Posted on 08/20/2015 5:13:55 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
And a fine of $100,000 a day until the practice is stopped will prove a powerful incentive.
Reagan's protectionist actions speak loader than his words.
Heavy penalties should be imposed on those who refuse to enforce or follow the laws.
George W. Bush should have faced impeachment when he made it clear that he would refuse to enforce U.S. immigration laws.
Unfortunately it is only a misdemeanor to hire an illegal. It SHOULD be a felony.
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
The Christian Science Monitor
George W. Bush isn’t the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.
Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike’s official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.
General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said “Amen” to Senator Fulbright’s proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”
Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.
America “was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,” Mr. Brownell said. “When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint.”
Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.
According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were “approximately half” the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.
Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement “had friends among the ranchers,” and agents “did not dare” arrest their illegal workers.
Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: “When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now.”
Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.
During the 1950s, however, this “Good Old Boy” system changed under Eisenhower – if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing’s close connections to the president shielded him – and the Border Patrol – from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.
One of Swing’s first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was “a rough trip, and they did not like it,” says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
Mr. Coppock says he “cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today’s] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox.”
There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.
Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration
One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.
The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.
General Swing’s fast-moving campaign soon secured America’s borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.
Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.
“Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!” Edwards says.
Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, “they’d be on top of this in a minute.”
William Chambers, another ‘50s veteran, agrees. “They could do a pretty good job” sealing the border.
Edwards says: “When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce.”
While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.
1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.
2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won’t come.
3. End “catch and release” for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.
The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower’s team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
First, thank you for finally not calling names and for engaging in a discussion. I’ve yet to ever question your motivations, only your conclusions. You have not given me the same courtesy. Until now perhaps. I welcome it.
Now, you may not realize this, but a President doesn’t write legislation, he signs or vetoes it. Quite often, in fact always, there is good and bad in a piece of even good legislation. Therefore, to assign these protectionists actions as “Reagan’s actions” is fatuous and very shallow. They were part of bigger bills he signed into law.
And remember this: the idea of free trade does not mean you never ever make an exception for certain situations at certain times. It’s you who call us “free traitors,” assuming that was are for every trade deal ever written without exception. This is not, and never has, been the case.
The principles and ideals of Reagan were not always possible - they never are with a President, especially with a hostile congress. It’s the ideals of Reagan, which were based on the teachings of Milton Friedman, that I follow. There are practical realities that crop up all the time.
Now for your 40 meat packers: we can “see” those 40 jobs - what we can’t see are the problems the increase in the price of meat will cost consumers, including little family owned restaurants. What we can’t see is maybe this meat packer going out of business, like a lot of union shops, in the future. What we can’t see are all the negative ripples. Now, this is not a trade issue, but I point it out to show you how protectionism always has a very few obvious beneficiaries but many times that many negative consequences.
Under protectionism I will have to pay a few pennies more for my pound of sausage. In return we keep the USA the USA. Money well spent.
He’s all excited about the plan because Trump could be slipping amnesty by us in plain sight?
Americans won’t do the jobs because they offer substandard pay and working conditions. Pay a competitive wage and improve the working conditions (and enforce at least workfare) and Americans will do the jobs.
The availability of low-skill immigrant labor is forestalling investments in new technology.
It’s way more than a few pennies more for sausage, and it destroys much more wealth than it protects....so while you may think you’re “keeping dollars in the US” - you’re preventing more wealth from being created.
The market is a brutal task master. You may think you can manipulate and fool it - but in the long run, you cannot. US manufacturing is way up over all, even as some industries are down. This is called creative destruction. Let me break that down...it is creative, and destructive.
Almost every great business came out of the destruction of other industries due to technology, etc. The auto industry destroyed the buggy industry. How far would you go to protect the buggy industry?
The Japanese car invasion made the big three get off their asses and produce far better cars at far better prices. Now they are more competitive world wide due to being forced to get better.
This is all political not economic. As long as you realize that economics has nothing to do with it we can continue. It is matter of picking winners and losers.
What in the plan do you think isn't possible? Also, does one of the other candidates have a plan you think is better?
Prove it.
It's ALREADY a felony:
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) OffensesIt's ALREADY a felony. BUT, only a federal prosecutor can prosecute.
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
... The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).
Every single time we’ve protected the steel union thugs, we’ve lost far more jobs in auto and construction and others. FAR MORE. Every damned time.
When goods go up in cost, less are bought and sold. When less are bought and sold, then jobs go away by definition. It’s one here and one there...and not all in one factory, but many more in total go away.
And again, whatever you say about Reagan, he believed exactly what I said.
I reject that government should, let alone must, pick winners and losers. I reject it’s on it’s face. I reject it’s not about economics.
The “gotta go, but we’ll keep the families together...but they gotta go” - in any kind of reasonable time frame.
I did think the anchor baby thing was a tough constitutional issues, but based on what Mark Levin said last night, I do think that is possible.
I also know that any debate about deportation is not relevant until the border is secure. I can prove that if you would like.
"It's ALREADY a felony:
"1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
"Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
"... The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).
"It's ALREADY a felony. BUT, only a federal prosecutor can prosecute.
You reject borders, you reject America for Americans especially when there is huge unemployment problem. You reject American culture, these new "immigrants" aren't even trying to assimilate. They are almost all Democrats or will become Democrats. So the term Free Traitor™ fits like a glove.
All of the original founders were for tariffs. You say they weren't protectionist and simply for revenue generation which is laughable. The USA went socialist when tariffs were eliminated(circa 1913), income taxes put in place and Free Trade™ went hog wild starting int he 1970's. It hasn't been all good, if fact we are on the verge of economic collapse.
“No matter what anyone says, the majority of Mexican people (legals and illegals) are good, hard working people who come here to do just that, WORK.”
You apparently don’t live near Los Angeles.
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.