"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
25 May 2007Before you take the pledgeMy idea of immigration reform is at least as vague as that being passed around the Congress these days, and I don't think Mike will blame me:
We can't just adopt a conservative or liberal viewpoint, because there isn't one. Some conservatives can't get enough illegal immigrants, some want to cleanse the nation of them. Liberals are also divided. Adding to the confusion is that much of the rhetoric spouted from both sides is ambiguous.
Of course, some of it isn't. Still, I'm happy to present Mike's three-part plan, on the basis that anything that is guaranteed to annoy both La Raza and Michelle Malkin can't be all bad. It goes like this:
First, we should secure the borders and enforce the law.
Second, increase the number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the country, adjusted to reflect the economic capacity of the nation at the time. Third, institute mandatory civil service for everyone. To expand on that third item:
In order to get the benefits of being an American citizen, each person would be required to serve their country in some fashion. This might include working in a hospital, a park, a prison, a school, a library, a charity, etc. And of course, military service would count too.
More "jobs Americans won't do"?
When completed, a person, and any of their dependents too young, or otherwise unable to complete their service, would be eligible to receive the many benefits of American citizenship.
There is one distinct advantage to this approach: we get to find out who really wants to be here, and who would be content with occasional guest-worker status. And it beats the heck out of my Grand Scheme, which basically involves annexing the whole of Mexico and replacing its venal and incompetent government with our venal and incompetent government. Posted at 1:11 PM to Political Science FictionAnd it beats the heck out of my Grand Scheme, which basically involves annexing the whole of Mexico and replacing its venal and incompetent government with our venal and incompetent government. Yep. This all could have been avoided if we just hadn't signed the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty and stormed Mexico City. Of course, we'd have 100,000 other problems (not the least of which the South might have won the Civil war. But at least it would solve the immigration question. Even our government could probably effectively enforce the Mexico/Guatemala-Belize border. Probably. Posted by: trumwill at 4:53 PM on 25 May 2007What's wrong with annexing Mexico? Posted by: Rachel at 5:56 PM on 25 May 2007I'm with Rachel. Mexico has oil, and it would get us one step closer to Venezuela, which has oil. Posted by: Brian J. at 10:36 PM on 25 May 2007Oil and chiles... I like the plan and propose one more requirement. Not sure if this should be a separate item, a sub-item, or simply a new law that gets enforced under number one: Immigrants are not allowed to occupy a residential unit to a density exceeding 6 people per room or 4 families per house. Posted by: Winston at 6:09 AM on 26 May 2007Um--the last time I looked, Mexico was full or Mexicans? Who speak Spanish? Posted by: miriam at 10:06 AM on 27 May 2007It's hardly full: about ten percent of them are over here. As for the language barrier, well, that's not entirely insurmountable. Posted by: CGHill at 1:30 PM on 27 May 2007 |