Trump: Make America White Again?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would like to know just exactly what is wrong with enforcing our current immigration laws and deporting those who meet that criteria? 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Immigration into America is not a RIGHT that foreigners enjoy.  It is something we bestow on the basis (at least in theory) of what is good for America.  If there's a coincidence of interest, great!

What people are upset with is that the new immigrants to the United States are not being assimilated into American life as in past generations.  This is ESPECIALLY true of Mexican immigrants, many of those who are LEGALLY here are here only to work.  They are "guest workers", and this is a European concept that hasn't worked out well for countries in Europe who have brought in Middle Eastern "guest workers".  They are not looking to assimilate into American life in the sense that the Italians and Eastern European immigrants of the Ellis Island era assimilated into American life.

The only question we have to decide in determining who does and doesn't come into America is the question of "Is this good or bad for America, and for the people who make up America?"  People ARE concerned with the changing demographics of America, because they are concerned that folks who are not vested in the current Middle American way of life will come to America, come to outnumber us, and impose a way of life on Americans that is the counterpoint to what we have now.  Already, we are becoming a Balkanized nation, where it is difficult to speak to all Americans as Americans without appearing "culturally insensitive".  A country that places a high priority on cultural sensitivity is a country which has already become Balkanized and a country where its politicians have made appeals to race, tribe, tongue, and foreign origin is a country that has ceased to be guided by its God and the sense of self-interest its God provides for it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You end illegal immigration by stopping the elites in Mexico DF from sending them here. It should be a deep source of national shame that Mexico cannot and will not provide for their own citizens. But it isnt. Toss US employers in jail for hiring illegals.

Then at the same time end the H1B visa program

You gonna drone them into submission? Send Trump to the border to bluster from afar through his "big beautiful door"? Mexico is happy to lose those who are in their economy the least prosperous, for obvious reasons. They're not obsessed with "national pride" or whatever concept you think should cause them to commit seppuku at the sight of people leaving their country. It's not a country's responsibility to stop the outward flow of citizens from its country in an overt sense: that's a symptom of fascism. The only way you can accomplish such a thing that isn't fairy-tale Trump-speak is creating a Juche-like state.

They will stay there - or go somewhere else - when they know they cannot find gainful employment in this country. They will not stay away because of the threat of deportation. They will find their way around a wall, because you cannot completely shut off the ability for people to enter this country. Implement policies that will destroy a business' bottom-line for engaging in the practice of unauthorized employment and the net-immigration rate from Mexico and Latin America will be negative in less than five years. Any other proposal is only good for nationalist, racist posturing in an attempt to pick on the disenfranchised in order to make oneself feel better about their own situation. Want to actually solve the problem? Then only what I propose will do it.

But the "jobs" of many illegal immigrants from Mexico (or, at least, via Mexico; many are from Central America) are in distribution of illicit drugs as agents of gangs and cartels that operate in the United States and whose numbers have grown exponentially over the last 50 years.  These immigrants are not looking for "jobs"; they have a "job" in the sense that your local, native-born drug dealer has a "job".  

Many of these people are sent by their cartels to perform the logistics of drug dealing; the street-level dealing, the "mule" work of transporting, that sort of thing.  Some are sent here to act as enforcers; to enforce underlings not ripping off the suppliers and to enforce silence.  These folks are not "performing the jobs Americans won't perform"; they are infusing a level of danger into all of American life that would not be here if these people were not here.  THESE folks, and not the folks who are washing dishes "off the books" at some small restaurant, are the reason border security is a real problem.  When a criminal defendant goes before a judge and his attorney speaks about the conditions prevelant in the community he (or, sometimes, she) grew up in/lives in, it ought to be noted that these folks are the ones that do the most to make these at-risk communities what they are.

Then, too, is the issue of "anchor babies".  Is that phrase "insensitive", or is it "painfully accurate" in reflecting the intent of the illegal immigrant in question?  What does it say about parents who cross a border illegally solely for the purpose of obtaining birthright citizenship and public medical benefits for themselves and for their child, once he/she is born, in the hope that this will allow the other family members to remain in America?  We normally look negatively on adults using children to advance their own purposes; isn't this another example of the same?    If an immigrant's first act in America is to crash the border and procure public benefits for their child, is that not a statement about that person's propensity to obey other laws and regulations our society lawfully imposes?  What does the process of "having an anchor baby" say about the mother's willingness to obey American laws in the future?

