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.
Funny, I recall the same thing being said about McCain-Feingold.
| The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative." Of course, this is precisely what Bush's new immigration plan *does*, except of course that it accomplishes this key goal in a non-obvious manner (hence, unnecessary and hostile reaction to said plan).
|
Last night you and I settled our positions on registration.Today, Sabertooth's thread focuses on convincing illegals to go home voluntarily.
Thus, a new wrinkle has been added to our earlier debate.
One wonders, if you are against registration, will you likewise oppose convincing illegals to return home voluntarily?
And that's a question. I'm not putting words into your mouth.
And, looking at Bush's proposal from the viewpoint of illegal aliens, the ones who might register are the ones who come here for a short time period and plan to leave after making some money for their family back in Mexico. The ones who have lived here illegally for years, who are trying to bring their entire family here, aren't about to tell the government where they are and set the clock ticking as to their eventual departure. They'll wait for a full amnesty to be proposed.
"The workers under temporary status must pay a one-time fee to register in the program, abide by the rules, and return home after their period of work expires. There would be an opportunity for renewal."
"The legalized-Illegals of the Bush Amnesty would only be required to go home if they don't get a renewal of their blue cards." - Sabertooth
No, that's not how I read it. Yes, there are "opportunities" for renewal, but they have to FIRST go home to get said opportunity. See above.
Unless they have a baby.
Just a microcosm of the whole plan. It's too easy to 'work the system' here. Welfare and all public assistance currently available to illegals needs to be ended. That would do more to remove the incentive for these lawbreakers than anything Bush has proposed.
The truth is, he is kissing Fox's butt over this issue. Why? I have yet to figure that out.
A little over half of the illegals we have now are people who came here legally originally and overstayed their visas. I'm skeptical that the voluntary departures you describe will usually happen. I think we'll need some additional interior enforcement, although there is a possibility that might be incorporated as this goes through Congress.
Cutting income taxes and dividend taxes is the wrong direction domestically for you?!
|
Nonsense. I've read the entire Patriot Act. It's harmless. You can't cite a single sentence in that entire law that does didly against your rights.
Anyone who claims that the Patriot Act threatens Americans is someone who hasn't read that law on their own.
And that includes you.
Let's go back to the speeding analogy from last night. If enforcement is stepped up, a few speeders are caught, but the sight of increased enforcement gets most speeders to slow down voluntarily. IMO the only people who might be willing to register are men who plan to only be here for a short period of time, who are already planning to return home. The people who are already here illegally for a long period of time won't register and start the clock ticking. They'll remain in the shadows and wait for a better deal.
However, if we eliminate government bennies for illegals and make it very painful to get caught hiring illegals, the folks who have been here for years will no longer wish to stay, as they will have no means to support themselves. They will deport themselves or starve. Maybe we can have a modest federal program to provide bus fare to any illegal who is willing to leave voluntarily.
All that hyper ventillating over McCain-Feingold and the country is still here.......amazing!
Mendacity is normally not a viable debating point, but you're apparently willing to try.
Because our enemies came to kill the women and children, and GWB confronted them courageously and is now whipping their asses all across the planet.
There are no purists in foxholes, or something like that.
Anyone who claims that the Patriot Act threatens Americans is someone who hasn't read that law on their own.
Can you imagine the Patriot Act with Hillary in power? It wouldn't be the Islamofascists whose phones they tap.
After investing 3 years of their lives into Bush's new plan, few illegals will be willing to risk losing it all. Rather than forfeit their legal right to live and work here, as well as lose their refundable taxes, most illegals will opt to return back to their home countries in order to be able to apply for more legal time here.
A Bush-supporter friend of mine is using this argument to try to get me over being upset with that "willing worker and willing employer" line.
Trouble is, this three-year thing has to be enforced.
Will it be enforced? Do you believe it?
The Patriot Act didn't invent phone tapping.
And if we can make them go home if they don't get a renewal of their blue card, THEN WHY CAN'T WE JUST MAKE THEM GO HOME NOW? Why would we suddenly be able to do something, we not only claim we can't do now, but use as the basis for this policy: "we can't deport them all."
Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that the illegals here now are all going to sign up for this program. There will still be a black labor market, as there is now. There will still be employers who do not want to jump through the red tape to hire a payroll person to handle withholdings or an HR person to authenticate documents of new hires.
And, black market labor may pay more after taxes and SS are taken out, epecially if the guest workers are supposed to fill those jobs no other American's want, ie low paying.
I won't even get into the inevitable social program expansion that will be required to subsidize low-paid guest workers.
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.