Posted on 01/27/2005 1:04:20 PM PST by bikepacker67
Within a week of his election victory, word began to leak from the Bush administration that the President is resurrecting a failed plan to amnesty the millions of illegal aliens in this country. Let me briefly summarize the consequences of President Bush's proposed policy of amnesty for illegal immigrants as it relates to his base of conservative voters: imagine a brick wall covered in long, poison-tipped, stainless steel spikes. Now imagine George Bush running towards that wall as fast he can, downhill.
What this metaphor lacks in nuance, it makes up for in accuracy -- because amnesty is a coming crisis in the conservative movement -- one entirely of Bush's making. Few subjects in American politics are charged with more emotion than illegal immigration. This emotion exists primarily because this is one issue on which our two-party and somewhat Democratic system of government has abjectly failed to reflect the will of the American people.
An overwhelming majority of Americans of both parties want illegal immigration curtailed, as evidenced by polls and the margins with which ballot initiatives pass when presented to a direct vote of the people (such as proposition 200 in Arizona). But neither party will take up this popular cause. The Republican leadership sees cheap illegal labor as good for business (and they fear angering Hispanics) and the Democrat party sees illegals as reliable liberal voters in the making -- an opportunity to outsource democracy to a labor pool that will sell their votes for government dollars at a favorable exchange rate.
So Americans have been left without a voice in their own government on this issue. Those who propose enforcing the law and punishing immigration law-breakers are marginalized and demonized. Now the Republican Party, normally the silent partner in the two-party conspiracy to promote uncontrolled borders, has decided to one-up the Democrats in their efforts to capture the nascent illegal voting block with the aforementioned amnesty (in fact, if not name) for the several million criminal aliens that America has accumulated over the last decade or so under the blind and winking eye of the federal government.
Bush and his advisors believe that this prostitution of the rule of law can further the inroads they have made into the legitimate immigrant community in America. The Republican base won't like it, of course, but what are they going to do? Vote for the Democrats? No, the base can take it in the gut on this one and come next election they'll crawl back to the only home they really have -- and the Republicans will gain new voters to add to the old coalition.
It all sounds logical, and is -- to a point. But I would remind our President that this is exactly the sort of thinking that turned "yellow dog" Democrats into Red-State Republicans. Just 40 years ago, the South was the most reliable part of the Democrats' national coalition. In most precincts in the South, the vote split approximately 1% Republican (voter error) and 203% Democrat. So the Democrats began "safely" ignoring their base. They could go a little left, or a lot left, or off the radar to the left -- and the Southerners would just have to deal with it and show up at the polls like always. No Southern Democrat would go Republican -- ever. But then they did. Little by little they split tickets, stayed home or made the leap to outright conversion -- and now the Democrats are a national party no more (to borrow a phrase). Offend your base one too many times and you will wake one Wednesday morning to find it gone.
In one swell foop, Bush is about to risk turning enthusiastic supporters into reluctant supporters. All it would then take for Democrats to steal the base on this issue is for a strain of Democrat to arise in which the populist/protectionist bent of the party is stronger than the multicultural fetish of the party elite. Such a Democrat caucus could simultaneously energize Unions, non-Union manufacturing and service workers, and African-Americans (who bear the brunt of immigrant wage pressure on unskilled job sectors). It could steal back the Rust belt, Sun belt, and Bible belt, and -- just for kicks -- get endorsed by Pat Buchanan. Plus you can throw in the votes of the law-and-order crowd and anyone who somehow believes that open borders are an open invitation to our terrorist enemies.
Many people love to make excuses for criminal alien laborers. They are just doing the work no American wants to do (for $3.00 an hour that is); they are just escaping poverty (should we let in all the rest of the third world too?); other than breaking one set of laws they are productive citizens who contribute to our economy (as are prostitutes and drug dealers, who are at least citizens and spend their money locally), and so on. But this issue really boils down to one thing: are we a nation of laws or aren't we? The rule of law is the great prerequisite for democracy. Nothing kills freedom faster than corruption.
America currently suffers from a form of corruption in which there are two sets of laws: those that are on the books and those that a ruling class of the wealthy, the broadcast, and the elected think should be actually enforced. If this elite believes that an open and unregulated border is a good thing for America, then let them say so openly and persuade the people to change the law. Otherwise, let's enforce the law we have agreed upon.
