Why?
Posted on 01/17/2004 10:01:59 AM PST by Sabertooth
Debate rages, and will through 2004, about President Bush’s “not an Amnesty” Amnesty proposal to legalize the 8 to 12 million Illegal Aliens his Administration has said are currently here in our country.
Amnesty proponents and enablers uniformly offer only three solutions to the Illegal Alien problem.
1. Coexistence: Just maintain the status quo through inaction.
2. Amnesty: This is appeasement, and surrender.
3. Xenophobia: Build a police state.
That’s a pretty thin list, and as we’ll see, not an accurate one. Its exclusive presentation amounts to a fallacy of False Dilemma.
It should be noted that Amnesty is a nearly inevitable consequence of Coexistence. Not surprisingly, therefore, Amnesty proponents commonly raise the specter of Xenophobia so that they can paint dark insinuations and distract attention from the symbiosis of their appeasement with the failed policy of Coexistence. Calling other people Nazis is a neat way of cloaking one’s own kinship with Neville Chamberlain.
If we had accepted the same false dilemma in the War on Terror, we'd never have fought it. We'd be the same as Democrats, who’ve made a willingness to appease a party litmus test.
The War on Terror didn’t begin on September 11th, 2001, it began with the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and was conducted against us by Al Qaeda and our enemies all throughout the 1990s. President Clinton, however, opted not to take the fight to the enemy, and so the Clintonistas held throughout the 90s that terrorism was an intractable problem with which we'd just have to Coexist , and made their policies accordingly. Not surprisingly, when President Clinton had an opportunity to take Osama bin Laden into custody, he lacked the courage to do so. Clinton’s spine also failed him on three occasions where our Special Forces were in position to kill bin Laden. By the end of his Presidency, Clinton’s appeasement of terror was in full bloom; visits from uber-terrorist Yassir Arafat were a source of pride to him, and ultimately, he even granted pardons to Puerto Rican terrorists.
Pardons and clemencies, like Amnesties, absolve wrongdoers of further responsibility for past crimes. When a policy of Coexistence with wrongdoing is pursued long enough, absolution of wrongdoing will eventually become part of the negotiation to make the craven failure to confront it appear magnanimous.
On September 11th, 2001, the War on Terror changed. America didn't accept the false dilemma of Coexistence, Appeasement, or Xenophobia. Coexistence had failed, and with it went any thought of absolution for wrongdoing. Clintonian appeasement was over. Xenophobic notions of “kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” and “nuke Mecca” were also ruled out, because we’re Americans, and hold ourselves to higher standards of morality and ingenuity.
What then, of the fallacy presented in the false dilemma of the Coexistence / Amnesty / Xenophobia triad?
We rightfully threw it on the ash heap of History.
We took a fourth, Asymmetric approach to the Terrorists, and are now reaping the benefits. After wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly Libya is turning over their WMD programs without a shot being fired; Iran is on the bubble and contemplating the same thing; Syria and the PLA are increasingly isolated; and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are finally getting the message that coddling Al Qaeda is a losing proposition. Early on in the WoT, it was understood that victory is a policy which reaps a sweet harvest. While the investment in the initial successes was relatively high, they generated a momentum that is making inexpensive windfalls of subsequent victories.
Yet none of this could have happened if we’d followed the appeasement tendencies of the Democrats. In ten years, we’d have been looking at a Middle East full of North Koreas, which was the crown jewel of President Clinton’s failed policy of Coexistence and appeasement.
Naturally, being innate appeasers, the Democrats and Clinton also have pursued Coexistence and Amnesty in dealing with the problem of the millions of Illegal Aliens currently living in our country. Three times in the 1990s, Clinton signed legislation enabling Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code, thereby granting Amnesties to more than a million Illegals Aliens (twice with at GOP House and Senate). Appeasement failed, of course, as it must, and by the end of Clinton’s eight years, there were millions more Illegals than when he started.
Now we have a Republican Administration, as well as a GOP House and Senate. The Clintonian policies of Coexistence with and Amnesties for Illegal Aliens have clearly failed. So, President Bush has taken the initiative and offered an “Immigration Reform” proposal that would legalize not just a million Illegals, as Clinton did, but millions of them. Rather than turning from the failed Clinton policies, President Bush is embracing an even more radical version of them.
So now, pro-Amnesty Republicans and their enablers are offering the same solutions on Illegals as the Democrats did: Amnesty (even though they split hairs and pretend otherwise. They are attempting to frame the debate with the same false dilemma that the Democrats did with the War on Terror: Coexistence, Amnesty/appeasement, and Xenophobia.
Where is the fourth option, Asymmetry? It has worked so well in the WoT; why are we not exploring Asymmetric solutions to the Illegal Alien problem?
