|
|
September 15, 2007Immigration Debacle: All-or-nothingism begat nothingGiven the responses I got the last time I focused on this issue, I almost hate to bring it up…but here goes. I think Tony Snow is exactly right when he says here:
Let us hope so, because the alternative “solutions” out there - “let everyone in and register them all Democrat” on the left and “ship them all back to Mexico no matter how long they’ve been here or how productive” - are neither workable nor just. Snow also says, here,
For crying out loud, that’s a staggering statement when even I - a lowly and not terribly bright housewife - completely understood the mood of the illegal immigration extremists. They were not interested in any sort of “half-measure” by President Bush - they did not want Bush do what Reagan always tried to do, “get 75% of what you want and come back later for the rest.” No, the extremists on this issue, crying, “we’re the base, you better dance with who brung ya,” were relentlessly uncompromising on the matter of illegal immigration and President Bush - and any other politicians who disagreed with them or sought a more workable solution than “ship them back and build high, high walls” had their rhetorical heads smashed repeatedly against the rhetorical curbside. I still have a few dents, myself. The illegal immigration hardliners demanded “all or nothing at all,” from President Bush and the GOP leadership. And now, they have nothing, and no political power to do much of anything. Illegal immigrants are still entering the nation mostly unchecked. The useless NIS is no closer to being reformed and retooled into something useful. There are no plans to design as sort of Ellis Island West, to actually process potential citizen immigrants “the way my grandfather came into New York - legally!” as the hardliner crows. Nothing is being done. But hey…at least the folks with the high, strong principals can sleep at night knowing they didn’t compromise! A long time ago I wrote that the blood of many may well rest on the heads of those who would not get serious about the War on Terror. By the same token, I think it would not be completely unfair to state that the increases and excesses of illegal immigrants - and whatever political fall-out or legislative impotence comes from once more refusing to deal realistically with an issue that has been ignored for decades - will rest on the heads on those who took a hard, uncompromising line; those who managed to drop-kick the first president to try to effect positive change, and further weaken his entire presidency, while still getting nothing done. This issue was not well-played, folks. And just because the only ones still talking about it are the one-noters in internet forums doesn’t mean the issue is put to bed. Far from it. The reckoning - and the issue itself - has simply been kicked down the road for the time being, launched by a tantrum of “conservative anger”, which sent it nowhere good. In the Wall Street Journal today the editorial writers take a look at how the hardline stance against illegal Mexican immigrants (come on, you never hear about the illegal Irish all over Boston or Long Island) can hurt the GOP and conservatives politically. They’re right to be concerned. When conservative and Republicans find themselves further weakened politically because they’ve managed to give the back of their hand to what every year becomes a more substantial portion of the electorate, who will they blame? They’ll have no right to blame George W. Bush - who tried to deal with the issue - but they may try to. It’s easy to blame Bush for everything, after all. But the truth is, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. I have a suspicion, just a little one - it’s anecdotal and nothing I can cite - but a suspicion nonetheless that some of the folks who jumped on the “all or nothing, ship them back, Bush has betrayed the base” bandwagon are beginning to regret the ride…turns out it was just a merry-go-round, after all. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/09/15/immigration-debacle-all-or-nothingism-begat-nothing/trackback/ 37 Responses to “Immigration Debacle: All-or-nothingism begat nothing” |
September 15th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I agree with Tony, I still think the President’s Five-Point Plan is the best put forward. I also see why the White House felt blindsided by their own base. I live on the border and it was very dismaying to see the left’s positions gaining traction as the immigration “all or nothings” spewed their venom. They would not listen and still won’t listen to those of us who live closely with the problems of illegals every day. There is a certain segment of the right who despise President Bush as much as any lefty BDSer and they jump on every chance they can to smear the White House and denigrate GWB. They talk alot about conservative values and all that, but cannot accept that George Bush’s core values go deep. He won’t kiss anyone’s a$$, not even theirs and that is a cardinal sin in their eyes. Of course, they will never take responsibility for the 2006 loss.
September 15th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I can’t wait until real immigrants get here in their spaceships from other worlds. Then these immigration arguments will make sense.
Until then immigration arguments are simply discrimination arguments- somehow the people who were born on the wrong side of a man-made boundary are supposed to be treated differently than those born on the right side?
September 15th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Great post Anchoress. I am with you. And when the GOP loses people like Linda Chavez they will lose whatever hope they have of being a majority party. I was struck by the number of really nasty bigoted remarks I heard in this debate. The hardliners like to pretend there was none of that in the debate, but they had to be deaf and blind to miss it.
September 15th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I regret to say that I do not agree, not at all.
The Chief Magistrate of the land has a sworn obligation, one he entered into voluntarily, to both honor and to administer the law. The phrase ”… and I will well and faithfully execute the duties of the office ….” is found in the oath that many of us have taken in the past, and it is understood to be part of those in which it is not expressly found. For that matter, ANY job, no matter how modest, contains the expectation that you will actually do what you have been hired to do. And that is just basic and reasonable.
Mr. Bush, a man I twice voted for, has not only failed to do this with respect, he has not only REFUSED to do this, he has not only done his utmost to prevent anyone else from doing THEIR duty in this issue, he has made it a practice to slander and denigrate those who have called for him to do his duty. Do you have a nice term for that? I do not, and I doubt very much that there is one.
The border exists. Most nations have them, and you do not violate them lightly.
We see all around us, in virtually every part of the nation, the effects of the manifest refusal to obey and enforce the law. I know, personally, those who have been harmed by illegals. I know, personally, those whose livelihood has been lost to illegal aliens. One need not look to far to find hospitals closed, jails and prisons overcrowded, schools in distress and failing the children of honest citizens, all from the invasion of illegals. It’s not a victimless crime, and claims toe the contrary are lies. I’ve lived much of my life around immigrants from all over the world. But the law is clear. If you want to come here, even to visit, you get permission FIRST. If and when permission is gained, then and ONLY then, are you permitted entry, and then under tightly defined conditions. You no more waltz into the US and claim residence than you enter someone’s house and claim it to be yours. The latter denotes you as a crook, a thief, a burglar, a liar. How is entering the US in violation of the law any different, or any better?
No. With all due respect, the law is clear. If you aren’t supposed to be here, you have to leave. No ifs, ands, buts, or whatever. Go home. This is not your home. That is the law. I am ashamed to say that I voted for the man who refuses his duty. I am sorry that Tony Snow makes excuses for him. I am ashamed of what he has done and continues to do. Vigorously enforcing the law is the LEAST we should reasonably expect of him. He works for us, not the other way around.
One other thing.
Predicating enforcement of the law, ANY law, upon sly calculations of the benefits to be accrued to one political faction or another, is so egregiously wrong and immoral that one recoils in horror. We expect that in China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Venezuela, Yemen, or Darfur. I am appalled to hear it seriously proposed as a proper course for the nation that I love.
