Many on the Right seem more interested in punishing desperate people who have fled here looking for work than in fixing the system.
I am not going to argue that the immigration bill that seems to be going nowhere was perfect. But neither am I comforted by the right-wing contingent who are calling the failure of the bill a great victory for conservatism.
For several years now, I have had the misfortune to watch as talk radio and others have whipped the immigration issue into a national crisis. Few of them have offered anything creative to deal with the problem short of building a hideous fence across several of our southern states, a fence which may or may not be needed, but which should have been the last measure rather than the first to deal with illegal immigration, both for symbolic and economic reasons.
Linda Chavez, who is otherwise a conservative in good standing, has suggested that much of this hysteria is rooted in prejudice. Let me quote her at length on those she feels are over-hyping the issue:
No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans — fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most — otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most prominently, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.
Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about. Fear of "the other" — of those who look or sound different, who come from poor countries with unfamiliar customs — has been at the heart of every immigration debate this country has ever had, from the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the floor of the U.S. Senate this week.
What is said today of the Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans and others was once said of Germans, Swedes, the Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews and others. The only difference is that in the past, the xenophobes could speak freely, unconstrained by a veneer of political correctness. Today, they speak more cautiously, so they talk about the rule of law, national security, amnesty, whatever else they think might make their arguments less racially charged.
I don’t know if she is including Bill O’Reilly in this group, but he is one of the few proponents of the fence who has offered a comprehensive solution to the problem that makes sense. His four-point program was simple and yet about as close to good old-fashioned common sense as I have heard on the issue.
- Build the fence. (I disagree on this point for reasons I will discuss later) and greatly increase border patrols and security (which I support).
- Offer immediate tamper-proof ID cards to all illegals, giving them the opportunity to become legal and submitting to the legal process. Those who refuse to enter the legal system will be subject to immediate deportation.
- Those who enter the system legally will be allowed to apply for work permits, guest worker programs, etc. No immigrant working here has the right to welfare or government assistance.
- Levy heavy fines and/or criminal charges against those businesses that hire illegals or those who do not have the tamper-proof ID cards.
The wisdom of O’Reilly’s plan is obvious to any fair-minded person, and as he points out it is simple and short.
- It enables our immigration system to start tracking the estimated 10-12 million illegals who are here in violation of our laws but who are also performing needed economic services. We can then tax them and protect them from exploitation.
- It creates a humane way for those people to continue working, as opposed to trying to cross the border at risk of their lives.
- It toughens border security.
- It will dry up the source for illegals and this in turn will reduce illegal traffic to a trickle.
Many on the Right, unfortunately, seem more interested in punishing desperate people who have fled here looking for work than in fixing the system. They offer few alternatives that make sense. Do they mean to suggest that rounding up 12 million illegals and deporting them is a good use of our government resources? Personally, I would rather law enforcement focus on the small minority who pose a criminal or terrorist threat to our nation. Call me crazy, but that makes a lot more sense to me.
As for the wall, I oppose it because it represents the surrender of our nation to the mindset of Middle Eastern and communist tyranny. It sends a message around the world that a country that has historically represented liberty, freedom and openness has surrendered to fear.
I don’t mean to suggest those fears are totally unjustified, but I would argue that comprehensive reform as outlined above, with beefed up border security, should be tried first.
After all, it was Patton who argued that fixed fortifications are a monument to human stupidity. If we build a fence, what do we do when those who are determined to get in illegally land on our beaches? Are we going to fence in the beaches as well? If we fence in the entire country, will that stop a few renegade malcontents from doing great harm? After all, most of the 9/11 hijackers were here legally.
The war against terror and tyranny is a war of ideas. To win the war of ideas our nation must not surrender its ideas in such an extreme public way. Yes, compromises are required during times of great duress or threat. But the vast majority of illegals in this country pose no threat that justifies such an extreme act. And if the other provisions of the O’Reilly plan were implemented, the river of illegal immigrants would dry up. The risk of being illegal would be greater than the reward.
If I am proven wrong, there will be time to build the fence. But not now, not yet.
Time to build the fence! When, after another 20 million? What part of illegal don't you understand? How long have your relatives waited to come in the right way? Why should those that jump the line get preference? This position of amnesty is an affront to all of those descended from legal immigrants as well as those first and second generation legal immigrants.
I agree with Patton which is why I support full militarization of the border. Tanks do a much better job of fending off the masses and drug dealers than a fence. Of course we would need to be politically incorrect and shoot when we see trespassers! Second best to me is a good old fashioned Israeli style double fence with dogs in between the fences.
Amnesty makes no sense so let's decide on a policy that makes anyone in the country illegally, under a deportation order, or visa overstay inelligible for life to be amnestied. Then take up the issue of how many, from where, and with skills the country needs and set up a program to bring them in legally. We do not need Irish or South American illegals sucking at the public teat!
