Posted on 01/06/2004 8:18:02 AM PST by 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.
Implicit in your reasoning is that the U.S. must have a continually rising population to be a prosperous nation. This same argument has also been trotted out quite a bit lately on FR (by “so-called” conservatives) as a solution to keep all those good ol' BANKRUPT "Democrat" welfare plans that Republicans used to be against paying out...at least on a cash basis for the next generation. The logical conclusion of this, of course, is that our population would have to grow to *infinity* to assure the (false) expectations of prosperity and make good on the ever-mounting IOUs of actuarially bankrupt welfare programs like SS/Medicaid/Medicare/BushDrugCare for all the future generation of this country. That is the upshot.
May I ask, do we really want to grow our population to China's level and beyond? Is that the solution? Second, if population growth is the key to endless prosperity why has Switzerland done so well with a stable population? Also, is one's confidence so low in capitalism that it can only work by packing the country with more and more warm bodies? This reminds me of the Matrix’s Agent Smith saying MORE! MORE! MORE! every time he battled Neo.
It is true that some end-market businesses will cease to grow and perhaps shrink if our population is kept under control. Is this such a bad thing? Our Taxes will also drop with less demand for social welfare costs and infrastructure needs. Perhaps instead of taking the “easy way out” and eternally avoiding the inevitable bankruptcy of financially unsound welfare programs like SS these programs can be “once and for all” reformed to work on a actuarially sound basis and/or—better--substituted with private programs.
Most importantly, lost in all this nonsense of unlimited immigration, is the TRUTH that the Real Engine of Prosperity and Wealth is NOT population growth--it is Scientific Advancement and Technology. A sensible immigration policy would limit immigration only to those Great Minds from around the world…not hoards and hordes of unskilled, uneducated, culturally divergent 3rd world immigrants. Kind of makes sense, doesn’t it?
Finally, if hyper-immigration is the easy answer for whatever ales the current generation what kind of country will America be in 50 years? Will we even be a country at all in say 100 years? Will our Grand Children curse this generation for it’s unmitigated greed in transferring all the unpaid bills of today’s EXPANDING social programs to future generation and allowing OUR CULTURE to be replaced with the Cultures of 3rd World nations?
Bottom Line: the true measure of standard of living is per capita wealth, per capita income after all taxes--not increases in top line business and government revenue. Let me submit to you that in every high population country in this world, wealth, on a per capita basis, ranks among the lowest of all nations. We as a nation can only maintain our standard of living and increase it over the long run by limiting immigration only to those who bring much needed skills in science and technology. Unrestricted immigration will, in time, reduce America’s standard of living and ultimately destroy the nation.
Good.
It becomes the solution to the problem from the point of view of the illegals and thus promotes even more illegality.
It simply addresses an underclass of millions of illegal aliens we have done nothing about for decades.
You mean for a single decade? What happened to the last amnesty.
We must either enforce our existing immigration laws, or modify them to a state we are willing to enforce. The status quo is unacceptable.
The status quo is complete disregard for the rule of law and the constitution. Amnesties have been key in creating this problem.
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.
So you've been around it longer than most. But the numbers have recently gone up drastically and the crime rates and the costs. We havent had emergency rooms closing down for decades. The construction industry in my area wasnt taken over by illegals for decades. etc... There is a whole world outside of So Cal.
H-E-L-L N-O
The (accurate) picture I painted was one of a nation that has no political will to do such a thing. I would also add, though, that sustaining a healthy per-capita GDP would be difficult even under the no-growth scenario you described, because increasing efficiency in any sector of the economy is more likely to pay off if it results in higher output, not the same output for lower costs.
Interestingly, what now defines the difference between the U.S. and Europe is that they are somewhat "ahead" (I use that term loosely) of us when it comes to dealing with their looming demographic problem -- they have no apparent problem killing off their senior citizens when they become a burden on their public health system.
Nah, lets annex Mexico, and try it there....
-archy-/-
Right, as well as most of Western Europe. So, we'll just say we, western civilization, are collectively comitting national and cultural suicide. Knowingly and wittingly.
Always have - Always will
Continual advancement of technology will increase output over time...this has been proven over and over again. Someday machines will make machines with very little human involvement in the production process. It's already happening.
Moreover, and I think you might agree, there is a theoretical limit to which our planet can support our global population. Resources are finite and even with our technology we human beings still are subject to the laws of nature and cannot crowd out other life forms we are dependant on for our survival--without consequences. Until we progress our technology to the point where we begin colonizing other planets in the galaxy there is a natural population limit (somewhere) to our species. For all we know, we might have already exceeded it, and nature is in the early stages of addressing it.
I agree with you that the political will to address the immigration crisis is lacking and little will be done on this front unless and until the American People demand a change and hundreds of politicians lose their jobs over their stance on this issue. Stay Tuned.
That'll come. Won't be long after they make up a sizable majority--the calls for indepedence will come. Probably in my life-time. Certainly within my children's.
But that was exactly my point. What is the purpose of increasing output over time if my customer base is stagnant or declining in size? The "increasing output" model for productivity growth relies as much on a growing consumer base as the welfare state does!
That being said, however, do you agree that we long ago reached a tipping point? Whether amnesty is granted or not at this late juncture, a critical mass has already been achieved. If it significantly changes American culture, it also will destroy its economic advantage.
As an original proponent of 187, I used to get somewhat irate. For anyone living in SoCal, we've already seen the future in LA and it ain't pretty.
I wonder if in a couple hundred years whether the US will still be one nation or will it fracture? Will the producers emigrate to a new place like NZ or Australia?
Once illegal immigration has been effectively curtailed, the only question left, is what to do about those illegal aliens currently in the country?
If we havent been doing anything about those currently in the country then illegal immigration wont be effectively curtailed. The first place we have to start enforcing the law is inside the country. Amnesty would destroy any success.
The amnesty would be granted to legalize those illegal aliens we did not effectively deter from coming into the country. Any future illegal aliens would be deported according to the immigration laws.
UH uhhh... Gee when have I heard that before...
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.