I’ve written before how I don’t care for Pat Buchanan. I think he deliberately caters to the worst in his readers, and he often throws bombs just to stir up the whackoes.
That being said, his piece this week where he calls for the impeachment of President Bush hits a LOT of themes I’ve been pushing here for months, and a bill of impeachment just might wake Dubya out of whatever stupor he’s in about illegal aliens and get some real action.
There’s an old saying that “a broken clock is right twice a day.” In these days of digital clocks, I think we might be down to once, and I think Pat Buchanan finally hit midnight.
Impeachment is for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Bush has not broken any laws himself, so a bill of impeachment would be dead before it took two steps.
Once again, Pat Buchanan is smoking crack.
Threatening to impeach the President over illegal immigration is one of the stupidest statements Buchanan has ever made and he’s made some doozies. All an impeachment does is open the doors for every person with a gripe to call for the impeachment of a President for every little slight real or imagined.
The impeachment process is not meant to “wake Dubya out of whatever stupor he’s in about illegal aliens.” It is meant to remove a sitting President for REAL crimes.
You have made some ludicrous statements in the past, but this one just takes the cake.
he swore to uphold the laws of this great country. he is not doing that when it comes to immigration. maybe not doing your job is not a crime, but i hope he “wakes up” nonetheless.
President Hayseed is by far the worst president this nation has ever seen. He has failed to honor his sworn oath of office. If any president has ever needed to be removed from office it is this miserable Texican stooge.
Sorry Jay, I think your going to wish you never made this post
Wouldn’t it be easier to just remove the incentives?
You know, when Bill Clinton was President he was the butt of a lot of jokes, and mean-spitited speech. But I point out two things;
1- He actually did those things, and
2- His title and name were still used.
Now, as for Pat Buchanan. I heard him on the radio yesterday (Hannity I think) and he was admitting that this was a publicity stunt designed to wake the President up, and the public at large I suppose.
If he thinks there is a problem with the borders he should get someone in the Legislative Branch to propose a law, get some buy-in, and have it passed.
The Executive Branch is no more responsible for inventing laws than the Judicial. The Exec enforces those laws (which I admit is not being done very well, due in small part to political corectness and weak-kneed-ness) while the Judicial interprets them.
A well-written, meaning simple and short, law would do wonders for the whole country. Wasting our time and money with a frivilous impeachment, like lawsuits, serves no effective purpose.
Am I mistaken?
Oh for chrissakes! What an absolutely moronic idea!
Did it worry you at all to see that shark pass by below?
Jay, you frequently play at the edges of common sense and occasionally stray into simple stupidity. Now you dive head first into insanity. Your “clock” accuracy rate is better than Buchanan’s (but then, very few are that bad), but it’s not good enough that you should be publicly citing the “broken clock” adage.
Impeachment for policy you don’t like–what a measured, wise course of action! Do you have any respect for the Constitution, never mind common sense?
This has got to be the stupidest post of the week in the right wing blogosphere.
I use to like this blog, until I read the libertarian kook crap just now.
Sean,
Go read Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. By failing to provide assistance to the border states, he’s in violation of the federal government’s obligations pursuant to that section.
Sounds like old “JD” just came over from our Daily Kos “buddies”. LOL
And for the geniuses who seem to think that they are such know-it-alls that they’d bash Jay and Pat over this, read the actual law:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
-Article IV, Section 4 United States Constitution
I fail to see how any logical and reasonable person can claim that the illegal immigration has not reached the level of a bonafide invasion given the fact that the Mexican government actively encourages its people to colonize the US.
Wow, it’s been months since I’ve had time to read this blog, but I thought I’d check in since I remembered Paul was from N.O. A call to impeach the president was the last thing I expected to see.
Disappointing.
Jay Tea,
I’m with you on this one though it appears to not be paticularly popular so far. Buchanan is fringe and his rhetoric needs to be parsed rather judiciously. On this one, however, he is right. Whether it’s a serious plea or a publicity stunt, something must be done to curtail illegal immigration. Bush is clearly not the man for this job.
One quote was particularly telling and a true indictment of our representatives given public opinion on this matter:
“Why is a Republican Congress permitting this president to persist in the dereliction of his sworn duty?”
