On the 19th, I mentioned this Wall Street Journal opinion piece opposed to illegal alien liberalization policies, and mentioned that I disagreed with it. Some folks sure got mad at me.
Now today, the same Wall Street Journal published a defense of illegal immigrant liberalization policies that pretty much says everything I would want to say.
Too many people who pride themselves on "pragmatism" refuse to take these simple arguments seriously. We currently spend more in real dollars than we have ever before to stop the flow of illegals coming in from Mexico. We've built huge walls over the easiest parts of our border to cross. We have motion sensors and observation towers that can spot the motion of even small animals from many miles away. Since 1990 we have more than quintupled the budget for border enforcement, and are now spending $3.8 billion annually just to stop people from crossing the borders--far more than we ever have, with more manpower devoted to it than at any time in our history.
Yet the flow of illegals has only increased during that time. Although more of them die in the attempt now than used to, because we're forcing them to take more dangerous paths to getting here.
My question for the restrictionist Right is simple: you complain often enough about how much money it supposedly costs us to have these people come here. By comparison, how many more billions do you want to spend to build a giant wall that these people will only tunnel under or vault over, or find some way to damage? Or get around by sea and air? How many thousands more border patrol agents do you want to hire, and how do you plan to pay for them? And by the way, how much more will you be paying the Coast Guard to stop them from coming by water via the Gulf of Mexico and the California coast?
In the 1980s we started requiring employers to verify citizenship or green card status--the net effect was the creation of a gigantic false identity black market, which is now bigger and more all-encompassing than it's ever been. What's next? Fingerprint IDs for all citizens? Voice prints and retina scans before you can get a job?
I suggest to you that the restrictionist policies you advocate have, to date, been proven utterly worthless, and actually damaging to national security in the long run.
If pragmatism rules, then at what point do we start admitting that the cost of keeping people out just might be greater than the cost of trying to make it easier for people to get here legitimately?
I continue to suggest that allowing people to plea bargain down and pay a fine, get legal worker status, and offer all illegals currently being paid substandard wages or working in substandard conditions a reward for turning in their employers, is the most prudent and practical and effective policy. Or would be, if we were just smart enough to do it. That reward for illegals to turn in their scumbag employers should include a green card, and a promise that those who cooperate in prosecuting their employers for breaking the law will be given worker visas that let them work legitimately, make it easier for them to go back home if they want to, or stay here if they want to.
If we combine this with a system that makes them ineligible for welfare benefits until they have worked at legitimate jobs for X number of years, and we otherwise get them on the payrolls, they become net economic contributors, and not drawbacks.
Doing this will also cripple the forged document market--which, by the way, is right now a great boon to organized criminals and potential terrorists.
Stand on your moral high-horse principles all you want. How much more of my money, and my security, are you willing to bargain away just so you can angrily say, "I came here legitimately, so should they?"
All just to keep out people who want... uh... jobs. Jobs that would, in many cases, be exported overseas if we didn't have that vast unskilled labor pool to help fill them here. An unskilled labor pool that, often, does in fact improve itself and turn into skilled labor. Or that produces children who do.
Throw away all that, just so we can keep out people who just want to... work? Does this really make sense?
Dean, thank you.
I think the government should hire 3 million guards for our borders. Then people can stop bitchin' and moanin' about a jobless recovery. ;-)
The Govt needs to offer an amnesty like Pres reagan did. A lot of the folks who got green cards than, and their kids, have become loyal, hardworking citizens since then. E.G: a family I know, Mexican-Americans, became legal, taking advantage of Pres Reagan's amnesty, and 2 sons ended up at West point, and both brothers are currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan today, serving our country. Well, like with any human endevour, you will find some folks screwing up, but, inthe bigger picture, most of the folks who took advantage of the 1986 amnesty, have become productive and loyal US Citizens.
Keeping people from Mexico out or even making it easier to come over here is just a band-aid to the real problem. You don't see Canadians sneaking over here for low paying jobs. What can America do to help Mexico fix the problem at home?
If pragmatism rules, then at what point do we start admitting that the cost of keeping people our just might be greater than the cost of trying to make it easier for people to get here legitimately?
Hear, hear. If you've ever known someone who's tried to immigrate legally, you'd know that the system is a complete and total mess. The legal immigration part of the INS is understaffed and underfunded and I've known plenty of immensely qualified people (a PhD from England holding a guaranteed job offer from a US university, for example) who have had enormous trouble getting a visa to stay in the US because the INS finds it easier to just refuse people when there's any tiny little issue with an application. (My friend's tiny little issue was that she and her husband origianlly entered the US with her as the primary spouse and him as the accompanying one, and they needed to switch it to having him as the primary spouse. The INS regulations are so antiquated that they don't really know how to deal with two married professionals - everything assumes a working husband with an accompanying wife - and it was easier to just kick them out of the country than to try to deal with it.)
In fact, a fairly large fraction of "illegals" in the country are people who are trying to immigrate legally, but are somewhere along the process of appealing a rejection by the INS (most immigration lawyers recommend that people who are appealing a decision stay in the country because appeals from outside the US are generally ignored - even many INS agents make this recommendation, though they do so unofficially). The simplistic formulation of, "These people are all breaking the law and deserve to be kicked out," is just wrong.
It makes little sense to really crack down on illegal immigrants without first trying to repair the process for accepting legal immigrants.
guy from Ohio stole my thunder. I think the real solution to the immigration problem is to improve the situation in Mexico, specifically, and central and south america as well.
that said, the legal immigration system in america sucks currently, and that's speaking as someone who's had two friends go through INS hell to get their green cards.
I rather see both sides of this issue. Where my parents live (a small Southern town). Illegal/legal immigration has gone through the roof. In under 18 months, the elementary school were my mother works has DOUBLED with children that can't speak any English. Sure, they're learning English, but not completely on impact. The school system there is nearing functional collapse. And you can't really blame young people for hanging out with other young people that speak the same language and culture, but now there's a gang problem. And, its true that they're taking jobs local Americans want. There are no sweat-shops in the little town where my parents live. There's a couple of factories. For some reason, one of them now hires mostly all immigrants with a referral from a "certain organization". And most of them send tremendous amounts of their checks home, so they aren't flooding the local economy with cash. They aren't even going to local churches, instead starting their own (although the local Catholic church brought in the resources to start offering services in Spanish, effectively creating a church within a church). These people are NOT melting into our society, neither are their children. And, its NOT for lack of locals trying.
Let me also point out, this is not the fault of the immigrants who are only trying to escape a worse situation. But, the locals are still wary of an "open-gate". Sure, it would theoretically make things better in that it would help squash organized crime. But ... in their minds there is the risk that it would supply that "certain organization" with unlimited human resources. They see the risk as the overwhelmingly complete destruction of their culture. Its not an irrational fear. No one can guarentee what will happen. I understand them being a little concerned. This whole thing is based on the notion that immigrants would rather be Americans than Mexicans-working-in-America. I suspect a lot of them would go "home" in a heartbeat if the economy in Mexico improved.