There is also a lot of talk of the need to amnesty illegals in order to give some "legal status" to America's underground workforce. Here is a simple plan for giving a real legal status to the stowaways within our country: call them "criminals" and deport them. If the Federal government does not want to spend money on something as silly as law enforcement, then authorize local law enforcement to seize the assets of illegals as they already can with drug dealers. I think you will find that the communities most afflicted by the open border will then seal it themselves and the economic motivation for criminal entry will disappear on the auction blocks of the police forces of Arizona and Texas.
Or we can continue to play the corruption game and Bush can amnesty another crop of "good citizens" whose first act in America was to break our law and ignore the will of our people. In which case, I say to some future Howard Dean "If you really want the votes of all those working class Americans driving around with Confederate flags on their pick up trucks (and American flags and Irish flags and Polish flags…) then all you need to do is stand up for the law and have the guts not to back down when you say you want their votes." Many jobs are being "insourced" far faster than they are being "outsourced"
And to President Bush I say "Conservatives are yours to lose. But you can do it."
1994-5, right after Proposition 187 won in California.
The cases were open-and-shut. In at least one case, the "forged identity documents" were printed on fax paper.
And the juries acquitted. In the fax-paper ID case, they acquitted in 15 minutes.
If lawbreaking by the connected is winked at, expect more lawbreaking.
If a jury of their peers refused to convict, expect more lawbreaking.
That part of the system is broken quite thoroughly.
I know of nothing more pragmatic than to insist that the people who work for you do their jobs. And to kick ass if they don't. Like costing some congresscritters and governors their jobs if they keep ignoring you. It's what you do when the people who work for you give you nothing but excuses about how "complex" the problem is and insist that you have to be "pragmatic".
Shoulda, Coulda, oughtta.....My point is this is not happening. We can agree that it should work......but it is broken.Wanting everything to work doesn't make it work.
bump
He can't because it's out of his hands as soon as signs off on the FTAA which will turn this hemisphere into some sort of borderless American Union ala the EU. Illegal immigration is just the conditioning tactic being used by the multi-national banking & business interests to show that they're going to shove this up our collective a$$e$ regardless of how much screaming we do.
NAFTA, GATT, the WTO were the vehicles used to do an end run around our national sovereignty and if you don't believe this is the case check out what's going in the EU (especially England) where many citizens are now beginning to understand that their long-cherished common law legal protections are under attack by the supra-national commissions created by the EU.......the same will happen here.
"Offend your base one too many times and you will wake one Wednesday morning to find it gone. "
First of all it isn't "amnesty" but why let facts get in the way of the quarter-hour FR immigration rant? Secondly, the people whining all the time about immigration most likely never voted GOP in the first place so it is unlikely that the GOP will lose any sleep over the threats by people who voted third party or wrote in Tancredo.
Even if a handful of congressmen can somehow generate enough support to produce some gridlock and stop this.......
Just knowing that this is the position the president supports prohibits me and many others from trusting his judgement and leadership.
First of all it isn't "amnesty"Bullshyt!
You are being either foolish or disingenuous if you think that this isn't just a slow erosion of our sovereignty.
There's already an "amnesty" program - it's called LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
The way to fix a bad situation isn't with your kind of helpless handwringing. It is by making examples in Washington. It is by lighting a fire under your represesentatives and demanding that they work for you, not for immigration lawyers, not for cheap labor employers.
And that is precisely what is happenning. Oh, I realize that the cheap labor lobby wants the American people to believe that they are powerless and helpless to defend themselves, that they have to be "pragmatic" and accept whatever the political elite chooses to dish out but the turning of the tide in Washington is visible and palpable. Cannon, the cheap labor congressman par execellance, resigning from the immigration committee. This is the sort of thing that happens when people refuse to accept helplessness and fight back.
You may resign yourself to helplessness. The American people do not. And we are winning.
That was one close election.
Tell me, can the 2008 GOP candidate afford to lose Colorado or Arizona or New Mexico ? It is possible.
How much money and manpower are you willing to spend on the task?
Give me a solid answer to my question (not a "whatever it takes" non-answer, but a dollars & bodies answer), and I'll tell you whether there's any chance of yours being answered in the affirmative.