We can effectively solve much of the Illegal Alien problem, without Amnesty, if we apply a similar, Asymmetric approach to that of the War on Terror. Obviously, it's not necessary or moral to conduct a war against Illegals, but by applying systematic pressure to all of the factors that encourage the Illegals to violate our laws and sovereignty, we can win early victories that generate and sustain a momentum whereby the problem starts to solve itself.
The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative.
There are plenty of steps we can take to do this.
Eighteen Illegal Alien solutions that are better than any Amnesty
Not only is encouragement of Illegal Alien self-deportation humane and cost effective, there has already been considerable success in this regard with Pakistani Illegals.
25% of Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deported Themselves since 2001 -
Facts against the Bush Amnesty
If we project that modest 25% self-deportation rate of the Pakistani Illegals onto the the 8 to 12 million Illegals that DHS Secretary Tom Ridge concedes are here, we’re talking about 2 to 3 million fewer Illegals in a short period of time. However, the Pakistani Illegals self-deported in response to a set of incentives that was far from comprehensive. A much higher rate of self-deportation of Illegals is certainly feasible, if we simply roll up our sleeves and get on with it.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson recently said:
We never would have had this conversation [about Illegal Aliens] in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.
Paradise Lost? (Victor Davis Hanson comments on Bush's immigration proposal)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (FR link) - January 10, 2004
Bill Steigerwald with Victor Davis Hanson
As with the War on Terror, so too with the Illegal Aliens; it’s now time to throw the false dilemma of Coexistence, Amnesty, or Xenophobia on the ash heap of History. Amnesty failed under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and will fail under President Bush if it’s attempted.
Rewards for lawbreaking beget more lawbreaking.
Diligent enforcement of our immigration laws succeeded in the 1950s, and would again; but we would be better served by a more humane, Asymmetric approach today, whereby relatively few deportations would result in a great many self-deportations of Illegal Aliens.
Why?
Not this conservative. He lost my vote.
Richard W.
The nature of the border itself makes direct barrier enforcement nearly impossible. The President's plan is to make a registry to keep track of the temporary as well as permanent immigrants.
Mostly, we need to tone down the rhetoric and look logicly at the facts to solve the problem.
Arguing about it won't make it happen. Listening to each other does however.
Why have plea bargains? Why not try every case?
The answer, of course, has to do with resources. Some problems are too large to be comfortably dealt with by simply using brute force.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. As long as people refuse to follow (and vote) their principles, evil prospers.
The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats want the US ruled by a combination of national and international despots while the Republicans will settle for tyranny by just national despots. The end result is the same - the destruction of our freedom.
Given the objectives of both parties are the same, how can anyone justify supporting either party?
Save America from the tyranny of Republican/Democrat hegemony. Support the Constitution Party.
To answer your question about what President Bush has done, I believe he is in the process of doing something about that currently.....Or otherwise, why is this discussion being taking place?
Yes, he helped those folks that want to avoid hiring illegal aliens, but neither bill/law has or will curtailed illegal immigration.
Not me. I see "new rules" that will mean just as much to Illegals as the old rules. I see "new rules" that will cost Americans dearly in the form of lost jobs to unlimited cheaper foreign labor.
This re-newing of the arrangement every three years just simply does not ring true. I cannot see many employers wanting to renew when they can just bring in new meat every cycle at the lowest possible price.
I would agree that the illegals should be penalized somehow relative to those that have never broken the law. But there are ways of doing that short of having them leave the country. I did think that this was a possible shortcoming of the President's proposal, and hope that Congress does something about that in the upcoming months/years.
Ageed.
You mean that immigration would be the same or lower if that bill hadn't permitted employers such as myself to determine if employee applicates were legal (for real, without forged papers)?!
You might have something there. It seems you'd have to allow a grace period of a couple years for all that to take place, but I can't see any real flaw to it.
She's not the one in charge.
We citizens could help enforce those aspects in a respectful but firm manner.
I truly believe that we need many of them and I believe that many of them are the type that made America great. But I don't want their language and "third world cesspool" cultures here no matter where they are from -- and that goes for snotty Europeans.
Promising to enforce the law this time is an insult. It's like Lucy promising Charlie Brown that she'll hold the football steady.
There are too many hyphenated groups with too much power for the government to promise anything. Then of course there are the likes of the ACLU pukes, activitist courts, anti-"profiling" and "hate crime" laws, and most of all, $$$$$$$ for puke politicians.
Dem rats want to give our sovereignty to tranzies and now Republicans pat us on the back with assurances while they micturate down our leg knowing that they will not deliver -- it is their policy to pander to the fast-growing immigrant sector. IMO it insults Americans of those ethnicities but apparently Mr. Rove feeeeeeeeels otherwise.
I agree, and letting the legal aliens from outside the country have those jobs, would cost less and use less resources then implementing Bush's program.
What was that?
The same, not lower. The bill does not curtail illegal immigration. If you don't hire the illegal, someone else 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.