Well put.
My friend
posted by mombok at 10:26 AM
2006/05/04
Previous Posts
- Couple of Days
- Trans-Iowa
- Trans-Iowa Bike Race
- Have you seen this man?
- Some things to say.
- Kinda Rainy Around Here
- More Cranes
- Irony I don't know
- Details Details
- Slicker
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
4 Comments:
Oh yeah, just wait til we take over Iraq and claim residency there... far as I'm concerned we got another whole country full of future immigrants just waiting to be kicked out.
CHad
Dave,
Your photography is very nice. Too bad you have all the liberal rhetoric on this blog ruining it. Sorry, man that was way too harsh and hopefully you can appreciate that bit of sarcasm. Anyway, is the lady in the picture suggesting that her great great great grandma lived on this side of the Rio Grande before the Spainish came over and interbred with them? If not then her sign, while illustrated nicely, (she's got the whole Aztec thing going on) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Any law that rewards lawbreakers (illegals) seems sketchy to me. Why let millions of people slide though the backdoor into citizenship just so the "man" can get some cheap ass labor? I think border control is important and rights to gaining citizenship should be tightly watched and controlled. I don't care if their from Belize or Mexico or Saudi Arabia or Germany. As long as thier not from Canada cause them Canuks are all the same!
Oh and congrats on your marriage to Martha. Thats great!
Chad,
I am glad you took the time to comment and appreciate your well wishes for Martha and I but respectfully disagree with your views.
While the precision of the placard is perhaps off mark the sentiment speaks to the self-rightous belief that someone likely no further than five generations from elsewhere gets to put a velvet rope across the border.
I certainly don't have all the answers on how to deal with immigration but I guess I hope maybe with the help of hard work we can figure it out together. The man may be using immigration law to exploit labor but this is nothing new. W's intentions may be for a different end than mine but the practice just may make sense. Ultimately every attempt at border regulation has been a grab for advantage.
Transport yourself to 1798 when Congress passed the Naturalization and Alien Acts which were meant to control radical French influence which was rotting the minds of figures like T. Jefferson. Or 1795 when Federal naturalization law finally superceded state laws and required a five year residence and a 3 year heads up on intent to naturalize. Oh yeah and you had to be white too.
Fast forward to 1847 when the Mexican-American War is settled and the nearly 82,000 Mexicans living in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and half of Colorado get to decide whether to take American citizenship or go back south. Maybe our placard lady is a decendent of them.
Later the first significant bar on free migration into the US took place in the form of the Naturalization Act of 1870. It was largely enacted to prohibit the immigration of Chinese. Imagine being a powerful businessman with the ear of politicians. By supporting this act you can limit the influx of cheap Chinese labor and continue to exploit poor black America, who have only been freed under the 13th amendment for five years, without industrious immigrants undercutting your costs.
1901 when the Anarchist Exclusion Act is passed in response to McKinley's assasination by a Pole, it allows forigners to be excluded on the basis of their political beliefs. Convenient for reducing dissent.
1907 the Expatriation Act takes the citizenship of American women who marry outside their ethnic group. No mention of excluding men in the same position.
1917 a literacy test is added to criteria for immigration to deter the poorer immigrants while citizenship is imposed on Puerto Ricans to increase the pool of available soldiers for WWI. Fishing for elite immigrants and cannon fodder.
1921 The Quota Act is passed and immigration from European nations is limited to 3% of the existing ethnic population. This is reduced to 2% in 1924 and foriegn born wives and children of US citizens are prevented from immigration with the addition of the Oriental Exclusion Act.
Lets not forget when the ceiling of immigration is set at 150,000 in 1929 for Europeans while the asian ceiling is 0. Those from the hemisphere have no cap. It is all about who you know.
Then shortly after WWII starts we flip on the Japanese and stick them in interrment camps or deport them while currying favor with our new pals the Chinese by allowing the first immigrants from there in 60 years.
1950 brings a new form of Alien and Sedition Act with the Internal Security Act. This time you are likely a commie instead of a frog to be barred for political beliefs.
1952's McCarran/Walter Immigration Act puts the cap on immigration at one sixth of one percent of the ethnic population in 1920. That is not many people.
One of my favorite moments in the use of immigration law to further political interests is in 1954 when we commission 'Operation Wetback" to deport all the Mexican labor we have been using while our GI's were out kicking ass because they are coming home and need their jobs back.
It is not until 1965 that immigration preference is affected by employable skills or family relations and this is when we begin to see the movement that could be considered the beginnings of our current situation.
In 1980 we decide to let in people from and opposed to governments we don't like with the Refugee act. Those from governments we do like can't come.
1986 Reagan gives amnesty to 3 million immigrants for much the same reason W wants a worker program; finding 'the man' cheap labor.
The Immigration Act of 1990 bumps up the worldwide ceiling to 700,000 and gives preference to rich immigrants who will drop a million in development of urban areas or a half million in rural areas.
So it is no big surprise that the government's policies on immigration are aimed at serving 'the man.' That seems to be all they are ever aimed at. All I am saying is that as of 2000, 10% of all US residents are foriegn born and as far as I am concerned, however they got here I am glad they came.
My neighborhood is shady and thanks to the influx of latinos it has a prospering corner grocery and a bunch of people too busy working for a living to cause trouble like the meth-head white boys that roam around all day spouting nonsense. My favorite is the dude who quotes bible passages pepperd with profanity. "Our father who art in...FFFFUUUUUUK YOUUUUUU!!" That is a quote mind you.
So I agree Chad. Letting people slide in the back door is sketchy. Welcoming them at the front door seems like a better idea to me.
Dave,
What policy on immigration do you support? Make the illegals that are already here working legal? Thats what W wants to do right? I missed his speech last nite.
I appreciate your concept of not trying to exclude people just because of their socioeconomic situation like in the examples you cited. One reality of that is that by allowing large numbers of below poverty line people to become citizens they will gain access to all sorts of programs which will cost a boatload money. Obviously this isn't a reason on it's own to disallow them, but it needs to be considered. I have enough problems trying to cope with the amount of people living off the government as it is. I have made a desicion in my practice to accept a modest amount of Medicaid "insurance". I have no problem providing this service to children or mentally handicapped. However, many adults come in reaking like an ashtray. I asked one lady where she worked and she told me she couldn't get a job otherwise she'd lose her benefit. Lame! Now this lady was not one of these hardworking types that seem to abound in your neighborhood. She was of anglo-saxon decent. As is now apparent, my concerns with the strain on government programs is one reason I'm against letting a jagillion people in suddenly.
I like your historical account of immigration policy. I really didn't know any of that.
Post a Comment
<< Home