Having grown up in S. Texas I can tell you first hand that we DO need a fence. Bush may call himself a Texan and I am still proud he is President, well sort of, but he by no means or any stretch of the imagination understand immigration. Much like his naivette concerning middle east muslim mentality due to dealing with westernized saudi princes he is an ingnorant dunce when it comes to the true effects of unbridled Mexican and Central American immigration. The effects and devastation on small and middle sized towns across american will be a burden on the average tax paying working american for years to come. An unfair and illegal one at that. We need a fence to funnel immigrants/workers into controllable checkpoints and protect our families from terrorists. Well as so many of you have pointed out we are at war and having an uncontrolled border that large is the height of foolishness and our Prez is beginning to show he is not the brightest of lights unfortunately. It is time he begins to listen to Americans and not his paid advisors who seem to have led him down the path of folly and debacle far too many times now.
Its funny how once the average american raised his or her voice against the invasion and law breaking the racist in Linda Chavez comes out. Sensing a gang up on her poor hispanic brethern her true colors came out. She is a hispanic or hyphenated American first and foremost and could not hide it. Choosing to ignore what made this country great. Personally I could care less if the invasion consisted of millions of socialist loving Norwegians or hot Swede porno babes. I would still say build the wall. If that makes me a racist then I guess I am. We need to be racist then so be it. It instantly kills one of the last weapons liberals and those bent on destroying this country and use against the constitution.
Oh yeah, as far as prejudice goes then I am. Why? One only has to ask why they haven't made the sacrifices in their native lands themselves. Why do they keep voting in socialist who make promises of wealth transfer only to transfer wealth from the few capitalist to government insiders. The poor of Mexico and further south fall for the trick every time an a candidate calling himself a man of the people pops up. They are not like us. They come from a mentality of entitlement. And yes they are seeking a better life on the backs of people who made a sacrifice trading some sort of meager security/slavery of handouts from a big sister/brother government for the rewards of risk taking. Once these people get here they instantly want the security of meager handouts.
I would ask this author, as well as the countless others who mindlessly and ignorantly chant this mantra: how do you know? How do you know that all of the 500,000 people who illegally cross our borders every year, and the countless others who overstay temporary visas, are all good, honest, Catholic lettuce pickers? We supposedly can't find these people, don't know who they are, and can't get rid of them because they are "living in the shadows. So how would you know? And even if they were, so what? They are somehow entitled to special treatment because they sneaked in here from a poor country? Shall be build a land-bridge to Ethiopia so that those who are even poorer than Mexicans may have the same opportunity? If you bothered to even read the bill that just died in the Senate, you would see that none of your factually ignorant talking points were even included, so your support for the bill is intriguing even if that's your position on the issue. Fact: this bill would have given EVERY illegal person in the country immediate legal status and the ability to stay in the United States for the entire rest of their lives REGARDLESS of whether or not ANY border security benchmarks had been met. Fact: it called for "background checks" on people that are supposedly living in the shadows that we can't even find, to take place in a 24 hour period. As a quick sidenote here, no one has called for 24-hour deportation of all of the illegal aliens in this country. Enforcement of our current laws would dry up their source of employment, and most would leave anyway. Local law enforcement who are currently forbidden to enforce immigration laws could undoubtedly deal with the remainder on a case-by-case basis. Unlike amnesty, deportation and enforcement of our laws doesn't have to take place overnight. Fact: 40% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are here on overstays of legal visas because we have no way of tracking their exit from the country. This bill included no system to improve the situation.
I would also point out to the author that this approach to "fixing" a "broken" immigration system HAS been tried in the past – numerous times. Perhaps you were absent 21 years ago, and 17 years ago, and 11 years ago when we passed "comprehensive immigration reform" via the 1986 IRCA, the 1990 IMMACT, and the 1996 IIRAIRA, but let me catch you up: we legalized 3 million illegal aliens, added more border patrol agents to the border, passed very stringent laws including fines and jail time for employers who hire illegal aliens, and made it a punishable crime to live in the United States illegally (among many, many other things). I ask you: how did this situation come about with all of these laws in place? You say they weren't enforced? Then why on earth would they be now? What makes the 4th time the charm? How many times do you need to witness the failure of a really bad idea before you can acknowledge that it was a really bad idea? Take heart, there's plenty of room for you in the ranks of the liberal Democrats – recycling failed ideas is their specialty.
I have to say amen to Patrick Mulligan’s comments; he’s gone directly to the root of the problem. I’ve read many 3 point, 5 point and 10 point plans for solving the illegal immigrant issue and wondered why the various authors assume the government would competently administer and enforce their pet solutions. Wishful thinking on their part or the egotistical notion President Bush will suddenly slap his forehead and say: “Gee thanks, why didn’t we think of that before”?
No one wants to admit we have a serious problem with our political system; we’re the greatest country on earth and have the best political system ever devised, or so it seems. And, controlling borders is universally recognized as a basic function of government. It’s not like we asked the government to cure cancer or develop a cheap energy source. Wait, sorry, we did ask the government to do those things. In fact, there are very few problems we haven’t asked the government to fix or at least pretend to fix.