We all know that all of our representatives are responsible for defending our borders. The Republicans, as majority party, have an obligation to initiate legislation and push this effort. The minority one could as well but they do not set the agenda. The executive should use its bully pulpit to present what it believes. Bush has been expectedly silent on this matter which means he doesn’t care about this particular issue, or he does not want to advance what the vast majority believes is the appropriate action – defending our borders.
To me, this is an impeachable offense. He is not advancing the Constitutional perogative of defending our nation’s citizens by securing borders. He is a hypocrite for warning Syrians and Iranians to stay out of Iraq and protect their borders while he is unwilling to defend our own. His advancement of the Patriot Act (which I endorse) rings rather hollow when a flood of humanity enters daily. This humanity spreads unchecked and ignored despite monies allocated to increase the personnel tasked to defend the country.
Bush continues his legacy of encouraging illegal immigration and a chummy relationship with Vincente Fox. As Tancredo has said previously, I wish Mr. Bush were as concerned about this issue here as Mr. Fox is in Mexico.
I have but one question for those defending Mr. Bush’s immigration policy (or lack of one): If Mr. Clinton were as egregious in his thumbing of nose at our immigration laws, particularly in view of 9/11, would you be asking for his impeachment? You can bet I would and it would be appropriate. Job number one for the government is to protect its citizens. Bush has failed miserably in this regard despite admirable speeches regarding foreign lands. Repeating them does not absolve him from his responsibility at home. He should be taken to task and if impeachment hearings are required, then count me in.
Jay, please tell me you’re kidding.
While we are at it, why not call for Bush to be impeached because of all the people the IRS doesn’t catch cheating on their taxes? Or all the murderers and other criminals not caught by law enforcement? Or the contraband being smuggled into the US that isn’t caught by Customs?
There are few on the right side of the aisle who disprove more of what Bush is and isn’t doing than I… but calling for his impeachment because we don’t like his priorities is a tad silly… and too much of what I expect from the other side.
“I fail to see how any logical and reasonable person can claim that the illegal immigration has not reached the level of a bonafide invasion given the fact that the Mexican government actively encourages its people to colonize the US.”
I fail to see how any logical and reasonable person can claim it’s an “invasion” when the state’s are providing food, shelter, clothing, health care and jobs for the invaders.
We don’t need the Army or Border Patrol or an Iron friggin’ Curtain down there. Stop paying them to come here and they will stop coming.
Hmmm.
I see a lot of people making some snide remarks without actually contributing anything to this discussion.
Frankly I don’t think an impeachment effort would really go anywhere. But I do think it would accomplish a great deal. If nothing else it would show the GOP, in a very literal way, just how aggravating this issue is for a lot of people.
What’s needed more though is an accurate, state-by-state, assessment on the actual costs due to the illegal immigration. Just in basic education costs alone the bill could be enormous, and that’s without healthcare costs borne by states and the federal government.
The assessment is needed, prior to any serious discussion of impeachment, to combat the whole “illegals are good for the economy” nonsense.
And I’ll point out that any such impeachment proceedings are not, and should not, be limited to President Bush. If it’s possible to bring them about against Bush, then it’s possible to bring them about to any sitting President that doesn’t actively enforce control over the borders.
Hmmmm.
I’ll also add one other point.
This is how Mexico first lost Texas.
If the southwestern states are majority populated by Mexican citizens, with say dual citizenship, and they decide to seceede from the union to rejoin Mexico, are you willing to send combat troops there to fight another civil war?
Would you prefer to head things off now?
Or would you like to practice a, then necessary, form of ethnic cleansing to force out the Mexican separatists by force?
This is why I think an impeachment proceeding isn’t out of the bounds.
Sorry for the anger in my first comment, but this really set me off. If immigration is your hot button, then join up with the Minutemen; at least they’re doing something about it. Urging a Republican congressman to start an impeachment resolution is a stunt, pure and simple.
If we impeached government officials for every real or perceived dereliction of duty there’d be no one left to govern. In that respect, the impeachment process should be used with great and cautious discretion. To call for Bush’s impeachment is knee-jerk reactionism that’s better left to the Left.
