Home / A Fence Sitter’s Take On Illegal Immigration

A Fence Sitter’s Take On Illegal Immigration

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Watching the furor over immigration policy during the past week, I’ve felt strangely uninvolved. I’ve heard the arguments on both sides, I’ve seen the protesters, and I’ve read the commentary. But up here in Minnesota, it’s not a burning issue, so I’ve never had to resolve the conflicting impulses that the subject raises for me.

The only thing that was clear is that the subject is far more complex than activists on either side admit. So I’ve decided it was high time I developed a position on the subject.

First I did some thinking. Then I did some research.

It seems to me that any immigration policy should recognize the following facts:

1. Every country has a right to control the flow of immigrants into it.

2. In the aftermath of 9/11, border control is a security issue, not just an economic issue.

3. The cost of the solution should not exceed the cost of the problem.

4. Barring seriously drastic measures, illegal immigration will never be eradicated. We need to manage the problem rather than trying to eradicate it.

5. The best way to fight illegal immigration is to give people incentives, both positive and negative, not to come here illegally.

6. It makes no sense to crack down on illegal immigrants without cracking down on the businesses and individuals that employ them.

Starting from these basics, let’s address some of the common arguments used in the immigration debate.

Illegal immigrants are criminals. While technically true, it’s a gross oversimplification of the debate. For most illegal immigrants, the only crime they ever commit is crossing the border without permission. Labeling them criminals is a bit like subjecting serial jaywalkers to a “three strikes” rule.

Further, there are huge gray areas that such a simplistic approach does not handle very well. What about the teenager whose parents brought him across the border when he was an infant? He’s been raised in America and, culturally, is as American as anyone. Is he a criminal? Is justice served by deporting him back to a country he has no connection to?

Then there are the cases where illegal immigrants have children here in the States. Those children are citizens. Do we really support breaking up families by deporting the parents?

Illegal immigrants are a drain on our resources. Like any new arrival in our country, illegal immigrants use a disproportionate share of social services. And that is a cost that should really be borne by the entire nation, not the border communities that are home to the largest populations of illegals.

But that’s only part of the picture. Every wave of immigrants starts out poor. What such accounting doesn’t reflect is that by the second or third generation, most immigrant families are established and moving up the economic ladder. They bring with them the energy and desire to improve their lives – the same energy and desire to improve that has powered the United States since its inception. Focusing on the short-term costs misses the larger point. Such a selective analysis could be used to support a total ban on immigration, which clearly wouldn’t be in our best interests.

Besides, the cost of illegal immigration are likely overstated.

Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz … found that the surge in illegal immigration reduced the wages of high school dropouts by just 3.6 percent. Across the entire labor force, the effect of illegal immigrants was zero, because the presence of uneducated immigrants actually increased the earnings of more educated workers, including high school graduates. For instance, higher-skilled workers could hire foreigners at low wages to mow their lawns and care for their children, freeing time for these workers to earn more. And businesses that exist because of the availability of cheap labor might also need to employ managers.

Illegal immigrants are lazy spongers. Fact is, other than their illegal arrival, illegal immigrants are precisely the sort of people we should want to have coming here. They don’t just decide to cross the border on a lark one day and start sucking at the teat of American welfare. These are people who see such limited opportunity in their home country — for both them and their children — that they are willing to leave everything they know in search of a better life. They pay smugglers thousands and thousands of dollars to sneak them across the border, risking death, injury, and capture – all so they can work for $3 an hour in near-slave conditions with a built-in ceiling on economic advancement, thanks to their illegal status. How desperate would you have to be before you would consider doing something like that? And isn’t this the sort of pluck exactly what we claim as the benefit of being a nation of immigrants?

We should not crack down on immigrants, illegal or otherwise, who are simply trying to make a life for themselves and their families. While illegals should be treated humanely, they are here illegally, and they do have unwanted economic effects. We should have a rational method for cracking down on illegal immigration, but we should not simply turn a blind eye or enact elaborate restrictions that make it unnecessarily difficult to identify and arrest illegals.

