Why does the US make available only 10,000 entrepreneurial visas (E-5) per year? The number of "diversity" visas (allocated on a lottery basis to immigrants from countries "under-represented" in the US population) is 50,000.
The only qualification for a DV is either a high school equivalent degree or a "skill" which would ordinarily require two years of training. The requirement for the E-5 visa is (1) an investment of $1MM in a new or struggling business ($500K for depressed areas) which (2) generates 10 new jobs.
It is highly unlikely that an E-5 visa holder will quickly need welfare, but one never knows.
Nationals of most of the "Old Europe" countries (and all of the new ones) are available for DVs, but only the UK has sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the US in the last 5 years rendering it "ineligible" for DVs in the current lottery. Given London's ethnic makeup these days, one might wonder about that.
There is no African country that is not eligible, while Canada and Mexico are not eligible for the same reason as the UK.
One might wonder how many of the 11MM "illegals" currently in the US are Aanglo-Saxons from the UK or Canada?
It would appear that great numbers of Germans, French, Italians, and people from "Scandanavia" are not DV threat, despite the economic turndown in Europe.
Commenter Jon Burack, if not an Alinskyite troll as commenter John Doe suggests, apparently has no conception of what's at stake nor any grasp of how incompatible Hispanics, as a group, are with our society.
Regarding the latter point, a memorable essay, _Cultural Suicide_ by Charles Manion ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/manion7.html ) gives the overarching picture. Then, in _South Gate: Mexico Comes to California_ ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/south-gate-mexico-comes-to-california/?print=1 ), Roger McGrath gives an example of what Manion describes working itself out on the ground.
To the commenters here who focus their ire on the proposed "path to citizenship": That really doesn't matter. Illegal aliens don't care about citizenship, so denying them that is no penalty at all.
What they crave is to be **deportation-proof**. And that's what the Gang of Eight bill does nearly immediately. Call it what you want .. amnesty, legalization, provisional status ... short of committing axe murders, they're here for good (their good, our bad). See, for example, http://www.vdare.com/print/28067
The Republican leadership adamantly favor Open Borders and "free trade" (outsourcing). That amounts too
"We are going to ship your job abroad and if we can't we are going to replace you with an immigrant who will do it for less"
Bush actually proposed an immigration law to replace all Americans workers with cheaper foreigners. It was never going to happen, but it tells you a lot about "compassionate conservatism" that he even tried to push such an idea.
Does any of this appeal to ordinary folks? Of course, not. Obama should have lost badly in 2012 given his poor economic record in office. He won because the Republican alternative was either worse or lacked credibility.
"Not only could amnesty (variously defined) alienate the working-class voters who see immigrants, not unreasonably, as economic competitors; doing so while agreeing to bigger government could break apart the conservative coalition that makes up the GOP’s base."
Mark Krikorian has a useful comment on this.
"Republicans have to give up on Open Borders or they have to give up on everything else"
Many moons ago, National Review published an article that noted that Americans of Latin American ancestry were all in favor of an unlimited welfare state and government involvement in all matters, big and small. Cubans differed from other Americans of Latin American ancestry only in wishing to overthrow Fidel Castro, thus thinking themselves Republican in that respect alone. Now why should Republicans wish to cultivate an unlimited welfare state, or government involvement in all things, big and small?
Jon: when I see racist comments on conservative blogs the first thing I think is that the people making these comments are not conservatives at all, but Democrats using Alinsky inspired tactics. After all, there is nothing inherently racist about being against massive immigration and for more secure borders.
In fact, the most anti-immigrant crowd I've ever come across was a group of African Americans at a wedding where we were the only whites among the guests. Since we had been conditioned by the media to believe that blacks were in favor of immigration we were shocked at the stridently (racist would be more accurate) anti-immigrant sentiments among those present.
But, we should not have been surprised - after all the group most affected by immigration are blacks. The anti-immigration views held by many in the African American community is a story the Democratic media studiously avoids.
As to immigration, the credible arguments against the massive immigration allowed by the government over the last couple of decades have nothing to do with race. I believe Alinsky recommends showing up at an anti-immigration rally pretending to be members of the KKK as a favored tactic. Leaving racist comments on a conservative blog on the subject of immigration of perfectly consistent with Alinsky style tactics.
Accordingly, many, if not most, if not all, of the racist comments made on conservative blogs are made by Democrats using Alinsky inspired tactics - the comments are so cartoonish and cliched as to be absurd, and can only be as such.