September 15th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I was born and raised in El Paso, TX long enough ago that I can actually remember a time before Lyndon Johnson and the AFL-CIO re-wrote U.S. immigration policy (and an even longer time before Reagan applied a bandage where a tourniquet was call for). I worked for my father’s construction company along side many an industrious immigrant, who sought nothing more than a chance to provide for his family. Back then (1942-1964) the “Bracero Program” permitted immigrant workers to legally enter the U.S. and then return to Mexico. But that changed in 1964.
What had been a trickle of illegals sneaking across the border to do day labor became a vast criminal enterprise of “coyotes” smuggling immigrants deep into the U.S. (where those illegals were less likely to be apprehended and deported). LBJ’s new policy actually created a powerful disincentive for immigrants to leave the U.S., since an illegal (having once paid a coyote hundreds of dollars — $1600 is a figure I’ve heard — to smuggle him into the U.S.) finds it much cheaper to smuggle his family into the U.S. rather than return to Mexico himself.
Despite LBJ’s hefty contribution to the problem, we can’t lay all the blame on him. The immigration problem has its roots in the foreign policy of FDR. FDR’s “Good Neighbor Policy” ended U.S. gunboat diplomacy, which in turn led to corrupt Latin American governments’ nationalizing (i.e., stealing) American investments. That thievery may have enriched the ruling class of those Latin American countries, but it destroyed their economies.
So rather than American investments flowing into Mexico, Mexico’s labor force began flowing where the jobs were. On top of bad economic policy (which grew steadily worse, especially under the land reforms of the 70’s), the socialist oligarchy that borders the U.S. to the south has a long-standing tradition of institutional corruption (e.g., policemen are expected to make up for inadequate wages by accepting bribes - in fact, they often have to pay bribes even to obtain employment as law officers). Bribery of government officials is as socially acceptable in Mexico as tipping a waitress is in the U.S.
So the root problem of illegal immigration is simple economics. There are few jobs in Mexico because the Mexian government bars investment by foreigners (unless you put 51% of its ownership in the name of an influential Mexican governmental official) and because the government steals from its own citizens. When Mexicans come across the U.S. border, they aren’t so much invading the U.S. as they’re escaping Mexico. Until Mexico (or, for that matter, the rest of Latin America) deals with its internal economic problems, the U.S. will continue to feel the effects of its economic failure.
Whenever the topic of immigration comes up at work (usually among my Republican colleagues who love to bash President Bush’s proposed guest worker program as “amnesty for law-breakers”), I always say, “I have a 100% guaranteed solution to the immigration problem! We need to conquer Mexico.”
They laugh, and then say, “I’m not so sure we want to do that.”
So I reply, “Oh, I didn’t mean militarily. I mean we need to vanquish the socialist policies of the corrupt Mexican government. A good start would be to build up the Mexican middle class by permitting illegals to come into the U.S. freely and then return to Mexico equally freely with all their hard-earned U.S. dollars. As the new wealthy class of Mexican society (who got that way by the sweat of their own brow) they won’t be so anxious to turn over their earnings to the government. It won’t take them any time to clean out the thieving rascals for us.”
In a nutshell my point is, we won’t solve our immigration problem until our southern neighbor solves its economic problem, and that won’t happen until Mexico is liberated from socialism.
Sorry I was so windy, but this a topic that gets me talking since everyone seems to be missing the point about the root cause and it takes some explanation just to define the problem.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Wow, am I getting tired of being smeared by my own side as a bigoted, venomous member of the no-nothing party. Since 1986 I have been asking where the employer sanctions are and lo- just a few months ago they were deployed and since then amazingly illegal aliens have begun to disappear - perhaps their fellows in the spaceships are picking them up? I wrote my Senator, Mel “one-term” Martinez about illegal alien controls and got a confused missive about building walls and adding more border guards. Not one word about the 40% of illegal aliens who are NOT Mexican and who come into the country through airports and simply don’t leave. Many of these folks are from the discretely defined “countries of interest”. To my certain knowledge the Dept of State has been working on a system to keep track of tourist and other visas for at least 8 years and apparently can’t yet do what South Korea and Japan can do.
We could easily double the number of legal immigrants if we didn’t have to try to absorb so many illegals. Maybe we could go to countries like the Philippines, with a 25 year waiting list.
For all you broad minded people who believe that borders are just silly formalities, talk to your friends in the African American community and ask about the jobs they can’t get because they don’t speak Spanish. Just as minimum wage rates cut employment, surfeits of labor drive wages down. Since employers rely on us taxpayers to provide the “extras” for their good, cheap, illegal employees of course the employers are happy - hard for illegal employees to complain about dangerous conditions (working on roofs during thunderstorms in Florida, cave ins caused by inadequately braced excavations, No OSHA reporting here). Hurt on the job, no workers comp for you- just off to taxpayer funded hospitals - hey no medicaid required and certainly no health insurance - they have to treat you, right?
I didn’t hear a lot of bigoted remarks here in Florida - just a lot people saying - “no new laws until the government enforces the ones we already have” I am amused that your commenters think that all Hispanic Americans are universally in favor of unlimited Mexican immigration - I can assure you that many of them share the “Neanderthal” views of those of us who want the laws enforced and the borders - ALL the borders - guarded.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
The immigration problem is complex and emotional at best. It is not solvable by George Bush’s methods. There were many opponents to immigration who would have been willing to sit down with the President and try to work out a solution.
The President however dealt with this problem just like he has with all problems during his administration, a bull-headed my way or the high-way approach. He joined forces with Ted Kennedy, Mr. Integrity himself, and other clandestine Republicans, ignoring his base ,which you so tritely dismiss, and tried to jam Ted Kennedy’s plan down their throat.
Tony Snow has flipped on a number of issues he challenged when he was working as a conservative spokesman. His health has with a doubt been a factor in this easier, more “humane” attitude about immigration. Genuine concern is and should be a factor when dealing with the millions of illegals who are now between a rock and a hard place. It should not be a blindfold causing us to ignore the fact that these individuals are law breakers( and not just entering the country) and as such are a lawful problem.
Your comment implying that opponents now have nothing not even any leverage is not the case.
Why did the steamroller stop after Kennedy and his gang were so sure they had it made? It was because their fellow political hacks became fearful of voter outrage.They will still have to deal with a large number of those voters. Some have dropped off, but that is always the case.
For you and others who seem so determined to grant amnesty, under the guise of humanitarianism, to think you seal your point by not so subtle inferences that opponents are basically bigots and uncaring racists is disingenuous to say the least.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Well, I never said anyone commenting here had to agree with me, just that they keep it civil and I thank you folks for doing so. I disagree that once the “steamroller” was stopped anything was gained. As I wrote, NOTHING has been done on the issue and it’s unlikely anything will be done now, until the next election. If a Democrat gets in, you’ll be wishing you had Bush’s options before you again.