We should deny illegal immigrants access to public services and schools. This is just plain stupid from a public policy perspective. They’re here; we do ourselves no favors by preventing them from getting an education or other kinds of help. Cutting them off would have the effect of turning them into criminals in the full sense of the word, forced to steal and defraud in order to survive. Cutting them off from public health services would just increase our overall health bill in the end. Let’s not cut off our nose to spite our face.

Americans don’t want the jobs that illegal immigrants do. This isn’t provably true; there will always be exceptions, and even if it is true, the reason may be less the work involved than the pay rate. A more accurate assessment might be that without the cheap labor of illegals, those jobs wouldn’t be in this country in the first place. But either way, it seems clear that illegal immigration does affect the job and earning prospects of American workers at the bottom of the education ladder.

America can’t handle too many immigrants at once. In a theoretical sense, this is true; if one million illegal Mexican immigrants suddenly descended on Luxembourg, for instance, it would become a Mexican-majority country overnight. But the United States has 300 million people; we’re not so easily overwhelmed. With the INS estimating there are only about nine million illegal immigrants in the United States as of 2005, the “we can’t handle it” argument starts to look very weak. Looking at history, it gets even weaker. Between 1905 and 1914, an average of one million people a year immigrated to this country — at a time when the population of the United States was about 90 million. Somehow we absorbed that. To achieve the same relative disruption today, we’d have to be letting in 3.3 million immigrants a year. We’re not even close to that. In 2004, we admitted fewer than one million legal immigrants. Add to that the INS estimate of 500,000 illegal immigrants a year, and it’s clear we’re not even close to reaching the limits of our absorption rate — whatever that rate might be.

(For a wealth of information on immigration, check out Homeland Security’s 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. It’s a pdf; on page 11 is a chart showing immigration by year going back to 1820).

The problem with illegal immigrants, then, is not the cost, nor the number of immigrants, nor the immigrants themselves. It’s that it is uncontrolled, which makes establishing policy difficult and poses a security risk.

The value of closing that security hole is subjective, but the relatively small objective costs of illegal immigration suggest that spending huge buckets of money to stop it just doesn’t pass the cost-benefit test. Any solution should either be cost-effective by itself or have other benefits that justify the expense.

We need a comprehensive approach, not piecemeal solutions. Any attempt to address the immigration problem should include stricter enforcement in this country coupled with incentives to keep people from wanting to come here illegally in the first place.

1. Manage the demand side. Crack down on employers as well as their illegal employees, to reduce the demand side of the illegal labor problem. Fines alone won’t do it; that just becomes a cost of doing business. If a business is a chronic employer of illegal workers, there should be jail terms for company executives.

We don’t even come close to doing this now:

The number of federal immigration agents who focus on work-site enforcement plunged to 65 nationwide in 2004, from 240 in 1999, according to the Government Accountability Office. Moreover, the government reduced the number of notices of intent to fine employers who hired illegal immigrants to just 3 in 2004 from 417 in 1999.

Sixty-five agents nationwide? That’s the first mistake.

We may want to tread carefully in this area because, as I noted above, some of these industries only exist because of the cheap labor of illegals. But if we’re going to arrest the workers, we should arrest the employers as well — be they a corporation or a private individual with an illegal gardener. A few high-profile examples might have a big deterrent effect — and would certainly reveal whether we as a country have the stomach for such tactics. If we don’t, we need to adjust our strategy to that reality.

2. Work with the Mexican government to increase economic opportunity in Mexico. This may seem counter to our national economic interests — helping set up Mexican workers to compete against us in the global market — but the best way to persuade people to stay home is to give them some reason to do so. Assuming cultural and family ties are important, most people would prefer to build a life in Mexico than in the United States. Even slight improvements in economic opportunity in Mexico should have an impact on the flow of illegal immigrants.

