Immigration

The 'Terminator' Goes to Mexico

2006-11-13T15:06:00.000-08:00

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger went to Mexico last week to discuss, of all things, immigration. San Fransisco Chronicle write Carla Marinucci talked to folks in Monterrey, Mexico, where the Govenor was speaking. According to her interiews, the people in Mexico are concerned with their new and changing government, and the immigration reform taking place in the U.S. The sentiment among the citizens in Mexico is the same, in that, many people can't find sufficient jobs in Mexico to sustain a proper standard of living. According to some, powerul groups in Mexico are alligned with poweful businesses in the U.S., and neither of them are doing anything to create jobs for Mexicans desperatley seeking them. And, when asked about the US.'s border security, and building a wall along the border, Mexicans see such a thing as offensive, and compare it to the Berlin Wall. I'm sure that many Mexicans would prefer to stay in their own home country, but, as "Eduardo Castro, a young engineering student who sells musical instruments at the famous Bazaar Sabado in San Angel" mentioned, "'As long as Mexico continues being a Third World country and is next to the United States, the world's economic power, then the immigration will never end.'" That point Castro made a very simple one, yet I doubt people in Washington are giving any serious thought to helping Mexico's economy without trying to enhance our own.

Link to article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/13/MNG23MBN5B1.DTL

300 Million: A More Objective Persective

2006-10-18T21:45:00.000-07:00

Not everybody sees immigration as a complete detriment to our country. Blaine Harden of the Washington Post wrote an article about America reaching its 300 million mark, in which he put forth the positives of immigration, and why we shouldn't be so quick to see it as a bad thing. He attempts to remind people that we should see it as a good thing, and look at the positives as to why people are wanting to come to our country, over other highly populated regions ala China. Harden writes that we should look at the potential the descendents of immigrant families will bring as part of our country. In how, these second generation immigrants have the potential to surge into the workforce, and pay taxes that could help reduce the burdens of Social Security and other social programs. In Harden's article, he references Linda A. Jacobson, the director of domestic programs at the Population Reference Bureau, who importantly reminds us that while those can be potential positives, it cannot be realized, "Unless we can reduce age, racial and ethnic disparities in poverty." He goes on to reference Jacobsen, as she states that, "children from minority groups may be less able and less willing, as they grow up, to support the predominantly white elderly population." Instead of the leaders in charge fighting over who and how many people we should let in, they should be trying to igure out ways to embrace and incorporate the ones that are here, and the one yet to come. If they figure out how to do that, then maybe their potential as Amercan citzens can be realized.

Link to article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101730.html

America is not the Land of the Selfish

2006-10-16T23:12:00.000-07:00

As an American of Mexican descent, it would be no surprise that I would be on the sympathetic side of the massive immigration debate on-going in our country. To look at another persective I decided to read an article at the The National Conservative Weekly web-site. I read an article entitled, "300 Million and Immigration: Separating the Issues," by Joseph A. D'Agostino, Vice President of Communicaitons at the Population Research Institute. In his article, D'Agostino talked about people (immigrants) as being important assests to the longevity of our country. He makes an important case, saying that, due to low birth-rates among American families, and a drop in the ratio of worker to retiree (now at 3:1), the youth of generations to come will likely be coming from outside of America. D'Agostino and I begin to disagree when he goes on to say that we should discriminate between who we let into this counrty, by only letting those people with an education and skills in the work force in, and not the people who want to come here, just to make a better living. D'Agostino continues on, and throws in an, "and that's not to say-" that we shouldn't let oppressed people in as well. . .blah, blah, blah. It might be just me, but aren't opressed people usually the ones that are the uneducated, poor, and the ones looking to make a better life (living) for themselves somewhere else. In a perfect world, everyone would be educated, employed, and free to live the lifestyle they want. If that were the case, they'd probably want to remain in their native countries anyway. However, it just doesn't work like that. If America did what was beneficial for her, as D'Agostino says, and took only the skilled and the educated people at the head of the class, then I would say that we were being selfish and discriminating, in by, who we were associating with and helping out. I understand the concern over immigration, in the way of broder security, and not wanting to let anyone in who's going to harm our counrty. But, I think there is a broader problem with America's stance on immigration. We preach and advertise a melting-pot of people, acheiving the 'American Dream,' working their way from the bottom to the top. However, when millions of people are knocking at the door for such an opportunity, reasons like language, education, ethnicity, and class, get in our way of way of being hospitable and lending a helping hand, and in their way of pursuing a better life.

Here is the URL for the article: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17571