the border fence got approved, 700 miles' worth of it. What remains to be seen is if the House bill gets filibustered into nothing once it hits the Senate, or whether it gets vetoed. My suggestion is, if you support the US/Mexico border fence, take up pen and paper, and express same to your local city council and state representatives. I did, it's not that hard, and in the digi-age,
you don't even have to go snail-mail/dead tree to get your thoughts to them. A lot of people want/demand a lot from our government these days, Kennedy's words are as dead as he is, apparently, and a sad state of affairs that is. I'd just like to see clarity on the border issue, and it'd help whole lots if Congress took a unified position on the issue, and made it clear they don't support illegal immigration, and we're not just talking about Mexico, although Mexico represents the largest part of it.
There's people that think it's OK to bring in 20 million illegal immigrants, that it's 'all good', but if you stop to think about it,
some of them aren't very altruistic, they're looking at the cheap labor aspect, as well as voter value. Starving people are likely to support whomever offers them the biggest plate of food. And, some in Congress are NOTORIOUS for being generous with your wallet when they consider it to be politically expedient, 'art of the possible', and all that. What citizens and voters need to do is to express in no uncertain terms the readily observable negative effect that free-for-all immigration has had in many areas, to include city and state budgets, which in some cases have been stretched to the extreme to cover all of this, and in several cases incurring shortfalls in public services, failing schools and hospitals, higher crime, basically the whole trip.
The reason for having all the immigration laws to begin with is to ensure as harmonious an assimilation as humanly possible for newcomers with their newfound 'homeland'. If you just fart off the laws, trouble is bound to ensue, trouble that in all likelihood will come back and bite you in the *** as well as wipe out any financial gains you might have made as a result of advocating such actions.
Technology has come a long way from the corn binders and cotton gins that first started cutting down on the need for 'cheap labor'. Today, we have factories that can practically build an entire car, without human intervention ONE. Sure, someone has to feed the dog and sit by the 'off' switch, but other than that, if the automation is working, the product gets produced, be it a thimble or a thermos. Welcome to the 21st century.
I think if we want to help the peoples of the world, it should be done pro-actively, mainly by helping them to build the things they need, and not doing it FOR them but rather by helping them, as a neighbor might help another. But, what we've got now is a MESS, and it needs to be straightened out, and that's a job that Congress is going to have to meet head-on, take down the Big Book of Immigration Laws, and update it to meet 21st century realities, such as a 6.6 billion world population. I keep repeating that fact, because I think it's Really Important. In 1906, the year the Tin Lizzy first really came into production, Henry Ford's baby, the Model T, the predecessor for your Lexus, in 1906 the world's population was a mere 1.5 billion people. Today, it's 6.6 billion people. Poor countries need several things, food, money, hospitals, schools, and apparently, condom factories. They could also use some help in learning about sustainable farming, road-building, infrastructure planning, so forth, and so on. That's the right way to do things, get people solving their own problems by helping themselves, once taught how to do it. Then, back off, and leave em to it. We can help, just can't do it for em, and NO, half of Mexico CAN'T move in, no thanks.
2006-09-18 07:02:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by gokart121 6
·
1⤊
0⤋