When the government of Mexico began encouraging it because money shipped back to Mexico is the second largest contributor to their GNP (behind Oil).
2006-11-05 13:41:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by freebird 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
no person which i understand helps unlawful immigration. i understand many, which contain myself, who see the human element in unlawful immigration. There are harmless infants who have not have been given any say interior the situation. there is desperate proverty that forces human beings to purpose and proceed to exist, and grasping business employer proprietors and contracters who earnings on them. Then there is the situation of mixed immigration status. this is, you have gotten a US citizen who's married to an unlawful alien, who at the same time have US citizen infants. Is it humane to deport the only provider of this relatives? Is it good to deport mum and dad on an analogous time as their infants are in college, for this reason effectively bobbing up orphans? You communicate as though there's a effortless answer to the situation, while in certainty this is quite complicated... a techniques too complicated to communicate right here in some sentences. you're asserting the obtrusive. of direction, persons desirous to immigrate to the u . s . a . must be screened for illnesses and criminal historic past. i do no longer think of people who sympathize with the plight of undocumented extraterrestrial beings are asserting otherwise.
2016-10-15 10:24:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it started elevating dramatically in the 80's, and them Reagan really messed things up by forgiving criminals and making them naturalized, which just promoted more of the same kind of incorrigible behavior. When the day without illegal aliens arrived, it served as an indicator of how serious the problem really was by demonstrating a lack of congestion on the freeway, a more peaceful environment where they abandoned and just how immense the crowd was left many Americans wondering if any people were left in Mexico!.
2006-11-05 13:08:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Americans1st 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
As a liberal Democrat, I look at both sides. Now, during all presidency's since Carter, all Presidents have endorsed either limited or full amnesty. It is like social security and health care reform. None of them wanted to touch it, because it would lose certain voting blocks, that are critical to them getting elected. However, the Presidents are to to blame (except their lack of initiative using their power to enforce immigration laws). It starts in the legislature, at both the state and Federal level. This is where we need to urge the accountability.
2006-11-05 13:16:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
In 1986, when the huge mistake of giving amnesty happened.
2006-11-06 18:46:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by princess_29_71 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
you have said it well. i agree. that is what i have tried telling folks here. they have been coming in way before the 60's. farm pickers. the boss man will pay for cheap labor. shows how ignorant they are.
2006-11-05 13:08:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
So now you're blaming Bush for something that has been going on for over 40 years?
LOL- that's a good one.
2006-11-05 13:12:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Namtrac 5
·
2⤊
4⤋
When the first damned Mexican was born!
2006-11-05 13:11:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
they cant be terrorist they dont have the financial needs to be terrorist all they do is trade drugs and weapons thats not terrorist activity until they are actaully a threat to the whole world like alquida
2006-11-05 13:16:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Luis 4
·
0⤊
5⤋
and 911 ?
was that problem from mexico
comic books
2006-11-05 13:05:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by cork 7
·
3⤊
3⤋