« The Clintons and the Intellectually Incurious Media | Main | Bad pennies »

Twelve Million Invisible People

This one is going to set off the rabid rowdies, I know already, but I have to put this in print.

I am a Republican, have been since I was 8 years old and I couldn't understand why more taxes were supposed to be a good thing for regular folks. I am also a Conservative. I believe in the rights and power of the individual, in limited and accountable government, in strong support of the Constitution as it was actually written, and in promoting and expanding American-style to as many places as possible, because no other system works half as well or promises half as much. I am also a fundamentalist Christian, and I believe we are all accountable for those things put into our power to help or hurt fellow human beings. It is not fear of hell which moves me, half so much as fear that I might act of a hellish character.

All this brings me to the present problems of Border Security and Immigration Reform. And make no mistake, they are separate issues, both important but still definitely separate. One mistake I think both Democrats and Republicans have made in all this brouhaha, is the notion that so many disparate acts should be rolled together in one fix-all bill which in actual fact does none of what it promises. Make no mistake - I do not like the present bill before the Congress, because while a measure of bipartisanship is nice to see, getting together to push out legislation which will confuse and hinder millions of honest people while allowing some dishonest types to play the system for their own advantage is simply a very bad idea. What should be done, is that Congress should lay down the present bill and try again with several bills which each address their own specific function. Of course, that shows the politically distasteful possibility of Democrats publicly supporting a bill which secures our borders, or Republicans openly voting for a bill which requires businesses to be accountable in their hiring practices. For now, I will address only the question of Immigration Reform, for the simple reasons that the most important issue, Securing the Border, seems so obvious that I cannot imagine a serious argument against it. In fact, the only arguments I have read or heard, have been contrived rhetoric which attacks individuals - often falsely - for not doing enough or not doing it fast enough. So I leave that useless bickerfest to those who find it to their taste. Other issues are, to my mind, less important and less of the moment than reforming our Immigration laws and policies, so that is why I focus there.


-- continued --

Back in 1998, my wife's mother was planning to come from Hong Kong to the United States to visit her daughter and me, but there was a problem with the State Department. You see, once mainland China began talking about Hong Kong's "reunification" with the mainland in the same way Michael Corleone talked about Fredo's place in the family, a lot of Hong Kongese started wondering if they might be wise to consider leaving for better climes. To that end, Mikki's mother came to the United States and began the long process towards residency, the almost-legendary Green Card. She filled out all the forms, paid the fees, and complied with all the requirements, some of which made little sense. But she missed one of the required visits back to the United States, and Mikki explained to me that the INS refused to reconsider her position, at one point stating that the old lady would be arrested if she tried to enter the United States. Widows over sixty years old, of course, are well-known to be the most nefarious class of villain.

So I made an appointment to go talk to an INS officer at the Houston office. It was a hot summer day when I arrived, and I saw about three hundred people standing in a long line in the sun outside the building, a long line that wrapped around the building and into the parking lot. Most of the people in that line were Hispanic, though there were also a lot of Asians and some Africans. Since I had made an appointment, I wanted to make sure the line was for everyone entering the INS building, so I walked around to the entrance and saw a couple staffers smoking outside. One of them saw my white skin and business suit and waved me over. I thought he was confusing me for an employee, so I tried to explain what I wanted, but the guy didn't care. He waved me into the lobby where the line ran up to a window where a couple clerks were handling the long line. I was directed to an 'Information' window where another clerk issued me a Visitor pass and directed me to the elevator. I noticed then, that the building had a large waiting room, with enough seats for more than a hundred people. I asked why the people in the first part of the line couldn't just wait there, where it was air-conditioned, and the clerk told me it just wasn't done. I said nothing more, but went up to my appointment, where a polite young man assured me that the INS had no intentions of arresting little old widows and grandmothers, and after a bit more paperwork I had her visit approved. As I left the building and saw all the people still waiting in line, I couldn't help but wonder how much my appearance as a successful - and white - American had smoothed the wheels of bureaucracy. Certainly I had accomplished more in an hour than my wife's mother had been able to see in a couple months' of work, and she was neither lazy nor stupid. I was glad for the result, but uneasy at the apparent double-standard at the INS. Considering that event was years before 9/11, I don't think it has gotten better for those people who try to follow all the Byzantine rules of the government.

And it is with that impression in mind, that I turn my eyes to the millions of people here illegally in the United States. I am hardly unaware or unconcerned about the effects of illegal migration, on just about every level, so I will start with the negatives of the present situation. Twelve (or more) million people who do not pay for their children's education, for police and fire protection, for taxes, or for medical care, will severely impact any infrastructure you can name. And it is a plain fact that the number of violent criminals in the United States who came into the country illegally has been rising, and continues to do so at a fast pace. Further, the network of coyotes who traffic in border crossings is ready-made to smuggle in enemies of the United States, and whatever materials or weapons they wish to use. An answer is long overdue.

However, many of those who demand draconian actions are not realistically examining the condition. As my title suggests, they seem to not see the sort of people who are the focus of this issue. Yes, there are terrorists to protect against, but as yet I have not heard of a major Latino group which desires to murder American civilians or overthrow the United States government. Granted, movements like the Reconquista and racist groups like La Raza are problematic, but if we call them 'terrorists', we not only start to blur the difference between vulgar but nonviolent activists, and people who bomb schools and cut heads off as part of their ideology, but we would also be forced to declare many leading Democrats to be 'terrorists'. The rhetoric is too similar to ignore the shared meme. Also, most Latinos are neither violent nor opposed to nominal American community practices. The Latin culture is often family-centered, loyal to Christian morals and standards, and as a whole compatible with standard Western values and beliefs.

At this point, I have to stop and acknowledge that yes, I am speaking of the illegals as basically Latino, though there are other races and cultures involved, because statistically most of the illegals are from Mexico, and from Central and South America. I also agree that I am stereotyping to some degree, but I think that in the general sense, my descriptions are accurate. I do not mean to suggest that we should not worry about millions of uneducated and unskilled foreigners in our country, who do not speak the language and do not try to assimilate into the American cultural fabric. Yet I have read enough history and heard enough from first-generation immigrants, to know that every group which comes to America in large numbers tends to be unskilled and uneducated, because the one who do have skills and knowledge are able to do well without coming to America. The United States has always taken the apparent dregs of the world. The Irish, the Polish, the African, and the Asians were all in their turn described as "too many", "unskilled", "uneducated and uneducatable", and they lived in cultural islands and ghettoes away from the majority for a generation. Ever hear of Little Italy? Little Warsaw? Little Vietnam? Such communities are everywhere, and they are not new. I have noticed that it is usually the second generation, the children, who start to assimilate and become part of the nation and in so doing add their contribution and shape the nation's future. One reason my own father made a point of getting a Masters degree in Mathematics, was because growing up he got angry at hearing how bad the Irish were at Education, and that higher-order studies were impossible for a "mick". I don't mean to imply anything about the people who find the current illegals undesirable as a class of person, except that what is happening now has happened before. It is something which can be corrected, but only with time and only by understanding the Historical context of Immigration to America.

The reason, more than anything else, that illegals enter the United States, is a better life. No, that does not make it all right to ignore the law, but it does mean that illegal entry into the United States will continue to be a crisis until the root causes which spur illegal migration are addressed in substance:

[] The Mexican Economy and Infrastructure
[] The U.S. Immigration Bureaucracy
[] Assimilation Strategy
[] Law Enforcement Strategy

Each of those is a sub-topic worthy of its own discussion, so I will leave them stated simply for the moment. For here and for now, it is important to understand that to address this problem in any fashion which will lead to a durable and practical solution, we must choose a party which is best minded to address the matter rationally, we must support the leadership of that party and work to craft corrections and enforce functional law. We must clear out inefficient and unethical practices in the government's offices, and we must create avenues of communication which help foreign nationals understand that compliance with the law is in their best long-term interest, and that of their children. New proposed legislation must be designed with those principles in place to guard against repeating error or creating obstacles for people who have already complied with the law, and it should encourage people to begin to comply if they have not done so already. The forces of law enforcement must be encouraged to work cooperatively to advance the cases of law-abiding immigrants and protect the rights of all persons involved, to the degree that their conduct warrants such attention, and to communicate a simple, clear message regarding rewards for compliance and punishment for defiance, for businesses as well as individuals.