The illegal immigrant problem is like being rudely slapped in the face with a dead octopus – the American public is forced to admit we have the 3 Stooges managing our most important national priorities. The 9/11 disaster dramatically illustrated the limitations of government competence and now comes the illegal immigrant problem further reinforcing our disgust and driving home the ugly truth we pretended not to notice in previous foul-ups.
Conservatives are no fans of “big” government, but who listens to conservatives anymore? The Republican Party has decided to emulate the Democrats; pretend to listen to the “base” and then manipulate them into supporting whatever plans are in the best interests of the party and its most influential supporters. Republicans were once synonymous with “conservatives”, but now the ideological schism has finally come out of the closet like a big, hairy truck driver wearing a low-cut dress and a padded bra.
Ronald Reagan is gone and there is no conservative saint to lead us back to the promised land. Multiculturalism continues to spread its rot through our social and political institutions and the momentum seems to be growing. And, I haven’t read a 3 point, 5 point or 10 point plan that would fix this problem. All we can do is continue digging down to the core of the problem and holding on to the hope there is a solution out there.
Building a fence is not the answer, enforcing laws already on the books is a better start.
If we start by cleaning out our own closets, ie…penalize and jail business owners who hire illegals,
take the illegals off the welfare rolls, out of the schools, out of anything but emergancy medical
ment, do away with the border babies and automatic citizenship. All this will force the illegal to play by the
rules (our rules). Just because you got past the border patrols shouldn't automatically give your
family a free pass to be with you and those liberal dunder-heads who espose the idea of family
based immagration reform should spend some time in the wood-shed. Lastly, Ms. Chavez,
the flocks of illegals crossing our borders are in no way similer to the Europeans who came to this land
and melted into a unified nation. They are more akin to the camp followers who trailed behind
the soldiers performing the odd job here and picking the battle-fields clean and when the war ended
dispersing back into the mist. You spoke of the "small" minority of "xenophobes" who are against
this reform, you need to do a better job in the statistist and polling department. The number's of
citizens who are against this "reform" is more in the 80 to 85 percent range.
The author believes sending illegals back to where they came from is "punishment?" Odd thought. A Mexican citizen is being punished when he is returned to being a citizen of Mexico?
For that to be true, it means either that he was being punished (living as he was in Mexico) before he entered the U.S. illegally or living in Mexico is not punishment unless you have to resume doing it after you break into the U.S. illegally.
A Mexican returned home after being caught breaking in, has no net loss. He was a Mexican citizen living in Mexico and he once again is a Mexican citizen living in Mexico. It's as if he never left. That, the author says is punishment?
We clearly have a different perspective on what constitutes punishment here in the U.S. By the author's logic, a bank robber who is disarmed and told to go home is being punished, presumably because he was not allowed to steal the money. Illegal immigrants being sent home are not being punished. They are being caught and deneid the right to get away with it.
Building a fence is part of the answer, absolutely no doubt about it. A physical barrier reminding those who would try and cross that it is wrong. A nation that built the Hoover Dam, the Empire state building (famous radio talk show hosts points) and defeated to major military powers in WWII can certainly build a barrier to protect our southern border from pregnant moms and lettuce pickers.
One economic fact that seems to be missing from the debate is that if the number of illegal immigrants that were allowed to enter this country were dramatically reduced those that were still here because of their good work skills would probably have a substantial income increase because they would now have less competition. With that benefit I doubt they would concern themselves much with "living in the shadows". And with free health care, free education, the ability to obtain a drivers license and sometimes the ability to vote illegally living in the shadows probably would not that bad. The issue of their legalization could be kicked down the road until through their payment of taxes, learning the English language, and assimilating a consensus could be developed by Americans how they could be handled.
So securing the border and reducing the influx should be the focus. Not those who are already here who are doing just fine thank you.
I am probably in the second group of ten Republican presidential candidates. For the detail on an idea which would meet most of the objections of both sides please go to my website at http://www.voteforvern.com/issues.php
A border fence is certainly need along with strong human and technical surveillance!
Arguments posed against this say tough laws in the nation are the answer. Nonsense because those laws, should they be passed, will simply never be enforced. That is exactly the case now. We have laws but they simply aren't enforced.
Then we have the bleeding heart idiots. No sooner are laws being enforced than they're screaming about "unfairness," "morally wrong," "inhuman," "unjust," etc., ad nauseaum. Soon the laws are no enforced or watered down to nothing.
Can we believe a politician's promise? Hell, they lie like rugs.
Can we depend on government? Yes, to screw us!
A fence is a tangible thing. It is either there or it is not. And it can be readily inspected to see that it is working, unlike the promises of politicians which vanish once they get their way.
I would also advocate a double fence with land mines between if necessary. If some drug smugglers get blown into the next world – T F B.
I am sick and tired of our criminals (politicians) telling me what I owe to the dirtbags of the world. I owe them nothing unless I chose otherwise. What I do owe is my criminals total contempt.