Having said that…
I think AnonDriv makes some excellent points (as usual); the President’s hypocritical stance on borders and security is laughable and could very well be his undoing should another 9/11-type event occur and it was discovered that the attackers came through our porous southern border.
By all means, the President needs to wake up to the HUGE problem illegal immigration is presenting in this country—from rising health care and medical costs, education, crime, to the potential terrorist threat.
Obviously, we need to make the President care about this issue. As citizens, we need to get off our asses and put some pressure on our representatives to make this a BIG issue. And that means writing campaigns, calling talk radio shows, etc., all the things the left does really well and that GOPers do not. There has to be that overwhleming ground swell that gets to the right people. And that ain’t happening, folks.
But impeachment? Puhleez.
First, I agree that illegal immigration is a big problem, but I have to say that everyone who has discussed radical action here needs to take a chill pill.
Our economy is inextricably intertwined with illegal immigrants. There is no realistic or economically feasible plan to extricate them from the system. No one would be willing to pay the taxes needed to build a government agency that could really control the boarders, catch, detain, and deport all the illegals. Nor would we be happy with the consequences of such an action. Imagine triple priced produce, double priced services, etc. That would plunge the economy into a depression very quickly.
Any measure taken needs to be incremental and well thought out (and what government program is well thought out?) or we will end up with suffering from the law of unintended consequences. Besides if its such a problem, why are the Governors of the most affected States doing next to nothing? They are in control of their National Guard Troops within their states. If it is truly the emergency that some are making it out to be why not deploy the troops? I think their inaction tells us volumes.
We do need to wake Bush up about this issue, but impeachment as the means to do it, is simply stupid. Sorry, J — no Kool-Aid for me.
Oh yeah, I also question the use of the term “pourous-southern-boarder”. Our northern boarder is arguably much more porous and inarguably much larger. Further, our coastlines are virtually unprotectable and again much larger (a handful of coastgaurd patrols covers thousands of miles). Thus, the use of the terrorist via southern boarder line of argument only serves as a scare tactic and doesn’t hold intellecutally honest water in my mind.
Not only did this digital clock hit midnight, it’s BLINKING. It needs to be reset.
Brother Jay…I just don’t get it. Sorry. I will grant you that the efforts at border control have been woefully inadequate, but to say Bush has done nothing is simply not true. What is true is that he hasn’t done enough. Additionally, the blame cannot be solely heaped upon the President. There is that thing called Congress and if they felt something needed to be done they could have, and can, act on their own. And the Dems are only spouting border control as a wedge issue to separate Bush from his conservative core and motivate union and trade groups. I see them as being very NOT serious about controlling illegal immigration.
And please, stop reading Buchanan. Anyone to the right of Pat Robertson deserves an audience of none.
RE: McGehee’s post (August 31, 2005 03:06 PM)
We do need to wake Bush up about this issue, but impeachment as the means to do it, is simply stupid. Sorry, J — no Kool-Aid for me.
That’s OK. [J, I’ll take McGehee’s.]
The problem is that Bush need not be awakened to anything. He knows about the associated problems and risk/reward yet chooses to do nothing. Actually, he does less than nothing.
He has lived in a border state for decades. He was governor of a border state for two terms. He has advocated NAFTA and CAFTA and was one of, if not the strongest, proponent of NAFTA as Texas’ governor. His father, as VP in the Reagan administration, was the first to advocate and pass amnesty for illegal aliens.
To give this President any excuse for not being aware is foolish. He is as aware as is humanly possible. He supports this illegal immigration because of special interest business pressure desirous of cheap labor. That’s the financial end of his position. The political one is that he feels, incorrectly in the current environment, that by defending the borders, he (and by extension the Republican party) will be tagged xenophobes – the very ammo Rove and like-minded handlers do not want to hand over to a hypocritical Democratic party.
I refuse to give this President a pass on this issue. He has failed miserably and needs to be pressed to do something. If he won’t, and it is apparent that it is his wont, we have a duty to express our displeasure. I do not want to look back on 9/12 of this or another year as the day that another eighteen radicals entered our soil and carried out a plot that annihilated another population of innocents. Will we be conducting another 9/11 Commission in the near future wondering where we went wrong? Can we wash our hands of responsibility a priori? Who will be responsible for the next “Gorelick wall” of politically correct advocacy?
