A couple of hours ago former Mexican president Vicente Fox came by for an editorial board meeting. The meeting started 10 minutes earlier than scheduled, and I, caught unaware, showed up to find the door blocked by the SRO crowd in the room (seems like half the newsroom decided to drop in). Because it wouldn't have been kosher to have made a scene by walking in at that point, I didn't get to ask the questions in my notebook. But my editorial board colleague Tod Robberson, a former Latin American correspondent and someone who generally takes a more liberal line on immigration than I do, was in the room, and was doubleplus unimpressed by El Presidente. Excerpt from his reflections:
Vicente Fox reinforced my opinion that this is a man badly in need of a reality check. He needs to visit Irving and Farmers Branch and understand the true level of frustration. He needs to understand that this is not something you can brush off as the sentiment of white rednecks and "xenophobes." ... There's a serious disconnect here. If this is reflective of the attitude among Mexico's leadership, we shouldn't expect any help with our border and immigration problems anytime soon.
My ed board colleague Sharon Grigsby, a liberal Democrat, came out of the meeting deeply frustrated by the former Mexican president. Excerpt from her blog reflections:
I recognize that he's an optimistic guy and his way is to see the glass "half full," but I don't think he's helping the cause for immigration reform in this country when he paints a rosy Mexico with a bustling 66 percent middle class, almost all school-age kids enrolled in class and only 4 percent unemployment. Yes, he acknowledged problems, but only when pushed really hard.Additionally lecturing Americans about the need for compassion and not violating the human rights of illegals ignores the issues that prompt actions such as those by Farmers Branch and Irving -- the impact of illegal immigration on services and resources.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
mik and Chris:
Your math is off. 80,000, or even 1.5 million, does not equal 22 million. It would basically be a second civil war to pull that off in a year, or even 5 or 10 years.
There are a lot of illegal immigrants in my city, and see and hear no signs they are heading home despite their disappointment and worries over the collapse of the immigration bill.
And neither of you apparently read letters to the editor or listen to much talk radio, since you apparently are under the illusion there aren't a lot of angry white males who want that "overwrought" scenario.
To h*ll with all that ACLU cr*p, right?
Larry Parker:
I have a strong suspicion that you just not capable to understand any argument if you emotionally don't agree with it.
This is my last attempt. No reason talking to a person if person cannot comprehend.
"80,000, or even 1.5 million, does not equal 22 million."
Brilliant observation.
"It would basically be a second civil war to pull that off in a year, or even 5 or 10 years."
Let me see. 22m divided by 10 equals 2.2m/year.
Accordingly to another poster there were 1.5m deports in 1997.
So it is only a bit higher.
Why you didn't even notice 1.5m in 97, but for 2.2m you need a civil war?
From reak life experience from Operation Wetback and Pakis exodus after 9/11, we should expect abou 10 illegals self-deporting, for every one deported by INS.
If there 22m illegals currently and inflow is reduced to 200K/year, we need to deport about 200K/year in order to reduce number of illegals almost to nothing in 10 years (if you have problems with this calculation, any good middle school student should be able to help).
"you apparently are under the illusion there aren't a lot of angry white males who want that "overwrought" scenario."
What's that has to do with pork prices in Chicago?
Lots of angry black males think that CIA invented AIDS to kill blacks in the USA. What are YOU going to do about it?
"What other nation on the planet wouldn't be ashamed to have to export millions of their citizens to work in a foreign country so they can send money home? "
Let me see. Just of top of my head: India, Phillipines, Bangladesh, Indoneasia, Russia, Poland, Brazil, Ukraine, Belarus.
Many more countries would love to export people, but their people don't have skills.
Your math is off. 80,000, or even 1.5 million, does not equal 22 million. It would basically be a second civil war to pull that off in a year, or even 5 or 10 years.
As mik stated, basic math is escaping your grasp. As I stated earlier, simply reversing the trend will solve the problem in a decade. We were deporting 1.5 million a year without serious effort. I think mik mistakenly typed his scenario so I'll repeat it.
22 million illegals
new enforcement limits new illegals to 200K per year
deportation removes 2 million per year
Result:
4 million illegals left after 10 years
That's assuming no one decides it's not worth the hassle and just leaves on their own. How this results in a civil war and martial law, I don't know.
There are a lot of illegal immigrants in my city, and see and hear no signs they are heading home despite their disappointment and worries over the collapse of the immigration bill.
Is your city a sanctuary city? Does it check immigration status of people arrested?
And neither of you apparently read letters to the editor or listen to much talk radio, since you apparently are under the illusion there aren't a lot of angry white males who want that "overwrought" scenario.
I listen to a lot of talk radio and read quite a few blogs. People are fed up with the government not enforcing immigration laws. They are also fed up with immigrants, legal or illegal, who think we should conform to their culture. For instance, you should speak English in this country, not Spanish. I have never heard anyone calling for martial law or a civil war.
BTW, it's Republicans and Democrats, whites, blacks, and many legal Hispanics who are fed up with this situation. A lot of legal Hispanics have fled the southwest because of the illegal influx. They came here to be Americans, speak English, assimilate in this country, and not to live in Mexico North.
"I think mik mistakenly typed his scenario so I'll repeat it."
No, no mistake. I assumed that for every deportation there are 10 self-deports. Experience shows that seems to be the case. One can argue if multiplier is 10 like I assumed or 7 or 5, but in either case in 10 years bulk of illegals will be gone with no major disruption.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.