Will Americans support another amnesty?

www.townhall.com ^ | January 5, 2004 | Phyllis Schlafly

[God is good]

Were Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's Miami meanderings a gaffe, a trial balloon, an announcement of his department's policy, or an announcement of Bush administration policy?

We are entitled to know.

His shocking words were a broadside on current law: "We have to come to grips with the presence of 8 to 12 million illegal aliens, afford them some kind of legal status some way." He pointedly did not say we have to come to grips with 8 to 12 million people who have violated our laws by entering our country illegally, and further violated our laws by using fraudulent documents to get jobs and remain here.

Nor did he say we have to come to grips with the thousands of employers who are violating our laws by hiring illegal aliens, and violating additional laws by paying the illegal aliens in the underground economy in order to avoid our laws about minimum wage, overtime, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, family leave, Americans with disabilities, payroll taxes, etc.

Ridge didn't elaborate on how he would award "some kind of legal status," nor explain how giving legal status is any different from granting amnesty. What part of illegal doesn't Ridge understand?

Continuing, Ridge said his plan is to "legalize their presence, then, as a country, you make a decision that from this day forward, this is the process of entry, and if you violate that process of entry we have the resources to cope with it."

But we've been there, done that. In 1986, the United States granted what was promised to be a one-time legalization - then honestly called amnesty. That sent a message to others to enter illegally and wait for the next amnesty.

The administrations of Presidents Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have flagrantly failed to use our resources "to cope with" those who afterward violated the "process of entry." And so the illegal-alien problem quadrupled.

Not only did the 1986 amnesty transform millions of illegal aliens into lawful permanent residents, but after they became U.S. citizens they could import their relatives. Congress never investigated how many additional millions entered the United States or the massive document fraud that was involved in the process.

The current President Bush was asked to clarify his policy. He responded: "I have constantly said that we need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee.

"It makes sense that that policy go forward. And we're in the process of working that through now."

No, that does not make sense. First, it's an all-out repudiation of current law, and second, up to 5 billion people in the world might want to be "willing employees" in the United States.

Bush didn't limit the number of "willing employees." An estimated 300,000 to 400,000 Mexicans every year cross illegally into the United States looking for work.

Thousands of these have died from thirst and dehydration in the desert or in locked vans, or from drowning, or from crimes committed by their smugglers. The Bush's administration's failure to close the border makes the payoff of getting into the United States worth the risk of death.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan repeated Bush's exact words and added, "Migration should be safe, orderly and humane." But Congress and the American people never authorized "migration." We only authorized immigration under certain laws.

Bush claims he is "against blanket amnesty," but "blanket" is his weasel word. He apparently is for amnesty for the 8 to 12 million illegal aliens already in this country.

Amnesty for illegal aliens comes disguised under various euphemisms. These include guest worker program, Mexican ID cards, the DREAM Act (to give in-state college tuition), driver's licenses, 245(i) visas, H-1B and L-1 visas, free hospital care, anchor babies, and "totalization," which is to give Social Security benefits.

Ridge says that illegal aliens in the United States should be given "some kind of legal status" because most are not a threat to national security. That's an irrelevancy. Most passengers who boarded those four fatal planes on Sept. 11, 2001, were not hijackers, but 19 of them were, and Ridge has no plan to separate the terrorists from the 300,000 or more who cross our borders illegally every year.

According to the Washington Post, Karl Rove is designing the White House plan and the president will present his proposal the second week of January, shortly before his trip to Monterrey, Mexico.

Asa Hutchinson, Homeland Security's undersecretary for border and transportation security, says the Bush and Ridge remarks simply reflect the ongoing debate in Congress over the immigration issue. If that's so, then it's time for Congress to hear loud and clear from the two-thirds of Americans, according to a Zogby International poll, who believe that foreigners residing illegally in the United States should not be allowed to stay.

[azhenfud]

Well, don't they travel in dozens?

[jgrubbs]

Where is the national headquarters of the Constitution Party? Where are ANY of its offices? The few times I've seen platforms that were attributed to the Constitution Party, I was impressed. But, where the hell are they? Where -- and Who -- are their candidates?

I will attempt to answer each of your questions.

Where is the national headquarters of the Constitution Party? Where are ANY of its offices?

Constitution Party
23 North Lime St.
Lancaster, PA, 17602

Toll Free: 1-800-2-VETO-IRS
(1-800-283-8647)
Tel: 717-390-1993
Fax: 717-390-1996
General E-Mail: hq@constitutionparty.com
Information: info@constitutionparty.com
Website: http://www.constitutionparty.com

Who -- are their candidates?

You can find a list of current and past candidates online at the following URL:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/candidates.htm

Maryland attorney Michael Peroutka is currently the party's designated "provisional" Presidential candidate for 2004.

[jgrubbs]

They haven't updated the links on the National Web site, here is the link to the state party Web site for your state:

http://www.illinoisconstitutionparty.com/

[PuNcH]

This is not a new problem, it's been around for decades.

The numbers are in fact a relatively new problem. We have always had illegal immigration but we have not had it to the extent that it is since the 1986 amnesty. After that, the numbers just exploded. Another amnesty is more of the same but the idea is such an obvious failure.

We need to start with enforcing the laws not rewarding the lawbreakers.

