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.

[WRhine]

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!

And as I pointed out, global population growth cannot continue in perpetuity unless our Race is to be eternally dammed to wars, over-population, famine, pestilence and strife as what often happens when resources becomes too scarce for people in a region. That's Life! That’s our History!

Do we as a people want to be forced into tiny apartments, living literally on top of one another, crowds everywhere you go, because most of our land has been developed and few can afford to live in whatever is left of our open spaces? What about our farms? How much more of this land can be developed until we cease to have the capacity to feed our own people, much less the world?

At some point, yes, aggregate dollars into the coffers will cease to grow and may decline for many businesses when the population is no longer growing...So What! Technology and Science will continue to raise the standards of living and the "quality of life" which is the most important determinate of "prosperity".

Like I said, we cannot Grow our population Forever. Do you think Mother Earth can support a population of 10 trillion? 1 trillion? 50 billion? 6? I think we will find out in the next few hundred years… Until then the party rages on I guess.

[Jennikins]

He just doesn't know when to stop

He'll have to stop when the huge Hispanic population, in droves, get to Washington, and with full force, take over the country. And, who will stop them then?

Will Americans be allowed to stay in their own country?

[B4Ranch]

"So one approach is to enforce current laws, another is to change the laws to reflect what we are willing to enforce."

This will cast doubt on the sincerity of every current law that's on the books. People will be expecting us to change them if they aren't seeing what they consider to be adequate enforcement.

If the law is on the books now, it's been declared lawful and legal, then enforce them or review every single law in every jurisdiction and make a brand new set that will be mandatory enforced 100% of the time by every law enforcement agency. Failure to do so will result in decertification of that agency.

Basically, we need to either sh!t or get off the pot, letting the Communists take over tomorrow.

[Jennikins]

What does Canada do about illegal immigration? Do they allow them in by the millions?

[Alberta's Child]

. . . wars, over-population, famine, pestilence and strife as what often happens when resources becomes too scarce for people in a region.

Like Hong Kong and Singapore, which have zero resource wealth but still manage to maintain a standard of living that is among the best in all of Asia?

Do we as a people want to be forced into tiny apartments, living literally on top of one another, crowds everywhere you go, because most of our land has been developed and few can afford to live in whatever is left of our open spaces?

If you look around the United States today, you'll find a curious phenomenon at work -- population density is increasing in existing metropolitan areas, while at the same time large areas of the country's interior are slowly de-populating. What drives the "tiny apartment" scenario you described is not overpopulation, but inexpensive public services in urban areas.

What about our farms? How much more of this land can be developed until we cease to have the capacity to feed our own people, much less the world?

That's a good question, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. The agricultural output of the United States (measured in tons, not dollars -- so inflation is not a factor) has increased just about every year the country has existed, even as the quantity of arable land has declined due to development, environmental protection, etc. This country produces so much grain that we have to give much of it away just to maintain prices that are high enough to keep farmers in business. This, in fact, is one sector of our economy where deflation is a serious problem and would be even more of a problem with a stable (or declining) population base.

I have found that most people who complain about the overpopulation "problem" have never traveled much outside the places they live, except to go to other cities or tourist destinations. If they were to get in a car and drive from one end of the United States to the other, they'd be shocked to learn just how empty this country really is.

[Alberta's Child]

Canada only has a problem with illegal immigration because of its proximity to the United States. Most of the illegal immigrants who are caught in Canada are there specifically to sneak across the border into the United States.

The normal procedure in Canada for dealing with illegal immigrants of this sort is to release them to the custody of U.S. Immigration. This is why the U.S. has some detention centers for illegal aliens in some rather bizarre places (like the one just south of the Canadian border near Plattsburgh, New York, that is occupied primarily by Mexicans and Central/South Americans).

[american spirit]

I agree, Hillary makes no apologies for many of her many nation-destructing beliefs.....at least we know where she's coming from as opposed to this two bit twit selling us out from his position as Pres. while being treated like a red-headed stepchild by Vicente Fox.