And you mentioned workers turning in their employers. Yeah, THAT will require the federal witness protection program. Would YOU be willing to risk your family like that? Not being snide, just a thought about the real risk those immigrants would be taking.
In the end, I agree that something must be done. I hope this is the best thing to do. I think its a good idea. But, time will tell.
People should remember how long it took former immigrant groups to assimilate. In places such as St. Paul and Milwaukee, there were German language newspapers in the early 1900's being run by 3rd, 4th and 5th generation German-Americans. In Nebraska, the 1925 Meyers Supreme Court case involved a Lutheran school teaching German. The German settlers there had not merely lived in Nebraska for some time, they actually had moved there from a more eastern state here! One of the biggest impediments to assimilation is the perception that the surrounding community is a hostile one. It was the suburbanization process that actually assimilated many of the Eastern urban immigrants. Actually addressing the concerns of our Hispanic neighbors as they see them, not what we think they should be or what some group of "leaders" think they should be, is the first step. They can be assimilated, but let us not make the mistakes of the earlier attempts.
Heh. I live in a community where you can easily find Spanish, Arabic, and Polish language newspapers. It hasn't screwed my life up. The kids all wind up learning English because that's what's taught in the public schools. (Which, frankly, is how it should be so far as I'm concerned.)
Every Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, I wind up at a big family dinner with several people who speak mostly Polish. We manage to get drunk together just fine.
Take the troops out of Germany and South Korea, and post 'em at the Mexican border. Problem solved.
can't we use illegal aliens to generate solar energy? I don't know how, but it seems very practical.
Local law enforcement officers have their hands bound because they do not have a federal government that will authorize them to address issues of the illegals with whom they come in contact on a daily basis.
There is no federal mandate and no national "will" that effectively addresses the illegal immigrant issues. Bush's proposal is an arbitrary smoke and mirrors political-business proposal that doesn't address the real issues. Please don't tell us how complex the problem is. For the illegal, it is simply a transportation problem. The problems are solvable. If the federal government refuses to address the problems, then we need new leaders in office.
The Nativists seem to think that getting rid of 9 million illegals would be simple. As you correctly point out, it would actually involve a great deal of infringement of our rights.
Immigration P.1
Immigration P.2
My response to this editorial is here, and several responses to this article are now available. See also Guest worker program offers lessons: Bush might profit by German experience.
I've included the comment I sent to the WSJ below. They either don't understand this issue, or they're misleading their readers:
"Since 1990 we have more than quintupled the budget for border enforcement"
Yes, but once they're past the border, they're home free. We'll give them free health care, free education, college tuition at a lower rate than out-of-state citizens, driver's licenses, everything they need. And, they don't need to worry about workplace raids anymore, because such things hardly exist nowadays.
"In the 1980s we started requiring employers to verify citizenship or green card status--the net effect was the creation of a gigantic false identity black market, which is now bigger and more all-encompassing than it's ever been. What's next? Fingerprint IDs for all citizens? Voice prints and retina scans before you can get a job?"
The WSJ gets a bit hysterical too. But, see this page:
"I suggest to you that the restrictionist policies you advocate have, to date, been proven utterly worthless, and actually damaging to national security in the long run."
Policies mean little if they aren't enforced. Interior enforcement was done years ago, and it can be done again. It will most assuredly have to be done under the Bush/Fox Amnesty, so why don't we just start doing it now?
I think we've already had that answer:
Personally, I think she and Bush need to find new jobs.
Dean, I don't know where you get the idea that border enforcement has been aggressive over the past decade. It hasn't been. In 1994, Californians voted overwhelmingly to deny taxpayer-funded services to illegals; courts struck it down. Since then, we've begun offering in-state tuition to illegals, and many cities' cops are not even allowed to report known illegals in their custody to INS. Not that INS is exactly quick on the draw, either, else illegal alien Alvaro Tejeda would not have allowed the Ass. Press to photograph him and indentify him by name, age, and city of residence.
It's all well and good for someone living nowhere near the Mexican border to argue that illegal immigration is no big deal. After all, from your standpoint, it is no big deal. The nation as a whole enjoys all the major benefits of illegal immigration (e.g.,cheap produce, mostly), while border states bear almost all of the costs (over-use of public services, increased crime, etc.).
Yes, but once they're past the border, they're home free. We'll give them free health care, free education, college tuition at a lower rate than out-of-state citizens, driver's licenses, everything they need
Wait a minute. If these people are making $2/hour, how can they afford the tuition, at "in state" rates or not?
Other than that, I've also already said they should be denied welfare benefits until they've worked X years legitimately. So now what's your beef?
Dean, I don't know where you get the idea that border enforcement has been aggressive over the past decade.
Then you did not bother to read the article I linked, which shows clearly that we spend more on border enforcement than we ever have, have more sophisticated border enforcement than we ever have, have more extensive border enforcement than we ever have, and employ more people on border enforcement than we ever have, right now, today. All to the tune of over $3 billion.
Where do you get the idea that we ever had more than we do now?
In 1994, Californians voted overwhelmingly to deny taxpayer-funded services to illegals; courts struck it down.
Yes, that is quite true. Mind you, it is a completely separate issue, but it's true.
Which is why I advocate for Federal reforms to fix that particular problem, in conjunction with other liberalization efforts.
Since then, we've begun offering in-state tuition to illegals...
So, once again, this is "in-state tuition" for people who make well-below the minimum wage and can barely pay their rent, right?
Either that, or it's to people who are working at jobs where they pay taxes, they're just doing it illegally. Right?
In-state tuition is your big issue? Is that the crux of this?
It's all well and good for someone living nowhere near the Mexican border to argue that illegal immigration is no big deal...
I grew up in El Paso, Texas. I speak a good bit of Spanish. My stepmother is Mexican. My stepfather was Border Patrol, and retired as the Assistant Director of the INS enforcement division in Texas a few years ago. My brother worked Border Patrol until early last year, when he got a job as an enforcement agent for the new Department of Homeland Security.
So please, let's not talk about what I do or do not understand here. I get the problem perfectly. I am advocating for reforms that will work better than the ridiculous efforts to enforce border security that do not and never have worked, but are costing us more and more money as taxpayers every year.
There are better ways to address the problem than throwing STILL MORE money at an enforcement system we're already spending more on than ever, and is leaking like a rusted out bucket full of bullet holes regardless.
I'm curious: should we extend the idea of open borders to just give everyone in the world a vote in American politics? Plenty of europeans would love to vote for a non-bush candidate as it is.