3. Increase our legal immigrant quota. It’s way too low anyway. And by giving people a reasonable chance of being able to immigrate legally, we reduce their incentive to immigrate illegally in the meantime. I’d consider doubling the quota to two million a year, with half of it earmarked for Mexico.

4. Implement selective amnesty programs. Have ways to help illegal immigrants become citizens — if they go home first. Provide amnesty to children who were raised here and are substantially American, perhaps with requirements that they graduate from high school and hold a steady job. A general amnesty is a bad idea, but allow humane exceptions to a general deportation rule.

5. Border security. If we can reduce the flow of illegal immigrants, that makes it easier to monitor our borders for security risks. Building a fence isn’t an answer; it would be hugely expensive and easily circumvented. The only way we get a reasonable chance of catching infiltrating terrorists is if they can’t hide in a flood of illegal immigrants. So while we should increase our patrol efforts, improved border security will really be a side effect of the other strategies listed above.

6. Sharing the costs. The federal government should provide aid to border cities and states to help shoulder the cost of providing services to illegal aliens.

7. Education assistance for American workers. This is totally off the cuff, but the study I cite above indicates that the only workers adversely affected by illegal immigration are high school dropouts. Given that, we could lessen the impact by moving at least some of those workers up the educational and professional ladder so they no longer have to compete with low-wage illegals.

Adopting just some of these proposals would be a mistake; they’re a package deal. They may not be as emotionally satisfying as walling off our southern border, but it would be a whole lot cheaper and far more practical. The Great Wall didn’t work for China; it won’t work for us.

As long as America is a land of opportunity, we will have people trying to get into the country any way they can. A rational, humane policy that seeks to manage rather than stop that flow will pay off in both the economic and security arenas — and perhaps the political and diplomatic as well.

Powered by

About Sean Aqui

  • RedTard

    Interesting, the angle that gets me, and one that is not fully addressed in your article, is that of creating an oppressed minority. We brought Africans to this country to pick crops and lauded their hard work and ability, but humans are not content picking crops forever, they want to move on up. That silly plan got us a war and 150 years of strife.

    Mexican immigrants have almost a 50% high school dropout rate. They may be headed down the same path as blacks, those protests in the street may be a sign of things to come.

    Perhaps we should fix the problem with our previous crop picking oppressed minority before we invite in a new one. Although I feel strongly we are making a mistake I also believe the debate is moot anyway, repubs see cheap labor, dems see millions of leftist voters.

  • A lot of people don’t understand that some level of social services — free public education, for one — is societal self-defense. It prevents the creation of a permanent underclass with no hope of advancement, besides providing an educated workforce.

    If Repubs see cheap labor and Dems see millions of leftist voters, they should just say so and throw the borders open. I actually wouldn’t have a big problem with that, since the issue for me is who gets to control immigration decisions, not what those decisions end up being. An open borders policy is at least a policy.

    But the security question really muddies the water.

  • cynic1

    Very good article. The word that comes to mind is learned. That’s why nobody will pay attention. Most people, not only the politicians, in such debates have ulterior motives. Many people for example love the power they have over an undocumented worker more than they like the low salary. In such a case people are impervious to rational argument and use the Internet and the multiplicity of television channels to feed their prejudice by choosing only the outlets that promote the point of view they like. If my analysis is correct expect a long period of non action.

  • RedTard

    “If Repubs see cheap labor and Dems see millions of leftist voters, they should just say so and throw the borders open.”

    We already have an open borders policy, the average American has been against that so they won’t officially write it into federal law. That would require actual honesty, something which is mostly incompatible with elected office.

    Thanks to the new ranks of Mexican immigrant voters and a propaganda campaign the tide could be turning though. It’s simply a matter of the cart following the horse. The politicians make the de facto policy then liberal institutions propagandize us until we agree with it, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?

  • You, sir, are a cynic. 😉

  • As with many complex issues, we have a number of blind men examining this particular elephant.