We cannot simply act as if twelve to twenty million people are invisible.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Twelve Million Invisible People:

» The Thomas Chronicles linked with More on the Illegal Immigration Bill and citizenship…

Comments (66)

Close the border. No more ... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

Close the border. No more immigrants for 2 years. Enforce the laws we have on the books. Vote every incumbent Congressman out of office. Jail every CEO or business owner that employees illegal aliens. Cut off all social services to illegal aliens including ER visits. Repeal the 14th amendment.

They will leave on their own since the free candy store is out of business.

This is a very thought-prov... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

This is a very thought-provoking post which I enjoyed reading.

You make this statement: "For now, I will address only the question of Immigration Reform, for the simple reasons that the most important issue, Securing the Border, seems so obvious that I cannot imagine a serious argument against it." As much as I try to be sympathetic to the plight of illegal aliens, the issue of securing the border is also important to me. It has yet to be demonstrated to my satisfaction that the executive branch which has the duty to administer the laws has a serious interest in doing this. I do not live anywhere near the Mexican border but acqaintances that do and they have not been impressed with such efforts to this point. I also agree with your list on root causes, but I suggest that as important as Mexican Economy and Infrastructure are to this problem, no serious effort appears being made in this area. Mexico is becoming merely a bedroom community to the US economy.

D.J.We are not dem... (Below threshold)
Kasper Hauser:

D.J.

We are not demanding "draconian" measures. We are saying "Demonstrate that you--the Federal government--are going to do you job, your duty, and enforce the laws of this nation. For we are, Mr. Drummond, a nation of laws, not of men.

Instead we have a bill that sets forth new and convoluted rules that it will not be possible to enforce. But of course that is because the government has absolutely no intention of enforcing the new laws or the old ones. This bill, is a mockery.

And that's the problem, D.J. It's not about the Hispanics. It's not about the illegals. It's about a total abrogation of the rule of law by our government. It is about a loss of faith with the people of this country.

Its not border security and its not immigration. It's bigger than that.

Once again, Kasper, you see... (Below threshold)

Once again, Kasper, you seem to have missed that I also oppose this bill.

And "total abrogation of law" seems a bit overmuch. I mean, that's Nifong-level abuse, while I think we're just dealing with the common petty negligence of elected arrogance. There's a reason they call the Senate "The Club", you know.

No D.J. I understand you o... (Below threshold)
Kasper Hauser:

No D.J. I understand you oppose the bill. I just don't think your post, while fine in what it addressed, really got to the issue.

One of the reasons bill is such a touchstone because it demonstrates how terribly out of touch our elites are with the people they govern. Not just out of touch--the elites are openly scornful of the people.

I'm not sure if a society where the priviledged and empowered so openly disdain the hoi polloi and so actively flout their will can long survive.

Your rhetoric seems a bit s... (Below threshold)

Your rhetoric seems a bit stilted today, Kasper. Almost Marxist.

Did you read everything I wrote, or did you just stop as soon as you found something to complain about?

Forget it D.J.I th... (Below threshold)
Kasper Hauser:

Forget it D.J.

I though you might be interested in civil discourse, but instead you accuse me of being a Marxist.

Just. Never. Mind.

Kasper, you might want to r... (Below threshold)

Kasper, you might want to read your posts out loud before you post them.

The present Immigration Bill is not the topic of this thread. I said in my opening post that I opposed it, and why, and then what I was trying to discuss.

Your 3:55 post attacked the bill anyway, and implied that I supported it.

I corrected that error, and then you retorted with another angry post at 4:07 which implies that class warfare against the "elites" who "scorn" the comon people is not far off. Your choice of words, Kasper, not mine.

So frankly, I would like a civil discourse, but as of yet you have not been either civil nor addressed the topic.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Kasper, but neither am I going to pretend you are practicing courteous debate, simply because you want to be seen that way.

DJ,You seem to be ... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

DJ,

You seem to be falling for the MSM lie that conservatives are against amnesty because the current crop of illegals are unskilled, Latino (mostly Mexican) people. I will acknowledge that there are some isolationists who argue against immigration in general, but that is hardly the motivating factor against amnesty for most conservatives. What motivates me and most of my conservative friends is that we don't trust the executive branch to enforce the law. So, we get amnesty in 1965 and were told that the government would enforce the border. The government didn't do its job and we get amnesty again in 1986. The proponents tell us, "trust us, this time we will stop illegal immigration." Except that they didn't. Now, we're supposed to believe that it will be done after this wave of amnesty?

I don't believe it and neither do a majority of conservatives or Americans in general. That is why you hear us calling for enforcement first. It's not because we don't have compassion, but because we can't keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. When are we allowed to say, "enough is enough?" When do we get to request or demand that our government curb illegal immigration without being called "uncompassionate" or "racist"?

I too live in Houston, so I... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I too live in Houston, so I know DJ is well aware of the illegal problems in this city and many others. Assimilation is very important, but it seems that illegals work here to send money home. I do believe we as americans can expect alligience to our country. I also believe immigration reform has to happen. I can't believe it took 6 years after 9/11 to discuss it. DJ, I agree with your post. Your goals outlined are mine except securing the border should be first and foremost. That is the weak link. IF the government can demonstrate that they can in fact secure our borders and know who is here, then a majority of americans will trust the government to reform citizenship issues. ww

The best immigration law is... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

The best immigration law is one that deports ALL illegals and liberals.

Wildwillie, thanks. I real... (Below threshold)

Wildwillie, thanks. I really do think that if the fence is treated separately and first, as a National Security issue, it will gain a lot of support from the public and clear the decks to address Immigration w/o that distraction.

Kbiel, I think I know what you mean, but I also think it would be better to stick to what people here are actually saying. I have been falsely slapped as having called Conservatives "bigots" by a reader here, who still refuses to apologize for that lie. I know Senator Graham said that and I think he was wrong to do so, but I am not him, nor are any of the people here at Wizbang. I really do try not to slap people here with things I have read/heard at other sites and through other media, because it doesn't do anything to advance the discussion, although I admit to being human enough to react sometimes when my buttons get puished. So, for the purpose of focus and courtesy, can we please agree to just not bring up what someone says somewhere else? I promise if I am ever in a position to smack Senator Graham upside the head, I will mention his choice of words, but I hardly own such a position, nor am I likely to in the near future.

Now, I hear your frustration about Congress, but I have to ask you, what are our options if we accept the lie that "the Republicans are just like the Democrats", or the cynical excuse that "We can't trust the people who tell us what they plan to do"? There are good guys, there are weak guys who can be brought to the light, and there are guys who will vote for the right thing if we can show them it will cost them to be on the wrong side. Throwing out what we have to work with because it's not exactly what we hoped for, that just doesn't fly.

DJ,You continually... (Below threshold)
Matt:

DJ,

You continually call for civil discourse about this topic (and most others you post about) and I truly appreciate that. Unfortunately civil discourse has brought us to the impasse we face today. We settled for civil discourse in 1965 and 1986 and the problems got worse. You ask us to support political parties that have continually worked against the best wishes of their constituents and the U.S. We have and look where it got us. We have been disappointed by both parties (the elected, not the voters) over and over again. We need a new plan.

You suggest we find a political party that is best minded to adress this problem rationally. Which, exactly, party is that? We can't rely on either major party at this point.

I do agree that a new approach has to be tried.
I'd suggest:

1. Secure the border. Can't put out a Closed sign and leave the door open. (it is a separate issue from Immigration, but they are mutually supportive/antagonistic)
2. Enforce current immigration/employment laws (while considering new legislation, if needed).
3. Fix legal immigration so it is rational and efficient.
4. Revamp the current Visa Programs, add a requirement for visitors to periodically physically check in at a federal facility (Post Office), Issue biometric ID to visa holders. I know this would likely fall under #2, but should be done immediately
5. End the Immigration Court fiasco. Once a person is identified for deportation, they should be deported and can appeal the deportation through the consulate/embassy in their home country.
6. Stop subsidies of Illegal Immigrants (this will encourage lots to go home and others not to come).
7. Tax all wire transfers of money out of the U.S. Make it to any country, any amount, commercial or between private individuals.
8. Encourage Mexico to fix their economy, the have the natural resources, they have the talent. It is yet to be seen if the rulers have the desire. Don't do it for them, don't subsidize it.
9. Encourage/help Mexico to put down the civil war with the drug cartels, before they lose!!