This was actually one of the topics Eugene Volokh addressed on his first day, and ever since: immigration policy is deciding who your future voters will be. South America is largely socialist and catholic; if we open our borders and have a complete flood of south americans (and heck, let's include arabs and africans), what do you think would happen to gay rights? Do you think that we'd still be avoiding the disaster of a single-payer insurance system that will give us all the benefits of Canada or the UK's medical system?
The problem with open borders is not economic; without trade tariffs, most jobs can easily be exported across the border simply by mexican companies under-cutting american companies. We already have this sort of thing now, and we've reaped most of the economic benefits of open borders from free trade.
The problem with open borders is political. The US has a small portion of the world's population. If we were to truly open up our borders, politics would change substantially.
Not to mention, if we import half of africa, where the idea of honest government is a myth, what do you think will happen here? Dishonesty and corruption run rampant in many countries in SA and Africa (as one African told me, in Camaroon people are afraid of the police because the police are mostly there to extract bribes). Do you think if we import people from these countries in heretofore unheard of numbers, that somehow they'll come but the culture of corruption won't?
I don't mean that every person from these cultures will import corrupt, or even that most will. But if we import huge numbers of people from these cultures, why would we somehow not import their problems, as well?
In fact, I want to observe something here:
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU who is arguing with me has actually told me why my proposals will not work.
In fact, you haven't even addressed my proposals. At all.
I find that rather telling.
In fact, here they are again, in one pithy place, just so no one can miss them:
1) Allow illegals to plead down to a misdemeanor and pay a fine that amounts to more than doing it the proper way would have cost.
2) Offer green cards or worker passes to allow legitimate employment and residency status to anyone who turns in an employer who pays below minimum wage or does not meet normal workplace standards.
3) Deny government benefits to any alien who has not paid taxes in this country for at least three years.
I suggest to you that all of the above will destroy the illegal documentation industry, give illegals incentive to turn legal and become productive members of society, and will work better than enforcement efforts which have been proven to fail, and if you don't believe they've been proven to fail, then read the article I linked in my main article again before arguing with me, and then tell me why it's wrong.
Dean,
Failure is not a binary matter, unless you consider our entire criminal justice system a failure because crime still goes on. To say that our immigration system is a complete failure, you'd have to show that if we did absolutely nothing, there would little or no additional illegal immigration. Based on what you said, I don't think that you're prepared to argue that the current system is a complete failure.
Absent that, though, you have to argue not that your system will achieve something, but that it will achieve more than the current system does. Do you really mean to argue that an open borders policy with some unenforced regulations will be a substantial improvement over current attempts?
What you need to show is not just that your proposals might achieve what they intend to, but that they won't achieve anything else. More simply, you also need to explain why your proposals aren't letting the camel's nose in the tent. That's severely non-obvious.
My ancestors came here illegally! They just got on a ship, crossed the Atlantic and made a land grab in an area 100 miles or so south of Plymouth.
None the less, I think we need some legal, workable system of work visas. And no, the jobs they take are almost all jobs that no one will take (since we made it all but impossible for children to hold part time jobs; after school ya know?).
Last time S. Korea had an unemployment crisis, the kicked out half a million guest workers (maybe equivalent to five million in our economy) and then couldn't get any Koreans to take those jobs.
I don't like the idea of illegals, I just want something that will work.
Excuse me? I started this thread, provided documentation, and asked questions.
The data remain unaddressed, the questions unanswered.
I don't know how to point that out without seeming impolite. Sorry.
Here, again, to be very clear, are the questions I kicked off this thread with:
My question for the restrictionist Right is simple: you complain often enough about how much money it supposedly costs us to having these people come here. By comparison, how many more billions do you want to spend to build a giant wall that these people will only tunnel under or vault over or find some way to damage? Or get around by sea and air? How many thousands more border patrol agents do you want to hire, and how do you plan to pay for them? And by the way, how much more will you be paying the Coast Guard to stop them from coming by water via the Gulf of Mexico and the California coast?
In the 1980s we started requiring employers to verify citizenship or green card status--the net effect was the creation of a gigantic false identity black market, which is now bigger and more all-encompassing than it's ever been. What's next? Fingerprint IDs for all citizens? Voice prints and retina scans before you can get a job?
I suggest to you that the restrictionist policies you advocate have, to date, been proven utterly worthless, and actually damaging to national security in the long run.
If pragmatism rules, then at what point do we start admitting that the cost of keeping people our just might be greater than the cost of trying to make it easier for people to get here legitimately?
And here, once again, is data showing that our enforcement efforts today are tougher, more extensive, and more expensive than ever before, and absolutely failing.
So.
Can we address those questions, and that data, please? How many more billions per year do you want to spend of my money, before you will consider the possibility that the money might be better spent elsewhere?
Dean,
You seem to be promoting a more or less open borders strategy. Such a strategy is a political disaster waiting to happen (for reasons I briefly outlined, and reasons many others have explained far better). Before answering your questions about why or why not your proposals might work to their goal, there is the obvious and more important question of whether or not they will, why won't they create an unmitigated disaster.
You seem to be talking about putting port-holes below sea level, and asking why this wouldn't give us a great view. I humbly ask to know why this won't sink the ship, before I discuss the view it will give. Why won't your (apparently) open immigration policy create a political disaster? If you can't explain that, what is the point in debating how effectively it will raise GDP or reduce spending?
Ok, let's try this again:
"My question for the restrictionist Right is simple: you complain often enough about how much money it supposedly costs us to having these people come here. By comparison, how many more billions do you want to spend to build a giant wall that these people will only tunnel under or vault over or find some way to damage?"
Billions for defense, not one cent for tribute.
"In the 1980s we started requiring employers to verify citizenship or green card status--the net effect was the creation of a gigantic false identity black market, which is now bigger and more all-encompassing than it's ever been."
Making something illegal always creates a criminal element around it. There's now an entire class of countries dedicated to making the parts for nuclear bombs (as described by wretchard of The Belmont Club). The mere existence of a black market does not imply that legalization is the strategy. Or should we stop spending all this money on defense and offer amnesty to North Korea and Libya and so on and put a few bureaucratic regulations on their nuke programs? Again, the mere existence of a black market to get around laws does not make them bad laws; this is often an inevitability. Sometimes we just have to live with such a thing and fight it, much in the way that living means that we have to fight bacteria and viruses. Utopia is not available in this world. Failure to attain it does not, in itself, mean that we should scrap our current system.
"I suggest to you that the restrictionist policies you advocate have, to date, been proven utterly worthless"
Please cite the study of a United States with open borders policies, no immigration officials or INS, which has equal or lesser immigration (by definition it would have no illegal immigration, but what we really care about is total immigration anyway). Failing such a study, your claims cannot be verified. Nor does it seem likely that in this case, a lack of border patrol would discourage immigration. If you mean to claim that having a border patrol to keep people out encourages immigration, you've got a lot of explaining to do. The suggestion is on its face absurd (though more absurd things have turned out to be true; they just require a lot of evidence to be acceptable).