[TheDon]

I seriously doubt you are so naive. Ever heard of the tax code? 55 mph speed limit? Prohibition?

The key point, that you quote from my post, is right on the money. Laws are not set in stone. They are meant to be modified as needed. When a law is not being followed, you can try stricter enforcement or in some cases you may have a bad law on your hands. It is important to be able to tell the difference.

[joesnuffy]

How Hillary can steal the election in the 11th hour.....

[B4Ranch]

Changes to the tax code, speed limit, etc., were all done for financial reasons. Sure we can say polution, etc were the reasons but just look at the numbers and it boils down to cash. This immigration nonsense is social engineering straight out of Agenda 21, just like outsourcing is.

[PuNcH]

When a law is not being followed, you can try stricter enforcement or in some cases you may have a bad law on your hands. It is important to be able to tell the difference.

When govt does not enforce the law and hands out amnesty instead, the law will not be followed regardless of whether it is a good law or not. Hence, the huge increase in numbers following amnesty.

[TheDon]

Agenda 21? Never mind....

[Centrist]

Ping

[skeeter]

Changes to the tax code, speed limit, etc., were all done for financial reasons.

They were also reversable.

One thing we've learned in contemporary times is whether they be good or bad immigration laws do not get reversed.

The least GW could do is allow open debate on the subject before making his announcement.

[TheDon]

Oh no! It's amnesty boy again!

[hosepipe]

[ Paying for their social services will force this nation into the socialist state Hillary wants---but GWB is taking us there fasttrack. ]

(Second thoughts about Bush)
So you don't think thats the plan all along ?... All it will take is for Bush to do something even more abhorant to his base than has already been done to lose the election... As abhorant as Hillary is or Weasly or Dean many pubbies (like me) will stop short with a few more " I'm not a divider but a uniter" backsteps like Bush has done already.. uniting with any democrat in any way is tantamount to treason.. and I will be no part of it... and would vote for Hillary first.. just to make a statement.. this secondary war(Iraq) is fought by the troops not Bush.. the real war is against the 5th column and is being LOST by neglect.. if Bush is elected and with nothing to fear then goes even further left... only one thing can happen then the spilling of blood.. as the founders sugested and advocated...

I'm already hot about it and I'm not alone by a long shot.. Just like Dean came from nowhere by virtue of the internet Bush could be relegated to nowhere in the same way... if Bush loses it will be on purpose... BUSH--> Creating a brand new entitlement parasite on the treasury instead of vetoing it just might be the straw that broke the traitors back... course there is another year or FIVE if re-elected... to do even more damage.. course Bush could throw me a bone(like eliminateing federal control of education) and pacify me for 4 more years since I'm so stupid.. I voted for him AND his dad..

[PuNcH]

Sorry if I cant go along with the history revision and self assuming dumbass arguments of "TheDon's" great ego mind. ;)

[TomGuy]

Michael Savage talking about the amnesty now on his radio program.

He says his website recorded 10 million NO votes--going against amnesty.

GWB may gain 8 million illegals as voters in his camp, but he is going to lose 10+ million other voters. With his less than 600 margin of victory in Florida, he doesn't have 10 million voters to disenfranchise.

GWB may be a one timer if he pushes this amnesty.

[B4Ranch]

Never mind....

Do you think Agenda 21 is a joke that's not being followed very carefully in the US?

When the NEA, Hillary Clinton, Bill Bennett, and Chester Finn, and Lamar Alexander are all singing the same tune, maybe it's good to take a closer look!

Look carefully at the program activities, and the percentage of nations that already have active programs in place for each activity; Global implementation of Agenda 21 is much very close to reality. In the United States, programs are already in place to achieve each of the objectives. The United Nations rates as "very good" the progress of the United States in each of these categories.

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm

[Lady Heron]

Will Americans support another amnesty?

No!