Is the presentation of impeachment hearings or other such rhetoric inflammatory? Yes. Partisan? Possibly. Hyperbolic? Perhaps. Necessary? Apparently. Forgetting all of the other issues besides the security one for a moment, Bush may get lucky and nothing tragic may happen on his watch. Well, good for Bush and his legacy. But what of the risks he leaves behind for other administrations? Look what the Clinton administration left for this one re acute terrorism? Why won’t we learn this lesson?
I just don’t get it. (Hyperbole alert – do not read further if you are easily offended.) Maybe my KoolAid needs to be spiked with Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate. I’ll feel so much better as the duped victim.
It’s tough to admit that there’s reason in any of Buchanan’s statements but he DOES hit the right note on occasions and in the opinion of many — such that, to write the statement, “I can’t believe I agree with Pat Buchanan” has been written by many on the internet.
About this issue, I can’t believe that I agree with Pat Buchanan.
And with MikeT, this thread:
And for the geniuses who seem to think that they are such know-it-alls that they’d bash Jay and Pat over this, read the actual law:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
-Article IV, Section 4 United States Constitution
I fail to see how any logical and reasonable person can claim that the illegal immigration has not reached the level of a bonafide invasion given the fact that the Mexican government actively encourages its people to colonize the US.…Posted by: MikeT at August 31, 2005 01:43 PM
SOME OF US (you are here) WHO VOTED FOR PRESIDENT BUSH are at wits end with Bush’s mishandling if not downright fascilitating illegal immigration. He’s either going to have to come out and say he’s been wrong about his positions (among the worst, his statement defending illegal immigrants as “doing the work that Americans won’t do” and referring to the Minutemen Project as “vigilanteism”), or, he’s doing a good job of driving many conservatives toward other voting options in the years ahead.
Since we really, really do not like the idea of President Hillary Clinton, that leaves a divided GOP in the upcoming elections and especially the Presidential in 2008 and it’ll be Bush’s failure on this issue of illegal immigration that’ll ensure that it happens. Or does not, if he gets on the ball and makes serious course corrections of the right quick kind.
And, anyone who uses the terms, “migrant workers” and “guest workers” and “immigrants” for illegal aliens is just pandering. And should not be reelected, regardless of who they are.
The country is fed up with illegal aliens and the disrespect for our nations laws, and particularly with Vicente Fox and President Bush sipping tea on this issue. He needs to get tough about illegal immigration, border security and law enforcement and do it now.
And, BMoe…tell that to the huge numbers of Brazilians who are in the U.S. illegally (they are illegal aliens) and the ongoing numbers from there who persist in illegally entering (and remaining in) the U.S.
They seem to be driven by some vanity notions more than anything. Same with many Russians. The Chinese and Mexican/Central American illegal aliens (also who number in the millions and continue to arrive — illegally, to be noted) are motivated by crime and indebtedness (means by which they arrive here is criminal in theory and practice, despite the homey nature of many who affiliate with the organizations who make the individual illegal activity possible).
The thing that most of these more recent illegal aliens have in common is that they are not interested in citizenship, and thus perceive no reason for legal immigration. They are here to use the country and not to contribute to it by citizenship otherwise.
It is an invading force. For every American business who employs illegal aliens, American citizens subsidize their illegal profiteering, and the illegal behaviors of the illegal aliens involved.
They may not be wearing uniforms but the huge numbers of illegal aliens continuing to enter our country today and recently are colonizing: they are not arriving to join but to usurp.
Probably not hard to guess who in this thread feels they are financially or otherwise benefitting from illegal immigration.
That’s the biggest problem. Take candy away from a child and you’ll get more complaints out of them than if you slapped them in the face.
Cardinals Nation,
Have you forgotten the separation of powers? The Congress cannot legally command the military or federal law enforcement apparatus. Only the President and to a very limited degree the judiciary (force the President to act) can do that. The only thing the Congress can do is pass a law making it mandatory for US military forces to occupy the border region and then impeach Bush if he doesn’t enforce the law.