"If pragmatism rules, then at what point do we start admitting that the cost of keeping people our just might be greater than the cost of trying to make it easier for people to get here legitimately?"
Right around the time that nuking mexico is admitted to be more practical than letting mexicans in. Nukes are cheap (in the long run), and if mexicans don't exist, they can't illegally immigrate. Let's not let practicality rule, it's a nasty system. And please don't call your particular combination of practicality and idealism (e.g. being practical but valuing mexican life above its dolar value because they're human beings) true "practicality", whereas others are being idealist because they also value, for example, american culture and want to minimize unassimulated populations or ghettos (which are essentially unstopable when you have truly mass immigration).
Not to mention, if you want to keep it to purely economic terms, if we let too many mexicans in they'll probably vote democratic, give us health care like france's, and bankrupt the country. South America tends to be socialist in comparison to america; it is logical that they will vote this way when they come here (they tend to as it is), and we all know where socialism leads, economically.
"And here, once again, is data showing that our enforcement efforts today are tougher, more extensive, and more expensive than ever before, and absolutely failing."
Now give a link to the data which shows that there is an equal or lesser attempt at illegal immigration. Absent that, your data proves exactly nothing.
An analogy: expenditures on medical care are up, yet 5x the number of people died this year as last year. Conclusion: spending more on medical care kills people. What I'm not telling you: I'm talking about europe during the onset of the bubonic plague.
Until you show that no more people are trying to immigrate illegally, an increased number of successes proves nothing about the relative efficacy of current enforcement efforts.
Now can you explain how your system won't provoke a political disaster?
I don't see how an "immigration amnesty" or guest work program leads to open borders. It's NOT the same thing.
What it is, is a selectively porous border for people who want to play by the rules if given a reasonable chance. It leads to dignity and protection for workers, (who are going to be here anyway unless we ship so many of OUR jobs overseas that we all have to pick lettuce) and a more rational border system.
Down here on the border, there are way too many people with guns. Way too many people dying in the desert. And the people who just want to earn a living provide great cover to the people who want to run drugs or, disgustingly, prostitutes (for anyone who read the NY Times magazine this weekend. Side argument: what should be the punishment for men who have sex with child prostitutes?)
Down here on the border, Mexican laborers are working hard for jobs and wages that no American wants. Now, Americans might want them if they paid properly--but as long as there are illegals with no recourse, they won't be, and they can be exploited. This is one of the things Dean is getting at, I think.
Provide legal recourse for decent working folk who want to become Americans the same way floods of Irish, Germans, and Chinese did. Bring them into the mainstream. Teach them English. And focus border control efforts on the ones who don't aspire to decent work.
But there are two essential additional parts of this.
One, is to help Mexico fight corruption and poverty and bootstrap itself up, so that there is a future there for her own people.
Two, do something about the INS. I got a lotta respect for the Border Patrol, but the INS seems to be full of petty literalists. Kinda like the IRS run wild in another direction.
I agree with CTL. Anybody who is anti-Semitic, or anti-homosexual, or for any reason does not understand and wholeheartedly believe in our Bill of Rights and Constitutional form of government (as they were written, _not_ as amended to impose Shari'a!), does not belong in my country. No Nazis. No Communists. No totalitarians of any kind. If you come to my country, you must agree to respect my freedoms. If they don't, then -- boot 'em out.
I.T.,
So dean's proposal isn't going to be an ongoing thing, only just this once? And the defunding of border patrol and so on, because dean's proposal will work and save us huge amounts of money, won't result in open borders.
Wow, I sure was confused there. So this is a one-time only deal which won't change normal enforcement in any way. Then how will it save money?
"Throw away all that, just so we can keep out people who just want to... work? Does this really make sense?"
Your "just want to work" crowd do not also want to pay taxes, want to drive without license and insurance, want to use the health systems and the educational systems, want to undercut legal workers by working illegally for less wages, etc...It is costing California taxpayers four (4)
billions dollars per year. Besides that they have
no allegiance to the USA. In short, they are parasitic criminals in violation of laws our own nation refuses to address adequately.
I don't have a beef with #1, I just don't see that happening. More importantly, perhaps, neither do the illegals. Just last week, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that more than half
I don't have a beef with #1, I just don't see that happening. More importantly, perhaps, neither do the illegals. Just last week, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that more than half of the illegals caught since Jan. 7 cited President Bush's non-amnesty amnesty proposal as the reason for coming. I don't think they would have done this if they expected to be slapped with "a fine that amounts to more than doing it the proper way would have cost."
I think the IRS and INS should be locked in a room and forced to try to out "logic" the other team. Their heads would collectively explode and we'd all be better off.
There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can afford reduced college tuition. You can even get some of their sob stories names here. Not all illegals are peasants or poor.
"In-state tuition is your big issue?"
It's not my big issue. However, it is quite telling. Let me summarize: some Americans want to give illegal aliens a better deal than their own fellow citizens. I've got a response for them, but I can't type it in a family forum.
"There are better ways to address the problem than throwing STILL MORE money at an enforcement system we're already spending more on than ever, and is leaking like a rusted out bucket full of bullet holes regardless."
Whatever. As I've said a few times before, put 50 executives in federal prison for committing immigration crimes, and we'll see a sudden shift in this issue. The WSJ, Bush, and the rest of the problem will suddenly become part of the solution.
"Provide legal recourse for decent working folk who want to become Americans"
We already do. It's called legal immigration.
As for the subject proposal, we will always have illegal immigration. And, illegal immigration will always undercut any policy, no matter how good it is.
Let me know when Bush is serious about illegal immigration. Based on his assistant laughing when it was suggested that they just enforce the laws, I think we need to get Bush a new job.
If you think we spend a lot on border enforcement, then you need to add up the numbers for education costs, health care and crime. This article on the illegal alien crime wave is shocking:
"• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation."
That's only a small part of the article. Read the whole thing.
If we built a wall between the US and Mexico, we'd save tons of money. What I think we need to do is change the law to allow local enforcement of immigration laws, change the law so any local judge can sign an order to deport someone immediately, for the millions of law-abiding illegals give them some sort of legal status, deport the criminals (you could deport more than half of entire gangs!), build the wall, anyone who hasn't signed up for legal status and is an illegal alien will be deported if found after a certain date, no health care, education, etc for anyone illegal after a certain date, then once the economy has rebounded create a work program for Mexico as well as a massive billion dollar nation-building fund to spur development/improve living conditions/build schools in Mexico. Get serious with Mexico about the need for internal reforms. The US should not have to be the Department of Social Services for Mexico.
At the very least, can we begin deporting the tens of thousands of illegal felons as well as illegal gang members?