Some people are of course fooled by these tactics, but then again that is the reason why it's done. In fact, I've wondered if those expressing outrage are also Democrats. After all it doesn't take much to make an anonymous comment on a blog. The very nature of a blog is it allows comments to be made anonymously - it's the whole point.
So next time you see a racist comment, before you reflexively think "conservative" think again - it is far more likely a Democrat.
I have yet to find a single Republican - and I know PLENTY - who is in favor of the Senate's amnesty bill or anything like it. Yet it is supported by the Repubilcan leadership. How to explain this enormous divide?
There is almost no real difference between this bill and what was proposed during the Bush Presidency - and which sunk the Bush Administration. After the amnesty fight Bush did become the lowest polling President in history, falling below even Nixon.
Those weren't Democrats alone who were disapproving of Bush - a very substantial part of them were Republicans as well. And they were upset about amnesty.
So why would the Republican leadership still fight for amnesty, even though its own membership hates the idea? Why take on this fight when the people who actually make up the party - those who VOTE, that is, hate the idea? It is inexplicable, and shows you just how out of touch these people are. All one has to think of is Karl Rove, doing absolutely nothing even as the Bush Administration was being sliced and diced by Democratic media. You can somehow expect Bush to be out of touch, but Rove was supposed to be the brilliant political operative.
Turns out that, far from being brilliant, Rove was able to ride the conservative wave, and then the post 9/11 atmosphere. In other words, he got lucky - when there was no wave left to ride he was high and dry, having uselessly squandered the last best chance for the recovery of America - absent Bush and Rove there would be no Obama.
And Rove is doing it again, along with another Bush - Jeb, and McCain and all the rest - these willfully blind, arrogant men, all of whom are hell bent on destroying the Republican Party by any means possible. If their efforts succeed the party will self destruct as the rank and file leave it in droves. (and it may be already happening)
And what we will have left is a Democratic Party uber alles - 2008 all over again squared, but this time there will be no coming back.
What can you say about people like Jeb Bush, McCain, Boehner et als? I'm convinced that these are not decent people trying to do a good job - these are men of bad character, who could care less about anything other than furthering their own political careers. The ultimate irony is that they can't even do that - their arrogance has blinded them to the fact that they have no constituency, that absent the so called Tea Party conservatives there is no Republican Party. And certainly not a Party that will ever win another election - even state wide.
Watching your country wither away is an awful experience. Watching it wither away as a result of people like Jeb Bush and John McCain, John Boehner et als is infuriating - there is a reason why Dante put people like this at the bottom.
It takes an awful lot of bad to be someone worse than a Democrat but somehow the Republican leadership has acomplished it.
is there a practical difference among illegal immigrants? That is, is there a difference between an illegal who over-stayed his visa and an illegal who crossed into the US without any documentation? In partcular, is there a policy construct which could be applied to one and not the other?
@Jon - the only things that are vile and extreme are you and other illegal immigrant sympathizers.
Unfortunately, Bill Carrothers' type of rhetoric is becoming standard fare on conservative web blog comments sections with respect to this issue and the other ones I mentioned in my earlier comment. For the rightwing reactionaries now even Republicans, who the day before yesterday were darlings of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, are now routinely dismissed as "raving psychopaths" who seek to aid "renegade citizens of foreign nations" to "leech" off of us like a "cancer." Anyone who thinks this is convincing rhetoric, either as reasoning or as expression of moral sentiment is deluded. It is vile and extreme. That this rhetoric is now spewed routinely at former allies makes it all the more of a problem. The Republican Party has this problem now more so than the Democrats do, I believe. It will destroy the party if it is not criticized, rejected, and discredited very forcefully.
With over twenty million unemployed AMERICAN workers, only a raving psychopath would support the "pathway to citizenship" and amnesty ideas. There is nothing toxic about "self-deportation rhetoric", we need millions of renegade citizens of foreign nations stealing our jobs and leaching off public assistance (e.g., Obama's Aunt Zeituni) like we need cancer! The current Democratic Party stance on "immigration reform" caused me to declare them a toxic nuisance, and the Republicans are only worse.
This is one republican that will leave the party forever if anything vaguely smacking of citizenship for illegals is contemplated or allowed to happen. Better that the party should dissolve itself and cease to exist that to commit treason against the republic. Any person who who even suggest citizenship for illegal aliens is a total disgrace. people who have deliberately broken out laws. I swear by the almighty I will never vote for this Bush idiot or any of his traitor friends. I will oppose the whole lot with every fiber of my being. And that includes the little traitor Rubio. How Rubio could betray his loyal supporters by putting his previously good name on this travesty of a bill is beyond understanding. He can explain and spin from now till the next election, but under the best one can say is that he is exposed as a total incompetence and the worst one can say is that he is a treasonous liar of the worst sort.