No, I do not call anyone a bigot, but on the other hand - as a look through my archives will show you - I do get called “Mexicali Rose” by some folks who swear the only objection they have toward illegals is that they are illegal…they never call me Killarney Rose, only “Mexicali.” To suggest that bigotry has NO ROLE in this is specious…not everyone calling for an end to illegal immigration (hello - I’m calling for it too, just in a different way than you guys) is completely unbigoted. As I said in the minuteman post linked to above, it’s not an insult to hear that some of the folks in this fights ARE bigots, because in EVERY fight there are people with unfresh motives. Better off admitting that there is a bigoted minority than trying to claim that it’s not there at all, I think.
One of the reasons I stopped posting on this issue was because people kept going round and round and round, saying the same damn things over and over again. This is still the case. No one is saying anything new on immigration. The hardliners are still lining hard and accusing anyone who is not “with” them of being “soft” on immigration and disrespectful of borders (please don’t tell me that is not true - I’ve had it said to me often enough). You want a wall - I say fine, put up a wall, but until you FIX the damn immigration system, it won’t be enough. And I will never, never agree with folks who suggest that someone who has lived here peaceably for 20 years, worked and raised a family, needs to be “Shipped back, asap.” Sorry. If hardliners can’t see their way to some sort of grandfathering in of some folks, I don’t see where anything realistic can be achieved. And that’s it for me, tonight.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
You said “I do not call anyone a bigot.” This is true.
You instead called those of us who support enforcing our immigration laws “illegal immigration extremists,” “hardliners,” “one-noters in internet forums,” throwers of a “tantrum of ‘conservative anger’” and “those who managed to drop-kick the first president to try to effect positive change, and further weaken his entire presidency, while still getting nothing done.”
I greatly admire your attitude of Christian charity to those who have sneaked into or broken into our country. I just wish you would extend the same understanding to those of us who believe in the rule of law.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:34 am
I’ve not commented on this issue, b/c I could sense the heat on all sides. I’m commenting now b/c I believe you consider me reasonable, cool-headed person, and I want you a reasonable, cool-headed person can be against that bill. I am. I do not believe my position is extreme.
I believe that immigration bill was theater - designed to allow politicians to preen. The bill’s provisions were too complicated, costly, and labor intensive to effectively implement. It was a bad bill. It would’ve made our situation worse. It would’ve created more problems - which would’ve then also needed to be fixed.
I do think we must control our borders, as well as we can, before we try something “comprehensive”. We cannot control our borders perfectly, but we can control them a lot better than we do. Controlling borders is an issue of national security, and of local security and quality of life.
I don’t need national statistics to known illegal immigration increases crime. I’m clued into my local community. I know a lot of the local security problems. I have watched pick up trucks roll slowly down my own street at 3:00 AM, with 4 probable illegals hanging on the sides of the bed, scanning yards and porches to see what they can run up and steal. There might be such a truck rolling slowly down my street tonight. My neighbor chased such a truck, trying to call in the police on his cellphone as he chased, and as the truck tried to evade his tail. The truck dumped someone out as they turned a corner. When my neighbor turned the corner, he was shot dead in his car. I have other acquaintances who’ve suffered crime at the hands of illegal aliens. In Ft. Worth, where I live, South American girls are forced to become prostitutes in local houses, where they service other illegal aliens. These are sometimes 16 and 17 year old girls.
Even with this type of problem, it’s not the (12 million?) illegals here now which worry me. It’s the 12 million coming behind them. And the 12 million coming after that. I’m not bigoted against brown people. Lord no. But I know our nation is imperiled if we do not shut off the free flow across the border - due to reasons both subtle and overt. We must stop that free flow. That is job #1. Our borders will still be breached. But we must make it a difficult task to accomplish.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Thanks for this Anchoress. Reading through the comments, it does sound like we’re stuck in a time warp-everybody manning the same guns they were a few months ago. I like, and agee with, a lot of what Texas Bob said. He makes some good points for temporary immigration
September 16th, 2007 at 5:21 am
You’ve got the cart pulling the horse, dear. Why does the illegal Hispanic influx become a larger portion of the electorate every year? And why has there been no serious work on the border fence? And why have no efforts gone to the enforcement of existing immigration laws? Are you seriously claiming that conservatives don’t want these things? After we’ve campaigned so hard for them?
The permissive-immigrationists have played one palmed-card trick on us after another. The most egregious was the attempt to confer legal status on the existing illegal population in exchange for a promise to fence the border — with no commitment of funds behind it! Just one more attempt to co-opt the border-control movement in service to the desires of those institutions that benefit from unchecked Hispanic immigration.
The grass-roots GOP isn’t truly split over this matter. However, the major corporate backers of the Bush Administration’s approach to immigration politics might find themselves unwelcome in the GOP as a result of their shenanigans over it.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am
No bigotry? Oh puhleaze, of course it was there and while I am not saying everyone on the Tancredo/Malkin side of the issue is a bigot, I heard very few of them trying to shut up the people who were.
When Linda Chavez was told to get her ass back to Mexico and she had to point out the fact that her family is not only not from Mexico, they have been in this country for centuries…very few hardliners backed her up. No siree, they just got all self righteous about the fact that she minded getting ugly threats via email.
When I was called a traitor and an open border fanatic for supporting something other than the all or nothing line coming from the hardliners…all of a sudden I am the one who is supposed to be apologizing. I don’t think so. Most people support improved border security and a path to citizenship for certain people. Only the fanatics see the two as mutually exclusive. That is why whenever they see a poll that says most people think border security is a priority they think everyone is like them. I would say the same thing if a polster asked me, but that does not mean I think Tancredo is anything but a kook.
And to listen to Gingrich go on about this now when he did absolutely nothing about the problem during his tenure as Speaker of the House is just parr for the course with the hardliners. All talk, no action. They spend half their time demanding something be done and the other half making sure the status quo remains in place.
When I heard people making outrageous comments such as if the bill passes millions of legal immigrants will be deported…or that the bill allowed terrorists to roam free or any of the other over the top accusations against comprehensive immigration reform I thought people had just lost their minds. When I heard and read comments about Jeb Bush’s Mex wife and brown skinned son and people stinking of refried beans and on and on, the number of people brave enough to stand up and say that kind of stuff was not acceptable were appallingly few and far between. But the people who want to get self righteous about being lumped in with the bigots are thick as flies. There is an old saying..lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Then of course there came the Jorge Bush is sitting up the North American Union and is going to light a match to the Constitution people on the right who were every bit as loony as the Truthers.
And as for Bush being the magistrate or whatever, this problem has been around for decades. I was born in Oklahoma in 1951 and even in those days people knew that it was no big deal to cross that border, especially through Arizona. Decades ago people were crossing that border to work here and that would be the case no matter who the President was. Hardliners have oversimplified this problem to the point that it is useless to even debate it. Their feelings seem to be that if Bush really loved his country, he would wave a magic wand and make 11 million illegals disappear and the border secure. Voila! just like that. I think building the fence will help, but it will not be enough. It will not deal with the millions of people who got here some other way. It will not deal with people who will no doubt turn getting around that wall into a money making business. There needs to be a broader approach and people need to be honest about the fact that the current system is not up to the job.