The only thing the Congress can do to Bush is impeach him if he fails to uphold the law or to execute Constitutionally-mandated obligations. They can lawfully remove him from office because Article IV, Section 4 requires Bush in cases such as this to order federal law enforcement and military forces to take action. Bush has a constitutional obligation to put at least one army division on the southern border and get federal law enforcement going hard on employers of the illegals.
But he’s not doing it. We have gangs like MS-13 that are causing domestic violence and are intimately tied to the illegal immigration question. Again, Bush is willfully refusing to uphold a constitutional right of the state governments which is in this case to the military and federal police protecting them from invasion and domestic violence caused from issues under federal jurisdiction.
Hmmmm.
Frankly nobody really benefits from illegal immigration. The costs are just spread in different ways and are often hidden. In New Jersey it costs an average of $14k per student per year to educate them.
How many illegal aliens there are in the New Jersey school system nobody knows. It would be a good thing to know, but politically incorrect or some such thing.
Scotty wrote:
“Oh yeah, I also question the use of the term “pourous-southern-boarder”.
I’d question him or her, too—particularly about their apparent leaky state of being. They should seek immediate medical attention for that.
Sorry, a little levity in the midst of an otherwise serious topic. No harm meant. 😉
“Probably not hard to guess who in this thread feels they are financially or otherwise benefitting from illegal immigration.”
So how about if I assume that you’re a migrant farm worker who’s suffering from competition from illegals? Or if I assume that you’re a racist who hates the brown-skins?
Question our arguments, not our motivations.
Excellent timing for a post about impeaching President Bush.
Get a grip.
RE: Brainster’s post (August 31, 2005 06:07 PM)
Question our arguments, not our motivations.
OK. In response to:
…Urging a Republican congressman to start an impeachment resolution is a stunt, pure and simple. [Brainster at August 31, 2005 02:26 PM]
It may or may not be a stunt, but this is how democracy works. You know this. If it takes a stunt to get attention, and we all know politics is full of stunts whether sincere or disingenuous, then let’s start doing wheelies and jump this shark (Can one jump a shark on a Wheelie?).
We urge politicians to do pretty much everything since so few have the foresight or stamina to advance a truly impactful platform. This particular one has been tone deaf on illegal immigration for his entire public tenure. Check that… not tone deaf but rather a trumpeteer for illegal immigration. I figure it’s time to call his bluff, and the Minutemen may very well serve as the tipping point for action. For this administration to call them “vigilantes” is offensive to me, and I do not live on the border in direct harm’s way. I do get to carry the finacial burden (or reward depending on one’s view), but these are criminals whose behavior is perpetually rewarded. The level of criminality varies from simple migrant laborers illegally crossing to murderous, drug-running thugs (or worse) illegally crossing. This President deserves much of the blame though some might call it unfairly dispensed. He has been in the Executive long enough to have performed better on this issue. He hasn’t.
I supported the Minutemen, and I don’t support illegal immigration. I do think our present levels of legal immigration are too low, which is part of the problem.
Care to point me to where President Bush has been “a trumpeteer for illegal immigration”?
RE: Brainster’s post (August 31, 2005 07:00 PM)
Care to point me to where President Bush has been “a trumpeteer for illegal immigration”?
His lackluster policy to terminate it domestically and hypocritical position to criticize other nations for allowing it when it threatens our interests (among others) overseas. Silence speaks volumes. Further, calling American citizens defending their or their neighbors’ property “vigilantes” is a pretty good clarion call to me. Such proclamations present to illegals that the President would rather indict (or blame) American citizens over law-breakers from a foreign land.
At this point Mr. Bush is still looking for the proper rhetoric to wrap a new amnesty plan around illegal immigration without actually using the bow of “amnesty”.
California votes to join Mexico? And the problem is… ? Good riddance, Hollywood liberals. Of course they’ll have a hard time of it after we shut off their water 🙂
Ed nails it: This isn’t just about xenophobia, or economic incentives, it is about internal cohesion. The Canadians have to deal with the Quebecois, but even they weren’t stupid enough to actively create the problem.
Concerns and objections about illegal aliens is a “moronic thing”?
