Daeyel wrote:First, simply change the term to 'Criminals and/or scofflaws'. Problem solved.
Exactly. There is no reason for anyone to get overly worked up over semantics. I wrote "criminals or scofflaws" the first time I used the phrase, and "criminals and scofflaws" the second time, and in full context I'm guilty of omitting the "..., respectively" from my second usage. But there are those who seem to be unwilling to discuss real issues but want to take offense/disagreement/express disapproval/whatever-PC-term is required over minor word issues, who like to use emotion on their side but take offense if there is a hint of it on the other side, or who claim the constitution says one thing, but then abandon all such discussion when someone actually attempts to dig into what the document really says.
Second, I intend to touch on the loyalties of these illegals, criminals, scofflaws, undocumented aliens, unregistered persons, (did I miss any?)
I am an American citizen. I also hold Australian citizenship. I love both countries, but would not willingly live in Australia, because I find their self defense laws restrictive.
So where do your political and other loyalties lie? It is clear that you do not hate either nation, and would wish no harm on either nation. But heaven forbid we wake up tomorrow to a full blown shooting war between the two nations with each others' airplanes dropping bombs on the others; cities and ground troops shooting the other side's people, where do your loyalties lie? (Ignore the geographic and other improbabilities of this ever happening, much less happening simultaneously in both nations. Rather imagine your two nations shared a border and it were possible for such a war to happen.)
I can say with absolute certainty that should such a war ever happen, my loyalties are 100% with the USA. As regrettable as any war is, and as doubly regrettable as it would be to have a war with a friend, my loyalties are with the USA. Were Australian (or English, Scottish, German, Italian, Canadian, or Mexican) troops to be inside the US waging war on us, those troops are the enemy and I would have no hesitation in viewing them as such. Were I visiting one of those nations when US troops invaded, my loyalties are with the US troops.
Can you say likewise, on one side or the other? Or does your dual citizenship create dual loyalties?
I suspect the same is true of many Mexicans. While not U.S citizens, they choose to be here because they can work here far more readily than in their home country. Given a choice, I believe they would choose to become American citizens, because it gives them more opportunity through hard work to better their lives. This opinion is borne out by the overwhelming support for new amnesty in the Latino community, both legal and (illegal, criminal, scofflaw, undocumented alien, unregistered person - did I miss any?)
I will resist the temptation to much discuss any further aspects of illegal aliens other than to point out that there are obvious personal, legal and other advantages to legal status. So it is not surprising that many, even most all I would think, would like to have legal status of one kind or another.
Whether they really want to become US citizens, and to assimilate into our culture, is quite another question.
Some have obviously assimilated already. But many have not despite being here for extended periods of time. Yes, english is a difficult language. But there is clearly a significant segment of the Mexican community that desires to retain at least their culture and language, if not also strong ties to their homeland. This is evidenced in many ways locally.
And that is all I will say on that topic as I desire to focus on the much more relevant issue of the differences in national loyalties between citizens, and non-citizens/aliens within in a nation.
Daeyel wrote:Personally, I would love to see Mexico admitted to the union. It would greatly disrupt the stupid banality of the current political debates, and, I think, awaken and excite the great minds of this country as to the possibilities that lie in Mexico.
Such would be possible only with a very significant return to dramatically more federalism that allowed much more diversity of culture and law among the several States than we currently have. There are dramatic and significant incompatibilities between the Latin and US cultures. This is not to disparage Latin culture. Two goods can be incompatible. If I want to go to be at 9:00 pm after working an 8 - 6 schedule and you prefer to take a siesta while I'm working and then stay up late working when I want to sleep, we are going to have conflicts. I see nothing wrong with either schedule. But they don't work well side by side. Such is often true of larger cultures. Sadly the nation seems to moving exactly the opposite direction toward ever less allowance for local diversity.
For a great read on this see this article by Fred Reed.