    Even those willing to consider many different aspects of the issue bring their own slant to it — and I’m not talking about partisan bias or even re-election urges here.

    Those focused on justice see the inequity of offering blanket amnesty to some (Mexican nationals here without visa or permission) while holding others (Salvadoreans, British, Taiwanese, Ugandans…) to the strict letter of immigration law.

    Employers know how difficult it can be to tell if the right to work documentation offered is real or false. (And you can double that concern for the private citizen who wants to hire a helper or two to dig postholes.) They don’t want to be exposed to jail time because someone had a really clever counterfeit SSN card.

    And yes, there are some who are focused on the politics – but they tend to be politicians. After you count the folks who make their living with these issues, that leaves a LOT of folks who are waking up to find a pile of elephant dung that someone will have to deal with.

  • Susan Robbins

    I have no sympathy for people who come here illegally and make demands while wrapped in a flag of a country who does diddly squat for them.

    Why is it our task to help Mexico? They are corrupt. These same people who protest here can go home and protest to Vincente.

    Whatever the cost of illegals, I do not want to pay it. I struggle to pay my health care premiums and deductibles. Why should I pay for those who snuck in illegally. It is like telling me that if someone breaks into my house, I must feed, cloth, educate and do it all in their native tongue.

    They bring disease, have poor hygiene (handle our food in restaurants),bring drugs, crime and abuse our social services. SEND THEM ALL HOME.

    Child citizens can come back when they are of age. We ought to stop making them citizens if parents are illegal.

    Confiscate business that hire illegals as they do homes and cars from people who deal drugs. Stop any benefits ( the government has nerve giving our tax money away to illegals) They will stop coming in herds.

  • Yes! Give the government even more power to confiscate property without trial and without recourse than we’ve already given it as part of our “war on drugs” fiasco. That’ll learn them dang brown-skinned people not to mess with Americans!

  • Bruce

    The Illegals issue is not complicated. In fact I’d say that is why people have such a terrible time with it – It is both simple and unpleasant, and the solution is as well.

    I have to ask, what are the author’s qualifications for defining our problems and solutions – His own admission that it isn’t an issue where he lives? Not sure I get that. He have a quite ample supply of people with the Problems and Solutions, and that’s just people from heavily-impacted states, communities and professions, people who actually experience this issue in a daily, personal way, and know what they are talking about.

    I guess he really lost me beginning with the paragraph: “Work with the Mexican government to increase economic opportunity in Mexico”. This is the classic constructivist approach that every social/economic liberal tries, for men and nations, and it just doesn’t ever work. It isn’t even in our power to make everything the way we’d like in this country, what kind of thoughtless conceit makes one think you can do that for another? It is even predicated poorly – Mexico is not a particularly poor country, it’s just the higher wages up here that lure them to cross illegally. They had jobs in Mexico, they were not starving or anything like it.

    Tiresome. Most of the other Numbered & Bolded points there are no better. This is supposed to be a thoughtful piece? Thanks for sharing.

  • Bravo!. A reasonable look at an emotional controversy.

    We don’t have the problem where I am either. We live in Mexico and have a different view. Sure, illegality is just that. Therefore, as you say, increase the ability to enter legally, control the borders against both terrorists and illegals (without the Bush Wall nonsense), increase American literacy and education (therein lies a path to success), increase amnesty programs. All good ideas.

    The real problem continues to be American racism, xenophobia and (real) fear of terrorism. These are not so easy to address.

    Interestingly the one woman to comment was close to hysteria — “They bring disease, have poor hygiene (handle our food in restaurants),bring drugs, crime and abuse our social services. SEND THEM ALL HOME.”

