[skeptic-1]

Doesn't an amnesty mean they get residency? They won't actually be voting any time soon.

I too live in texas and in my business and personal life have developed a pretty good understanding of Mexicans.

They came and are coming to the U.S. for the same reasons the white man did. The chance for a better or continuing life !

Many are unskilled and are hired (Many times below legal requirement wages.)

The men cut our grass in100+ degree temps, or frame our new homes, nail on shingles on our roofs in the same weather.

If they develop some skills in construction they often must leave home for long periods separated from their families.

The women are brought up to serve their husbands and children with respect and loving and their children adore them.

The elderly live with and are supported by their families and significant funds from their meager earnings are regularly sent home

To support those left behind. They live here or in Mexico the kind of life we once did. Their religious lives seem wrapped in the

mystique and devotion to the traditional aspects of old.

The have (Not each and every one but most it seems ) the character that built our country .

The women are the nannies and helpers of the aged in Texas at prices not available through professional services and are indispensable

in that respect. Even a trace of forward economic movement sees the Mexican women slim down and let the beauty of deep dark eyes

slim bodies and more then adequate busts turn the head of the gringo as well.

We need these folk to renew the vibrance we one had.

[Quantum]

It's a myth that the Republicans hate immigration and that's just a ploy to deceive their base. Behind the scenes, the Democrats and Republicans work together to increase cheap labour and then trick white nativists into supporting them to disable any potential militia activity. It seems to work and the public are still mired in a fog of ignorance. There will be no revolts when the majority of people are lardsters and spend their leisure time on trivial activities, blissfully unaware of the deluge that is about to come.

[Rei Murasame]

Pretty much. It's like they don't even research the people they are voting for, since many of the Tea Party people who they lined up behind to do something about the border insecurity problem, were the very same people who had been making it insecure all along.

For example, Dick Armey and the the circle around him, worked alongside President Clinton to get the NAFTA bill through the United States House of Representatives in the 1990s, and then reinvented themselves in 2008 as Tea Party 'opponents of amnesty' even while actually still supporting a deal to give amnesty for the very migrants they helped to let in in the 1990s.

And naturally, American voters fell for it. It's hard to see this stuff and not be completely disgusted by liberal-democracy as a concept, especially when these voters are walking around with smartphones and could just google this stuff any time they wanted to. It's not even like these politicians bother to hide it. They just openly wave 'freedom of movement for capital and labour' in the face of the voters and still pick up anti-immigration votes despite that.

A similar phenomenon happens in the UK, where some people are giving UKIP anti-immigration votes, even though Nigel Farage and that entire party are openly in favour of 'freedom of movement for capital and labour'. 'Freedom of movement for labour' means immigration, but for some incomprehensible reason, voters do not understand it.

My suspicion is that it's because liberal-democracy has abstracted public discourse so far away from economic realities, to the point that people are not consciously aware that 'freedom of movement of labour' is literally 'freedom of capitalists to bring in migrants from anywhere in the world that they want to' and 'freedom of capitalists to dislocate anyone in the world that they want to, for that purpose'. It just doesn't occur to them that this is what it means.

So you end up with lots of people who are against immigration, but simultaneously in favour of any policy that will allow people from outside a country to be brought into a country to become part of the labour market as it demands. It's just so ridiculous.

Maybe on some cynical level as well, for those that are aware of what they are doing, what they are really against is not immigration, but immigrants being able to use social services. Since it's interesting to note that some people and politicians only start talking about immigration when they are trying to use it as part of an argument for why social services are 'being abused' and should be cut. So they bring in the migrants, and then later use the presence of the migrants as part of an argument for cutting social services, all without ever addressing the issue of the fact that the migration is occurring.

[Drlee]

So we are ignoring the elephant in the corner. Actions speak louder than words. President Obama (who some people laughingly call a liberal) has deported FAR more illegals than Bush ever thought of doing. More in his first three years than all 8 of Bush years IIR.

Conservatives, like myself, realize that we can end illegal immigration tomorrow. Neither party did end it nor wants to. All we have to do is enforce the laws against employers hiring illegals and the problem will end. So is our Texas friend actually so naïve that he doesn't see that the republican party won't risk pissing off business interests by taking away their cheap labor?

Both parties want some form of amnesty (with sufficient cover) so badly that they can taste it but are afraid to admit they do. So they will putter along doing the most nothing possible until the numbers skew a little more beige then they will grant full blown amnesty.

[Quantum]

Pretty much. It's like they don't even research the people they are voting for, since many of the Tea Party people who they lined up behind to do something about the border insecurity problem, were the very same people who had been making it insecure all along.

They are ignorant because they think voting the lesser of the two evils will make the situation better, whereas in reality the situation wouldn't change because that candidate has been coopted by capital. Mitt Romney himself has recently come out in favour of granting illegal immigrants citizenship. If Romney won, he would have tried to legalise illegals like their idol Reagan did.