The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

January 17th, 2004 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

Debate rages, and will through 2004, about President Bush’s “not an Amnesty” Amnesty proposal to legalize the 8 to 12 million Illegal Aliens his Administration has said are currently here in our country.

Amnesty proponents and enablers uniformly offer only three solutions to the Illegal Alien problem.

1. Coexistence: Just maintain the status quo through inaction.
2. Amnesty: This is appeasement, and surrender.
3. Xenophobia: Build a police state.

That’s a pretty thin list, and as we’ll see, not an accurate one. Its exclusive presentation amounts to a fallacy of False Dilemma.

It should be noted that Amnesty is a nearly inevitable consequence of Coexistence. Not surprisingly, therefore, Amnesty proponents commonly raise the specter of Xenophobia so that they can paint dark insinuations and distract attention from the symbiosis of their appeasement with the failed policy of Coexistence. Calling other people Nazis is a neat way of cloaking one’s own kinship with Neville Chamberlain.

If we had accepted the same false dilemma in the War on Terror, we'd never have fought it. We'd be the same as Democrats, who’ve made a willingness to appease a party litmus test.

The War on Terror didn’t begin on September 11th, 2001, it began with the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and was conducted against us by Al Qaeda and our enemies all throughout the 1990s. President Clinton, however, opted not to take the fight to the enemy, and so the Clintonistas held throughout the 90s that terrorism was an intractable problem with which we'd just have to Coexist , and made their policies accordingly. Not surprisingly, when President Clinton had an opportunity to take Osama bin Laden into custody, he lacked the courage to do so. Clinton’s spine also failed him on three occasions where our Special Forces were in position to kill bin Laden. By the end of his Presidency, Clinton’s appeasement of terror was in full bloom; visits from uber-terrorist Yassir Arafat were a source of pride to him, and ultimately, he even granted pardons to Puerto Rican terrorists.

Pardons and clemencies, like Amnesties, absolve wrongdoers of further responsibility for past crimes. When a policy of Coexistence with wrongdoing is pursued long enough, absolution of wrongdoing will eventually become part of the negotiation to make the craven failure to confront it appear magnanimous.

On September 11th, 2001, the War on Terror changed. America didn't accept the false dilemma of Coexistence, Appeasement, or Xenophobia. Coexistence had failed, and with it went any thought of absolution for wrongdoing. Clintonian appeasement was over. Xenophobic notions of “kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” and “nuke Mecca” were also ruled out, because we’re Americans, and hold ourselves to higher standards of morality and ingenuity.

What then, of the fallacy presented in the false dilemma of the Coexistence / Amnesty / Xenophobia triad?

We rightfully threw it on the ash heap of History.

We took a fourth, Asymmetric approach to the Terrorists, and are now reaping the benefits. After wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly Libya is turning over their WMD programs without a shot being fired; Iran is on the bubble and contemplating the same thing; Syria and the PLA are increasingly isolated; and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are finally getting the message that coddling Al Qaeda is a losing proposition. Early on in the WoT, it was understood that victory is a policy which reaps a sweet harvest. While the investment in the initial successes was relatively high, they generated a momentum that is making inexpensive windfalls of subsequent victories.

Yet none of this could have happened if we’d followed the appeasement tendencies of the Democrats. In ten years, we’d have been looking at a Middle East full of North Koreas, which was the crown jewel of President Clinton’s failed policy of Coexistence and appeasement.

Naturally, being innate appeasers, the Democrats and Clinton also have pursued Coexistence and Amnesty in dealing with the problem of the millions of Illegal Aliens currently living in our country. Three times in the 1990s, Clinton signed legislation enabling Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code, thereby granting Amnesties to more than a million Illegals Aliens (twice with at GOP House and Senate). Appeasement failed, of course, as it must, and by the end of Clinton’s eight years, there were millions more Illegals than when he started.

Now we have a Republican Administration, as well as a GOP House and Senate. The Clintonian policies of Coexistence with and Amnesties for Illegal Aliens have clearly failed. So, President Bush has taken the initiative and offered an “Immigration Reform” proposal that would legalize not just a million Illegals, as Clinton did, but millions of them. Rather than turning from the failed Clinton policies, President Bush is embracing an even more radical version of them.

So now, pro-Amnesty Republicans and their enablers are offering the same solutions on Illegals as the Democrats did: Amnesty (even though they split hairs and pretend otherwise. They are attempting to frame the debate with the same false dilemma that the Democrats did with the War on Terror: Coexistence, Amnesty/appeasement, and Xenophobia.

Where is the fourth option, Asymmetry? It has worked so well in the WoT; why are we not exploring Asymmetric solutions to the Illegal Alien problem?