    They do bring diseases and, sometimes, have poor hygiene (so do a lot of Americans). Coming in legally can screen for diseases, education for all Americans could help hygiene. “…bring drugs, crime and abuse our social services…” Well, that is to say that America has no crime, drug-lovers, and welfare cheats. I was a social worker for 11 years in a rural location in Upstate New York. There were no Hispanics there then. There were plenty of cheats, people with poor hygiene and criminals.

    As for improving the Mexican economy, that is a complex issue that is far beyond the scope of this discussion. There are differences so basic in the two societies that decades will be needed (if it is possible) to change a non-business oriented society deeply affected by corruption into a dynamic, modern economic force. But it may well happen.

    Then there is the American economy under the present regime. Is everyone really happy with it?

  • Give me your tired (blah, blah, blah) yearning to breathe free

    In other words, poeple who are enslaved. Are the Mexican illegals coming from an unfree country?

    send them tempest tossed to me

    In other words from lands requiring an ocean voyage. That would inherently limit it to a reasonable number – not a potential fifty million easily sauntering on foot across a land border.

    Sean’s attempt to draw an analogy with earlier waves does not take into account the fact that the country is now full – overfull. We are reaching the limit of how many people can be supplied with water, given the finite amount of preciptation this country experiences; how many new transportation arteries can be built to carry many times more traffic; etc., etc., etc.

    Our population simply cannot be allowed to continue increasing at an exponential rate. The fairest way, to the existing citizenry, of preventing the concommitant standard of living destruction, is to terminate virtually all immigration. And I do think we have slightly better technology than those who constructed the Great Wall of China!

  • Ebony Ghost

    What the hell is going on here? Halfway around the world, American soldiers are dying to “defend” us from people who wouldn’t do a damned thing to us if we weren’t messing with them. At the same time, people are sitting over here listing excuses why we should tolerate an invading horde. Were talking about people whose contempt for our laws is initially displayed when they step across the border. Their contempt for our people is displayed by their absolute refusal to develop the ability to communicate with us. The word of the day is termite. How is it that it’s patriotic to promote killing around the globe and racist to promote protecting your homeland from invasion? Something is very wrong here.

    So, Illegal immigrants are only criminals in a technical sense, huh? Well technically, every citizen who’s been released from prison has paid his debt to society. Yet, we have illegal aliens holding jobs a convicted felon can’t get. I doubt very seriously that there is a lot of lettuce growing in Chicago or tomatoes in Vermont. Urban areas across the nation are crawling with illegal aliens who spend absolutely no time picking peas.

    As for jobs Americans won’t do, that’s an outright lie of the most gross proportions. How many of these jobs pay wages that would handle a mortgage? Tell me, how is anyone buying a house on the pitiful wages this so called cheap labor is getting? If you think it’s not happening, go to any search engine and type in “fannie mae” and “Illegal immigrant” (including the quotes – with or without the and). The government is actually assisting in the accommodation of this invasion. And, it’s not just at the federal level. Some mighty interesting information will show up if you type “sanctuary city” into your favorite search engine.

    Interestingly the one woman to comment was close to correct. If an employer wishes to use his resources to facilitate an invasion, he should forfeit those resources. We don’t need to send them back. Just disemploy them and let them leave. Don’t let them pull you heartstrings with that bullshit about breaking up families. If they are any kind of parents, they won’t be leaving their children behind. If they do, we can kindly deliver the children to Mexico City and let the Mexican government sort them out. They have no interest in joining our society, so we should have no interest in them.

  • RedTard

    “How is it that it’s patriotic to promote killing around the globe and racist to promote protecting your homeland from invasion? Something is very wrong here.”

    It’s not racist, most liberals will repeat that lie until they are blue in the face though because it works. That’s probably why they support illegal immigration. They look forward to slapping the American dream out of Mexican immigrants hands and replacing it with racial victimhood. Victims make good Democrat voters.