Whatever it takes is not a non-answer.
It's like national defense or law enforcement. You can never spend enough to defeat the entire world or to ensure that everyone, everywhere has perfect safety. But you do spend enough to guarantee security against probable threats.
Whatever it takes is not a non-answer because if you have not secured your southern border whatever you think you are saving on border security you will spend and more besides on education, law enforcement, health care, welfare, etc to accomodate a never ending influx of poor people. These costs have reached a level where people in the West are screaming bloody murder. And it will get worse. It's like saying "can we really afford to make the hull of our ship watertight ?" If you haven't done that it doesn't matter what you spend on anything else. The alternative to securing the southern border is a fiscal bottomless pit.
Don't be so quick to judge. Bush has managed to turn every democrat effort into a GWBush victory.
Bush has made no firm proposal other than "guest workers" WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE.
We should WELCOME THE DEBATE because we can include the gutting of the current system, eliminating environwacko laws preventing true fences at the borders, protection for border residents, and data sharing of those who overstay or are already ordered deported.
The Debate will happen, it is just a question of whether we are going to stay home and whine or jump in with both fists.
We already spend tens of billions to feed, educate, incarcerate, etc. these people so why couldn't a good chunk of the money be re-directed to better enforce the border and stop the influx of those who cannot speak English, have no skills and are here to colonize, not assimilate.
Actually, it is. How much money? How much manpower?
It's like national defense or law enforcement. You can never spend enough to defeat the entire world or to ensure that everyone, everywhere has perfect safety. But you do spend enough to guarantee security against probable threats.
It's unlike national defense in one key element: if it's not done right, with sufficient funding, manpower, and associated resources from the get-go, you won't accomplish anything useful.
That's because the only way to really knock down the numbers of illegal immigrants is to deter them from attempting to cross in the first place. And the only way to do that is to raise the probability of apprehension (PA) to a very high number--at least 95%, and preferably 99%. (The receding assessment is based on historical experience with Operations Hold The Line and Gatekeeper.)
National defense can survive some level of inefficiency and underfunding, especially since the underfunded elements would be the invisible ones that are not critical to the missions of moving, shooting, and communicating. Border security would be tested 24/7, carries little downside for guessing wrong, and if it is found wanting, word will get out very quickly, whereupon it's business as it's been since 1965.
If you do not raise PA to you may reduce the flow of illegal aliens a small amount, but if you're saying that the present number is utterly unacceptable, then 97% of that number is just as unacceptable. And absent doing the job right across all 2,100 miles of border, the best you're going to accomplish is reducing the number of illegal immigrants by a few percent. But doing the job right will be extremely expensive. With that last point in mind, I ask again:
How much money are you willing to spend?
How many people are you willing to have employed by the federal government?
Whatever it takes is not a non-answer because if you have not secured your southern border whatever you think you are saving on border security you will spend and more besides on education, law enforcement, health care, welfare, etc to accomodate a never ending influx of poor people.
How much money?
How many people?
You may be willing to spend "whatever it takes." But is the rest of America that willing?
These costs have reached a level where people in the West are screaming bloody murder.
Uh-huh. And the cost of securing the border could have all the other states screaming bloody murder.
The alternative to securing the southern border is a fiscal bottomless pit.
The problem is that securing the southern border is, itself, a fiscal bottomless pit.
Apparently you haven't noticed but the new illegal immigrant gangs that are now targeting police officers as their initiation rite make the Crips and Bloods and NWA and Public Enemy and "Straight Outta Compton" and "Boyz in the Hood" scene of the 80's seem quaint. Control illegal immigration or the rampant anarchy and lawlessness of the Mexican border region will flood north. Control illegal immigration or we will have assasination of judges, prosecutors, and mayors like in Mexico and Colombia. Is there a price tag on preventing much of the west from turning into warlord anarchy ?
You deliberately confuse this issue by pretending that controlling illegal immigration means putting claymores and machine gun towers along the Mexican border. Why not punitive fines of businesses that employ illegals ? Why not enforce the law ? It's the old broken window thing. Once you start enforcing the law, the volume of criminal behavior actually drops. Law enforcement is never a bottomless pit. Lawlessness is.
John Howard in Australia showed that it is possible to beat this problem given the political will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.