-->
@Imabench
Lets say your an immigrant from Mexico. You come to the US and settle in Texas. Lets say that Texas becomes hispanophone majority and Mexico gets their government non-corrupted, they get their s*** together and Mexico becomes a good place to live. Texas might want to join Mexico at this point because mexico is no longer a terrible country. Odds of Mexico becoming stable in 40 years: I don´t know. It's definitely possible though and measures need to be in place so if they do become stable, that the US won´t lose territory to them.
The other issues now are in regards to 'Must have a steady, consistent job'. The first issue is that because a lot of the jobs that Americans dont normally take also happen to be positions that have sporadic demand throughout the year. Farming seasons only last so long, construction jobs come in boom and bust cycles, etc. If those high intensity low wage positions are not considered 'steady and consistent', then the immigrant can be denied entry even though theyre willing to work an open job that Americans dont want to do but is a necessary job that needs to be done.
They need some job. If they want to be a construction worker for example, since they don´t operate year round, they would have to find a job when construction is off. Either that, or they live off of their savings, they can´t use welfare. No one should be on welfare.
The government cant even deliver mail without racking up billions in debt every year
My tax policy, that I call operation 15, can get rid of our debt in less than 15 years and it involves getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a 15% sales tax. That´s a different topic.
Im gonna need you to clarify what your belief is here because those two sentences are fairly contradictory.
My stance is the government would decide what state the immigrant lives in, but the immigrant has a say in where they go. They would be spread proportionally across the U.S on the basis of existing population. For every 2 native born Americans, there would be 1 immigrant on a state by state basis. For example, some immigrants would want to move to California and some wouldn't care, as long as they end up in the US. The ones who don´t care would have a smaller shot at getting into California than the others. Some immigrants would be fleeing violence. These immigrants would be put in locations that most immigrants don´t want to go in the US, like refugees may be put in rural states. If they are going to California to find a better job, than they would be prioritized to go to California. Even though the immigrants would have to be roughly spread out, some immigrants would want to move to NY and some to CA. Although they would be spread out, it would be aimed for most to all of those wanting to go to NY to be able to go and so on. Sorry it´s hard to explain.
im pretty sure that 160 million people want to win the lottery as well, that doesnt mean its actually going to happen.
Immigrating to the US is more likely than winning the lottery. A main thing keeping people from coming to the US is the fact that we only let 1 million immigrants a year and the US has a practical ban on immigration compared to the 160 million who would move if they could.
It could also be abused to do the exact opposite of that and force immigrants to live in three or four states total. If Trump had the power to send all immigrants from Central America to California to put a massive financial strain on the state, and then tweet about how bad the state is run because of its liberal beliefs towards immigration, do you really think he would REFRAIN from doing that?Even if there are good intentions behind the rule, it could 100% be used irresponsibly and corruptly
I see. If there is a law called the melting pot act that requires immigrants to settle in the state the gov tells them to although the immigrant gets to move where they want unless that state has too many other immigrants in it, then the president would have a hard time justifying revoking it.
The 10th Amendment specifies that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved for the States instead.
If that´s the case, the melting pot act could be a way to give the federal government the power to send certain immigrants to certain states to keep the country together and to maintain integration.
But the thing is that Hispanics who live in the US have adapted their cultural traditions into Americanized versions of those traditions over time
Right now they have, but if we were to let every single person that wants to come to the US come and stay once they do the government some favors, then Hispanic immigration would skyrocket. This would lead to a bunch of people failing to assimilate and breaking away from the country once Hispanophone supermajorities are established in the states. It´s how we got the South West US. Mexico failed to assimilate the anglophone Texans and when the Texans got angry at Mexico, they formed their own independent country and joined the US. Since there would be tensions between liberal Hispanophone communities and states and the conservative anglophone states, it would break up the US.
the same as Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans, so on and so on.
The other groups did not have the numbers to break away and they quickly assiliminated due to their lack of numbers. The Hispanics are a culturally unified group, unlike the culturally divided Europeans and Asians that came here.
Cinco de mayo isin´t even about that. It was about defeating French forces.