  • Jenn

    I have been doing a lot of research on this topic because I have a 10 page paper due in one of my college classes. It is interesting to see of all the different aspects that people have, but my biggest question is why has the government let it get this far? It almost seems as though the government is more concerned for the illegal immigrants than they are for our own people. We have millions of people without health insurance and millions of people without jobs, and yet the government is coming up with special laws and rules for the people that are taking these things away from our citizens. I think we need to worry about taking care of the people we have legally in our country and than if there is room for more than they can decide on legalizing more citizens.

  • Bruce

    Oh, silly me I get it. This lib article and lib responses to it are deliberate bait for partisan mocking, the polite form of trolling. Libs have become so very bitter.

    Nevermind, everyone can get back to work taking our country back from these clowns and their racial clients. Nothing to see here.

  • If you happen to wander near a point, Bruce, go ahead and make it.

  • Re: #10.

    Sean’s attempt to draw an analogy with earlier waves does not take into account the fact that the country is now full – overfull.

    That’s a *really* subjective claim. We have plenty of land, for instance, and much of the land we already live on could support a much higher population density. Many places in the world have higher population densities.

    We are reaching the limit of how many people can be supplied with water, given the finite amount of preciptation this country experiences;

    This might be true for certain localities, but not necessarily nationwide. And in places like Las Vegas, the damage is self-inflicted. Who decided it was a good idea to build a city in the middle of the desert?

    On a macro level, though, water isn’t a long-term limitation. Fresh water accounts for just 1 percent or so of all the water on earth. If the demand gets high enough, desalinization technology will become cost-competitive and we’ll have as much water as we need.

    how many new transportation arteries can be built to carry many times more traffic; etc., etc., etc.

    I don’t see any practical limitation on that. And in high-density areas it would be replaced/supplemented by mass transit.

    Our population simply cannot be allowed to continue increasing at an exponential rate.

    It’s growing at less than 1 percent a year, counting both legal and illegal immigrants. That adds up over time, but it’s hardly a crisis.

    The fairest way, to the existing citizenry, of preventing the concommitant standard of living destruction, is to terminate virtually all immigration.

    And thus drastically change the meaning of America. Threaten our standard of living? Illegal aliens don’t threaten our standard of living; overseas low-wage competition does. But since there’s nothing we can do about that (other than be competitive), maybe it’s easier to scapegoat the illegals.

    Personally, unless technology comes through with a few miracles, I think it’s inevitable that our standard of living will drop in the coming decades. We’re a huge debtor nation, and we consume a quarter of the globe’s GDP in order to support less than 5 percent of world population. Unless the economic pie gets a whole lot bigger, our share will shrink as the rest of the world’s grows. It will suck for us, but it’s hard to claim that it isn’t fair.

  • Bruce

    Victor, my poorly-made point was that the author is politely trolling with this piece.

  • Many places in the world have higher population densities.

    Yeah. Like Calcutta, Bangladesh, etc. Is that what you want? Just because it may be physically possible to cram let’s say a hundred trillion people into the State of California, by building ten billion WTC-sized apartment buildings, why do you think that is what we should try to do?

    This planet does not have an infinite extent of occupyable land. There is some upper limit to the number of human beings that it’s resources can support. So at some point people are going to have to stop thinking that there has to be unending population growth. They are going to have to be content with leveling off. Why not start doing that NOW?

    Unless the economic pie gets a whole lot bigger, our share will shrink as the rest of the world’s grows.

    So you think that WE cannot have a rational program of population stabilization as long as the rest of the world engages in runaway over population? I don’t think so. The problems they will create for themselves will make it impossible for them to establish productive economies, even if they were not ideologically committed to having unproductive ones, even absent the obstacles posed by having vastly excessive numbers of people. We can continue to produce our own pie, and make sure every citizen gets a decent slice of it by keeping our own population from exploding by letting in huge hordes of immmigrants who bring with them a culture that values having large numbers of children for both religious and survival reasons.

    This [running out of water] might be true for certain localities, but not necessarily nationwide.