I like your suggestions Mat... (Below threshold)

I like your suggestions Matt, but I have to insist that civility is the only path.

Yelling is the way to Howard Dean and Al Gore, you know.

Talk about The Dark Side!

So what are we supposed to ... (Below threshold)
Stormin:

So what are we supposed to do, DJ, when our elected elite won't stop to listen to civil discourse and insist on doing things their way.

I might have less reservations about this bill if it had been debated in committee, instead of in secret, with Ted Kennedy leading the way. That should have been the first clue to conservatives that this was a bad bill.

I agree with Matt's ideas, but how to get our elected officials to even consider them? Senators Graham, Kyl, McCain, McConnell, and Lott are all for amnesty, and refuse to hear any other viewpoints. Look at Graham calling those opposed to this abomination "bigots", McCain going off on Cornyn, Lott saying that "Talk radio is running the country. We will have to do something about it...", etc. They don't give a care what the people want, it is all about the power for them. And without enforcement first and foremost, we will be the ones who will ultimately pay the price.

DJ Drummond: I believe you ... (Below threshold)
TLB:

DJ Drummond: I believe you tried to smear me on an earlier thread (tinyurl.com/ytbvy9), and you consistently refused to explain exactly what you meant (search for the instances of 'smear': tinyurl.com/2dr6u4). Maybe you could provide that explanation now.

Regarding the current post, let me suggest editing. Also, some people such as myself don't want illegal aliens to be "invisible" here, but rather "visible" back in their home countries pressing for reforms.

And, almost no people are calling even AztlanExtremists "terrorists". However, groups like LaRaza have a good amount of power now, and they'll have even more after reform. They also get federal funds, and there's a current bill to give them even more. At least two of the groups that LaRaza funds/funded would be described by most as extremists: MEChA and AcademiaSemillas. Expect even more of that. Other similar groups have indirect or direct links to the MexicanGovernment and their leaders have issued reconquista style sentiments. The national treasurer of LULAC recently trotted out the extremist refrain about the "border crossed us".

The rise of such power is not reflected in past history, nor was Italy right next door, nor did Germany formerly own part of our country (and taught their citizens that that territory was stolen from them).

So, let me ask again for an explanation of what appeared to be a smear, and also let me suggest you avoid things like the logical fallacy of AppealToTradition among others.

"I really do think that if ... (Below threshold)
Kasper Hauser:

"I really do think that if the fence is treated separately and first, as a National Security issue, it will gain a lot of support from the public and clear the decks to address Immigration w/o that distraction."

Yes. That is the solution to this impasse. Why are the President and the Congress so set against it?

TLB, how about you address ... (Below threshold)

TLB, how about you address the topic? I don't feel like changing the subject because you want to rant, or revisiting the blame game.

Stormin, once again I have to emphasize that I am not talking about the present bill, but the specific issue of Immigration Reform, apart from Border Security. Insisting nothing can be done, well, that's just defeatist, and I just said that there's nothing to be accomplished here by pointing fingers. Been there, looked like Democrats for doing it, you know?

Tricky question, Kasper. I... (Below threshold)

Tricky question, Kasper. In the case of Congress, it depends on the individual we're discussing, but in the case of Bush, I walk it back to when he tried to reform Social Security.

Remember that, back in 2005? Bush said out straight that he was going to spend his political capital on reforming Social Security and addressing the Entitlement Crisis head on.

Remember what Congress did? They sat around and did nothing on it, even though the GOP controlled the House and Senate and could have gotten a bill through. They did that out of politics, trying to keep unions and special interest groups happy.

Remember how the "base" reacted? They sat on their hands and did nothing. No public demands that Cngress act, no support for the President for taking on the tough issue, no credit for a serious proposal that would address the biggest threat to the next generation of Americans, financially.

So what was the takeaway? The guys in the White House who urged Bush to take the conservative route, they were demoted and shoved to the back of the room, and that's where they have been ever since. The "moderates" got a bigger voice, and you know what that means .

Bush also took a strong conservative stand on trying to reform Tort law. Same result.

He did it again with trying to reform the IRS, but gave up when it became obvious that, once again, no one had his back.

So that's how we got here. The President is a good man but a human being, who responds to positive support, and the plain fact is that the last several times he took the strong conservative position, no one in Congress or the Heavy Blogosphere backed him up and the effort failed, not because Dubya was on the wrong side, but because almost no one stood with him. He got tired and he wanted to see something get done, so I think it's affected his judgment, kind of the same way Reagan got tired and wasn't at his best when he nominated O'Connor to the SCOTUS.

He can listen, I think, but you'd have to come across as a friend and an ally, not just another potshot fair-weather waddaya-done-for-me-lately opportunist.

The problem isn't that Reco... (Below threshold)
Socratease:

The problem isn't that Reconquista and La Raza are terrorists, but that they have no intentions of becoming Americans. While foreigners come here for a better life, that's not a good enough reason for us to accept them as citizens. What we require is for them to sign on to support the system that produces that better life, so we can all have more of it instead of less. I don't see any of the proposed "fixes" for the immigration problem coming out of Washington moving us in that direction. In fact, I see the opposite.

DJ Stated"I really d... (Below threshold)
Budahmon:

DJ Stated
"I really do think that if the fence is treated separately and first, as a National Security issue, it will gain a lot of support from the public and clear the decks to address Immigration w/o that distraction."

DJ where are they doing this? What fence are you talking about? The 700 hundred mile fence they legislated last year but only funded 370 miles (they have only built 78 miles) and whose funding can be redirected by the DHS Secretary if he so chooses. Is that the fence you are talking about? Because thats the same fence in this years bill! Since they only funded 370 miles they decided to cut the 700 mile fence to 370 and count it again in this years bill.

And you wonder why we don't trust these elitist?

Legal immigration should be... (Below threshold)

Legal immigration should be simple, easy and nearly automatic provided you are not on a terror watch list or an ex-con with violent tendencies. If that were so, then illegal immigration would be essentially unneeded.

It is likely that such a policy would temporarily depress wages in some industries and areas, but the truth is we have a massive labor shortage in the US, and it has been making life difficult for both high-end and low-end wage employers. It's only in the middle that there are more workers than jobs, and then just barely. The end result is that the wage issue would likely evaporate quickly as people realized that it didn't make much difference to them personally, except that some things were better and cheaper and delivered faster.

I'm not a big believer in amnesty per se, but I have no objection to people in the US illegally being able to make their status legal without first going home and then having to come back. They just need to get into a program to pay their back taxes, traffic fines if any and whatever else due them. Companies knowingly hiring illegals, on the other hand, should have their financial ass handed to them on a plate, and making it easy for illegals to become legal would help that issue. In the meantime, our immigration officials would be able to focus on those still here illegally, who would suddenly find it much harder to hide, since being here legally would be easy and being here illegally would be hard.

Note that I'm not saying that those here illegally should be put first, or even last, in line for citizenship. I am saying that they should be able to get residence easily.

As far as citizenship goes, I don't think that should be easy even for the native born. We treat it too cheaply as it is; I am not in favor of cheapening citizenship even more.

There is another issue that... (Below threshold)
Dodo David:

There is another issue that needs to be discussed, which the problem of state and local government officials wanting illegal immigrants to remain in the USA.

I read a report (posted by Michelle Malkin, I think) about what happened when federal law officers began rounding up illegal immigrants who were working in the meat-packing plants of a particular state. That state's governor complained because the round up of illegal immigrants was costing those businesses money.

Earlier this year, I read an on-line newspaper article about illegal immigrants living in a New England state. A politician there said that the state needed the illegal immigrants because, in the words of the politician, "Somebody has to milk the cows."

Think about the "sanctuary cities" that refuse to cooperate with the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. Those cities couldn't be sanctuaries without the aid of local politicians.