Do people really believe that George Bush would go to such lengths to fight terrorism that he would risk his presidency just to sell out to Mexico? That is paranoid and deranged. But I hear it all the time from the hardliners.
I hope that was not too uncivil.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Texas Bob, I like your post very much and hope everyone reads it.
Let me be clear - when the president’s last attempt to address the immigration situation came out I agreed that there were some problems with the thing, but urged people to take the time and the opportunity to try to fix it in a way that managed some compromises on both sides. No one wanted that. The hardliners wanted no part in any sort of “fix it and make it better,” they just wanted the bill dead, dead, dead, because it contained no provisions for shipping people out and it dared to offer people a way to legalize their status. Now, I agree - and agreed then - that some aspects of the bill were too free-wheeling, particularly some of the financial aspects, and for that matter, I never said “don’t build a wall.” In fact, I said, “sure, build a wall, and also ship back anyone who has been here for less than 5 years and let’s fix the damn NIS so that some folks who have more than proven their good citizenship - regardless of whether they are illegal because their visas ran out or other means (while America was doing NOTHING and looking the other way, implying tacit consent to their coming) can get naturalized!” That was my position - a pro-active response with realistic goals and the hope that a completely botched and stagnated bureaucracy could be fixed…so you see, I have not been a “bleeding heart,” I have tried to be a realist, but the idea of helping people who have lived here - peacefully and productively - for years manage to get naturalized was abhorrent to the hardliners and “one-noters”; they wanted no part of it, and that to me made no sense.
And yes, here we all are, still saying precisely the same things we were saying months ago.
Yes, Hondo, I will call them “hardliners” because I must have an accurate word to use that describes “people-who-do-not-want-to-hear-anything-about-compromise-and-are demanding-the-shipping-back-of-12-million-people-regardless-of-individual-circumstances-and-whose entire-argument-starts-and ends-with-illegal-is-illegal-ship-them out.” I think “hardliner” more than meets the case. Why does that offend you when you have, in fact, taken the hard line, and not the compromising one? I and I will call them one-noters because all I read from them, month after month is “illegal is illegal, illegal is illegal, illegal is illegal.”
And please do not accuse me of lacking in a “Christian attitude” or “Christian courtesy” toward you and the folks on your end of the argument, Hondo. If you read my email you’d understand that I have offered nothing BUT courtesy to folks on all-sides and often received nothing LIKE courtesy in return. The ugliest emails I have ever gotten have not come from the far left - they’ve come from the anti-immigration hardliners on the right. I’ve never returned in kind.
And Francis - you know I think you’re grand, but all those “why’s” while good questions all, do not change the simple fact that we have to deal with what is before us, the world as it is. People can sit around all day asking “whys” of the Iraq war, and they do, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re THERE now, and we have to deal with things as they are, for as long as it takes. Same with illegal immigration. Sure, let’s ask the why’s, but let’s not allow all the pondering to stop us from taking ANY action for a few more years.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:35 am
TexasBob is pretty much dead-on — “Until Mexico (or, for that matter, the rest of Latin America) deals with its internal economic problems, the U.S. will continue to feel the effects of its economic failure.”
There is absolutely no reason why Mexico could not be an economic powerhouse, if only they would fix their corrupt political system. Then they would mostly want to stay home, rather than insisting, in stark imperialist and invasionary terms, that Mexico is “without borders” and “wherever a Mexican is, there is Mexico.”
We cannot continue to look at the immigration issue from only one side. For every immigrant to a nation, there is an emigrant away from a nation.
For every person coming to “help” in this country, there is a person abandoning his neighbors in his home country. For every individual coming here to compete for jobs that many low-skilled Americans need, there is an individual who is not present in his home-country to fix that country’s economic problems. For every act of charity in allowing such persons to stay, there is an act of uncharity exhibited toward the people in the home-country who continue to suffer because the economies are a travesty and there is now no longer anyone left to fix them.
Even if such immigrants send money to their home country, they would be better to utilize their energies and resources toward changing the politics of their home countries, which they cannot do from here. And a more charitable response by this country would be to promote, in every way feasible, a change in those corrupt political systems to the south, rather than fighting so hard to let these people stay and exacerbate the problem.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Yes, Texas Bob is onto something. This is a complicated problem with deep roots and the most long lasting solution can be found in economic reform in Latin America.
BTW, George Bush has put more people and resources on that border than any president in history. And the people who work the border do try to do their jobs. The idea that we are in this situation because Americans refuse to enforce the laws ignores the fact that we stop people at that border every day, we deport people every day…it is not fair to assume that people are simply refusing to do their jobs.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Francis Porretto’s #12 comment points at the problem which the anti-immigration bill persons perceive:
“The permissive-immigrationists [read: Congressmen] have played one palmed-card trick on us after another.”
Persons who opposed the immigration bill(me - and we) were saying
“Show me. You politicians have cynically burned me 27 times on this issue. You have flim-flammed me again and again and again, without ever displaying seriousness of purpose about this issue. Show me you are serious enough to actually enforce border control. Show me you are serious enough to enforce most of the immigration laws which are already in place. ONLY THEN will I give you an opportunity. Only then. I’ve been burned 27 times.”
We simply DO NOT BELIEVE the immigration bill was anything other than more political flim-flam. There IS emotional heat on our side of the issue: NO ONE likes to be repeatedly burned by transparent and cynical con artists in D.C.
SHOW US. Enforcing the border is the proof we require. Enforcing the border = Horse first, then Cart.
And something else - an important point: enforcing the border is easier than policing/governing (12 million?) illegal aliens who are already dispersed throughout our society. Therefore, if we cannot do the easier job of border enforcement, WHY do we believe we can do the exponentially more difficult job of governing 12 million people who are already snuggly tucked into our society?
SHOW US. Do the first job first. Do the easier job first. We’ve been burned too many times. Do your first job as lawmakers: protect the nation. Then we’ll talk about amnesty for those who have already been here 5 years.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Sorry Anchoress I think you are wrong on this one.
I guess I’m a bigot because I supported the 1986 immigration bill and thought enforcement went along with amnesty. 1986-Amnesty First/ Enforcement Second. 2007- Amnesty First/ Enforcement Second (Trust Me) Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice ….
I guess I’m a bigot because I grow weary of those that live in the gated communities and send their kids to private schools tell me I should just shut up and carry on as normal.
I guess I’m a bigot because I’m not open-minded enough to wonder why as a citizen, I’m called a bigot because I simply hold the belief that I would be satisfied if our country adopted the same immigration policy that the country on our southern border follows.