    It’s true of the entire Southwest, and THAT’S where the immigrant tsunami is primarily crashing into.

    water isn’t a long-term limitation … desalinization technology will become cost-competitive

    Only someone whose religion is technology would be foolish enough to proceed with potentially disastrous immigration induced over-population policies, based on FAITH that technology will necessarily be able to deliver the expected salvation.

    Another resource limitation that is much more imminently worrisome is the disappearing supply of mineable minerals. Silver is typical. It is the most versatile of metals, with hundreds of important uses, which are such as to allow only a very small amount of recovery by recycling. Fifty years ago the U.S. government had 6 billion ounces, and now it has none. In fact there are not more than a few hundred million ounces left above ground, making silver now rarer than gold. And worse – at the current rate of consumption, the U.S. Geological survey estimates that there are only 26 more years worth of silver left to be mined! The situation is only slightly better with every other mineral, aluminum being the only one with more than 100 years worth left. If the human race is going to survive, it is going to have to make an abrubt turnaround, and start drastically reducing its numbers.

  • Mike Anaya

    I live outside of Tucson, AZ. In early 2001, collectively, the hospitals in town had an article in the local paper to the effect that they had lost 9.6 million dollars over the previous year in unrecoverable costs to illegals, principally through emergency room service. Then, the hospital where I worked laid me and 48 others off in an attempt to recover in the following year. As of April 2005, the Copper Queen Hospital in Bisbee, near the Mexican border, the only hospital in 40 square miles, was slated to close for the same reason. At the last minute federal and state funds were diverted from other urgent needs in order to keep it open. I went back to teaching college. The Director of Education owns a cattle ranch in Douglas, near the Mexican border, and she commutes to Tucson to work. She is Hispanic of straight Castillian heritage. Illegals constantly cut her fencing to get through, letting her cattle out to die of thirst in the desert or be hit by vehicles on the nearby highway. She has fixed her fences repeatedly, even making a gate. They ignore it and go 75 feet down the line and cut the fence anyway. The brother of a guy I go to church with purchased some ranch land near Douglas, Arizona and after several years, decided to move there. He had a trail pounded across his property by illegals and decided to place his home across it. The illegals and their coyotes evidently thought this was inconvenient so they set it on fire one night. He was lucky to get out alive. I could bend your ear for hours, easily, on firsthand, or introduce to others, who have similar stories to tell. Many of the Hispanic supporters of illegals are current, past or supportive of an organization called MeChA. Look up their own websites on the internet. They close out their organizational statement with “for the (brown) race everything. Outside the race, nothing.” One of the professors at a Texas State college is one of those who started the organization “La Raza”. The Race. In several of his speeches, he has mentioned that whites are not having babies like they did in years past. If the Hispanics continue as they are, they will gain economic and political control of the southwest. Then he urges an ethnic cleansing. (Kind of like Kosovo I would think. Either you quickly leave your homes and belongings behind, or you will be killed, wounded or raped out of the area.) Mario Obledo, a Hispanic activist from California, has said in speeches that California will be a Hispanic state and if (whites) don’t like it, they can go back to europe. Now if these were white organizations, liberals would be screaming. Liberals are strangely silent however because it is a “minority” saying it. If liberals were TRULY concerned about racism, this would be their golden opportunity. Going across the border into Mexico, into the cities, is like going back to the 1960’s in this country. Ambiance. Going out into the country is like what is must have been like in the old west back in the late 1800’s. Nice people, love the music, food, language, and culture (in its own country). But it is definately a third world country. Mexico has a poverty rate of slightly more than 40 percent of its people. (Imagine that rate in THIS country!) This despite TREMENDOUS natural resources and MILES of coastline. But the government has been crooked for as long as anyone can remember. Proceeds from smuggling, human as well as drugs, along with the 2 billion U.S. dollars sent back to Mexico from illegals in this country, gives their government little reason to fix things. Why would Americans, who honor only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, want to turn the southwest, let alone the rest of this country, into an appendage of Mexico?