There are so many great posts on this issue and who wouldn't love to hit them all.
Being born in a border town from and raised with Mexicans was my way of life. My dad was a U.S. Veteran that served during World War II. He had many friends there on the border of Texas and New Mexico. I went on many sales job trips w/him and he was terrific w/his funny way of talking to locals that grew up in that region. Many American Mexicans were worried about their jobs if too many illegals came in. His spanish was pretty good. I admired that.
Point is he had served our country and loved the mexicans we grew up with. He like so many if you get real honest, were afraid of what would happen when the war was over and the refugees we brought in. He also loved his hometown in Texas and was really a brillant man. His studies of politics was amazing and he watched what was happening everyday! He studied that newspaper from cover to cover along with many books on science and religion. He knew his country and he like others was watching things change around the border and he grew angry. That would bring us up to the 70's 80's & 90's.
Dean, your post is quite good.
I am on the other side a bit. I know what you are printing here and you can see this issue is a hard one.
O.K. In my opinion however, spending money on the equipment that the Border Patrol needs, Customs and Homeland Security it is vital to OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
I am on the side of protecting our borders and I believe you are too. We differ in how we see the border of Mexico right now. It is a very dangerous situation and it has to do with defense. The whole wall is not the problem, never ever would America do that. It is our country trying to enforce Legal immigration, for we have to abide by that.
This is politics and it is serious. I feel as bad for the men and women here inside the United States as well as I do men and women serving in the war now. Our defense is priceless. Those upholding the law for our country are watching our Borders day & night with that high technology equipment. They are not looking just for those people crossing the border illegally, they are looking for that highly trained person or persons to do us harm. We have patrols specially trained called BORTAC, that are like Navy Seals and I for one am thankful we have those elite groups defending us WITHIN and outside, slipping undercover into foreign countries watching out for our welfare.
It is no different than the jets that fly over the country from the armed forces to protect us, to look for leaks in the system. Those are things my Dad & I talked about and he would bring things to my attention, no kidding...he was as sharp as a tack. Those veterans are a proud group as you well know and they can make some off handed racial remarks. I heard it many times growing up, but I knew down deep it was because people like that many times just get hot under the collar because they fear what is happening on our soil.
Now you can pay me no mind cause I grew up in the...Uuh, drats, dittidly wat...the ole' gal here, checking in on you puttering around with a few thoughts I stand on. Good post.
It is hard for those serving to see families come up here from Mexico. It is the trajedy to hear the stories of some of our men & women that go home at night and feel we are not behind them like our soldiers in Iraq. It is hard for them to have to answer to new political changes.
Look to other countries where people too are lining up to come to America. They too from our lands as England, Poland & Ireland are having to wait a mighty long time to ENTER LEGALLY.
There are so many great posts on this issue and who wouldn't love to hit them all.
Being born in a border town from and raised with Mexicans was my way of life. My dad was a U.S. Veteran that served during World War II. He had many friends there on the border of Texas and New Mexico. I went on many sales job trips w/him and he was terrific w/his funny way of talking to locals that grew up in that region. Many American Mexicans were worried about their jobs if too many illegals came in. His spanish was pretty good. I admired that.
Point is he had served our country and loved the mexicans we grew up with. He like so many if you get real honest, were afraid of what would happen when the war was over and the refugees we brought in. He also loved his hometown in Texas and was really a brillant man. His studies of politics was amazing and he watched what was happening everyday! He studied that newspaper from cover to cover along with many books on science and religion. He knew his country and he like others was watching things change around the border and he grew angry. That would bring us up to the 70's 80's & 90's.
Dean, your post is quite good.
I am on the other side a bit. I know what you are printing here and you can see this issue is a hard one.
O.K. In my opinion however, spending money on the equipment that the Border Patrol needs, Customs and Homeland Security it is vital to OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
I am on the side of protecting our borders and I believe you are too. We differ in how we see the border of Mexico right now. It is a very dangerous situation and it has to do with defense. The whole wall is not the problem, never ever would America do that. It is our country trying to enforce Legal immigration, for we have to abide by that.
This is politics and it is serious. Well, down in Texas not long ago, no not just Texas, California too. Agents were told to hault and SIT. They could no longer go into Fine Establishments and the like, why? You guessed it...it was the right or the left in politics. Pressure in politics make it that way...got to make our figures look good for this group or that group. I feel as bad for the men and women here inside the United States as well as I do men and women serving in the war now. Our defense is priceless. Those upholding the law for our country are watching our Borders day & night with that high technology equipment. They are not looking just for those people crossing the border illegally, they are looking for that highly trained person or persons to do us harm. We have patrols specially trained called BORTAC, that are like Navy Seals and I for one am thankful we have those elite groups defending us WITHIN and outside, slipping undercover into foreign countries watching out for our welfare.
It is no different than the jets that fly over the country from the armed forces to protect us, to look for leaks in the system. Those are things my Dad & I talked about and he would bring things to my attention, no kidding...he was as sharp as a tack. Those veterans are a proud group as you well know and they can make some off handed racial remarks. I heard it many times growing up, but I knew down deep it was because people like that many times just get hot under the collar because they fear what is happening on our soil.
Now you can pay me no mind cause I grew up in the...Uuh, drats, dittidly wat...the ole' gal here, checking in on you puttering around with a few thoughts I stand on. Good post.
It is hard for those serving to see families come up here from Mexico. It is the trajedy to hear the stories of some of our men & women that go home at night and feel we are not behind them like our soldiers in Iraq. It is hard for them to have to answer to new political changes.
Look to other countries where people too are lining up to come to America. They too from our lands as England, Poland & Ireland are having to wait a mighty long time to ENTER LEGALLY.
Oops, sorry...using just a few fingers here, didn't mean to double post.
NO, THE SECOND POST HAS A PARAGRAPH ABOUT POLITICS STOPPING PATROLS AGENTS IN TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA FROM...above.
I should sign, FINGERS DANCING.
So much misinformation here, I scarcely know where to begin.
Dean: "I suggest to you that the restrictionist policies you advocate have, to date, been proven utterly worthless, and actually damaging to national security in the long run."
The "restrictionist policies I advocate" have never been tried. Trust me. As an attorney, I've handled immigration cases. Even in the 1 in 10,000 cases that the government actually picks somebody up and holds a deportation hearing, we rarely ever deport anyone. If they don't show up for the date of deportation, that pretty much ends the inquiry. My policies are simple and cheap. Deport the ones we catch. Punish employers that hire. Extremely simple, and it's never been tried.
Warrior: "The Govt needs to offer an amnesty like Pres reagan did."
Yeah, and as soon as Reagan did that, illegal immigration rates skyrocketed, and have remained far higher than they were before.
Libertarian: "People should remember how long it took former immigrant groups to assimilate."