Now, regarding our nation's current procedure for admitting immigrants legally, D.J. has brought up a subject that no politician that I know of has addressed. Why the Hell does the federal government make it so hard for people to immigrate legally? Why has Congress placed an annual limit on the number of people who can legally immigrate to the USA?

I am all in favor of controlled immigration, in order to keep terrorists and criminals from entering the USA. Yet, those people aren't the ones being limited, because they will enter the USA illegally anyway. The people being limited are normally law-abiding people. The reason they are being limited is because they have been deemed by our federal government to be undesirable because of their education level.

There is another issue rela... (Below threshold)
Dodo David:

There is another issue related to illegal immigration, that being the legal status of children born in the USA who are children of illegal immigrants. Currently, any child born within the USA is automatically a citizen of the USA even if both of that child's biological parents are illegal immigrants. To me, this situation is harmful to the USA. I don't think that any child should be a U.S. citizen at birth unless at least one of that child's biological parents is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth.

DJ Generally I agree with t... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

DJ Generally I agree with this post about immigration with a few quibbles.But I believe you are making way too many excuses for Bush.If Bush made a big push for Social Security reform I missed it.What remember is a few speeches, then nothing.When I heard Bush gave up on it I remember thinking "that's it?" And I thought Bush did get some TORT reform through, in a minor way.I missed the IRS reform effort.Now compare that with the effort put forth for the immigration bill.Even though every poll indicates that this bill and its approach to reform is quite unpopular with the people in general and his party in particular, Bush is still trying to shove it down the throat of the American people.What this suggests to me is that Bush never really cared about Social Security, etc, and was only telling conservatives what they wanted to hear.The same with Harriet Miers.Conservatives weren't exactly thrilled with her but Bush backed her regardless until she couldn't answer constitutional law questions asked by senators friendly to her nomination.If she could have, Bush would have continued to support no matter what conservatives thought.The same with border enforcement-conservatives want it, Bush doesn't.If Bush did, it would have been done.Bluntly, he is the problem.And if he is so tired, resign.

The Dems want this bill to ... (Below threshold)
Piso Mojado:

The Dems want this bill to pass because they keep killing their base in the womb. Planned Parenthood is proudly bragging that it killed 264,943 liberal babies in the latest fiscal year. Keep it up Planned Parenthood, eventually the libs will just die out.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a.html

I was listening to talk rad... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I was listening to talk radio the other day and I hear a caller give the perfect answer to illegal immigration that requires no fence or any other cost to our citizens. First make it illegal to send money out of the country if you cannot prove beyond a doubt that you are here legally. Second, make it illegal to rent or sell a residence to anyone who cannot prove they are here legally. Confiscate the property of those who violate this law. Use the money from the confiscated property to fund border security.

Thanks, DJ.You have ... (Below threshold)
mathman:

Thanks, DJ.
You have summed it up in a nutshell.
Every congressperson who voted on Simpson-Mazzoli should be out of office. Permanently. Now. Banned from any future office of public trust in the federal government. 1986. That is the date. Boot them all.
They did not get it done.
Close the border. Do not let ANYONE in without papers. Drop this insane notion of 24-hour approval. That is such a crock.
Build a wall. Saudi Arabia can build a 900 Km wall for $1.5 billion. Maybe they should build ours.

I'll assume that DJ Drummon... (Below threshold)
TLB:

I'll assume that DJ Drummond implicitly is stating that he apologizes for his earlier apparent attempt to smear me.

Dodo David says: I read a report (posted by Michelle Malkin, I think) about what happened when federal law officers began rounding up illegal immigrants who were working in the meat-packing plants of a particular state. That state's governor complained because the round up of illegal immigrants was costing those businesses money.

Guess what that governor's current job is? It was former NE gov and current Ag Secy Mike Johanns.

As they say, keep it simple... (Below threshold)
Atomic Conspiracy:

As they say, keep it simple.

Those who employee illegals should be fined out of business and traitor Bush should be exiled to Mexico City or maybe even better to Baghdad.

Do that and all our problems would not be solved, but most of them would be.

If I were a disinterested o... (Below threshold)
Gary:

If I were a disinterested outsider looking at this, I would first of all question Bush's methods of going about getting the amnesty that he so obviously wants. What he should have done, immediately upon taking office, was to crack down, and hard, on illegal immigration for his entire first term. Then, after winning re-election, he could have gone to the public with some credibility and said "look, I've greatly reduced the problem, let's talk about what we do about X million illegal aliens." He would have gotten a much more receptive hearing.

But what he did instead was to suspend all meaningful border enforcement beginning on 01/20/2001, obviously (to me anyway) with the intention of driving the problem to a large and intractable scale, figuring he'd base his argument on giving amnesty on the premise that there are too many NOT to give them amnesty.

All that said, consider the following: isn't there something really wrong when a Republican president is on the same side of an issue as Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Geraldo Rivera, the ethnic pressure lobby, big education, and Cardinal Mahony, the pedophile protector? I guess when you want something badly enough, you don't care that you're teaming up with a bunch of reprobates to get it done.

Bravo Jeff Medcalf and DJ!<... (Below threshold)
SR:

Bravo Jeff Medcalf and DJ!

The crux of the illegal problem is the difficulty getting here legally. That is why immigration reform should not wait until after border security.

I am a bona fide small government, socially conservative Republican, but an optimistic conservative. Most illegals come to work, and they should be allowed to do so.

Illegal immigrants have broken the law, but it is one I might break in their shoes. I do not see amnesty as a dirty word- we want to bring the illegals out of the shadows. And anyone who says just deport them all is not making a serious arguement, because that is not going to happen.

The fine should be much lower ($1000), and the touch back provision dropped. Too stiff a penalty will discourage illegals from applying. Next, the fine should be paid to a private company to do a fast, comprehensive background check; private companies certainly can do it better and cheaper than government. Then deport those who are criminals.

My husband worked for a company that owned rental property in Houston; when the vans with the illegals arrived, they fell over themselves to accomodate them lest they drive right on the next appartment complex; apartments need tenants. Even illegal immigrants contribute to the economy.

And as DJ points out, these immigrants are very culturally compatible, and by the second and third generation they will be fully assimilated if they are not given the welfare crutch.

If the speed limit on the all the highways was dropped to 55, we'd all become lawbreakers again, because the law is unreasonable. The same with immigration- if it is too hard to come legally, they will leak in illegally. If the penalty is too harsh, they will stay illegal.

So go ahead and secure the borders, but light the way for the willing worker to stay and work.

Cart and horse. Lock the d... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Cart and horse. Lock the damn door, then you can answer the doorbell one ring at a time. I spent 3 years on a fence in Germany that worked remarkably well, purpose of said fence notwithstanding.

How many of you who are say... (Below threshold)
Gary:

How many of you who are saying that the problem is we're too stingy in letting people in are aware that we already take in around 1,000,000 legal immigrants a year, along with a like number of illegals? A lot of people say, "oh, well once we get control of the border we can raise the quotas for legal immigration."

Frankly, if we're taking in the same total number of people, using the same formula (family reunification), with the numbers skewed heavily toward one ethnic/linguistic group that is mostly poor and poorly edcuated, it's going to be problematic for us, whether they're "legal" or not.

DJ mentions "cultural compatibility." I agree...to a point. Latin immigrants are primarily Catholic, although not as devout as you might think (I should know, my first wife was from Central America). If you scratch the surface hard enough, "culture" explains why the countries these people come from are so screwed up, and if we are going to let in large numbers of immigrants from any country, we should first return to the melting pot paradigm. Multiculturalism does not work, and in fact accomplishes little except to engender resentments.

Finally, no one has ever answered my satisfaction what the harm would be in taking a bit of a breather, and letting in fewer immigrants. If it turns out to be a mistake, it's one that is easily corrected, and quickly too. However, letting in too many IS a problem, and once you've given status to someone, revoking it is damn near impossible. We have traditionally had an immigration system that has had both a gas pedal and a brake pedal, but for the last 40 years, it's been all gas pedal - and now Ted Kennedy and George Bush want to "floor it."