If the Chicano vote will never go GOP why bother? I like the path to legal residency (non voting) as opposed to citizenship.
The GOP is just brain dead, fighting a losing strategy with lousy tactics. It should be pushing pro immigrant stances, legalization, amnesty, full citizenship. Stress that the only impediment is the democrats! Not only are they trying to destroy Chicano families - the same as they have done to the Black community - but all the Republicans want is the border secured. After that, all options are on the table with immigration.
Frame the issue and the debate. If only the GOP could "buy" a clue...Maybe the Koch Bros. could help!!
One poll found that Hispanic voters “by a 70-20 percent margin said they would cross party lines to vote against an anti-school choice candidate.”
That's an expressed preference.
Now let's take a look at their revealed preference as measured by their actual votes cast for anti-school choice candidate Obama. Obama 71%; Romney 27% according to the Pew Research Hispanic Center.
Go back to the drawing board, Michael Warren.
How about recommending that Republican politicians try an honest, tough love approach to governing? George Washinton advised, "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair." That, I believe would attract the people of all races, including Hispanics, who are worth attracting to the Grand Old Party of American principles. The dishonest, squishy love approach of the RINOs and crunchy cons certainly hasn't worked.
Immigration reform ought to be easy. Seal the Borders and points of entry. Make the lot of the seek to immigrate the old way.
Learn English before coming. [Mexico permits only Spanish and a few indigenous tribal languages.]
Come with enough money to be self-sustaining for a year. No food stamps, no welfare. All who are admitted have their finger-prints taken and stored in the FBI
data base. One infraction of the law, and you are gone for good.
Find a job, pay taxes, obey the law, and be a model citizen.
All aliens are run through an international data base [Russia, etc.] and it no specks appear, provisional admission [visa] is granted for one year.
Report in person to the INS at the end of one clean year, and move to conditional status. Begin to learn history and the Pledge and understand the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.
Take a final exam and a clean record.Then move to third year and perhaps citizenship.
What is wrong about serving the best and future interests of the United States?
After takin the oath of allegiance to the U.S., if there is an infraction or some crime, citizenship is revoked and deporation is immediate and without recourse or review. Fingerprints or confession indict the guilty and vindicate the innocent.
If a college or university recruits students from overseas, the college or university becomes the in loco parentis for that student. If the college or university loses that student or fails to report absence or bad grades, a several penalty is levied against the instution; the same for a business that hires approved immigrant status.
The Democrat and Republican kicking the gravel on the park lot is self-serving and is not worth of those who would lead this Nation.
I think this makes some reasonable points. However, I think it still misses the forest for the trees. First, the nativist tone now on the blog-talk radio right is truly offensive to me (a white middle class conservative), and I can well imagine what it sounds like to most Hispanics. Whether or not a "softer tone" would help win Hispanics right away, it is absolutely imperative for the health of conservatism itself that the it change the tone (and the understandings underpinning it) drastically.
As to working class resentment of immigrants and the issue of Big Government, the Republicans have, since Bush left office, failed stupendously already to make the anxious and vulnerable working class feel it has anything to gain from the Republican Party. And this will only remain the case as long as the right frames its battle with the left in terms of Big vs. Small Government. The working class can easily be helped to see its kinship, not its rivalry, with Hispanic immigrants if both are offered an "Effective Government" alternative to big or small government, and especially to the Democratic Party's rote celebration of any and all government. Entitlements need to be reformed to work BETTER, for instance, not to be reduced or increased per se. Welfare needs to get back on track to be far better engineered to foster independence not dependency. A party that appealed to both Hispanics and white working classes in these terms could unite them rather than terrifying them. But not until the current, deeply reactionary rightwing (based on talk radio, web blog comments sections, and other swamp lands) is seriously and severely challenged. By conservatives!
Finally, I suggest linking these points up with the work Sol Stern has been doing for you on the value of the Common Core initiative. CC is in my view a tepid, somewhat vague and still too weak effort to move the education blob toward a greater complexity in teaching literacy skills. On the right, the utterly lunatic rantings of Glen Beck are leading too many conservatives into a real swampland paranoia. In fact, no one thing could be more important to a more effective assimilation of immigrants, as well as to improvement in work opportunities for the working class, than this sort of more demanding and more uniform public school curriculum. That the right is fighting it in terms of protecting local control and thwarting some ludicrous conspiracy it imagines is pathetic and self-defeating in the extreme.