1) Immigration has always ebbed and flowed, allowing time for assimilation. The immigration of the late 1700s was stopped by the Napoleonic Wars. The Irish wave was stopped because there just weren’t that many Irish. The *Chinese* mass immigration of the middle nineteenth century was stopped by the Chinese exclusion acts — (BTW not all Chinese were prohibited, the first versions acts were aimed at large scale importantion of coolie type labor. Unfortunately cheap labor hogs kept at it, but even the final acts made exceptions for scholars, clergy, etc) A like story can be told about the 1911 ‘Gentleman’s agreement’ which curtailed Japanese immigration. Finally, we cut be drastically on immigration in 1922 and 1924. I think the cut back played no small part in creating the huge working middle class, and even the baby boom, we had in the middle of the 20th century. Tight labor meant wages went up , schools were filled with English speaking kids, thus making teaching easier , I could go on.

2) While we may look back with rosy glasses, immigration wasn’t such a great deal for native-born Americans living through the large waves. The Irish did bring disease, disorder, and crime. See Gangs of New York — either the book or the movie. Italians brought vendetta and organized crime.

3) Finally, there are big differences between the 19th century and now. No frontier left, no homesteading land left. Fewer workers needed in places (such as large factories) were unskilled labor can be used to great effect and made very productive. Importing more nail salon workers and burger flippers just aint the way to build a high value added economy. There was no ’social safety net’ to support the previous immigrants’ households. Now there is such support in things like ‘free’ school lunches for the kids, HUD subsidies for immigrants native-born children, clinics and emergency rooms for the sick, etc.

I would also like to ask to the cartoonist about his area of residence. Does he have children? If so, how many non-english speaking children in his childrens’ classes, school, school district? I think this is fair, as people that reuse this tired trope are essentially saying that we who do live in immigration innundated areas (I’m from southern California) are somehow ignorant, oblivious, our biggoted.

35 years ago it was drugs so we created the war on drugs.

25 years ago it was crime in general so we created mandatory sentences for everything.

15 years ago it was the welfare queens that were destroying everything. Some states practically repealed their entire programs.

Now we are back to immigrants.

When will Americans wake up.

Again, the fact that you agree with Fox and that his statement fits your views nicely doesn’t mean that he’s correct, or that his statement is an accurate reflection of the truth instead of a politician’s speech designed to promote a particular agenda. When did you get to be so conveniently naive?

And again, his remarks are certainly true of many people who are currently illegal aliens living in the US. They’d go home if they knew they could come back safely and legally. It’s also true that many people would rather stay in the US. Fox’s remarks were intended to reassure people who see the guest-worker program as a Trojan horse for the Permanent Brown Horde overwhelming America. (I happen to agree with the idea of a guest-worker program, by the way. That doesn’t mean I shut off my critical thinking abilities when somebody I agree with is talking.)

I hope the Lindon indictments signal change, but I’m not optimistic.

LINDON - Utah’s simmering immigration debate shifted from the state Capitol to ground level in Utah County on Thursday. More than 50 undocumented workers were arrested here during a morning raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on a metal factory.

The U.S. Department of Justice then unsealed indictments, charging the company, Universal Industrial Sales, Inc., with 10 counts of harboring illegal aliens, and its human resource manager, Alejandro “Alex” Urrutia-Garcia, with two counts of encouraging or inducing undocumented workers to remain in the U.S. illegally.

In doing so, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Utah and ICE appeared to signal a new strategy - one in which federal authorities are now targeting employers suspected of violating immigrations laws.

“This is a message to businesses. We’re going after the ones actively participating in illegal hiring,” said Brett Tolman, the U.S. Attorney for Utah.

So maybe Joe Employer is going to have to start worrying about this now. We can only hope. If we reform immigration law enforcement, reforming immigration law becomes a much different issue.

They’ve learned a few lessons that have been called for on this blog, as well.

… no criminal charges are being filed against the Universal workers. And, unlike the Swift prosecutions, no children were left without relatives to watch them. No sole breadwinners or caregivers were jailed.

“As prosecutors, we must be mindful of the compassionate and humanitarian side of the case,” [U.S. Attorney Tolman] said.

And Melanie Snow said ICE agents did return her husband’s files on the jobs he has been working on. “At least he can take care of his current customers,” she said.

As for the workers arrested, Counts said most of them probably would be taken to county jail, where they would have a bond set depending on charges against them. One man was released for health reasons, he said. Counts also said that many of them likely would be scheduled for an immigration hearing in the next several weeks.

Urrutia-Garcia, meanwhile, pleaded not guilty in his initial court appearance Thursday afternoon. He faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count. The 39-year-old Provo resident and naturalized U.S. citizen was released from government custody but must appear in court for a hearing next week. A four-day trial is set to begin April 14.

So we’re not talking minimal fines here.

