The GOP's Immigration Fixation

[Jeanfromfillmore]

The GOP's Immigration Fixation
(Why is the concern called a “fixation” but illegals breaking our laws, are not considered criminals?)
The fight for the Republican presidential nomination has produced a spectacle (to whom is it a “spectical”?) that seems truly odd. Although illegal immigration has in recent years been drying up—according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center (there’s no mention of the millions that have saturated our neighborhoods and towns that refuse to leave), it has fallen to 300,000 in 2009 from 850,000 in 2000, while Princeton's Douglas Massey says that "[f]or the first time in 60 years, the net traffic has gone to zero"—the issue remains bitterly contentious in the GOP race.(Because those that have already snuck in are breeding, and breeding and we’re going broke supporting them)
During a debate in Orlando last month, Texas Gov. Rick Perry defended his state's policy of charging undocumented aliens the same tuition at state-run colleges and universities as ordinary citizens—a policy that commanded bipartisan support in the Texas legislature when he signed it into law in 2001.(Each student costs on average $200,000 from k-12 grade) Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and the other GOP presidential candidates practically hissed Mr. Perry off the stage, and after the debate much of the tea party joined plenty of regular Republicans in denouncing the man.
If illegal immigration is down, why do Republicans still care so much about it? Permit a Californian to attempt an answer. (the bills for those still here are staggering)
Since 1986, when President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, the undocumented population of California has risen to around 2.6 million from around one million. This influx has done just what you would have expected: It has affected every aspect of life in the Golden State.
In California's public schools, the proportion of children in kindergarten through third grade for whom English represents a second language now stands at almost two out of five. In agricultural regions, entire towns have turned over—with a little zig-zagging, you could hike from town to town for much of the 450-mile length of the Central Valley without hearing any language but Spanish. (This is a fact)
Consider one neighborhood in Redwood City, a town on the San Francisco peninsula. Known locally as Little Mexico, the neighborhood, which centers on the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Middlefield Road, looks and feels so pervasively south-of-the-border that if you were led there blindfolded you would think you were in Tijuana or Mexicali.
I assumed when I moved to California almost two decades ago that Little Mexico, which then comprised perhaps a dozen blocks, would gradually shrink or atrophy, like North Beach, the Italian neighborhood in San Francisco, or Little Italy in Manhattan. Instead, Little Mexico has roughly tripled in size. Just miles from the headquarters of Apple, Google, HP and Oracle, the engine of assimilation has been humming ineluctably along—in reverse.
Yes, I know. The economic benefits California has derived from immigration, including illegal immigration, have proven enormous.(wrong! Look at the town that I live in, because of illegals we are at the brink of shutting down the whole town) Some studies even suggest that, taking into account the economic growth their labor has made possible, and the sales taxes and other imposts they have paid, undocumented aliens have contributed more to government coffers than they have drawn down. (if that were true, Fillmore would not be having to raise taxes to cover what the town has spent on providing services for the illegals)
And even after the American economy finally recovers, falling poverty and birth rates in Mexico suggest that illegal immigration may return only as a small stream—perhaps even a trickle—and not a flood.(they are already here have baby after baby, taxing our system to the brink of breaking, and that’s a fact) Over the next decade or so, many of the aliens now in the Golden State will perhaps go home to a modernizing Mexico while Californians come to accept—or at least become resigned to—those who remain, acquiescing in measures that would grant them legal residency and eventually citizenship. (First its said that California has become Mexico, now, we’re suppose to just swallow it and get used to the invaders)
Yet even if a single alien were never again to enter California, and even if half those now in the Golden State illegally were suddenly to return home while the other half magically became citizens, the federal government would still have permitted millions to enter the state in violation of the law. This raises fundamental questions about our constitutional order. How can the federal government fail for years on end to perform a duty as basic as policing the border? (we need to not only stop the invasion, but reverse it)
Strangely, in Tuesday evening's "economic" debate in Hanover, N.H., immigration, legal or otherwise, was never mentioned.(Yes, the GOP has been castrated) Indeed, Messrs. Romney and Cain have demonstrated less interest in illegal immigration itself than in using the issue to attack Mr. Perry. Mr. Romney, whose jobs plan includes no fewer than 59 points, has said of illegal immigration, "Of course we build a fence," as if that were all there were to it. If the other GOP candidates wish to place themselves to the right of Mr. Perry on this issue, fine. But Republicans would have more faith in their ability to secure the border if they demonstrated that they had given the matter some thought. (we need interior enforcement as much as border if not more)
Mr. Perry should stop sounding so defensive. He has opposed illegal immigration as stoutly as anyone,(a big lie there) but, alone among the candidates, he has dealt with the reality of life on the border.(as though Texas is the only border state, give that a break on the bias propaganda) Since his state has the good sense (good sense? Where was that stupid statement conjured up?) to provide only modest welfare benefits, he should explain, Texans understand that immigrants (notice how the work illegal is dropped here) come to Texas to work, not to collect handouts. And they see no contradiction between calling on the federal government to enforce the law and making the best of the situation Washington has imposed on them, helping undocumented aliens, (yes, the PC word undocumented instead of the truth, illegal aliens) once in the state, to acquire skills and an education.(now remember that cost of education is $1,000 per month, per child and comes to on average $200,000 per child for k-12 but may not include the special education classes that most illegal/anchor babies require, that brings the cost way up)
A quarter-century after Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, his example remains instructive.(this allowed those illegals that received legal status to set up housing and jobs for more illegal friends and relatives to sneak in and be all set up to have more anchor babies) Reagan supported one provision of the 1986 act, an amnesty for the three million undocumented aliens then in the country, only because he believed that other provisions, which fortified border enforcement and required employers to verify the legal status of their workers, would end illegal immigration. "Future generations . . . will be thankful," the president said, "for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." (not so “thankful” are we, look at what they’ve done to our neighborhoods and towns, just look at Los Angeles)
Thankful? Americans instead feel angry—and, for all his big-hearted openness toward immigrants, I believe Reagan would have shared their anger, recognizing the failure of the federal government to "regain control of our borders" as a profound breach of faith. That breach of faith, he would have insisted, must now be repaired.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj