People outside the southwestern US generally don't understand how much of a problem illegal immigration is.
I am as a rule a strong supporter of immigration, since I believe more people is an economic boon, and we've got more than enough room to house even ten times our current population--not that we'll ever have that many people, but we could easily find room for that many people if we did.
The President has recently proposed what some are calling an "amnesty" program for illegal alients. It is no such thing. Illegal immigrants would be given an opportunity to plead guilty to breaking the law, pay a fine, and get a temporary green card that would allow them to hold a job legally.
Victor Davis Hanson does not like the plan. I disagree with him, but as usual he makes his points extremely well.
Undoubtedly, he'll be called a racist, and that's just wrong. Most immigration opponents are not racist, and it's a nasty habit to suggest that they are. Very prejudiced, actually. Anti-immigration folks have a thoughtful position, most of the time. I just happen to think they're wrong.
I think the Bush proposal needs work, because we should be putting limits on how much a non-citizen is allowed to expect from the welfare system--I'd say a 3-5 year moratorium on being allowed to collect such benefits, or requiring one to have put in a certain number of years of work into a legitimate job, would be appropriate. I also think that beefing up border enforcement a little more would be good--although, having family in that business, I can tell you that the tools and money we put into that effort right now are considerable. I find myself wondering how many billions more some people expect us to spend, and why they don't consider that spending those billions in other ways to address the problem wouldn't be more appropriate.
I ultimately believe that a program that helps people get here more easily, legally, will reduce the press of illegals coming across the border, and make enforcement of the borders much easier. That's probably the biggest benefit to the proposal, and it's something its critics simply seem unwilling to address. Some complain that it costs us billions to deal with the public infrastructure needs of having more people here, but I merely point out that I find that rather less disturbing than having to spend billions on futile efforts to keep people out. Efforts which were failing long before the amnest programs of the 1980s.
Most of these people just want jobs, and better lives for their families. I admire that, and think we need more such people, not less.
My view is only slightly different than yours.
I think wetbacks should not be allowed any gov't aid. Furthermore, when they are caught they should have a big "I" branded on their forehead. If we catch them again they lose both legs.
"Not amnesty?" Oh, please. Legalizing illegal conduct in exchange for a nominal fine bearing no relation to the penalty called for by prior law is amnesty. This round of amnesty may not come with quite as many goodies as its 1986 counterpart, that does not mean it's not amnesty.
That said, the fact that black is black, white is white, illegals are illegals and amnesty is amnesty, does not mean that Bush's proposal is necessarily wrong. My view is that it is a horrible idea in a vacuum, but would be a reasonable one if coupled with a massive increase in border controls and aggressive efforts to deport all illegals who don't qualify for this "non-amnesty" amnesty.
As long as they understand and respect our Constitutional rights and freedoms, I have no problem with them. We need to screen out those who want in in order to overthrow our way of life. I'm tired of certain Leftists calling all opponents of uncontrolled immigration "racists", as they did to the noble Pim Fortuyn. Skin color has nothing to do with it, it's ideology that concerns me. A "Johnny Taliban" Swede is as deadly as the darkest-skinned Sudanese Muslim.
If Bush says it isn't amnesty, it isn't amnesty. He would never lie or mislead us. Regardless, I still think this is an excellent policy decision, and it ticks me off to have to agree with Bush on anything else. (the other being the war on terrorism)
dean, you make a good point, and the fact is that by legalizing these people means that we can collect taxes from them, which would help to pay for the increased needs in public infrastructure that, as illegals, they are already creating but, also because of their illegal status, not helping to foot the bill.
one unfortunate problem, though, and one which i think the bush plan fails to address, is that some employers actively seek out illegal immigrants to employ, as they can pay them sub-minimum wage.
Reducing the penalty for a crime is not amnesty. Yes, even if you do it retroactively.
Sorry, but it isn't, and no amount of calling that will make it that. It's no different, in substance, from a plea bargain, which is also not "amnesty."
Zach: I know that happens, and something needs to be done about it. I can only repeat my observation that if we make it possible for more of these folks to come here legitimately, that should reduce the flow of people who try to get here illegally, and make them easier to catch.
We also make it possible for some of these illegals who are now being treated so poorly to escape, go legit--and maybe turn their current employers in.
So I once again fail to see the down side here.
Geoff, Dude, where is your subtlety.
You could just as easily tag them like a moose and drop them off at the border. They keep trying to sneak back in. . . you track them everytime. Pretty soon they give up or die of thrist trying to walk across the desert.
Or, we should just go on the defensive, major public works project. Put up a wall the length of our border, electric fences and mine it on our side. That way cuts out all that branding and stuff. The "War on Illegals" we will call it, jsut like the War on Drugs. Not anymore subtle than your solution though.
But then again maybe we just arrest them, prosecute them, and when they have done their time ship them back. Repeat as necessary.
Then again we could start fining the legitimate US businesses who hire illegals by pulling their business licenses, liquor licenses etc.
Or we could just cut their legs off too.
Immigration liberalization opponents point to the cost to public infrastructure of dealing with so many people.
I keep wondering how much money they're willing to spend in order to save money, however.
If illegal immigration costs us $14 billion a year, would spending $30 billion on enforcement make a whole lot of sense?
I'd genuinely like to know: is there a point with you guys where you'll agree that we're spending too much money keeping them out? Or is it so important that it doesn't matter what it costs?
If you jail 'em, that costs money. Lots of it.
If you build a wall or barbed-wire fence, you will spend billions building it, maintaining it, and manning it so people can't get over it or under it or just cut it.
Border Patrol agents like to get paid. Their jeeps and helicopters need maintenance and periodic replacement. Special investigators to go after employers also like to get paid.
How much will the "beefed up enforcement" cost us?
And if it still doesn't work, then what? Still more money?
This is not a non-serious question. For all the talk of cost to public infrastructure, welfare costs, etc., you need to balance that with how much you're willing to spend to keep people out.
My plan, while expensive initially, will save us a fortune in the long run.
To some people it may not matter how much it costs in human lives or money. Some people would open the borders I imagine. Neither extreme makes any sense.
But when we start advocating or appearing that we are advocating those extremes the accusations of racism and fiscal irresponsibility, blah, blah blah start.
"My plan, while expensive initially, will save us a fortune in the long run."
And the cost of this plan would begin to decrease when the deterrent effect sets in?
Oh, Oh I got it, the criminal illegals would be legless and the rest of the lands south of the border would have a boom in wheel chair manufacturing and related service industries.
Work for everyone!
They would stop coming here entirely.
I am in awe.
See? I'm not such a nut after all.
This issue puts my inner libertarian at war with my inner conservative. Luckily my inner sergeant-at-arms has a big stick.
Yours,
Wince
See? I'm not such a nut after all.
Yeah, you are. That's why you're so hot, that and your huge package...
;-)
DOH!
Dean is gonna de-link me!
Why? Dean thinks yer hot too. ;-)
Just a few thoughts.
Dean, how in the world do you think we have space for 2.5 billion people? The world would be vastly different. 40 million in LA proper? 30 million in Seattle? 100 million in Chicago?
On taxes we will collect? The average per student cost is around $5000.00. As you keep bringing people in with large familes the, net difference just keeps getting larger. Now some argue that in the long run it will all balance out. Maybe. But in the long run we will all be dead.
In the short run our state budgets will collapse.
California spent $3 billion last year on immigrants.
Some say that they are just doing jobs at low pay that Americans wouldn't do. But look at it this way. Why should all of the tax payers bear the cost of low cost farm, construction and maintenance wages? If the illegal workers didn't exist, the pay would rise to the point that someone would do it. So the cost of fruit would go up. So what? Maybe people's other taxes would go down. Maybe people can do their own yard work if they can't afford the TRUE cost.
This link provides details on costs.
The other issue is simply this. Why should we, by accepting people, take the pressure off of Mexico, and other countries? Mexico in particular is in dire need of reform. We should let that kettle boil until it burst, or changes.
> People outside the southwestern US generally don't understand how much of a problem illegal immigration is.
Where are you from, Dean?
When all of you from the other states step up and share the costs with those of us in California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc., then I will believe that you deserve an equal voice in the matter. It is strangling us in California, and not just because of monetary costs. It divides our society and gives phony, left-wing mediocrities political license to call others racists and thereby garner enough votes to continue spending us into bankruptcy. Enough is enough. The needed Mexican revolution will never happen so long as we provide the safety valve.
And what about the national security implications? Doesn't anyone see the dichotomy in "National Security Bush" suggesting looser national borders?
"Reducing the penalty for a crime is not amnesty."
OK, we won't refer to it as the Bush/Fox Amnesty. We'll just call it the Bush/Fox Incentive Program Designed to Bring As Many Illegal Aliens As Possible to Our Country. Happy now?
"would spending $30 billion on enforcement make a whole lot of sense?"
We were doing enforcement 20 years ago. I doubt whether it cost anywhere even remotely close to that. And, note that by enforcement I mean enforcement in the interior, specifically workplace raids.
Under Bush's plan, workplace raids will be a necessity to make sure those wacky employers don't try to hire illegals to avoid the requirements of Bush's plan. So, why can't we just do the enforcement bit now, and see what happens?
"When all of you from the other states step up and share the costs with those of us in California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc., then I will believe that you deserve an equal voice in the matter. It is strangling us in California, and not just because of monetary costs. It divides our society and gives phony, left-wing mediocrities political license to call others racists and thereby garner enough votes to continue spending us into bankruptcy. Enough is enough. The needed Mexican revolution will never happen so long as we provide the safety valve."