[CPops57]

"President George W. Bush has presided over a dramatic increase in the size, cost, scope, and power of the federal government that would be the envy of even the most radical socialist. He has stated his support of the clearly- unconstitutional Clinton gun ban and has vowed to sign a replacement into law (the current law has a sunset provision that expires in 2004) should it reach his desk. His Attorney General has made it his personal crusade to get ever-greater power for the government to snoop into the private lives of citizens. Bush has used the military to invade a sovereign nation that had no realistic chance of threatening America, while at the same time encouraging a flood of illegal third-world immigrants across our borders."

Bush isn't getting my vote in 2004. I'm going Constitution Party and I'm done with the Republican establishment.

[B4Ranch]

Remember when your Mom would let you getaway with something? Of course, being a kid, you pushed her by getting worse and worse until she finally blew up. What did she do then?

She laid down the 'old law'. The one where no nonsense was going to be tolerated whatsoever.

What did you do? "Yes, Mom, I'll clean up the mess and behave" (before you get any worse and take my head off).

The results were Mom had an clean happy home again where the kids behaved, were polite and cleaned up after themselves without being told to.......for a few days anyway. LOL

I'm just saying that we need to 'blow up' and quit farting around with these criminals. They are migrating across our borders to the candy store. Lets close the store and make them clean up the whole dang mess, repaint the fences and start over with new hours of operation. Then we need to keep the rules in place to make sure they don't push us into this mess again.

[Alberta's Child]

I've never said that the sole measure of a country's fiscal health is its GDP. If anything, the BEST measure of a country's fiscal health is its per-capita GDP.

But even then, I've determined that any measure of GDP is illusory at best because of all the inherent inaccuracies in these numbers.

[B4Ranch]

"Real Men Wear Dusters" and spurs. Tick 'em off and you get to look down the blue barrel of what they guard the range with.

[Consort]

It doesn't look like the promotion of the Constitution Party is making any headway. It looks too much like a ploy to create a spoiler that the Democrats are hoping for; another Third Party candidate to repeat what happened in '92.

Michael Peroutka »» anagram »» A chum like a Perot

[TheDon]

Sigh. Once again, the question is not amnesty, it is which immigration laws are we willing to enforce.

As for the immigration problem being more recent, not true. It's been a massive problem for decades. The fact that we had an amnesty in the 80s makes the point.

[jgrubbs]

You should actually do some research before posting.

Four million voters rebuffed the Democrats and Republicans in 2000, double the number of third-party voters just four years before, according to the nation's leading authority on the subject, Ballot Access News publisher Richard Winger. (I wonder what the number will be in 2004 and 2008)

You can continue to stay tied to the "two party system" mindset if you choose to. You probably think the U.S.A is a Democracy also.

[TheDon]

That is certainly one approach. However, millions of illegal aliens informs us that we are not willing to enforce our current immigration laws. We should certainly enforce the laws we have on the books. So one approach is to enforce current laws, another is to change the laws to reflect what we are willing to enforce. Either approach restores the support of the rule of law. The status quo does not.

[PuNcH]

Sigh. Once again, the question is not amnesty, it is which immigration laws are we willing to enforce.

Amnesty is being proposed therefore it is in question. The laws become irrelevant when the illegals think we are just going to throw out another amnesty.

As for the immigration problem being more recent, not true. It's been a massive problem for decades. The fact that we had an amnesty in the 80s makes the point.

We had amnesty in the 80s because the numbers werent that significant. Of course the numbers became significant after we started granting amnesty. You are simply not dealing with reality if you think our problem with illegals has been the same for decades.

[Rummyfan]

Will Americans support another amnesty?

No, no, and hell no!!!

[Charles Martel]

Any history buffs out there--has there ever been this quick of a suicide by a country? I can't think of one-without a bullet being fired. Voluntary, self-induced, quick national suicide being performed now on many levels. Decay from within.

Without a bullet being fired? Probably not, but such catastrophic turns of fate are usually accompanied by bloodshed, sooner or later.

archy, you might want to ping the CWII list, if only for consideration of riri's question.

[Klickitat]

Yes some of them big name conservatives.

[archy]

archy, you might want to ping the CWII list, if only for consideration of riri's question.

Sadly, I'm afraid you're right. Ping!

[Consort]

If the Constitution Party makes any headway and gains power, it will do exactly what the major parties do to keep and expand that power. Politicians are politicians.

[jgrubbs]

If the Constitution Party makes any headway and gains power, it will do exactly what the major parties do to keep and expand that power. Politicians are politicians.

And if they do that they will loose my support!

"Our first president, George Washington, warned us about the dangers of putting any political party above the general interests of the country. It would do well for Americans today to relearn this basic lesson. Our loyalty must first and foremost be to the fundamental principles upon which our nation was built, not to the finite interests of political partisanship."

"It is a fatal mistake to assume that any political party is the harbinger of patriotism. Theodore Roosevelt said, 'Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.'"

"My loyalty to a party or politician must be measured by his loyalty to the fundamental principles on which America was founded. When I remain loyal to a politician or party after they demonstrate an unwillingness to be faithful to those immutable principles I am guilty of disloyalty to my country."

--Dr. Chuck Baldwin

[TheDon]

An amnesty does not address the problem of illegal immigration, therefore it cannot be a solution to that problem. It simply addresses an underclass of millions of illegal aliens we have done nothing about for decades.

We must either enforce our existing immigration laws, or modify them to a state we are willing to enforce. The status quo is unacceptable.

Having grown up in So Cal, I can say that illegal immigration has been a big problem for decades. That it builds up over time is not that hard to discern.