I’ve got a pretty good idea what can be done about that. The Mexican public needs to change their government and their culture to one of rule of law instead of rule by oligarchy. That would include the Mexican army and police deciding who they should really serve. The question is whether or not the Mexican public can get this accomplished through the ballot box or whether they need to, once again, do it via armed revolution.

If that means that they need to abrogate NAFTA, fine. That’s up to them. It takes two to sign a treaty; I don’t consider the U.S. to be the source of Mexico’s problems.

I find that his claims make perfect sense. People from Mexico come into this country in order to make money and support their families back home. If you want, I can dig up sources, but apparently there’s about $20 billion going from the U.S. to Mexico from workers here. It makes perfect sense that they would want to go back to see their families and to a place where the money they earned goes a lot farther than it does here. The fact that they are worried that they’ll have problems getting back into the U.S. when their visit is over and that they restrict their movements on that basis doesn’t mean that they don’t want to do so, and that their overall intent is not to settle in the U.S. permanently.

The taco bit I took as an attempt at a joke. Kind of racist, when you get right down to it, but consistent with other remarks he’s made over the years. He tries to put a little humor in his speeches. Robin Williams he ain’t, but he tries. Plenty of Mexican food joints in the U.S. What the Mexicans complain about is that the Coke tastes different; apparently they use cane sugar, not corn syrup in Mexican Coke. They swear they can tell the difference, and have it shipped up from the U.S.

Furthermore, it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me whether Mexicans who come here to work end up staying or going home. I’d rather concentrate on why the feel a need to come here in the first place, and what can be done about that.

I already went over why his claims do not make sense (let’s call it “spinning”, not outright lying). Why do you think that his statement is true? Because there are no tacos north of the border?

So the argument against Pres. Fox’s remarks are “he’s lying”?

No. The argument against using Fox as an authority on the subject is that he’s not an unbiased source.

OTOH, he could very well be telling the truth, despite the fact that it’s politically inconvenient; at least, for some people. And again, he should know. So if you allege he’s lying, please cite alternative sources that support your allegation.

I mean, c’mon. It’s obvious that many illegal aliens who work here have no intention of staying, and would go home when not working if they didn’t have to make a dangerous and illegal border crossing. It’s also obvious that many people WOULD stay–particularly those who think US citizenship, or at least a life in the US, would be better for their children than the options back home.

If you prefer to seize on Fox’s statement as a neutral, objective survey of the attitudes of potential guest-workers,

Fox doesn’t have to be neutral on the subject to be telling the truth in this instance. And your statement and his seem to agree; that the desires of the majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. is to not become immigrants.

I have no particular problem with a guest-worker program. In fact, we already have a number of them. H-1B visas, H-2A visas, etc. In the 3 minutes I spent looking it up, there seem to be at least a dozen visas that enable aliens to come into the U.S. for work and study reasons. It’s clear that there is a recognized need for guest workers.

Let the people who wish to support creating a guest worker program pursue it along the lines established at law. If it’s a question of streamlining the bureaucracy, great. If it’s a question of increasing the limits (and unlike the H-1B visa, the H-2A visas have no limits) or otherwise removing obstacles, then fine. Let the case be made in public debate, and convince the people and their representatives that this change should be made and that the reasons advanced to not make the change are wrong.

But there’s no way that I’m going to support linking that to granting citizenship to people who have evaded and violated all these laws and more. As long as any proposed change to immigration law includes such a provision, I’m going to tell my representatives to shoot it down. And so will the majority of the American public, as we saw last year. Don’t expect that to change if there’s a change in which party holds the Presidency. President Bush supported it, and it still got shot down. Extending visas to such people or even granting permanent resident alien status might fly. Maybe. But citizenship? Don’t think so.

One of the major reasons why people are saying “we can’t deport them all” is the allegation that it would harm our economy, cause prices to rise, cost a great deal of money, etc. Granting illegal aliens citizenship is not required to keep any of that from happening. So I wonder whether there is any other motive.

Damn you, cartoon immigrants! Damn you to hell!

And what would those limitations be? Please be sure to cite my remarks on the subject.

militarized border with Mexico that RonF favors

Please cite where I have proposed having the U.S. military secure the U.S. - Mexican border.

Charles, don’t put words in my mouth. It’s dishonest.

a) Mexicans really, really want to have US citizenship or at least green cards;
b) Some Mexicans do want to stay in America, but some do not;
c) None of these guest workers want to stay! Honest! As soon as they’re done on the farm they’ll go home quietly and not fill up your neighborhoods with scary bodegas!

Hm. Think maybe the most persuasive is c)?

I mean, c’mon. It’s obvious that many illegal aliens who work here have no intention of staying, and would go home when not working if they didn’t have to make a dangerous and illegal border crossing. It’s also obvious that many people WOULD stay–particularly those who think US citizenship, or at least a life in the US, would be better for their children than the options back home.

If you prefer to seize on Fox’s statement as a neutral, objective survey of the attitudes of potential guest-workers, I guess I can’t stop you. But your credulity towards a politician with an obvious agenda seems odd.