Yep.
All of these people wouldn't come here if Mexico had a thriving economy sans racism. Maybe we should... Oh, wait, we don't do things like that anymore.
What I find remarkable is that people who are normally implacable foes, like Right Wing News and La Raza Nattional Committee have actually found something to agree upon: they both dislike the sound of Bush's revolutionary proposals. It almost sounds like the ones who've been in so long they don't know what it's like to be out agree with those who just got in. President Bush outclasses them all in his January 7 speech. If read it in the shadows, it incandesces with the hope and nobility of America.
Philippine Commentary
People who think we can afford more immigrants should focus on raising quotas for legal immigration instead of supporting the "amnesty".
I think Dean's as wrong on this as I've ever seen him be on any issue (which is sort of meant to be a backhanded compliment, since I ususally agree with him).
Bush's proposal is obviously an amnesty, as the overwhelming majority of Americans understand that term. However, Dean seems to have a different view of what that term means. As such, as tempting as it is to belabor the point, I suppose it's not really productive. The merits of this plan don't rise or fall according to whether it meets Dean's definition, or mine, of what constitutes an "amnesty."
What the plan unambiguously does, though, is say that American politicians, in clear rebellion against overwhelming public opinion (read Tony Blankley in the Wash Times on this point), are unwilling to enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, you illegal aliens, although you are criminals for coming here and must be deported under our laws, we're not going to do it. Accordingly, if you have violated our laws by coming here, and if you have further violated our laws by working here for several years, we're going to look the other way. All we ask is that you throw us a few bucks (and what do you want to bet that that provision gets removed from the final proposed legislation), and we'll forget about your crimes for another three years. Keep your nose relatively clean (no really serious felonies, for example), and we'll look the other way for three years after that. Eventually, we'll get tired of bugging you about it and just let you stay permanently.
As to those immigrants who've been trying to get in legally, well, the joke's on you. As to you law-abiding foreigners who would love to live in America but instead stayed in your own country rather than enter illegally, sorry, but you're not eligible. We don't want your kind around here.
In the meantime, this will make it so much easier for us American politicians, who find it such a nuisance to pay attention to who's entering our country.
For the record, I think Dean's also dead wrong about the costs of illegal immigration, as well as the difficulty in enforcing our laws as they currently exist (I think it would be easy and relatively cheap). I don't want to get into a boring numbers argument, though (but I will, if you really want). I think the bigger issue, however, is that Bush's plan shows a shocking disrespect for the notions of national security and national sovereignty. In short, I find it just plain un-American.
i hate how our tax money goes to illegals that are on wealth fare and take jobs that should go to American's. The U.S. is for American's.
Why do people think that passing this law will help?
Laws never help anything without enforcement. Thus the reason we are in the mess we are now. How many illegals do you really think are going to step forward? Why would they? Their doing just fine right now. I don't think I would risk lossing my job in 3-4 years and getting sent back to Mexico. Because if they do step forward now we know who they are and where they live.
Let's say they do step forward. How are we going to process them? Are we going to setup tents on the corners? Is the local goverment or license branch going to handle it? Your talking about Millions of people and thousand of man hours to process them. Sure they'll pay a fine but I doubt it will cover the cost.
Bush is a fine man, but there are allot of questions I have on this plan.
Brent Huczel:
"The U.S. is for American's" [sic]
Then I better go back to Europe where my ancestors came from. What is your tribe and Indian name? You sound European, too.
Dean is right. There has to be some middle ground between sending Brent Huczel and me back to Europe and not having any borders at all. We've got to get this thing under control.
"Then I better go back to Europe where my ancestors came from. What is your tribe and Indian name? You sound European, too."
Here's the tortured, Struthersian language the America Immigration Lawyer's Association uses: "America is a nation of immigrants. We are all immigrants, children or descendents of
immigrants, except for Native Americans."
If we're to believe the archeologists, even "native" Americans didn't spring fully-formed from American soil. They too came here and settled, displacing others and being displaced over hundreds of years.
In any case, I believe that when Brent Huczel says "Americans" that's shorthand for "people who were born or naturalized here and who support the concept called 'America'."
> Then I better go back to Europe where my ancestors came from.
Well, you'd better have a permission slip because those Euros are a lot more serious about their borders than we are.
There are no native Americans. There are no native anythings for that matter. It's all just a matter of who got where and at what point in history.
I'm sorry. I'm not so ready to give up on national sovereignty as many others seem to be. The immigration laws are there to help protect the integrity of this nation and I support them.
Middle ground? Bush's proposal makes a mockery of our laws and essentially results in no borders. Good for the one-world types perhaps, but not so good for America. Just what's so special about some guy who successfully snuck across the border and has thwarted detection? Why can't he wait his turn like the law-abiding folks of this world, who, by the way, just might be better residents/citizens than a guy whose main claim to fame is he was able to dodge the cops?