I grow weary of the “Linda Chavez ” of the world and people like you, who presume on no facts whatsoever except their own Rose Colored Glass views of “The Loud Folk” as Lindsey Graham said that my opposition to “Illegal Immigration” stems from my “dislike” of those not of the Caucasian Race. I guess somehow to you the term “Illegal” is simply a covert way of saying I don’t like “people of color”. Not that your view of my thoughts would be “bigoted” /sarc/
I understand in your view of Christianity, everyone should be a welcomed immigrant to our country, just send God the bill. But I don’t hold that view on a practical level. And you are right, the Hispanic minorities will probably hold the Republicans accountable for the immigration choices. Is that a reason to change principles, to get the “crowd” to follow you. Isn’t that what Bill Clinton did through his “Triangulation Approach” to politics?
Rather than blather on with words that will not be heard, let me close by saying: I’m disappointed in your views (I didn’t get the 50% I wanted in 1986. Yet you tell me I’m not satisfied with the 75% these same lowlifes have promised me today? (Of couse I’ll love you in the morning). Until you can show me where my views of simply wishing to be able to control who comes into my country/house from any country,to limit the financial and social costs to the country by illegal immigrants, and to make it economically painful enough to those employers who employ any illegal immigrant,– PUT A SOCK IN IT!
Not really, for the most part I agree with your posts. But this time you simply (in my opinion) have not objectively looked at any facts. Enough said
September 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I agree with the Anchoress, most especially: “…they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.” (Followed by immediate laughter knowing they will blame everyone BUT themselves.)
and Terrye/#13 brilliantly encapsulates the whole sorry mess: “They spend half their time demanding something be done and the other half making sure the status quo remains in place.”
As for my own observations, I have no qualms about fingering the bigots, racists, and generally ugly Americans in our midst. The overall ignorance and willingness to believe every cockamamie scare number and fright scenario that comes along is worse than the bigotry. It has seriously undermined my belief that conservatives are generally smarter, more logical, fact-based and solution-oriented than libs. The re-emergence of Birchers and the sudden rise of varietal conspiracy theories is stunning and proves that Cons are as prone to hysteria and irrational knee-jerkism as the crazies on the Left. And as for “policing our own,” we’ve completely failed to do that. Appeasement or pretending there isn’t a problem never works, as so many conservatives are quick to point out. But we handed over the microphones and megaphones to a bunch of deranged demagogues and now we will all suffer the consequences of that off-road adventure.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I must protest, respectfully, the notions that the underlying issue is racism against ”brown people”. The reason that Mexico is most often identified as the source of the illegal invasion is simple: Mexico is the bordering country. Did we really expect to find that most illegals originate in Wales or Okinawa? It’s a long swim. And in fact, Mexico is the birthplace of most of the illegals. It’s silly to refuse to admit the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be.
Again, it’s like your home. You are within your rights to invite someone into your home. You are not free to invite the same person into mine. Should I come home and find someone there who shouldn’t be, I will regard that person as an intruder - at best - and expect that person out immediately and perhaps criminal penalties applied. Someone who hasn’t had the decency to request AND receive appropriate permission, to enter my home, or my country, is an intruder. If you are uninvited, you are also unwelcome. That should not be hard to understand.
If I do find someone in my home who broke in, I will call the police. I expect that they will appear and will perform their sworn duty. And that this person will suffer the full penalty of law.
Now imagine that I do find a burglar in my house. And, when I call the police, they refuse to come. Or they call me names. Or they tell me that my house now belongs to the burglar, or that perhaps I should share it with the burglar. I believe that we now have two crimes. One is burglary. The other is misfeasance in office.
The ‘comprehensive plan was like that. It redefined the crooks as something else. It excused the manifest *refusal* both to enforce the borders and to remove the invaders. It rewarded invasion immediately and gave vague promises of enforcement someday. Promises that no one believes.
And that last is perhaps the worst result of this. No one believes the promises of enforcement. We see that they are not happening. There are illegal alien invaders in virtually every town and hamlet. They are not hard to find. But those who swore solemn oaths to uphold the rule of law have said, in essence, ”except those laws that we don’t feel like enforcing”.. That leads immediately to a lack of trust, as those who felt it our duty to obey even laws we don’t like - and we can all think of some - find that the law is only binding on us. Not on those whose very presence here is illegal. Need examples? How about the guy the other day up on his 8th! DUI, but the won’t deport him, or even toss him in jail. Or the assassins in NJ, some of whom had extensive arrest records, but never deported. There is an illegal gambling hall, not a mile from my house, run by and for illegals, but the police can’t see it — illegals are more untouchable than a governor’s son.
Enforcing the law, ALL the law, without fear or favor, is not being ”hard-line” or unreasonable, or racist. It is in fact the very least that we should expect at every turn. Refusing to do so in order to benefit what amounts to an invasion of one nation by another is not a good thing. I have a very hard time mustering a semblance of Christian charity towards those who have very clearly forsworn their oaths and dishonored their offices of public trust. Starting at the top.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Texas Bob, Anchoress, Bender:
I’ve always said that if Mexico weren’t such an incompetently governed hellhole, we wouldn’t even have any issues regarding immigration. These border-jumpers are breaking laws to get into the United States - which is the sort of thing that desperate people do. They’re not eager to get into America, but they ARE trying to get the hell out of Mexico. The mere fact that so many people are willing to break the law to get over here tells you exactly how God-awful things must be back in their home country.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I think this is the first time I ever disagreed with anything I have read here. I have been to Mexico many times and even speak passable Spanish and I will tell you there is no reciprocity in Mexico about illegal immigration there. Be caught with an expired visa in Mexico and see what happens
or worse, be a Guatamalan without documents. If people want open borders then let’s open them both ways. Let me go there without documents and buy real estate or work or open a restaurant on the Riviera Maya. No way that will be allowed to happen. Frankly we are not doing the Mexican people any favors. If, in fact, 12 million of the bravest, most productive Mexicans are in the US there will never be political change in Mexico. Imagine what these folks could change if they stayed in Mexico and in the long term that would be to Mexico’s advantage. As it is, the US is acting as an enabler for continued corruption in Mexico as long as we take their best and brightest to cut our lawns. That’s the real tragedy.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Anchoress, I think your appeal to a Reaganesque “get 75% of what you want and come back later for the rest” does not work here because there was never any evidence that President Bush wanted to close the borders or would be inclined to go back later for anything. From the start, he was perceived (correctly in my view) as soft on illegal immigration. That difference in motivation is what distinguishes a reluctant compromise from an enthusiastic sellout.
