboriginal people who were there before European settlement. Everyone else is traced back to elsewhere. Your argument implies that white Europeans have an entitlement that Mexicans, who have historically inhabited the region for longer than the white settlers, should not have. This also, of course, ignores the large hispanic populations in the Southern U.S. that were already there after the treaty.
The flaw in your argument revolves around the fact that the border lands are already a "mixed culture" (if I am to humour your notion that there is somehow a distinction between white-Americans and hispanic-Americans in terms of who is "American"). More Mexicans entering the borderlands is not going to change its hybrid nature.
I think a lot of people care.People like me? I don't live in the United States my friend, this has no bearing on my existence. I brought up business because clearly the borderlands have historically relied on immigrant labour, and still do. The modern right-wing agenda will never change this. Even now, the border issue is not in the spotlight anymore and fewer people care.
And what is your plan to solve this?Again, your assumption, but I made no mention of money whatsoever, only a reference to inequity.
When NAFTA was created, the U.S. began outsourcing in a large scale manner to Mexico, crushing local business and reducing average wages. This is the primary reason why poverty spiked so to such a high degree within the past decade. There has always been illegal immigration, but the scale now is unprecedented.
If the U.S. wants to pillage Mexican economy without regard for its people (which was the whole point of NAFTA in regards to the U.S/Mexican side), then it can expect its people to flood its borders looking for better opportunity. That is what happens in unequal policy creation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?