Draconian? Not realistical... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Draconian? Not realistically examining the conditions? These are not measurable words, these are accusations. Twenty million? I can count backward to zero from there one at a time, the same way the U.S. government should remove said invaders. What part of illegal-should-not-be-here-uninvited-gatecrasher-not-a-guest-go-to-hell-home do you not understand? I'm still looking for "that work Americans won't do". All I find is millions of illegals undermining the blue-collar trades and crafts that once provided decent livings to millions of Americans, murderering more Americans than Hadji has in Iraq, delivering diseases to every neighborhood unchecked, overwhelming every social services facility in America (just as you described so well, right down to the line out the door and past the border). I would like to see an endless stream of yellow school buses, out of use for the summer, full of illegals and running non-stop to the border.

Build the fence. Put the military on the border. Enforce our borders with force, not with tea and sympathy.

What a difference in tone b... (Below threshold)
SR:

What a difference in tone between Gary and twolaneflash! Perhaps there is emotion driving the reaction of twolaneflash, perhaps that might be clouding fair consideration of the problem?

Our economy is doing well, our unemployment rate is low, and bringing illegals out of the shadows will do more to isolate disease and crime prone illegals than all of your over-the-top rhetoric. The American people are not going to stomach wrenching families apart and busing them out by the millions.

Gary, you ask why not take a "breather" on legal immigration? Well, that presupposes that immigrants are not really needed as workers. Do you really believe that reducing the labor supply will not affect the economy? By the way, you sound much more willing to dispassionately consider the problem.

Oh yeah, SR, the economy is... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Oh yeah, SR, the economy is doing so well because America is host to millions of parasites. Hard working Americans have nothing to do with that, I guess. It couldn't be that we have millions of parasites because the economy of Americans is so good? Now it is the illegals that make America great? Feh!

Cloudy about the problem? I am very clear about the problem and the solution. You seem to have your priorities right in line with the amnesty crowd: economy first (cheap labor, that is), illegals' comfort next; all the poor working slobs who thought their citizenship in and taxation by America had value, go to the end of the line, if there's anything left for which to get in line.

The only clouds I see on the horizon are from a rising storm of Americans who have had enough of cheap vacuous talk. Enforce the borders. Eject the interlopers. Clear now, SR?

SR,What is the cost ... (Below threshold)
Budahmon:

SR,
What is the cost of these illegals? The Houston area alone has medical cost of $170 million per year due to illegals. That's one city...so we the taxpeyers are going to subsidize the healthcare of illegal immigrants for their employers? You are saying that's all right with you. You think this will change when they are no longer in the shadows? What is the cost to the working man or woman here in the US? Illegals depress wages for the lowest class of Americans. This is alright with you? Don't say they are taken jobs Americans won't do, that is the oldest lie in the books when it comes to this problem. You could say that they are doing jobs Americans won't do for that low of a salary. I guess it's just all right for you to help subsidize the lower wages these people make and the harm they do to regular working people...I guess it's just more important for you to pay a dollar less a week for your groceries!

SR - Yes, I try to look at ... (Below threshold)
Gary:

SR - Yes, I try to look at things rationally. And believe it or not that is why I think it's dangerous to consider immigration only in light of whether our country "needs" foreign workers.

Perhaps in DC there are detatched conversations that take place over how many "inputs" our economy needs. Maybe these conversations drift off into discussions about how creating a surplus of inexpensive labor at the low end of the wage scale can help keep a lid on inflation. But to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we are a country that has an economy, not the other way around. A country is more than its economic system, it's language, literature, traditions, customs, food, attitudes, laws, and yes, borders. That's why we're Americans instead of some non-descript stew of all the world's ehtnicities and cultures.

But back to my point. Over most of our history, we have been lucky as a country to have a reasonably educated middle class, relatively inexpensive land, and relatively high wages. Large scale immigration of poorly educated, poor people upsets that equation. I am not an economist, but something tells me that when capital is cheap and labor expensive, technological innovation flourishes, and when labor is cheap and capital expensive, you get technological stagnation. It's not true in every case (see: Japan, Inc.) but when you generalize you can't account for every aberration.

So, cheap labor is not the answer to everyhting, nor should it be. In fact, even though I own a business, I would not be at all averse to a somewhat tighter labor market, because middle class wages are what drive consumer spending (and therefore our economy). When the aggregate economy does well, so do I.

Making the current set of "... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Making the current set of "illegals" into some form of "guest worker" has the potention be a death blow to the US middle class and might actually manage to crash the economy in a way not accomplished since the Hawley-Smoot Tariff destroyed the economy in the 1920's.

Business wants this bill because they desperately want to get rid of their high labor costs and they beleive they can use guest workers to break unions, pay lower wages, and eviserate benefit packages. After all if you get told "take a $2.00 per hour wage cut and accept us dropping the 100% health insurance in favor of a HSA with a $5000 deductable, or we'll replace you with a wetback guest worker" what are you going to do?

I'll admit that for a short time businesses will probably find their labor costs much lower. Of course, they might find that they aren't selling as much because there will be less money in the economy to purchase goods and services. (especially since those guest workers will continue to send money out of the country to help their family back "home")

I would support "legal" immigration if it rewarded assimilation and english speaking, but I will not support a bill that is designed to create a permanent class of lower class workers solely to feed big businesses need for profits, and that is what the current package offers.

And DJ, you have greatly over-simplified the situation in your attempt to appear compassionate. Immigration is a disaster, but the solution cannot start with any attempt to legitimize the current illegals unless there are protections in place to prevent business from using them to make an attack on wages and unions.

(and this from a staunch conservative who hates unions, but I realize that in this instance, giving big business the win is a disaster.)

Aren't we all just jumped u... (Below threshold)
kim:

Aren't we all just jumped up lace curtain mick thugs?
================================

OT: Wizbang Blue averages, ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

OT: Wizbang Blue averages, at least at the moment, 2.5 comments per post. I counted 49 comments for 20 posts. Then again, one post did have 21 comments (I didn't bother to read them), so that would leave 28 comments for the other 19 posts, for an average of less than 1.5 . I actually heard crickets chirping when the page came up.

I prefer border guards to m... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

I prefer border guards to military - it is more or less a permanent post so you have to hire anyway - and the training is more appropriate.

4000 more guards, a wall, and infrared is going to catch a lot more of them. You can't shoot them so you have to send them back or jail them.

I prefer a very short time in jail and a $ 100 fine, and then send them back. We should prepare for many still getting through.

But twolane and Buda have got to the crux of the matter for me - free services. In our debate about the benefit to the economy, it always comes down to: "How much in free services?". Truth is, nobody knows.

So let's take this out of the equation. Take away all welfare access in the bill and take away the free education, force guest workers/employers to buy medical. That way everyone is going to agree that this is a positive for our economy.

Lmao @ Kim.............. (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Lmao @ Kim...........

not me babe, my people got off the "other" boat..

ciao

Border security and a huge ... (Below threshold)
xray:

Border security and a huge reduction of illegal inflows first, a couple years later you can reform immigration and even start the process to legalize many of the 20 MM here. Get those reversed and you will end up with a civil war and a lot of dead people. We're really pissed off about this subject. Really, really pissed off, thanks to Bush and a few republican senators, who should have fixed this situation over the last 6 years.

To those who talk about the... (Below threshold)
xray:

To those who talk about the economic effects or reducing illegal immigration or not legalizing the current 20 MM. So, you will spend another $0.50 for your big mac because McDonald's will have to pay more reasonable wages. Maybe you pay an extra $40 per month for the guy to mow your lawn. Maybe you pay an extra 10% for that remodeling job. Small prices to pay to keep your country and our way of life. Go the other path and your children will see the end of this country and they will suffer greatly. Stop being selfish and greedy, enforce the laws, pay more now and save the country.

A conservative trying to se... (Below threshold)
BC:

A conservative trying to see the big picture is like Paris Hilton trying to avoid the press -- it ain't gonna happen. Under Bill Clinton there was an effective clampdown on illegal immigration that went to hell under Bush and the Republican majority, even with supposedly escalated post 9/11 security. Illegal Mexican immigrants were and are just too tempting for corporations and rich folk in general -- cheap, hardworking, reliable, and trouble-free labor for farm and factory work, restaurant help, cleaning offices, nannying, housekeeping, landscaping, whatever. Not only does the work get done cheaply, but there are no grossly expensive health benefits to pony up for as well. If that wasn't enough, the illegals then become attractive consumers by pumping their hard won money back into the economy. So what if social services and public school systems take a hit -- did you ever meet a Republican politician who ever gave more than lip service about that stuff?