American citizenship is a meaningful thing to most of us have it, and illegal behaviors are vile to most of us who don’t engage in them.
The country (the U.S.A.) is weary — almost to a man/woman — of social aids at taxpayer expense for those who commit illegal acts.
The numbers of illegal aliens entering and remaining in the U.S. since President Bush took office has multiplied dramatically and it’s greatly attributed to the “south of the border” cultural assumption that Bush is eager to have more — and intends “amnesty” to anyone who can finagle their way past pesky restrictions.
Even Homeland Security head as recently as a few weeks ago announced an intent at “finality” in solving the “border security” issues and only a few days later pronounced that that finality would be realized by Bush’s (or similar) “guest worker” programs. Meaning, no solution to the problem but sugar just a tad closer to the anthill than it was before.
No “guest worker” program will make provide any solution to our current border problems and millions of illegal aliens in the country unless there is FIRST:
— a secured border along the south, with plans in development for the north and two coastal borders; “secured border” means an impassable structure or process such that it cannot be snuck under, over or pushed out of the way, and otherwise cannot be bypassed;
— a deportation process by which everyone who is in the country illegally now will be identified and returned to areas outside our borders;
— an end to taxpayer financial supports without taxpayer agreements to any and all “helps” of the financial, economic and material kind (no Drivers Licenses without citizenship or legal residency, no educational loans/grants/scholarships without proof of citizenship and/or legal residency, no public assistance for same…);
— no citizenship for “anchor babies” — if a child is born to anyone in the U.S. who is not a citizen and/or a legal resident, the child is not granted automatic citizenship;
— an effective penalty process to all and any commercial effort that employs illegal aliens in the U.S. — the idea is that illegal aliens cannot be employed in the U.S. and that it will be too expensive for businesses to employ them regardless; and,
— an effective “return” process enforced such that anyone working in the U.S. by invitation and Visa from another country is ensured to return there afterward, at the conclusion of their legitimate stay in the U.S.
THEN establish a “guest worker” program such that people in other countries APPLY to come here, meet the qualifications to come here and then arrive with a job lined up and terms of employment legitimate. And then either return to their own countries after their work is completed or apply for citizenship while they are here and THEN go home when/if they fail to qualify.
Most of those conditions used to describe immigration of the legitimate kind, and it led to citizenship.
About President Bush, however, he has contributed to the problem by suggestive language and permissive blind eyes to the problem. We cannot address national security with any effectiveness until we have control of our borders and discontinue access for illegal aliens.
There is another JD posting upthread, and I just wanted it to be abundantly clear that is not me. Despite the desires of my parents for me to become some kind of moonbat extraordinaire, I managed to avoid doing so. I am sadden, disheartened, and altogether anguished to see that another with the same name as me was unable to escape such a fate.
To reiterate, the JD above who apparently rents the other half of “whocares” brain cell, is most certainly not me. I would change my name to “Goat Sodomizer” before allowing myself to think like that.
Sincerely
J.D. (not a Goat Sodomizer)
The problem is that Bush need not be awakened to anything. He knows about the associated problems and risk/reward yet chooses to do nothing.
I’m not sure about that. I think he’s been convinced that there are actual upsides to the status quo. For example, this from Scotty’s comment just above mine:
Our economy is inextricably intertwined with illegal immigrants. There is no realistic or economically feasible plan to extricate them from the system. No one would be willing to pay the taxes needed to build a government agency that could really control the boarders, catch, detain, and deport all the illegals. Nor would we be happy with the consequences of such an action. Imagine triple priced produce, double priced services, etc. That would plunge the economy into a depression very quickly.
If it’s possible for Scotty to believe this, why not the President?
First, while I disagree with the idea of impeaching a President for something that he actually ran on, I have to say that this country gives impeachment too much gravity. As a means of punishing a high ranking official for crimes, it’s actually pretty lenient. We should impeach office holders far more frequently. But, again, this is not really a good reason to initiate the process.