I am myself largely in agreement with you, and with the President, about what should happen to people who have lived here for years and are successfully assimilating into our culture. But legitimate debate over that point has never and will never be an excuse for refusing to enforce existing laws, or build authorized fences, or deploy existing resources. The President forfeited any claim to principled leadership on this issue by making clear that he was essentially nullifying the status quo as a way of pressuring conservatives to move left. That’s not faithful execution of the law in my book.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
The difference between then and now is that more of the “real” base are starting to stand up and be counted…and yes, I agree, it’s getting uncomfortable for the absolutes. They KNOW they have turned their back on the only viable party that is serious about the war on terror…who will work toward pro-life issues…and who will do SOMETHING about the border issue.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Anchoress,
Hello, and thanks for running such an interesting, informative, well-rounded blog, I have enjoyed reading for some time.
On this issue, I appreciate your point - better to get something done than nothing done, but sometimes, nothing is better than something with fatal flaws. Better to come back at it fresh and get it right - at least on vital components.
I began this national debate as a hard-liner but have looked long and hard enough at it to see there are no easy or painless solutions - only a range of bad & worse options.
I didn’t support killing the last bill, but I did urge my Senators, Kyl and McCain to amend the damn thing to get rid of the dangerous 48-hour background checks that, once passed, would allow not only hard-working Mexican immigrants a legal working status, but also confer legal status on people with less noble motives, from places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, et al…
Doing something as silly as requiring millions of backhground checks to be processed in 48 hours is like legislating that we’ve got one week to paint the moon blue. It is not impractical but impossible.
I’m for facing that both border-crossers AND employers have broken the laws for years, creating some form of legal status (not citizenship) and re-instituting the Bracero program. The provisions re: background checks that would have granted terrorists legal status was just a bridge too far.
And I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a little more than “trust us…again…” from our leaders who have a proven history of not upholding existing laws. Why is any bill at all worth anything when our government will not enforce what’s here already? Given their past do-nothing record, I’m not so sure that we’re in bad shape with “nothing”.
In any case, the discussion is good, and there have been some insightful comments. On the humanitarian side, I think all the political action in the streets would be better if focused on reform of Mexico’s government and economy. Mexico’s failures are doing more to push people across the border than anything else. So instead of humanitarian groups, the Catholic Church, etc…marching in U.S. cities, why not march on Mexico City to demand economic reform?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Being a card carrying Minuteman (performing the same basic activity as the government sponsored WWII Coast Watch), having lived throughout the US over the last 45 years (yea, I’m old, bald and white bearded) and having spent some time on the northern border, those I have had contact with want border security with decisions on amnesty or other remedies to follow. I don’t remember anyone ever wanting removal of all illegals NOW. Some want that down the road but they recognize the impracticability of such an effort. After closing the borders to illegals (and terrorists), removal of CRIMINAL illegals is presently rated very important after the publicly of the recent killings in NJ. Hiring of illegals is also an important issue. Illegals are not just farm workers; regardless of what the politicians and activists say. Illegals impact the construction trades significantly especially in the right to work states. That position causes more loss of creditability for the amnesty folks. Anyone who is in the construction industry knows of this problem. The low wage paid illegals also drives down the price of labor for others. The SS issues and other such economic considerations are also high on the list of things that are not wanted to become law and effectively serve as a reward for illegal behavior.
Our country has become a safety valve for many governments, especially Mexico. Because of that, any effort for reform in said countries is impacted causing more illegals exiting to the US. The hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s strong anti-illegal actions on their southern border by their army in comparison to their condemnation of our government’s limited actions on our southern border does not sit well with those I know. And I understand the desire for someone wanting to improve their life by coming here, but unfortunately our country can’t cure the economic ills of the 3rd world no matter how hard WE try. Some of the very people who want us to be unrealistic humanitarians on this issue reject the same argument for Iraq. Go figure. Just another creditability problem for those speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
I can well imagine there are those who want all illegals out NOW as a gut reaction and some who are just racists, period. Even the post-Korean war effort against illegals and resulting deportation had a very limited amount of success in that more nationalistic time. The AZ law now being implemented, which after a second offence of knowingly hiring an illegal(s) results in losing one’s business license, apparently is having a real impact.
The failed promises of border security after the 1986 amnesty are the major problem for President Bush’s efforts. “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me” is the operative feeling in the circle I travel within. This time many want to reverse the priority of the 1986 effort.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:11 am
This “compromise” philosophy expressed in this entry is what got us the Amnesty of 1986, which compounded the problem, rather than ameliorating it.
That type of philosophy is also what left our nation vulnerable, for exploitation and attack.
And I also wanted to say that, though I’ve been out of the Blogosphere for awhile, it is quite disappointing to see entries like this one, and the prior entry at this blog which is linked to, in this post.
It is unfortunate that, even at this point in the Bush presidency, when this administration has continued to blatantly disrespect our party base, on both domestic and foreign issues [some of those foreign policy actions are why many conservatives are so frustrated with him, including those who earlier supported the Iraq war!]… that major “conservative” bloggers continue to defend the President’s policies and tactics.
At the 2004 Young America’s Foundation national convention, there was a great deal of frustration with President Bush… but we were told that we had to support him, despite his liberal positions, on many issues. We were told that, with the election looming, the President had to be careful… but when he had secured a second term in office, he would be free to change his ways.
But W has never been a conservative - and apparently, he never will be.
And the tired claim that opposing “immigration reform” will cost the GOP minority votes is hogwash, and has been discredited many times. It is especially absurd in this case, considering that the George Bush-Ted Kennedy immigration bill itself was a racist piece of legislation, and it was opposed by diverse groups of people, from the left, to the right.
As I have written about numerous times before, it is minorities who are harmed the most by illegal immigration, and even the Democrats, in the past, have pointed this out.
Read the Jordan Commission’s reports, from the 1990s. President Bill Clinton appointed the very-liberal former Democrat Congresswoman Barbara Jordan [D-TX] to chair the commission… Nonetheless, they realized that mass immigration was harming Americans, especially certain groups of people. Why not finally implement the Jordan Commission recommendations, rather than mess with these unfair and un-America “comprehensive reform” bills?
September 17th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Aakash, thanks for writing. Let me disabuse you of one notion, however, and that is that anyone would consider me a “major conservative blogger.” I’ve been pretty clear from the start that I consider myself more of a “classical liberal” than a “conservative,” although I concede these labels are very inaccurate, lately. I think staunch conservatives probably mostly agree with me, too, since my average daily readership is down by almost 3,000 since we’ve mixed it up on this immigration issue, and I’m okay with that.
amr, I also appreciate your post, but I am surprised to read that you don’t know of anyone saying “remove all illegals NOW.”
I can agree - and have - agreed with many of you that the last try was flawed, but I still maintain, and will ever maintain, that any bill that has at its core no provision to grandfather in those illegals who have come in over the last 30 or so years (unchecked by the gov’t or ANY president before Bush) and who have worked and lived productively, is a bill that will fail, and it should. A Temporary guest worker program is a good idea. FIXING the damn institution by which people may enter the nation legally would be a good idea - right now the hoop-jumping is merciless and inefficient. If you wait for the “perfect” bill, you will not get it, none of us will, and every day we don’t have one is another day the situation gets worse instead of better.
