Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Tom Ridge just cost Bush my vote next year

Tophat665 · 12-11-2003, 09:17 AM

Pandering or no, this is the first thing I have heard from Tom Ridge that makes a lick of good sense. If it makes conservatives vote for Buchanan, so much the better. Maybe they'll balance out Nader.

True, illegal immigrants break a federal law by being here, but I wouldn't hold it against someone who broke a bad law. It's not as if the bulk of illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans want to do. If they are adversely effecting the job market it is purely by keeping wages low in critical areas, resulting in the economy becoming dependant on them. That's bad, but trying to cut off the flow does not work. It's a matter of commitment. Illegal immigrants want to be here more than we as a country want to keep them out. This is as it should be. Being here is their number one priority. To stop them, it would need to be ours, and there are so many other things that should rank higher (even things that BoCo and I could agree on, I am sure. Anti-terrorism, as a f'rinstance.)

So how to solve this? Well, Ridge has one way: Register the ones that are here under an amnesty program, and (and he isn't going to talk about this step so close to an election) turn it into a regularized guest worker program when it wouldn't affect Shrub's re-election. I realize that this might be anathema, but if you agree with free trade, this is just a logical extension. Production already moves freely. The Labor stays in one place. Wouldn't it make sense to hold the production facilities in place and move the labor? It doesn't necessarily make any more sense, but it surely makes just as much.

My solution would be more radical (big surprise there), and, as politics is the art of the possible, probably more in the realm of science fiction than politics. Either one of the following:

Give Aztlan back to Mexico. Texas, Arizona, Nevada, most of California, Utah, and New Mexico, and Parts of Colorado. If they want to be here that badly, make here there.

Annex Mexico. Do it diplomatically, transferring sovreignty on a state by state basis from the north of the country to the south, say, one state every 5 to 10 years. After Mexico, keep moving south if conditions allow.

To complement either of these plans (and Ridge's too) we absolutely must start doing a much more thorough job in checking cargo coming into our ports of entry. It's what, less that 2% checked at the moment? It needs to be better than 50% to put any damper on traffic in contraband, human or otherwise. It really should be up above 90% to prevent terrorism.

Would it cost a staggering amount? Sure, but it could be passed on as security fees, which ought to make the WTO have a shit hemmorhage that they can do nothing about, and can be manipulated in such a way that it would amount to de facto tarriffs. If it blows up one nuke in the Gulf instead of Houston, it's worth it.

12-11-2003, 09:17 AM	#12 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Pandering or no, this is the first thing I have heard from Tom Ridge that makes a lick of good sense. If it makes conservatives vote for Buchanan, so much the better. Maybe they'll balance out Nader. True, illegal immigrants break a federal law by being here, but I wouldn't hold it against someone who broke a bad law. It's not as if the bulk of illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans want to do. If they are adversely effecting the job market it is purely by keeping wages low in critical areas, resulting in the economy becoming dependant on them. That's bad, but trying to cut off the flow does not work. It's a matter of commitment. Illegal immigrants want to be here more than we as a country want to keep them out. This is as it should be. Being here is their number one priority. To stop them, it would need to be ours, and there are so many other things that should rank higher (even things that BoCo and I could agree on, I am sure. Anti-terrorism, as a f'rinstance.) So how to solve this? Well, Ridge has one way: Register the ones that are here under an amnesty program, and (and he isn't going to talk about this step so close to an election) turn it into a regularized guest worker program when it wouldn't affect Shrub's re-election. I realize that this might be anathema, but if you agree with free trade, this is just a logical extension. Production already moves freely. The Labor stays in one place. Wouldn't it make sense to hold the production facilities in place and move the labor? It doesn't necessarily make any more sense, but it surely makes just as much. My solution would be more radical (big surprise there), and, as politics is the art of the possible, probably more in the realm of science fiction than politics. Either one of the following: Give Aztlan back to Mexico. Texas, Arizona, Nevada, most of California, Utah, and New Mexico, and Parts of Colorado. If they want to be here that badly, make here there. Annex Mexico. Do it diplomatically, transferring sovreignty on a state by state basis from the north of the country to the south, say, one state every 5 to 10 years. After Mexico, keep moving south if conditions allow. To complement either of these plans (and Ridge's too) we absolutely must start doing a much more thorough job in checking cargo coming into our ports of entry. It's what, less that 2% checked at the moment? It needs to be better than 50% to put any damper on traffic in contraband, human or otherwise. It really should be up above 90% to prevent terrorism. Would it cost a staggering amount? Sure, but it could be passed on as security fees, which ought to make the WTO have a shit hemmorhage that they can do nothing about, and can be manipulated in such a way that it would amount to de facto tarriffs. If it blows up one nuke in the Gulf instead of Houston, it's worth it. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.