The situation we have now has been some years in coming and it's messy and complicated, and Republicans handle messy and complicated like hicks with road rage -- nothing good, never mind constructive, ever comes of it.

BC says:"The situati... (Below threshold)
Budahmon:

BC says:
"The situation we have now has been some years in coming and it's messy and complicated, and Republicans handle messy and complicated like hicks with road rage -- nothing good, never mind constructive, ever comes of it."

...and the Dems handle it better!! I con't think so. Do you remember Clinton escalating the citizenship of former illegals so they could vote for him in '96... Clinton's was lip service to...just a little more than Bush II but less than Bush I...Dems handle something explosive..they hide it until they think they can hang it on Reps...and eventually they do!

... and BC your tirade with... (Below threshold)
xray:

... and BC your tirade with its combination of truth and lies accomplishes what?

DJ Drummond,The fu... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

DJ Drummond,

The fundamental reason why illegal immigration exits and is such a problem is because people at two widely separated points of the political spectrum are in league with each other to stop enforcement of the law, but for different reasons. Both small and large businesses see illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor, while liberals see them as poor people who need compassion and support. If it weren't for conservatives who see the danger uncontrolled immigration poses to the American culture and way of life, there would be little attempt to stop anyone at the boarder or enforce the current laws.

As a conservative I want to stop illegal immigration once and for all and from anywhere. As a Christian I want to have compassion on the illegal aliens already among us. There's a simple solution to the problem that's both effective and compassionate.

I'll start with the compassionate side first as it's less complicated. With enactment of the law any non-citizen inside the boards of the U.S. who has been here for 1 year or more would get a green card (permanent residency) if they wanted it. They could then follow the normal route to citizenship if they want. No fines, no back taxes, no idiot provision of going back to their home country and then coming back, etc. This satisfies those who want to show compassion, but in exchange they must support the next provision which will cut off most future illegal immigration.

A database must be established ASAP of everyone legally in the country who wants to work or run a business. That database includes a person's fingerprints and/or other biometric data. Many will complain about this, but everyone going into the military has been fingerprinted since before WW2, and if it has been ok to do that to our military personnel for the last 65 years then it's ok to do it for everyone, period. When you go to get a job you give your employer your usual data plus your fingerprints. Because your employer also has to have your Social Security Number, the fingerprint verification only needs to look at the fingerprint set on file for that SSN, which means the check can be almost intentions. If there's match, the employer receives a confirmation number that exempts them from penalties for employing illegal aliens. This would be a free service provided by tax payers to all employers.

The next part is what would make this all work; privatized enforcement. If an employer is found to be employing illegal aliens and they don't have confirmation numbers that prove they used the system, then they are on the hook for some hefty fines, and there are no excuses. Money from fines would pay for a reward for turning in the employee, and for exportation expenses. As for illegal aliens found working, the law would granting green card status for hardship cases (married to a citizen, has minors who are citizens, political persecution in their home country, etc.) Also, if an illegal alien turns themselves in, then they get the reward money, all paid for by the employer. If they turn in themselves and others, they get the reward for themselves and for all the others, all paid for by the employer. The employer also pays the cost of deportation.

Of course, other people could also turn in Employers, such as bounty hunters, private investigators; anyone who can establish probable cause to bring a challenge. Anyone found trying to game any part of the system would face prison time.

With no work available for illegals, few would try to come the U.S. illegally. That would free law enforcement to concentrate on drug dealers and terrorists. Yes, there are more details to work out and it would cost money and take time to get everything set up, but it would be far less expensive than trying to forcible stop illegal immigration at the boarder.

You asked the other day, what do we do now. Well, I believe this is a doable plan that's both compassionate and effective. Employers won't like it, but if conservatives and liberals can work a deal, then employers are going to conform to the law as WE always do.

...almost intentions<... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

...almost intentions

Should be ...almost instantaneous


DJ,Senator Kennedy... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

DJ,

Senator Kennedy has been in the Senate a long time. His first amnesty was passed in 1965. Since then he has managed to get 6 more amnesties passed and into law. None of those prior amnesties has stopped nor slowed the flow of illegal aliens over our border nor has it limited the number of visa overstays. Yet here is our Congress preparing to fashion Kennedy's 8th amnesty bill (because all the previous ones worked so well).
You have Trent Lott praising Kennedy for his courage and his tireless efforts to erase the border of this country. Lindsey Graham says his job is to work with Senator Kennedy...Silly me, I thought we elected Repubicans to fight against Kennedys treachery. McCain and Graham check with Kennedy prior to voting on amendments to see which way they should vote. I think that a large part of the Republican Senators care more about Ted Kennedy than about what the "base", or the people that got them elected think or want.
I know that you oppose the bill, we all should. But I think Kasper is right in that this bill shows how incredibly out of touch our leaders actually are.
When they can praise Kennedy and complain about talk radio, or the "loud people" then I believe that they have betrayed our trust. You may not agree...
6 years after 9-11 and our border is not close to being secured...Negligence pure and simple. There is no system in place to track visa overstays, which is how all the hijackers got here. There is nothing in this bill forcing cities to cooperate with ICE or the Feds when they come across a criminal illegal alien...There is nothing in this bill forcing cities to verify immigration status before giving out government aid. This bill entitles millions to come here in "chain migration". This bill requires that the government do background checks on undocumented illegal aliens in 24 hours, when they can't even issue a passport to Americans with 2 forms of ID in 3 months.
They govern "with the consent of the governed". I no longer consent.

Sorry-I didn't see the rest... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

Sorry-I didn't see the rest of your post before I responded

You said "The reason, more than anything else, that illegals enter the United States, is a better life."

They do come here for a better life, no question. But that better life comes at a cost to the American quality of life, jobs,wages, crowding, welfare, schools, hospitals, roads/highways, crime are all increasingly impacted. Even the criminals among them come here because the pickings are better and the punishments are less. Most of those that come here do not want to be Americans, they want to earn a higher wage, send the money home and one day return. Most of those that I encountered on the streets of Los Angeles (and I encountered thousands & arrested hundreds) despise Americans and America. They drive illegaly with "Calvin" decals on the back window urinating on the word "America". They have no wish to assimilate or become part of "the melting pot". They come here to take or earn what they can and go home.

Well said, DJ. I've suspec... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

Well said, DJ. I've suspected that we agreed on more than we disagree. I don't know if you thought your messages were clear but they weren't, or if it was my own reading comprehension was off.

I agree with, and have said before, that the illegal alien bill was just too big -- and that we should focus on limiting the flow of [i]illegal[/i] immigration first, then figure out the rest after that.

I don't share your optimism on securing the border, though. There are plenty of people who don't want to see that: Politicians afraid of losing the Hispanic vote or ticking off Mexico, people with literally a drop of Native American blood who see this as still enemy-occupied territory, illegals who have crossed the borders -- and more importantly, the their jus solei American children and a whole load of people with hearts (or guilt?) bigger than brains.

Personally, I'd like to see legal immigration quotas stopped altogether. It's racist, and we could be missing out on the best-of-the-best (instead, we are going for the best-of-certain groups).

I know a Vietnamese gal who just months ago became an American citizen. She was extremely happy and very patriotic about it (anxious to vote, too). I ~think~ we can assimilate 12-20 million, but if it's 12-20 million plus many more illegally each year, I think we should just give up on being a country, and hope for the best ...

To x-ray and the others:</p... (Below threshold)
BC:

To x-ray and the others:

Sorry, my "tirade" was actually a combination of truth and more truth. As I've posted elsewhere, I'll admit that on an individual level, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between Guiliani, McCain, and Ron Paul versus Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. The difference comes, and it's a big one, with the type of people that each candidate will bring in with him or her. When you vote in a new President, you don't just also get a Vice-President, or even a new cabinet -- you also get an army of new department heads, US Attorneys, diplomats, advisors, and so on, and this is where any Republican candidate is pretty much screwed, however well-intentioned -- thanks to the GOP's embrace of malicious campaigning, anti-science, greed, laissez faire nonsense, and general crackpottery and nudge-nudge, wink-wink corruption, they've alienated virtually everyone who's ethical, highly competent, and a bit more than just "smart". Hence when there is a crisis or some complicated problem, someone like Guiliani will likely only be able to muster up a "C Team" at best to deal with it, whereas a Hillary will probably have at least a few "A Team" types to call upon, although the Democrats wimpy behavior towards impeaching Bush and dealing with Iraq have caused some alienation there as well.