Actually, that's false. In the overwhelming majority of cases, children of immigrant families assimilated within a generation, largely because of going to schools that forced them to learn English. There are exceptions, but they are extremely rare. That's not the case with today's spanish-speaking immigrants.
Catch22: "Local law enforcement officers have their hands bound because they do not have a federal government that will authorize them to address issues of the illegals with whom they come in contact on a daily basis."
That's wrong. There's no question of the feds "authorizing" anything. On the contrary, most major U.S. cities (including New York, Chicago, and L.A.) have laws forbidding police from inquiring about the immigration status of people they arrest, or from reporting immigration status to the federal authorities.
Dean, I think I've answered the question you posed originally, by pointing out that we haven't yet made any serious attempt to enforce our immigration laws. As for your specific policy suggestions:
"1) Allow illegals to plead and pay a fine...
"2) Offer green cards or worker passes to allow legitimate employment and residency status to anyone who turns in an employer who pays below minimum wage or does not meet normal workplace standards.
"3) Deny government benefits to any alien who has not paid taxes in this country for at least three years."
You ask why these ideas won't "work." That's the wrong question. In order to decide whether they "work," you have to decide what the goal is. In other words, what would constitute success. For you, the goal appears to be generally open borders, and an immigration policy that pretty much lets anyone who wants to come here. In that sense, your suggestions will "work." They'll also reduce illegal immigration... by making almost all immigration legal!
Your goals are not shared by a majority of Americans. Poll after poll show that Americans, by huge majorities (80+%), want illegals kept out, benefits denied, and employers who hire them punished. I do not want to continue importing more than a million immigrants every year from any country (the approximate number of illegals that come here every year), much less one where the people do not speak our language. It's not good for our country.
Dean said, "Every Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, I wind up at a big family dinner with several people who speak mostly Polish. We manage to get drunk together just fine."
I would like to point out that while our family get togethers have a large number of people that speak mostly Polish. That isn't to say that they don't also speak English. At our family dinners the Polish flows as freely as the vodka. Every single person in my family is completely fluent in English. All of them.
My family started coming here in the mid-sixties. They all wanted to be AMERICAN. They all learned English. My parents tried hard to speak English to their children, not Polish, for the first few years. They needed to learn English to survive here and so did we. My parents learned English by watching movies and television. I think that my Dad also learned that special English only a machine shop will teach. ;-)
When I was younger I thought that my parents ripped us off by not teaching us Polish. I see now that they didn't because THEY needed to assimilate and they wanted their kids to be normal Americans.
My aunt, uncle and two cousins got here in 1993. They girls were about 10 and 12. They both are in University of Michigan now. They both graduated H.S with honors and completely fluent in English.
If you come here because you want to be free and be an American, you will do what it takes to be American. If you aren't willing to try you should get out.
Wow. Big thread. Lots o' posts. This rocks. :)
Spoons, I take it then that you agree with with John Derbyshire has been saying over at NRO, that all that is really needed is to enforce the laws on the book?
I've seen your statement that the previous amnesty caused illegal immigration to skyrocket made by several different folks in different places.
I think Spoons has raised some interesting point. I can't wait to hear what Dean has to say about them. :)
I just finished skimming through the 80 minute video of a Cato conference, and I think I can safely say I fear for my country. [The realmedia file is 80Megs, but I downloaded it in greater-than-realtime for offline viewing using a program called 'Offline Explorer Pro'].
This conference features the laugh I linked to twice above:
Seriously, when a political aide cynically laughs about enforcing the law, you know it's time for a change.
Here are two other statements Margaret Spellings made:
In other words, our "guest workers" will have children and will be here to stay. And, those earning $40 or $60 or $100 or $200 per hour will be in for a rude awakening as a million people from China and India start bidding on their jobs.
Dean, I respect you and your opinions but I have two serious problems with your ideas. Is this program temporary or permanent? If temporary, why bother? We will be right back here in a few years. If permanent then be prepared for a doubling of arrivals immediately and a stedy increase perpetually. Mexico's economy is broken. Unless that country undergoes truly revolutionary change it will not be able to support its population for the forseeable future and probably forever. Almost every Mexican I know is as decent as the next guy but the country is nearly hopeless.Our current Mexican nationals send nearly $2 billion home annually. Your amnesty would remove any incentive to stay in Mexico and for the Mexican government to even try to improve the situation.
Your three step plan will last as long it takes the ninth circuit to declare all the items in step 3 unconstitutional and discriminatory. I'd like to see a sensable increase in legal immegration and a complete redo of the INS. That can't happen until we control the border and we aren't really trying. The "serious" efforts to improve the Border Patrol and the INS have been expensive and cosmetic. Unless we are willing to spend the money and time to gain control, we might as well do as you suggest, open the border and just give up.
I think some folks have expressed the concept that it doesn't matter what legal channels you open for some people, there will always be people who do not fit into those channels--there will ALWAYS be illegal immigration, and the network that supports it. No matter where you draw the line, even if you make it simpler than it is today to come and work here, there will still be people who work on the fringes.
What is the objective/goal of your proposals, Dean? To make it easier for people that are already here to stay here (who broke the law by doing it the way they did)? Or, to make it easier for others to come here without breaking the law? It seems as if you are trying to expand immigration, but not call it that, or that you believe that there is some tweaking of the laws that would stop illegal immigration. That isn't realitic. There will always be people who break the law to get here.
My objective, Mrs. du Toit, is to get the situation better under control and more easily and practically manageable.
"There are always people who will break the law." Yes. But within the law, we also give in when we finally notice that a law is so draconian it is actually making the situation worse. Most police will tell you that they have fewer issues with managing those who drive fast and recklessly now that we've done away with the ridiculous 55mph speed limit and increased it back up to a more reasonable 70mph, by way of direct example.
The tighter you grip your hand, the more will slip through your fingers.
The simple fact is that there is a direct correlation between much tougher immigration laws and a massive illegal immigration increase. 20 years ago, one had to have only a Social Security number to be employed. Now we have papers that must be filled out, tax forms that must be sworn, laws which punish employers for not checking on their employees' legality, we have much tougher border enforcement, far more manpower devoted to stopping the illegals--and a much bigger illegal population, and a much bigger black market for forged documents, and much more hassles for businesses, most especially small business.
To what effect? More illegals than ever.
Billions in direct costs, quintuple what we once spent, and this not even measuring the indirect costs associated with the extra hassles for employers.
Now the proposal is that if we spend still more billions, and hassle employers even further, we are sure that this time, this time, we will be able to cut down on the problem? Why should I believe for even one second that that is true, and that my money isn't simply being wasted on measures which have proven ineffective?