I had a lot of admiration for Barbara Jordan and will read the recommendations you’ve cited, aakash….but I think I’m done commenting. Once again, we’re all saying the same things we said 6 months ago, and there are other things to write about. Thanks all.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:48 am
there are other things to write about
Yeah, have you seen Comrade Hillary’s new health plan? She is going to solve the problem of people being uninsured simply by requiring that they go and buy it, whether they want to or not, and whether they need a lot of health insurance or not.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I didn’t run into any racists during this debate but I’ll take your word for it. But, speaking as a hardcore extremist and meanie, I’ll tell you that the illegals here were beside the point, which is, was, and will be: Why should we listen more bs from a corrupt, lying political establishment, whoring after plantation- votes one one side and plantation- labor on the other?
I want two walls, one on the border and one around the beltway, and I want the second one to be the higher and thicker.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hmmm.
I watched this merry-go-round the last time it went through. And ISTR the bill
foundered primarily because of the ‘amnesty’ provisions.
I sincerely wish we had deferred the entire question of amnesty and simply
pushed for the one thing that everyone, from Ted Kennedy to Tom Tancredo,
can agree on. Which is: Put more people on border guard. Better surveillance,
better coverage, better protection, more teeth when someone is caught crossing
the border.
If you can smuggle a human being across the border, you can smuggle terrorists
or drugs or other things as well.
The need to control our borders is so blindingly obvious it is a no-brainer.
Instead, we argued our hearts out over amnesty … about 10% of the problem ..
and the result is that we got nothing.
As towards amnesty itself… I’m afraid I have no patience for the argument that
“illegal is illegal”. I have to wonder how many people here have heard of the law
enforcement concept of discretion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion
The idea being that just because a person is guilty of a crime doesn’t mean they
have to be arrested and punished to the full extent of the law. Police
officers most often exercise this when they give a verbal warning rather
than a traffic citation.
If every crime was punished to the full extent of the law, 90% of the people
in my city would be in jail for jaywalking.
I have to wonder how many people who argue “illegal is illegal” would volunteer
to undergo an IRS audit? Or volunteer to have their driving under 24/7 police
surveillance, with an automatic ticket for every offense, including failure
to use the turn signal when changing lanes?
I agree the law must be enforced. But if the law is not enlightened with compassion and
mercy, we become a society of Inspector Javerts, hunting a man for twenty years because
he stole a loaf of bread.
To borrow a Biblical principle — “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful”. I am in desperate need of mercy. Not just in eternity, but here in my everyday
life. Accordingly, I have no problems showing mercy and amnesty to people whose main crime
is wanting a better life for themselves and their families.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Anchoress I commend you for bringing this up again. I commented a lot on this before I started blogging. As I posted today I guess I was so scarred over it that I dodnt want to talk about it anymore. Terrye comments echo mine. I ahve worked for the GOP since I was a teenager many moons ago. Being called a RINO and a traitor among many other things for two years has not been enjoyable. All the while by the way I was still going to party meetings, doing the phone lines, and doing grunt work for politicians. SOme of whom disagreed with me on my comprehnsive stance
However, It will not go away. People need to look at FLorida and Nevada and unless you are pro Hilary Clinton for President it is concerning. You can’t just treat Hispanic culture like a STD and expect to get those votes. Yes there was a undertone there of that and people did not speak out against it. I ahve seen good Catholic and EVCANGLICAL hispanics that are “conservative” just treated horribly. You know those people that Rush said we should not “pander too” I am a pro-lifer Catholic Republican. I guess when GOP people come to me and say they are pro-life that is not “pandering”. Bad labels all around.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Anchoress:
I’ve long been a fan of your site. I know that you aren’t writing this out of ulterior motives or for political expediency. However, I disagree with your point. I support a one-time amnesty for non-violent illegals. However, enforcement should be done first.
I don’t trust the government to enforce the laws as both parties largely benefit from illegal immigration. The Dems see an instant, growing voting block. The GOP elites see a way around government regulations for their businesses. As someone whose career focuses on job safety, I understand the hostility of businesses toward expensive (but still important) regulations. Illegals let them have the cheap, disposable, powerless workforce that China has been exploiting for some time. For libertarians this makes sense, but I could imagine that you would see the human cost.
We should start by deporting violent illegals - those convicted of crimes and serving time in our jails. They will be handed over to Mexican law enforcement. The exception to this is human smugglers or “coyotes”, who get a punished in the US to the fullest extent of the law. This is hardly controversial.
We should vastly expand the immigrations services to handle the deluge of immigrants. Then we could start the fence. The fence could be supported by homeland security bonds, like war bonds in the past. Once the fence is under construction, we start documenting the illegals. Illegals would be checked for criminal activity and terror connections. (Not every illegal is from Mexico) Those who are not criminals become legal resident aliens. Eventually, after the illegals are processed, we increase legal immigration.
Comprehensive bills are bad ideas. Do it one step at a time. The approach outlined above is similar to what I have seen advocated by many opponents of the old bill. The only deportation is of violent criminals (see Patterico’s campaign) and amnesty follows after the enforcement of the law.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Omega - I hope you’ll read back into the comments and also into my archives on this. I don’t really see where you and I disagree much. I’ve never said, “don’t ship back the badguys” or “don’t build the fence” or “don’t reform the NIS” - I’ve never said “don’t start with baby steps.” My disagreement with the far right on this has always been with the idea that 12 million can and should be deported before any steps may be taken, and that citizenship should be withheld from all of them. Those are those “hardliners,” I get into so much trouble with!
September 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
No one is saying that laws should not be enforced, but the law requires that people get a hearing before they can be deported. Think about the time and resources involved in that when dealing with millions of people.
Time and again I hear people say just enforce the laws without any apparent understanding of what those laws are.
How much money and time and resources will it take to do that? I do not think it is even possible without reform of the present system.
My problem with the hardliners is that they never give real answers to real questions. They do not deal with the realities of the situation. They just say enforce the laws and go their merry way. As if there was nothing to it. As if everyone in the system is just refusing to do their jobs.
And to be truthful, illegal entry is not a federal crime. It is a misdemeanor and the removal of people from the country is the penalty after a hearing and a civil proceeding. When I hear people talk about these folks as if they were all felons I have to wonder if they even understand the law.
But we are no closer to getting rid of the really dangerous people, we are no closer to a permanent solution, because every time we talk about this issue the same people make the same impossible demands and refuse to make any compromises.
Well guess what, they have hurt the Republican party and if Hillary wins and has substantial Democratic majority these hardliners might wish they had another shot at the bill they called treason. Instead they wanted a Senate bill that had not gone through the House or been through committee that was exactly and precisely to their liking.
I just do not think that is going to happen any time soon, if ever.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I have left this lay for a few days to see if anything new might be said. It hasn’t.