We can effectively solve much of the Illegal Alien problem, without Amnesty, if we apply a similar, Asymmetric approach to that of the War on Terror. Obviously, it's not necessary or moral to conduct a war against Illegals, but by applying systematic pressure to all of the factors that encourage the Illegals to violate our laws and sovereignty, we can win early victories that generate and sustain a momentum whereby the problem starts to solve itself.

The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative.

They Will Deport Themselves

There are plenty of steps we can take to do this.

Eighteen Illegal Alien solutions that are better than any Amnesty

Not only is encouragement of Illegal Alien self-deportation humane and cost effective, there has already been considerable success in this regard with Pakistani Illegals.

25% of Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deported Themselves since 2001 -
Facts against the Bush Amnesty

If we project that modest 25% self-deportation rate of the Pakistani Illegals onto the the 8 to 12 million Illegals that DHS Secretary Tom Ridge concedes are here, we’re talking about 2 to 3 million fewer Illegals in a short period of time. However, the Pakistani Illegals self-deported in response to a set of incentives that was far from comprehensive. A much higher rate of self-deportation of Illegals is certainly feasible, if we simply roll up our sleeves and get on with it.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson recently said:

We never would have had this conversation [about Illegal Aliens] in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.
Paradise Lost? (Victor Davis Hanson comments on Bush's immigration proposal)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (FR link) - January 10, 2004
Bill Steigerwald with Victor Davis Hanson

As with the War on Terror, so too with the Illegal Aliens; it’s now time to throw the false dilemma of Coexistence, Amnesty, or Xenophobia on the ash heap of History. Amnesty failed under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and will fail under President Bush if it’s attempted.

Rewards for lawbreaking beget more lawbreaking.

Diligent enforcement of our immigration laws succeeded in the 1950s, and would again; but we would be better served by a more humane, Asymmetric approach today, whereby relatively few deportations would result in a great many self-deportations of Illegal Aliens.

[Sabertooth]

Other than Terror and taxes, I lost my enthusiasm for President Bush quite a while ago. I remember what he did during the #187 Campaign in 1994. Despite some trepidations, I was broken glass in 2000, and even dragged my daughter to street protests on Bush's behalf during the Florida mess (here in L.A., not in Fla.). Bought her a Sore Loserman t-shirt a year before I became a Freeper.

I was was quite proud of the President following 9/11, and am pleased overall with his prosecution of the war. However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country.

The problem is, any Democrat would be worse. Setting aside the rest of their foolishness for the moment, we need to understand that every one of the Democrat Presidential candidates supports worse Amnesties for Illegal Aliens than that proposed by President Bush.

So, for now, my vote remains Bush's to lose, and I'm getting a big clothes-pin ready for November. Could he lose it? Sure, but I'd have to think long and hard on it. Something rotten would have to happen, though, because I'd vote for him today.

On the other hand, I can't quite go along with those who say "the kool aid's fine, jump in!" I don't trust politicians, any of them. I believe power tends to corrupt, and that it deludes long before it corrupts. I expect and elect politicians to do the right things, so I focus on where they don't.

Such is the case with President Bush's "not an Amnesty" Amnesty proposal for Illegal Aliens. It's a reward for lawbreakers, and all of the hairsplitting over the Bush blue cards vs. the green cards of the Reagan Amnesty are most unpersuasive.

So, the trick now is to get President Bush reelected, while simultaneously defeating his Amnesty, for good.

Part of the trick depends on meeting the challenge of offering genuine solutions. Consider that challenge met.

[Sabertooth]

FYI

[SAMWolf]

Bump

[ovrtaxt]

Nice essay. Like you, I'm a little more than annoyed with Bush's overall domestic agenda. I clearly remember in August of 2001, sadly scraping the Bush sticker off my car. He had just started his leftward domestic tilt, with the Education bill and so forth. Now, we have damaged the First Amendment, a trail of big government spending in between.

I never forgot what Buchanan said about him during the primary, and he was right.

Quite a testament to the impact of 911. It's still outweighs the alternatives. But if we lose the Constitution in the process, what are we defending?

[Nephi]

So, the trick now is to get President Bush reelected, while simultaneously defeating his Amnesty, for good.

That's not the trick, the trick is how did Bush turn so many conservatives into socialist lemmings?

[SCalGal]

I was was quite proud of the President following 9/11, and am pleased overall with his prosecution of the war. However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country.

Repeat and Bump.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

---

If this is taxes with reprsentation
Give me taxes without representation
I much prefer a tax on tea!
Instead of everything else.

[HennepinPrisoner]

Bump

[Barnacle]

Mr. Tooth, I start to read it and I feel my blood pressure rise. So if you'll forgive me, I'll just give it a BUMP for the time being.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[dirtboy]

Nice work. Just as with the war on terror, it took us a long time to get here, and it will take some time to reverse the tide. But apparently to some, appeasement rightfully was never an option after 9/11 - but appeasement amnesty is the way to deal with illegal immigration - despite the fact that amnesty has been tried and doesn't work.