I don't like living in an America where I must have a Social Security card just to be allowed to work for someone, and where soon we may have to have national ID cards just to avoid the scary possibility that some foreigner might also apply for a job. I'm sorry, I don't like it a bit, and for all the billions that the restrictionists have already spent, they want billions more, all to make it even more of a hassle, to, what?
Oh yeah. Not allow certian people to have jobs.
As if more hands adding to our economic might are a liability, rather than an assett, to our economy.
More immigration? I'm fine with it. But even if I were not, the simple fact is that we have the toughest enforcement efforts today that we have ever had in the entire history of our country--and any of you who doubt this simply do not know what you are talking about. Yet these efforts are an utter failure, simply forcing people underground who'd rather be above-ground, and making no net positive difference.
It is time for pragmatism. These people are coming. If it is going to cost us money to build public infrastructure, how much more is that, versus the cost of greater intrusions upon private businesses, upon private citizens, on lost productivity from dealing with the hassles of extra paperwork for everyone, and still more billions (on top of the billions we're already spending now annually), to what effect?
Give people a disincentive to cheat. Give people an incentive to become above-board and actually become taxpayers rather than living on the fringes. Don't give them free benefits from the public teat, make them work for them instead.
I continue to ask my question, and let me just make it very clear:
Is there ANY POINT WHATSOEVER in which any of you on the restrictionist right will NOT conclude that it's cheaper to find alternative ways to deal with the problem?
Or is there absolutely no limit to how much you will spend, and how many intrusions you will allow upon private citizens and businesses?
From what I can see, the answer for many of you is "none." Enforcement measures are never counterproductive, they are always worthwhile, and there is no cost/benefit ratio to speak of. That's the message I'm getting.
The thread was too long to read all the way through, so I'll add my 2 cents...which may have already been added.
Anyone who is willing to risk their life and sacrifice everything to come here...and want to be here...deserves to be here. They are already Americans in my book.
I cannot answer every inquiry here.
I do not advocate open borders. I never said that.
I do advocate permanent reform.
I advocate making it easier to get legal resident/worker status, not easier to become a citizen or easier to vote.
I believe this will make it easier to control undesirables crossing our borders, to toss out undesirables.
Oh yeah, and I'm glad the Bush people laughed--they know the laws we have now cannot possibly be enforced without an order of magnitude more funding and even more draconian laws. They apparently understand the realities better than most of you do.
"Poll after poll show that Americans, by huge majorities (80+%), want illegals kept out, benefits denied, and employers who hire them punished. I do not want to continue importing more than a million immigrants every year from any country (the approximate number of illegals that come here every year)...Spoons"
The bottom line is the majority of the legal residents of this country do not want OPEN borders and we want our NATIONAL leadership to ADDRESS the problem of the illegals already here. If the President and the Congress will not effectively address those issues, then, we WILL NEED NEW leaders come election time.
The current policy of doing nothing and ignoring the problem is the problem. Bush's proposal continues that policy, solves nothing and exacerbates the present situation. It isn't just
money..Its policy that matters.
Here's part of the problem Dean:
"I just finished skimming through the 80 minute video of a Cato conference, and I think I can safely say I fear for my country. [The realmedia file is 80Megs, but I downloaded it in greater-than-realtime for offline viewing using a program called 'Offline Explorer Pro'].
This conference features the laugh I linked to twice above:
my director of research, Steven Camarota, briefly mentioned the alternative to the president's amnesty plan: using consistent, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law to cause attrition of the illegal population over time. The White House response? [assistant to the president for domestic policy, and point person for the president's immigration proposal Margaret Spellings] laughed... Then she suggested, "You need to come visit Austin, Texas."
Seriously, when a political aide cynically laughs about enforcing the law, you know it's time for a change.
Here are two other statements Margaret Spellings made:
"We do envision that this would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly"
Asked "Will the children of "guest workers" automatically become citizens?", her response was: "Anyone who is born in the United States is presumed to be a citizen, and we do not support changing that. So I guess the answer is yes."
In other words, our "guest workers" will have children and will be here to stay. And, those earning $40 or $60 or $100 or $200 per hour will be in for a rude awakening as a million people from China and India start bidding on their jobs.
.......from Lonewacko" see above post"
This is Bush's policy, right ?
We need a new policy, definitely...
You can buy the Atkin's books at full retail, buy his tapes, buy his T-shirt, whatever. But, if his plan doesn't work, or you don't work his plan, you won't lose weight.
We have a plan that worked. It coupled border enforcement with workplace enforcement. Workplace enforcement is sharply down from past years.
You can't say it hasn't worked if you haven't worked it. (Keep on comin' back!)
"Anyone who is willing to risk their life and sacrifice everything to come here...and want to be here...deserves to be here. They are already Americans in my book."
So, anyone who sneaks into Saudi Arabia in order to make high wages working as a maid is automatically a Saudi Arabian or a Muslim? I think not.
There's more to being an American than just coming here to make money.
Dean: "My objective, Mrs. du Toit, is to get the situation better under control and more easily and practically manageable."
It strikes me that your definition of "under control" is equivalent to having no "illegals." As such, your solution is simply to make fewer people illegal. This is somewhat akin to solving the out-of-control murder problem in this country by changing the law so that killing people is no longer a crime.
Dean: "There are always people who will break the law." Yes. But within the law, we also give in when we finally notice that a law is so draconian it is actually making the situation worse.
In other words, you feel that our current policies which limit legal immigration are too tough. It is a perfectly respectable position to advocate increased immigration (although it's not a position I agree with). I can't understand why advocates of immigration increase don't just expressly advocate THAT policy openly, rather than advocating policies designed to undermine our immigration law generally.
Dean: "Most police will tell you that they have fewer issues with managing those who drive fast and recklessly now that we've done away with the ridiculous 55mph speed limit and increased it back up to a more reasonable 70mph, by way of direct example."
Once again, you seem to be arguing simply for greater increased immigration. If we were willing to enforce our immigration laws, I'd be willing to compromise by supporting higher levels of immigration. Unfortunately, supporters of the President want to reward the people who've already come here illegally.
Dean: "The tighter you grip your hand, the more will slip through your fingers."
It's tough to argue with Princess Leia, but the fact is, too many Aldebberaans are coming here now!
Dean: "The simple fact is that there is a direct correlation between much tougher immigration laws and a massive illegal immigration increase."
Well, duh. Make more immigration illegal, end up with more illegal immigration. Make all immigration legal, end up with no illegal immigration. Woo hoo. Problem solved.
Dean: "Now we have papers that must be filled out, tax forms that must be sworn, laws which punish employers for not checking on their employees' legality, we have much tougher border enforcement, far more manpower devoted to stopping the illegals--and a much bigger illegal population, and a much bigger black market for forged documents, and much more hassles for businesses, most especially small business.
"To what effect? More illegals than ever.
"
These. Laws. Are. Not. Enforced. Why is that so hard to understand?
