| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Krauthammer: First A Wall - Then Amnesty |
| 2006-04-07 |
| Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us. Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come. We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's phony. What do you think was said in 1986 when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform? It turned into the largest legalization program in American history -- nearly 3 million people got permanent residency. And we are now back at it again with 11 million more illegals in our midst. How can it be otherwise? We already have a river of people coming every day knowing they're going to be illegal and perhaps even exploited. They come nonetheless. The newest amnesty -- the "earned legalization" being dangled in front of them by proposed Senate legislation -- can only increase the flow. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #7 My biggest gripe with Congress is their failure to understand that until you control the border, the problem only grows - by about 300,000 people a year. We've GOT to reduce that number. We will NEVER be able to keep ALL the illegals out, but cutting 300,000 down to 20,000 would make the problem a lot easier to deal with. A well-patrolled fence would do that. I just posted an article on my weblog about how to handle the ones that are already here, and how to set a pattern for any future illegals. But Krauthammer is right - we've got to stop the contining flow if we're EVER going to be able to handle the ones that are already here. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-04-07 22:24 |
| #6 2b: The groupings are to both identify the problems and come up with the solutions. What these groupings are is less important than it is to realize that it is a case of multiple problems and multiple solutions. That is why I point out how the disingenous try to lump the problems and the solutions together, and then demand one, simple and easy-to-understand program to take care of it all, once and for all. They know that there is no solution of this type, which means that they get to keep the status quo. However, there actually *is* one, big solution that by itself will completely change the equation for the better. That is the border wall. If it, and only it, is done, many of the associated problems will resolve themselves. It will not solve ALL the problems, of course, but it will go a long way in solving many of them. It is by far the most important thing we can do; and many other things we can do are predicated on it being there first. And those who do not want to reduce illegal immigration at all, also realize that the wall would create effective change in short order. So they try to change the subject to anything other than the wall, and use ridiculous and unsubstatiated arguments against it. Then they try to keep it off the table with other distractions. The part about "groupings" you found so distasteful was actually based on some of these efforts to distract. When pointed out that the wall would keep out the vast majority of Mexicans, their response was "The wall won't keep out terrorists, so the wall won't work and we shouldn't build the wall." You see the distraction? The effort to change the subject from keeping out illegal Mexicans to the War on Terror? They might as well said that the wall wouldn't keep out space aliens, so it won't work, so we shouldn't build it. The point is irrelevant to the argument. But if you look to Washington right now, you will see that they really don't want to solve the problem. Those who want to build an effective wall are by far the minority in both parties. And those who want NO immigration controls are willing to spend the big bucks to keep their ultra-cheap labor force. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-07 21:37 |
| #5 you make some good points, Moose. But you can't break the immigrants down into "two groups". Mexican immigrants here in the US don't break down into "two groups". Big Lizards tried to break them down into two groups today as well. It's bullhockey. There are some who have lived and worked and been productive, some who have committed crimes, some who go back and forth across the border on a regular basis, some sell drugs, some are on welfare, etc. It's nothing personal and you make good points - but if I read that they can be broken down into groups terrorists v/s mom and pop, one more time today, I'm gonna barf. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-07 19:20 |
| #4 Krauthammer hits on what I was saying here a month ago. Those who are opposed to any controls or restrictions on illegals try very hard to combine all the problems and all the solutions into a mountain that is unacceptable to anyone. An easy-to-understand, impossible to implement program. They try to frame the argument into an "all or nothing" solution, that is practically impossible to carry out. This is a good tactic if you want nothing done. So what is the reality? It's not hard to explain. First of all, break the illegals down into two groups: the Mexicans, Central and South Americans who want to come to the US to work; and the others, non-hispanics and terrorists. Two different problems that need two different solutions. The problem with the workers is sheer numbers, the problem with the others is that they have the financial resources to evade barriers. The wall is the solution to the workers, but it is not enough to keep out a dedicated person, say a terrorist, with money, who wants through. This is why I proposed a bounty, paid to Mexicans who inform on non-hispanics that try to cross the border. Even a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars bounty, for an important terrorist, would stop any non-hispanic from crossing that border. It would seal that border from the South side. Ten thousand hungry eyes watching every non-hispanic North of Mexico City. Second, as Krauthammer said, first a wall, and then amnesty. This recognizes a de facto situation, that Mexicans in the US are different from Mexicans in Mexico who want to be in the US. The vast majority of Mexicans living in the US have integrated well since the 1940s. The US has proven itself capable of integrating millions of Mexicans, if given time. Were a wall to be built now, the Mexicans living in the US would be fully integrated in as little as ten or twenty years. That is, they would have no remaining ties with Mexico whatsoever. There are two huge Mexican communities in the US, the legals and the illegals. But that is where the distiction ends. There are plenty of unsuccesful legal Mexican-Americans, who are just as poor Mexicans who have just crossed the border. But, there are also a lot of successful, prosperous and hard working illegals who have quickly made a life for themself. They have a lot of equity in the US: a home, a car, a steady well-paying job, children in school, etc. All-told, there are around 11 million illegals in the US, guilty of committing the misdemeanor offense of crossing the border. Those who demand that they be forced to return to Mexico, most likely never to be able to return for a dozen years because of our limitations on legal immigration, are calling for a terribly unfair penalty. Much like calling for someone to be deported for getting a parking citation. But more so. To be forced to give up any property and vehicle; to have their children, who may have never lived in Mexico and may not speak Spanish, taken out of school and pitched across the border with them. Basically to destroy any life they may have made here, and for what? Some petty crime committed years before? Yes, indeed they are different from Mexicans still in Mexico who want into the US. That is why that wall must be built ASAP. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-07 18:45 |
| #3 You know, they aren't "undocumented". They didn't just leave their license at home in their other pants. They are here illegally. We should not allow immigrants to begin their relationship with this country by breaking the law. What would be the down side to making it a felony to hire illegals? I have to fill out an I-9 form on every intern I hire. I think that the only way to keep them out is to remove the reward for coming here. We could increase the number of people reviewing the I-9 forms, strive for a 30 day response and, when you find a suspected illegal, send an investigator who has the right to demand that the employee be produced under penalty of law to the employer. |
| Posted by: Formerly Dan 2006-04-07 15:16 |
| #2 amen, brauthammer. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-07 12:35 |
| #1 The Hammer hits it square. |
| Posted by: Thalet Angeng7414 2006-04-07 11:27 |