I understand the desire of folks in poorer lands wanting a better life.  America has provided that life for many immigrants, including immigrants from lands other than Europe.  America has changed demographically, and that is a neutral, so long as the immigrants assimilated are willing to work and be assimilated fully into American life.  Those folks, regardless of origin, aren't the problem, and have never been the problem.  The folks that ARE the problem are folks that come illegally, believe that they are entitled to come here, believe that they are entitled to our resources, fully intend to engage in illegal occupations while here, and have no loyalty to America as THEIR adopted country (the belief that is a MUST for immigration policy to be successful).  These folks are here ONLY because of the porousness of our borders.  I don't mind having to "Press "1" for English", but I do mind the presence of literally hundreds of thousands of illegal drug operatives and gang members in our midst that make American life more dangerous who are often protected by TRAITORS government officials of "Sanctuary Cities".  This issue of border security is not about race/ethnicity, but it IS about public safety, and I consider it highly irresponsible to be in denial of that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump and his fans have yet to provide a shred of evidence that Mexico is "sending" people to the United States.  I'm not even sure how that would work.

What Mexico had been doing was funneling a wave of Central Americans entering Mexico through its own Southern border through Mexico through the US.  These folks were, for the most part, very poor, and folks Mexico didn't want, but could not keep out, so they deliberately funneled them through Mexico to the US. 

My own personal solution would be to convince Mexico to allow us to build a wall on MEXICO'S Southern border and secure it.  That would be relatively cheap, and it would be a win-win situation for both the US and Mexico.  It would reduce the scope of the IMMEDIATE problem significantly.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump and his fans have yet to provide a shred of evidence that Mexico is "sending" people to the United States.  I'm not even sure how that would work.

What Mexico had been doing was funneling a wave of Central Americans entering Mexico through its own Southern border through Mexico through the US.  These folks were, for the most part, very poor, and folks Mexico didn't want, but could not keep out, so they deliberately funneled them through Mexico to the US.  

My own personal solution would be to convince Mexico to allow us to build a wall on MEXICO'S Southern border and secure it.  That would be relatively cheap, and it would be a win-win situation for both the US and Mexico.  It would reduce the scope of the IMMEDIATE problem significantly.

Do you have a heart? You sound like the most egoistic person I've ever met. What's your problem with poor people? Why do you have such a lust to crush the poorest of poor human beings? You're such an idiot. Even Trump wouldn't go that far, and Trump is the Hitler of our time - far, far worse than Putin.

I have a problem with people streaming across our border because they are residents of failed states in Central America and Mexico doesn't want them, so they are encouraged to travel northward through Mexico by the Mexican government to enter the US illegally.  They are NOT our responsibility, and we have immigration laws that deserve the same respect as any other nation's immigration laws.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

If these folks are truly refugees, they are the responsibility of the World Community through the UN.  It is the mission of the UNHCR to provide assistance to the "uprooted and stateless", and we ought to work to help such people THROUGH UNHCR. 

It is not the responsibility of the United States, however, to suspend its immigration laws just because people are poor in other parts of the world.  Our immigration laws and policies are supposed to serve the interests of the United States, and absorbing, on demand, folks from other countries just because they are poor is NOT in the interest of the United States of America or its citizens.

Is that an unreasonable statement?  Is that a racist statement? Is that an egotistical statement?  Or is that a statement of fact?  Just exactly when does America have the right to fully enforce the immigration laws it has, even those that call for deportation of those illegally here, and those that mandate secure borders?  What does full enforcement of our existing laws actually mean?  (The latter two questions are ones that I would really like answers on from all our Presidential candidates.)

That we have illegal aliens in our midst is a fact and a reality that will, I suppose, always be with us to some degree.  I get that, and it's not the end of the world, to a point.  That folks simply expect America to not enforce its existing immigration laws is another matter.  Laws are to be enforced, or else, we have the rule of men and not the rule of law.  That IS a big deal, and the fact that public officials are blowing off federal laws and creating "sanctuary cities" is a big deal.  What laws cease being a big deal once it's an open secret that our immigration laws are no big deal?