Dean: "Now the proposal is that if we spend still more billions, and hassle employers even further, we are sure that this time, this time, we will be able to cut down on the problem? Why should I believe for even one second that that is true, and that my money isn't simply being wasted on measures which have proven ineffective?"
We're not hassling employers now, in any serious sort of way. We just aren't. It's not happening. These measures haven't proved ineffective because they haven't been tried.
Dean: "More immigration? I'm fine with it."
So far so good....
Dean: "But even if I were not, the simple fact is that we have the toughest enforcement efforts today that we have ever had in the entire history of our country--and any of you who doubt this simply do not know what you are talking about."
With respect, Dean, but you either do not know what you are talking about, or else you are being seriously misleading. We do not make any serious attempt to enforce our immigration laws. We spend money (tiny amounts), but most of it is wasted. Even when we catch illegal aliens, we release them with a warning that they better show up on such-and-such a date for their hearings. Then if they lose (and lose their appeals), we release them again and say that they better show up on such-and-such a date for their deportation. Unsurprisingly, relatively few illegal immigrants actually get deported. Does this constitute tough enforcement, in your view? Immigration enforcement isn't "an utter failure," because politicians of both parties want illegal immigration to continue. In their view, our policies have been a complete success!
Dean: "I continue to ask my question, and let me just make it very clear:
"Is there ANY POINT WHATSOEVER in which any of you on the restrictionist right will NOT conclude that it's cheaper to find alternative ways to deal with the problem?
"Or is there absolutely no limit to how much you will spend, and how many intrusions you will allow upon private citizens and businesses?"
You want a straight answer? Here's mine. Hold the immigration enforcement budget where it is. When we catch illegal aliens, and there's no question about their status, deport them the same day. Require employers in industries that attract illegals to report the social security numbers of all of their employees. Impose heavy criminal penalties against companies that cheat. Pass a federal law requiring state and local officials to cooperate with the feds on immigration issues. Make illegal immigrants ineligible for state benefits and services except for emergency medical care.
Try that for 5 years. If it doesn't work, I'd be willing to concede the point. However, since nothing like that has ever been tried, it's a bit early to proclaim our efforts to secure our borders "a failure."
Dean,
Your plan might help, if it could be implemented. Politically, that's impossible. The mushheaded flower children of the '60s are seeing to that. The pressing problem is not immigration, it's illegal Mexican immigration.
We have a long, poorly defended border with a desperately poor, politically corrupt third-world country. We have a flood of "immigrants" who don't seem to want to be Americans. We have a large, noisy left pushing the divisive insanity of multiculturalism, opposing the enforcement of existing laws regarding illegal immigrants, and demanding that all public benefits be extended to them. We have a large and growing Mexican lobby dedicated to the same things, as well as, at the extreme, to the erosion of the sovereignty of the US in favor of dual citizenship or worse, Aztlan.
When my ancestors came here, only two or three generations back, the emphasis was on assimilation, and there was no welfare state. Sure, assimilation takes time even when encouraged. My mother's parents came from Poland and were much more comfortable speaking Polish than English. Their children were fully assimilated. Add a generation, and you have the story of my father's Irish forebears. To discourage assimilation is crazy.
There is no possibility of a rational approach so long as the '60s generation rule the media and the academy. My fear is that by the time they and their pernicious influence die off, the Mexican lobby will be strong enough to take up the slack. Our hope may lie in much increased immigration from Asia and Eastern Europe, people who will know bullshit when they see it.
I agree with Spoons, with one exception. He's right that it hasn't been tried. There have been a few towns on the Texas border with residents who have taken it upon themselves to stop the flood of immigration on their border farms. They've installed high-tech surveillance equipment and call the border patrol to come pick up the folks they've captured and are holding under citizens' arrest.
I say, increase the border patrol's budget, but only for capital acquisition. The great folks of Texas have tested and personally funded the research on equipment that works to stop the flood. The border patrol is perturbed and embarassed by what these folks have been able to do. (I'll try to dig up the links.)
Give them the money and the requirement to do it. Then, we can talk about making it easier to get a temporary work card, but ONLY if you get one at the border and cross legally. I would further add a law that says that if you have come into this country illegally and work, you lose the right to gaining illegal status.
Dean, frankly, your argument is no different from folks who say we need stricter gun laws because 2 kids were able to get guns and kill high school kids. They broke something like 57 laws to get the guns they had. The problem is not the laws themselves or the number of them. The problem, as Spoons has pointed out, is that we have NEVER tried to enforce the laws on the books. It will do no good to change the laws, to the ones you propose, or add new ones. Until we are willing to enforce ANY law, it makes no difference what we do.
Losts of good well meaning information from both sides of the argument here. The simple fact is that politicians see the Latino vote as being able to make or break their political careers. This prevents them from insisting on the existing laws being enforced, not just at the federal level but at the state and local levels also.
The other thing politicians fear, probably worse than losing the Latino vote, is the drying up of their money from businesses who profit from sub poverty wages to illegals.
No matter how you cut it, these are the ONLY TWO reasons that we have the problem now. As much as I want to admire Ronald Reagan, he started the whole mess a long time ago.
I live in a rural area in cenral Kentucky. Our county seat is a town of less than 10,000. We've had to build a new jail in the last 7 years or so. Why???? The old one wasn't up to par for our Mexican residents who made up about 60% of the jail population. Too many do-gooders sticking up for these illegals filed too many lawsuits. Now we're planning on building a new Health Department. Why??? These same do gooders feel that the current one is just too 'public' and traumatizes the people who have to use it. Who uses it? About 70% illegals according to the nurse I know who works there.
Get over it people. These are not all honest peons who want nothing more than to work hard and earn minimum wage at best. A good percentage of them are pimps, dope peddlers, misfits, murderers and rapists.
The greedy local farmers are all to eager to use them as long as they don't require any 'maintenace'. But let one of them get in trouble or need medical help and then it becomes the taxpayers' responsibility.
Now just to be completely candid, one of my lifelong friends was killed by some Mexican farm workers so I might be a little prejudiced on this.
This is a lovely story, Its, Friday night, I’m sitting in my “restrictionist rightist stasis” chamber just south of San Francisco. I scan the TV and whiz past Larry King and find myself watching the two talking heads: Sean Hannity and Larry Coombs. The guest for the evening is one Mr. Gerardo (a Hispanic) San Francisco member of the Board of Supervisors.
The topic for discussion from Mr. Gerardo is: henceforth it will be politically incorrect to refer to the illegal immigrant population (i.e the illegal criminals, illegal aliens ) in any other frame of reference other than referring to them as “ undocumented workers”. To refer to them as illegal immigrants will henceforth be the equivalency of using the “N” word.
Who can believe this garbage.
This is an excellent example of how far liberals and their liberal agenda have gone to mislead their fellow Americans.