When things are going well, any fool can be President, but things are not going well and they don't look to be getting better on their own anytime soon if at all. This thing with illegal immigration -- it's a mess now with no simple solution. Even tightening up border security and enforcing the laws we have in place have issues -- do we target illegal immigrants, potential terrorists or both, what option might realistically work, how much will it cost, and how will it be paid? This type of complex problem requires the type of resourceful thinking that isn't exactly drawn to the GOP these days. This is what it is and it's not going to change anytime soon short of Bush's impeachment and lots 'n' lots of sincere apologies and admissions of royally screwing up. Yet even then....

Wiz,You said this:... (Below threshold)

Wiz,

You said this:

Yes, there are terrorists to protect against, but as yet I have not heard of a major Latino group which desires to murder American civilians or overthrow the United States government. Granted, movements like the Reconquista and racist groups like La Raza are problematic, but if we call them 'terrorists', we not only start to blur the difference between vulgar but nonviolent activists, and people who bomb schools and cut heads off as part of their ideology, but we would also be forced to declare many leading Democrats to be 'terrorists'. The rhetoric is too similar to ignore the shared meme.

While I agree your statement is generally true, there are a few particulars here where these comparisons do apply.

Here's one article that supports such comparisons.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/26/MNGJELCP391.DTL

Here's another:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4236314/

And here's one more.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040928-123346-3928r.htm

If this doesn't make you want to close our border, well, I don't know what to say.

Personally, I support a massive amnesty plan for illegals here who already have steady jobs with NO CHAIN LINK IMMIGRATION, as well as a massive deportation of the criminals here. We should go after them with the gloves off and off the top.

"Open Letter To The America... (Below threshold)
Althor:

"Open Letter To The American Senate"

Dear Senators,


It is an outrage that with over 70% of the American people asking Congress to rather implement our existing immigration laws, and vehemently opposed to the recently defunct
"amnesty" bill legislation, that the "Unholy Alliance" made up of President Bush, the McCain "RINO" Republicans, and the Kennedy - Reid pro-unfettered illegal immigration Democrats in the Senate, be contemplating reviving it once again, and trying once more to shove it down our collective throats against our will! I am so outraged and ashamed by Senator Reid and all his positions, as a Nevadan, that it is appalling - so much for "representative government"!

And now President Bush - not content with his legacy of "10th century Muslim tribal savages love democracy" and "give Palestinians 'Free Elections' so that they can choose the HAMAS terrorists to govern them" pipe dream incompetency in dealing with Iraq and the Middle East - wants to do one better by also surrendering our sovereignty to Mexico, and even recently attended a Hispanic "Prayer Meeting" event, I suppose in the hopes that the defunct
"scamnesty" bill would miraculously rise from the dead Lazarus-like through the power of "La Raza's"
prayers to the bloodthirsty Aztec gods of their indigenous ancestors! If Bush gets his way on this one, his will prove to be an "enduring legacy" indeed!

As a concerned American I want Congress to enforce our existing laws - including deportations - and secure our porous borders, and not give another free pass and a path to citizenship to over 12 million alien law breakers here illegally, that have no business here in the first place had the government done its duty to begin with and kept our borders secure in the first place!

They are taking away our jobs, abusing our social services at taxpayer expense, lowering our standards of education for our children in order to accommodate their illiteracy, downgrading our quality of life, and eroding our national identity!

Proponents of this "amnesty" travesty bill use the fallacious argument that these illegal, mostly Mexican, immigrants are here to "do the jobs other Americans won't do." Tell that to my son, who lost his landscaping business because paying $18.00 an hour to "legal American" workers he could not compete with unscrupulous landscapers hiring "illegal Mexicans" at $6.00 an hour. Tell that to all those other Americans, who like my son, have lost their businesses, or can't find work, or lost their jobs, to all these illegal aliens swarming us and living amongst us with impunity!

Or tell it to the senior citizen couples on a fixed income living in our cities, who are driven out of their one bedroom apartments by exorbitant artificially inflated rents, that keep rising because of the demand created by these illegal aliens who are willing to pay such prices because twenty of them will share a one bedroom apartment in appallingly unsanitary and crowded conditions and in violation of every City Zoning law, Fire Department code, and Health Department ordinance imaginable, endangering not only themselves but all those around them, while unscrupulous landlords look the other way! How can a senior couple on a fixed income compete with 20 illegal aliens willing to pay such exorbitant rents to live in such deplorable conditions? Where will such seniors go then?

I have a friend from the Philippines who, when she emigrated to America seeking the "American Dream" as all immigrants do, left her son behind in the Philippines with her mother. He was just three-years-old at the time. She immediately applied to bring him over legally, and has been waiting for eighteen years for his turn.


In all this time, and though she visits him, her son has grown into a young man, and she has missed irreplaceable moments of his childhood that she will never be able to recover, because she did what was proper and followed and OBEYED THE LAW. And now you tell me that the Mexican illegal aliens that crossed the border last year are going to be given "amnesty", a "free pass", a "path to citizenship", and "family reunification", while my friend, not only lost sharing her son's precious childhood as a mother, but is still waiting??? How fair is that?!?! Had she known, she'd would have just sneaked him across our southern border - just one more young Mexican sneaking over!

And I would like to stress, before anyone levels any accusations of "bigotry" and or "racism" against me, that I myself am an immigrant, and the son of immigrants, that I happen to be of truly "Hispanic" (as in from Spain) descent, and have relatives who are Mexican and or of Mexican descent, that though an American I am very proud of my ancestry, that all my great-grandparents, both on my father's as well as my mother's side of the family, hailed from Spain - and no, that we did not sneak across the southern border, but came here LEGALLY.

Had the Federal Government and Congress enforced our immigration laws and secured our borders back in 1986 when we granted all the illegals amongst us then "amnesty" the first time around, we wouldn't be having this out of control infestation right now. Legalize these 12 to 20 million illegal aliens amongst us and more will simply keep coming. When will it stop, when they have taken over?!?!

What Lawmakers like yourselves need to do is to stop pussyfooting around, wringing your hands effeminately, and stop selling yourselves out to "Big Business," "La Raza," and other "Reconquista" and special interest groups, represent the will of the people that ELECTED YOU, and enforce our existing immigration laws with real "TEETH" - including DEPORTATIONS of all here illegally - and stop trying to figure a way of shirking-off your responsibility to address head-on the government's past dismal failure in enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders since that first "amnesty" of 1986 - looking the other way as over 12 million more illegal aliens swarmed us after that - by instead of addressing the problem created by our government's failure and reluctance to enforce our existing immigration laws, compounding it by conveniently getting rid of that "pesky technicality" that in fact these aliens are here ILLEGALLY, simply by enacting legislation
"legalizing" them, and rewarding the illegality of all these illegal law breakers invading our country. Period! Remember my "law abiding" Filipino friend's son: eighteen years and still waiting!

Stop this "scamnesty" madness now, enforce our existing laws, and secure our borders first!

It's high time we all realize, even all of you sell-out politicians in "Washington Lululand," that, to paraphrase the very apropos words of a song by the late legendary Cuban "Salsa Queen" Celia Cruz : "No hay cama pa' tanta gente." (There's not enough room in the bed for so many people.)

So very true, enough is enough! Enforce and stop "dilly-dallying" with more "scamnesty"!


Sincerely,

An Outraged American

From Hyscience:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/06/open_letter_to_2.php


Althor

DJ I have been saying all a... (Below threshold)
Fisk:

DJ I have been saying all along that we need to halt immigration and let those who are here legally to have time to assimilate into our culture and Americanize.