There seem to be some irreducible differences. One is the attitude towards those who are here. And another is how to deal with them and their presence.
There are some matters over which reasonable people may differ. But I resent, bitterly, the statements, statements that I regard as offensive and deceitful, that issue is somehow racially motivated and therefore all ‘right’ persons should stick up for the racial minority and therefore the discussion is closed. I reject that in the strongest way possible. I will agree that there are some cultural disconnects, and I make no apologies for defending American culture, but that is not the same thing.
I see here widespread agreement that we should have border security and that starts with physical barriers. Four years after Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and National Socialist Germany were in ruins and occupied. Six years after 9/11, we don’t have a fence across either border and there is no reason to believe such is even being seriously contemplated by those who claim the right to rule over us. The fence should have been in place 100 years ago or more. But no one seriously expects to see it in our lifetime.
And if we expect to have a physical barrier, what do we do about interior enforcement? Shall we say that it’s OK to have a lock on your door, but if someone defeats the lock and takes up residence in your living room, that you have to let him stay? Is such a thing seriously proposed? Then why is the issue of interior enforcement so contentious? This is OUR country. Illegals have a home, and this isn’t it! Go HOME! Leave!!
I am sure that some of these illegals are nice people. I’ve met some. But I’ve met some charming robbers, burglars, car thieves, dope dealers, pimps, whores, and bribed officials. Many had those depending on their income. Should we feel bad when the criminal justice system gets a hold of them? I think not. And the same attitude should be for the illegals. We’re sorry you had a bad life. It’s not my problem. Go home. Leave. Leave now. You have no business here. You have a home. Go there. Don’t come back, ever.
Again, this is OUR home. We may allow immigrants, under certain terms and conditions. We accept more than anyone else, I believe. But we are not *obligated* to accept *anyone* at *any* time. No one has any *right* to come here, and certainly not without asking and receiving permission.
That is not ‘hard-line’. It’s the same attitude that you would have if someone parked a camper on your lawn and stayed there.
The shamnesty, and that’s what it is and was, also tried to finesse the ‘chain migration issue. Say we allow Mr. X to stay. And grant him certain privileges. So he brings his wife. OK. And his mother. And father. And brothers. And their wives. And THEIR mothers, fathers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, and so forth. Oh, and all their children. This is progress?
Ignored in all of this is the issue of assimilation. Let’s emphasize that. ASSIMILATION. There is an American culture. You aren’t taught it, you absorb it. There is also an American language. It is English. It’s not hard to find areas where 2nd (and sometimes 3rd) generation immigrants can’t speak it. Sensitivity and respect for other cultures should not translate into a reduced defense of our own, in our own land. If you can’t - or won’t - assimilate, you aren’t an American. Go back. One of the great problems with this whole shamnesty is that it gives approval to those who openly refuse any idea of assimilation. A sizable number don’t act like immigrants, they act like colonists. Sounds like an invasion to me. Again, this is not innocent, it is not trivial, and it is not harmless.
And it should be possible to say this openly, and lovingly, and honestly, without being called names.
Good day.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Let me say right up front, that I am a liberal democrat. That said, I am against amnesty, and unchecked waves of illegal aliens crossing our borders, whether from the north or south, or entering our ports of entry. I’m part of the majority of American citizens, who are both republican and democrat who took a stand against the amnesty legislation. The reasons for our doing so, are not because we are racist, or xenophobic, nativist, or what have you. We did so because we saw the great harm that was being perpetuated in our communities and to our nation as a whole, by open borders and ports. We saw both political extremes, the far right, and far left seeking to exploit the issue for blind ideological lust for power.
We’ve seen what has been happening with the economy, how our family and friends are discriminated against on the job. We see our communities being decimated by long term unemployment and underemployment. We see the health care crisis being exacerbated by the overburdening of an already stressed system, by illegal aliens. Some, like my own family, lost a loved one, because our public hospital has been cutting back on things, in our case, patients with only medicare (no supplemental health care insurance) can no longer see a specialist. My late husband was waiting for an organ transplant. He lost his job, and health insurance when his employer found out he required one. It took me a few years to get him on medicare, we thought it would save his life.. but he was denied the specialist he desperately needed. He went five years without much needed medical care. Last year, he was hospitalized for what we thought was a few days. While in hospital, he was diagnosed with Burketts-Like Lymphoma in a very advanced stage, he was given a one in five chance of survival. The oncologist informed us, that had he the specialist he needed, who would have ordered just the basic blood tests every few months to moniter his condition, they would have caught the lymphoma when it was very treatable, and survivable.
While in the oncology ward, his room mate, was an illegal alien. When a loved one shares a hospital room, you become familiar with their situation, you hear what the social worker says when they come in to see that patient, as there is only a curtain dividing the room. He was on medicaid, and his cancer was caught early and was receiving very good treatment. We got to know his family as well, the visiting hours were the same, and we would see them arriving and leaving at the same time in the hospital parking garage. They drove an SUV that had to have been valued at 15 thousand dollars at least.
My husband died within three weeks of his diagnosis. He was a wonderful man, a good husband and father. He worked hard his entire life, and wasn’t looking for a handout, but in his time of greatest need, he was denied medicaid as a supplemental insurance because we had one old car, the value of which was only a few hundred dollars. Illegal aliens who do not have to comply with providing documentation when applying for social services, are able to cheat the system. In my state, they can be collecting welfare, foodstamps, housing subsidies, medicaid and other types of aid, while they are working and earning enough where they don’t need such aid.
I lived in New England, grew up in Massachusetts. I’m sure many of you heard about the raids at the Michael Bianco factory in the town of New Bedford. What the media didn’t inform you was that there was no shortage of labor to work in that leather stitching factory. New Bedford has an abudance of former mill workers who worked stitching clothing, shoes and many other products before outsourcing started in the ’80s. Entire communities of people in New Bedford and the surrounding area have been struggling working many part time minimum wage jobs over the years to keep a roof over their families heads. The factory didn’t need to hire illegals, they chose to, because they wanted to pay drastically reduced wages and not have to comply with workplace protections.
I do not care whether the illegal aliens are from Ireland, Mexico, South America or whatever country. The American people have civil rights and freedoms, and in case it’s too easily forgotten, they have human rights as well. They are facing poverty, hunger, hopelessness. Their sons and daughters are serving in Iraq, and are in many cases coming home to find their previous employment either sent overseas, given to a visa worker or an illegal alien.
For those Christians among you, you should be aware of Christ’s teachings. He would not have approved of those who seek to exploit people, to pit one group against another for profit. He would have taken a stand against amnesty, and so called “Christians” who are exploiting religion as an excuse to justify the use of illegal aliens to drive down wage standards and workplace protections, just as he took a stand against the money changers in the temple.
Christ also stated that we should not put priests up on pedastels, because they are no less human, and every bit as prone to sinning as