Now, to deal with Scotty, who actually holds a similar POV to GWB. First, a wall on the southern boarder wouldn’t cost much more than we spend in a month in Iraq, and walls, both modern and ancient, have a proven track record of working (Israel, Britain, India, China, etc.). Second, considering cheap labor is no longer cheap enough for our produce to remain competitive, agriculture is moving to mechanization for harvesting everything from pears to grapes. So we’d actually get cheaper produce if we got rid of the illegals as it would speed the transition. Our economy doesn’t need cheap labor to work (many industries where everyone assumes illegal labor is the only option used to be well organized and well paid jobs before they moved in, such as janitors and the meat packing industry), in fact our addiction is holding us back. It was the same thing with the South and slave labor before the Civil War.
Posted by: McGehee at August 31, 2005 09:48 PM
…I think he’s been convinced that there are actual upsides to the status quo.
[Scotty’s comment snipped]
If it’s possible for Scotty to believe this, why not the President?
Well, whether Scotty or the President believes there is an upside, I disagree that it exists to the extent that they proclaim implicitly by silence on policy or explicitly via well-parsed rhetoric. Surely, protagonists to the status quo emphasize some nebulously defined economic benefit ultimately tied to cheap labor costs. While true such a position fails to address the debit side of the accounting so readily ignored – exhorbitantly high health care through emergency services; educational expenses mandated by a sympathetic judiciary; disproportionate weighting of insurance costs on legal citizens; straining of civil services by a working poor that cannot earn a living wage. These are the few off the top of my head that lop off all of that profitability to industry. The difference is that it is cost shifting from industry to taxpayer… a subsidized corporate welfare that eventually lands in the lap of individual American citizens.
But even with the economic analyses in flux, how can anyone disregard the active violation of our nation based on laws and the furtherance of real security risks? How does one incorporate those risks in these economic decisions? Do we, as a nation, still believe that law and abiding by them is important to our culture? Do we want to become like Mexico and emulate their regard for law? How does one put an accurate price on the next 9/11? Has anyone done the math on the one we just experienced and applied a per capita accounting to illustrate one of those hidden costs advocates so readily gloss over?
Sorry about the litany of questions but this issue is hardly a purely economic one solely centered on an increased labor cost and the escalation of pricing on domestic goods. It goes so much further and is a much bigger issue. I expect a President to be better informed if he does indeed believe illegal immigration has such an “upside”.
“– an end to taxpayer financial supports without taxpayer agreements to any and all “helps” of the financial, economic and material kind (no Drivers Licenses without citizenship or legal residency, no educational loans/grants/scholarships without proof of citizenship and/or legal residency, no public assistance for same…);
— no citizenship for “anchor babies” — if a child is born to anyone in the U.S. who is not a citizen and/or a legal resident, the child is not granted automatic citizenship;
— an effective penalty process to all and any commercial effort that employs illegal aliens in the U.S. — the idea is that illegal aliens cannot be employed in the U.S. and that it will be too expensive for businesses to employ them regardless”
That is basically what I am talking about. Much of the incentive for them to come here is the benefits OUR tax dollars are supplying. I would rather be able to keep some of that money to solve the problem rather than spend a fuggin fortune trying to fence North America. If they don’t have our brand, rope ’em and send ’em back.
I have got to agree with Jay Tea, I don’t like Buchanan much either, but his clock struck midnight on this one.
I don’t have any pathological hatred for Bush, heck I voted for him. But on this one issue, he is way off base. Lets face it, he has a sworn duty to uphold his constitutional responsibilities, and he is not doing it. And not doing his constitutional duty is not doing his constitutional duty. It’s not that we disagree with his prioritization of the issue–he hasn’t got one–its that he really doesn’t give a $@#! about it. In the mean time, the tremendously damaging phenomenon is not only going on, its actually growing at a major rate.
How can this happen? One way: the big lie. It’s the same reason that when you happen upon a crowd of people staring at a particular object, you instinctively look at what they are looking at, even though it makes no sense. Right now, practically nobody, be it the media, the public, the government, even our own Republican party, is not taking the issue seriously. Thus, people (quite irrationally) base their perception of the importance of the issue largely off those around them, rather than the facts on the ground.
Hence, we have an issue which has 75% of the public on one side, and nobody, I mean practically nobody, outside of a few illegal immigration activists, seems to be able to get the least bit worked up about.