But the problem is our leaders are not enforcing the laws. How can we be a nation of law and not men, if we do not enforce the laws? Enforcement is sporadic at best. Granting any sort of amnesty or breaks to lawbreakers should not be tolerated. The will of the American public is being ignored. Americans want this problem dealt with, and progress made. We get nothing of substance.

DJ, you also stated in your post that, and I quote,

"I believe in the rights and power of the individual, in limited and accountable government, in strong support of the Constitution as it was actually written," end quote.

I ask you, do you support any federal programs which violate the constitution? Warrentless searches and seizures, warrentless wiretaps. I am not trying to pick a fight here, as I do not know your opinion on these programs, but no amount of soul searching can reconcile the fact that those actions violate the 4th Amendment in spades. I myself simply cannot support a president that thinks those kinds of actions are ok in the US simply because the idea is that we are fighting a greater evil. If we allow this, we destroy the spirit of America ourselves. I realize that federal judges ruled that these actions are not legal, but it is unknown to me if this continues to be used or if it has stopped.
I find this extremely troubling. The president should know better. The Attorney General should know better. Approving the torture of "Enemy Combatents" simply because they are not uniformed soldiers violates the spirit of the Geneva Convention whether we opted out of it for Iraq or not. I just cannot understand how any real Christian could be ok with torture. I don't care how bad terrorists are. Put them to death in a dignified way, and end the problem, but when you sink to that depth, you lose your soul. We do not tolerate Dirty Cops that break the law to bust known criminals, why would we tolerate this? Criminal law is not there to protect the guilty, its there to protect the innocent. Its there to ensure that we lock up the right people. It serves no purpose to convict the innocent and let the guilty walk. Thats why we have the standards laid out in the 4th Amendment. Law enforcement is simply being lazy if they find the 4th amendment an obstical.
I am afraid the Freedom President just doesn't get it, or does not care. If we lose our values that made us great, we lose our country and cease to be great.

I don't care if President Bush opposes abortion and stands for many core conservative values, he completely falls flat on some very fundamental issues, and sets a dangerous precident. The president ignores the will of the people. I don't see any bloggers here on Wizbang supporting Amnesty in any cloaked form. So what gives?
Why support Bush? Because he's better than the alternative? Is he? Who's the alternative? Keep voting them all out of office until they get the message. President Bush's support plummets, but he just keeps going. I don't think he even cares.

"I believe in the rights and power of the individual, in limited and accountable government, in strong support of the Constitution as it was actually written,"

We are talking practice and principal here.
What are your thoughts on all this?

The most irritating thing a... (Below threshold)
jdubious:

The most irritating thing about this debate is that those people who would ordinarily denounce "corporate welfare" want to extend gov't benefits to illegal aliens (or, in the aftermath of shamnesty, newly-minted LPR's.)

food stamps
medicaid
LIHEAP
WIC
TANF
Supplementary Security Income (SSI)
Earned Income Tax Credit

all these benefits are basically subsidies paid to ConAgra, Tyson, etc, to continue to pay their noncitizen employees wages too low to to adequately support their citizen families.

In other words, and please forgive the all-caps, but this is so so important,

WE'RE ALREADY PAYING EXTRA FOR THE BIG MAC.
WE'RE ALREADY PAYING EXTRA FOR THE LETTUCE
WE'RE ALREADY PAYING EXTRA FOR THE NANNY!

oh, wait. not everyone can afford nannies?
that's right. because what this schema does is rob the consumer of his most important tool for negotiating economic decisions... he can walk away from the big mac if he doesn't like the retail price. but he's paying the vig just the same. and the working poor who actually pay more in income taxes than they receive, who, last time i checked, aren't so much employing nannies and gardeners.

importing illegal immigrants (or, as the chimperor calls them, "chocolate-frosted kitten-laborers, or whatever,) is profoundly undemocratic, profoundly ANTI-CAPITALIST, in that sustaining such populations requires that everyone pay for the economic benefit of a few, without giving them a way of voting with the dollar at the retail point.

disagree? call the IRS and get back to me.

and DJ? please quit with the "marxist" slur. coming from someone who prefers a nuclear north korea to a nuclear japan, it's a little silly.

this is not to say that i disagree with DJ's post entirely, BTW. (tho i do find the 'we can't treat 12 million people like they're invisible line" to be a couric-esque non-sequitur, a strawman with pretensions. Noone's treating them like they're invisible, and saything they are makes you sound like andrew sullivan.)

I was just going to say tha... (Below threshold)
Ken:

I was just going to say that in your post, the subject of law enforcement should include interior enforcement along with the border security you mentioned. But to top it off, Mac Lorry hit the nail on the head: a bit harsh sounding, but a good first approximation to interior enforcement.. free enterprise enforcement by any interested citizen! along with the straightforward biometric ID system.

If we are to have any solution, there has to be a new higher enforcement level that creates a disincentive for new illegal immigrants. Otherwise it's 1986 all over again.

That's very interesting jdu... (Below threshold)
kim:

That's very interesting jdub.

Thanks, KnightBrigade. I'm pretty sure I got that one from Rick, but Ballard or Moran, I'm not sure.
====================

My new meme is that Spanish... (Below threshold)
kim:

My new meme is that Spanish is not a foreign language. You all know more than you think you do.
=========================

"We do not tolerate Dirty C... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"We do not tolerate Dirty Cops that break the law to bust known criminals, why would we tolerate this?"

Why are the criminal democrat frauds tollerated?

"My new meme is that Spanis... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"My new meme is that Spanish is not a foreign language. You all know more than you think you do."

C!

We do not tolerate Dirty Co... (Below threshold)
Fisk:

We do not tolerate Dirty Cops that break the law to bust known criminals, why would we tolerate this?"

Why are the criminal democrat frauds tollerated?
Posted by: Rob LA Ca. at June 18, 2007 12:40 PM


Do you want to be specific? Crime should not be tolerated.

Apparently DJ has nothing to say on this apparent contradiction concerning his support of the US Constitution and how the 4th Amendment and other rights are currently being abuse by those in power.

Case in point Rob and DJ, DJ likes sources so I'll give an easy one. On the front page of the New Haven Register, there was an article dated January 9, 2007. The headline was "Arrest exposes state's threat list" Ken Krayeske, a Green Party supporter, campaign worker, and INTERNET BLOGGER, was arrested by Hartford police after taking photos of Connecticut Republican Governer Jodi Rell at an inaugural parade. PHOTOS AT A PARADE!
Quote: "There was nothing about his history that indicates he was a danger to anyone" said state Rep.Michael P. Lawlor, D-EastHaven, co-chairman of the legislature's judiciary Committee. Even Governor Rell was stunned at the arrest of a peaceful activist.
Police said Krayeske's name was already on a list of potential threats put together by FBI, state and local police.
State Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, CT said the secret list of allegedly dangerous individuals "reeks of secret police."

Its not the fact that Krayeske was arrested that is disturbing, its the very fact that he was even on a secret threat list in the first place that is most disturbing.

Political activism is not a crime.

This is what I've been talking about. Bending and breaking constitutional rights is not just for terrorists anymore. If it ever was. Illegal wiretaps, how might you suppose "Law Enforcement" and I use that term loosely, gathered information on this guy?

This big gun, known as the USA Patroit Act that was given to the Bush Administration, has been almost immediatly turned around and used on the American people.

I hear people tell me, "I don't care about illegal wiretaps, and other constitutional violations, I'm not doing anything illegal" Well, neither was Krayeske.

So you can't stand the Green Party. Neither can I. But thats not the point. We are potentially 1 election away from the possible election of a Democratic president. Sooner or later, we will elect one again. The USA Patroit Act is a powerful and abusive tool. Unless it is removed, it will remain there even though administrations change. Whould you want to end up on a state or federal threat list, under say a President Hillery Clinton for example? You could, you blog too, just like Krayeske.

If you people don't start speaking out about these abuses now, you will have no right to complain if by some chance you find yourself on a threat list, or banned from airline travel, simply because you blogged on Wizbang. It can happen, it has happened.

Once again practice and principal.

Kim 3:30 AM and 11:54 AM, u... (Below threshold)
Fisk:

Kim 3:30 AM and 11:54 AM, up all night blogging again? Unemployed are we?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy