Illegals right to vote?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Voltron, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #1
    Fuentes Fox, as reported on FOX news, is trying to change laws in Mexico so that Illegal aliens of Mexico living in the US have the legal right to vote in Mexico.

    Democrats are also trying to make it so they can legally vote in the US.

    Well hell why can't Americans vote on who runs in France I mean what the heck everyone else is doing it? :mad:
     
  2. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #2
    Additional what is this crap getting illegal immigrants drivers liscence. I say they show up to get it and you arrest them for being illegal immigrants. I mean damn China executes their illegal immigrants why are we so nice to ours. They are criminals and should be treated as such.
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    It's a historical (and rather extraordinary) quirk, but any Irishman resident in England is entitled to vote in UK General Elections. I think it's quite cool, really.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    who is vicente fox? any relation to vincente? :D :rolleyes:
     
  6. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #6
    No skunk, this time you're wrong (its about time if you ask me!).

    http://www.vicentefox.org.mx/
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    no. ;-)

    CIA fact book on mexico
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    My mistake: Google has both Vicente AND his dyslexic brother! Whoops!
    I'll get my coat....
     
  9. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #9
    For once I cannot argue with you. I am amazed that politicians are able to get away with this for the sake of votes. I think sidestepping the legal immigration routes has a lot of risk, primary being security but I do not see anybody taking a stance against it. I would have thought GWB would be idealogically against it, but political expedience seems to be a bigger factor for him, as always. Are the hispanic population of the southern/western states so large that this would make a difference at vote time?

    Of course, I am also jealous : I went thru 5 years of harrowing interaction with the INS (and some very rude people there) to get my Green Card, without which the DMV was not willing to give me a decent 5-year drivers license, and now it is being given away :(

    China has illegal immigrants? Or did you mean chinese coming out of china illegally?
     
  10. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #10
    Like everything else, this was done purely for money.

    For one thing, the Mexican trucker who will on US roads can not vote here, so are irrelevant to electoral politics. So who wants this? Those that employ large truck fleets. Instead of using union truckers (mostly Teamsters) they are now offshore their internal transportation needs.

    Yet another way to drive down US wages. Welcome to the third world.
     
  11. LeeTom macrumors 68000

    LeeTom

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    #11
    Here's a solution: Let's open up our borders completely, and ease restrictions on immigration. Then all the illegals can become legal, can become citizens and earn a right to vote, and legally get drivers licenses.

    "But then terrorists will get in!"

    Well, we'll just have to neutralize our stance on the Palestinian/Israeli issue, then won't we? There goes islamic jihad against the U.S.!

    Lee Tom (for president)
     
  12. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #12
    Maybe. But if can introduce a G5 PowerBook . . . well for sure then.
     
  13. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #13
    The other issue is that we have seen with illegal immigration is the erosion of wages. The same people that point out gas costs less after inflation is factored in fail to mention that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. In 1978 the minimum wage was 2.65 (http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm), and the Inflation Calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) the adjusted wage should be $7.56.

    The amnesty offered back in 1986 did more to lower the standard of living for marginal workers than anything else.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    The "erosion of wages" argument is a classic. It's been used against all immigration, legal or otherwise, from time immemorial.
     
  15. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    The argument that "erosion of wages" is also classic to deny the realities since the 1980's and the trickle down theories.

    I guess that the illegal day worker sites don't lead to a decline in the tax base either. Or low wages leads to overcrowding in expensive cities like the DC area.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Not sure I get your first statement, but I do get the second. The arguments against immigration don't change much. Every generation of immigrants has always wanted to pull up the gangplank as soon as their feet were dry. It's a constant in American history.
     
  17. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #17
    uh-oh... I have competition :D
     
  18. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #18
    You don't get rid of terrorists by appeasing them they will just find something else to terrorise us for just look at the EFL or whatever those nutcases call themselves going around burning factories and SUV lots. Open the borders and other militias will blow up city halls until we close them again. Nah appeasing terrorists doesn't really work.
     
  19. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #19
    The world would end up falling out of orbit due to the shift of weight on its surface. :eek:
     
  20. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #20
    Point of the first was that we are not talking of the same situations. Times are vastly different, and so were the policies acted upon by the respective administrations.

    Efforts could have been made to stem the illegal immigration that mushroomed in the late 70's and early 80's. The economics of the Reagan era made it profitable for the big contributors to keep the minimum wage down, and to hire illegals. And the amnesty of the mid 80's only further depressed wages earned at the lower spectrum of the social/economic ladder.

    I am not arguing against legal immigration. Though other countries have shown that by limiting immigration, there can be a better standard of living for its citizens already there.

    It is illegal immigration that does the most harm to the economy for the citizens and legal immigrants to this nation. Day laborers are being paid $100 a day, receive no health benefits - actually no benefits what so ever. Whenever these individuals need health care it is through public hospitals, that you and I end up paying for. The federal and state governments receive no tax money from that income, except for sales taxes.

    Having both sets of Grandparents from the Old Country, by the way of Ellis Island, I know that the life of an immigrant is not an easy one. Long hours working at jobs that others do not want, often at wages that were depressed.

    But our current wage and immigration policies are only creating a third class of people. While those in the middle are being squeezed out.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    Three of four of my grandparents came through Ellis Island too. They managed to get through before the immigration tap was virtually turned off as a result of arguments identical to the ones you are advancing now (overcrowded cities, strains on public services, depressed wages, etc.). I'm simply trying to point out that these arguments are far from novel. Immigration laws are essentially arbitrary things which change depending on the nation's mood, which is generally more against immigrants than in favor of them. What's illegal today could be legal tomorrow, and vice-versa.
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    The Ellis Island immigrants were legal, and at the time had to be self-supporting because of the lack of tax-paid social services. Plus, there were more areas looking for stable-family work force people. It was a government-policy deal working within a legal framework.

    A large problem with today's illegals is the vast numbers--estimated at around 12 million--with the ensuing strain on the tax base which pays for today's social services. They cost the California taxpayer (AND national? Dunno.) some six billlion dollars per year, from what I've read in the media; it's reported that it's a one-billion dollar cost in Arizona.

    What's interesting to me is that it seems to be "new" for non-resident Mexican citizens to be able to vote if away from the country. Maybe Mexico has not had absentee voting?

    'Rat
     
  23. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #23
    Actually it is Bush that hinted at voting rights for illegal aliens through his temporary worker status proposal.

    President Fox's proposal is an off shoot of that. Illegal aliens in the US would find it hard to vote in their home country, since they would have to acknowledge their illegal status in the US. Fox, like any politician is trying to find every fringe group to court. Hopefully if Fox has his way, I hope that the INS will track those Mexican voter registration cards going to US addresses. If they are in the country illegally, then deport them. And then blacklist them from any possibility of gaining resident status in the US. Law breakers should be rewarded with what so many others are seeking. Legal resident status, leading to citizenship hopefully in the US.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    The immigrant's legal status was decided at Ellis Island by inspectors and hearing officers. Many were sent back whence they came, most because they were deemed "likely to become a public charge;" that is, they had less cash in their pockets than required by the immigration laws, and no friends or relatives to vouch for them. After the great immigration wave of the 1900s and 1910s, these laws were substantially changed, to a quota system, which sharply restricted the number of legal immigrants to the US. Many went instead to Canada, Mexico and Cuba, then snuck across the border, just like today.

    Taken as percentage of the national population in, say 1905, immigration was every bit as large then as now, and then as now, most of the immigrants were illiterate and unskilled, lacked the tools to become self-sufficient, and were packed like sardines into slums where they lived in abject poverty. This picture can't be sugar-coated, because that's the way it was.

    I've often wondered why my great-grandparents left the terrible place where they lived in poverty for a foreign place where they'd also live in poverty. It occurs to me that they didn't do it for themselves, because it certainly didn't improve their living conditions much if at all. They did it for their children, and their children's children. IOW, me. I'm as grateful as I can be for that, and it's something I think on long and hard whenever someone points out the problems associated with immigration.
     
  25. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    IJ, ain't it a helluva note that the way a lot of illegals live here is better than what's "back there"?

    Those who work here and send money home are doing better by their families than they could do at home. That's the sad part. As I commented once before about an 18-year-old kid from Mexico City who worked briefly for me, he could find plenty of work at home, but a day's wages for an unskilled guy wouldn't buy a day's food.

    Your grandparents, heck, my own whatever-great grandparents: They all figured on a better life for themselves, if possible--but the great hope was for betterment of future generations of the family.

    Regardless, I've long faulted the methodology of the socioeconomic system of Mexico. Long on mouth-music, real short on actually doing anything for its people. They have oil and gas. They have timber. They have gold and silver. They have fertile farmlands. They have great tourism areas. They have folks with a work ethic.

    But all their government has is excuses--and the giant shuck of blaming their woes on Los Norteamericanos...

    'Rat
     

Share This Page