[Amerigomag]

Part of the trick depends on meeting the challenge of offering genuine solutions

Another part is working hard to elect a Congressman and a Senator who will oppose Bush when he strays off the reservation.

[Southack]

"by applying systematic pressure to all of the factors that encourage the Illegals to violate our laws and sovereignty, we can win early victories that generate and sustain a momentum whereby the problem starts to solve itself.

The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative."

Of course, this is precisely what Bush's new immigration plan *does*, except of course that it accomplishes this key goal in a non-obvious manner (hence, unnecessary and hostile reaction to said plan).

For instance, Bush's plan offers a carrot/reward to illegals. If they register with the federal government, then they get a blue card, can't be hassled by INS raids, can get a bank account, can transfer money back to their relatives without paying outrageous bribes, become eligible for tax refunds (some of their payroll taxes are refundable), can return to their home countries on vacations without fearing yet another illegal border crossing, and they become immune to the deportation blackmail scams of illegal employers as well as other illegals.

But Bush's carrot/reward to illegals comes with a catch or two. For one thing, they have to *register* with our government to get that reward. Registration changes everything, too. Our status quo *without* registering illegals is that our government doesn't know, institutionally, where all 8 million illegals live and work.

However, once they register for Bush's reward/carrot, poof, we suddenly know who they are, where they live, and who they work for. Now the INS can track them and the IRS can tax them. Like I said, *registration* changes everything.

And there's more...

Bush's plan requires them to voluntarily return to their home countries after three years in order to apply for additional time here in the U.S.

After investing 3 years of their lives into Bush's new plan, few illegals will be willing to risk losing it all. Rather than forfeit their legal right to live and work here, as well as lose their refundable taxes, most illegals will opt to return back to their home countries in order to be able to apply for more legal time here.

But by returning to their home countries voluntarily, they have just done what would take an army of law enforcement to otherwise do by force: they will have deported themselves.

Considering that the 8 million illegals are a larger problem in size/scope than the relocations by force of 6 million Jews in Europe during WW2, this accomplishment of convincing illegals to self-deport themselves voluntarily is not insignificant.

In fact, it is brilliant.

President Bush's plan, once it is finally understood by most radio talk show hosts, will one day be lauded for delivering on precisely your above demands for convincing illegals to go home on their own.

[AzJohn]

I don't know if proposals/approaches on this subject should be categorized so neatly as you suggest. For example, most of your 18 points could in theory be combined with the principles from President Bush's speech last week.

Suppose such a combination, some sort of guest worker approach which includes current illegals along with some of your enforcement measures, made it through Congress. Depending on the specifics I might support that. Is any kind of legalization of most of those currently here illegally a deal-breaker for you, regardless of what else is in the package?

[Southack]

"However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country."

Banning Partial Birth Abortion leaves you cold and you want nothing to do with it?!

Cutting income taxes and dividend taxes is the wrong direction domestically for you?!

Cutting red tape for building new logging roads, killing CO2 regulations for our electricity providers, and deep-sixing OSHA's proposed ban on American home businesses for "ergonomic" reasons is something to be upset with?!

Surely not. I know you better than that. Surely you were simply painting with too broad of a brush. Surely you simply meant that letting Congress spend too much money was wrong-headed and that signing CFR in the face of today's warped SCOTUS was a tactical mistake, NOT that the above-mentioned domestic policies go against your own beliefs...

[Southack]

c#13

[dirtboy]

"However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country."

Banning Partial Birth Abortion leaves you cold and you want nothing to do with it?! Cutting income taxes and dividend taxes is the wrong direction domestically for you?!

Why don't you just ask him what parts he doesn't like and go from there, instead of attempting to put words in his mouth?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I like your logical approach.

I also prefer to wait and see how it pans out. It surely is no worse off than we are now, which is not really that bad in the first place.

The hyper ventilators should just breath deeply into a paper bag.. it helps pseudo-hypoxia.

The bill will more than likely be defeated in the legislature anyway because of the gross ignorance of conservatives misjudging the merits of the bill in the first place.

[Zipporah]

How did Bush do it? Well if you are referring to the people that surround him, they weren't conservatives-really. Constituents who are conservatives were so sick of Clinton that they welcomed Bush without thorough examination (me for example) I continued being a Bush supporter and felt confused about some Bush policies. But I continued supporting. More liberal policy.. But I continued supporting. The illegal alien issue came along, I began to open my eyes did the research and realized I had been a fool. The illegal amnesty proposal along with the Patriot Act should make any American, much less conservatives, shake in their boots. If they do not, then they refuse to see what is ahead, the refuse to believe that someone they trusted betrayed them or they have something to gain.

[dirtboy]

Same stuff, different thread. I already made my opinions clear last night regarding your presentation of Bush's proposal.