Why You Should Support Bush's Immigration Proposal

Critics of President Bush's immigration reform proposal have been so quick to label it an amnesty plan in sheep's clothing that they have missed the subtle brilliance of his approach to a very complex problem. Let's look at some of the complex issues of illegal immigration and evaluate the President's proposal in relation to them.

Contrary to what many pundits seem concerned with, the main problem with illegal immigration in the United States is not its influence on the job market but its relationship to organized crime. In an article for the City-Journal's Winter 2004 edition entitled "The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave," Heather Mac Donald provides an in-depth and disturbing look at this relationship:

"95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in L.A., which total 1,200 to 1,500, target illegal aliens and up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens."

"A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico."

"The leadership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.'s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation."

As if that weren't bad enough, in an article carried by the Salt Lake Tribune on December 18th, David Kelly gives us a chilling view of a new development in Arizona crime:

"Moving with the cunning and cruelty of modern-day pirates, gangs of kidnappers are swooping down on Arizona highways, attacking smugglers transporting undocumented immigrants and stealing their human cargo. The kidnappers stash the immigrants in hundreds of drop houses scattered around the city, using violence and threats to extort money from their relatives."

"Now smugglers are fighting back, shooting it out with kidnappers on sidewalks and freeways in broad daylight. A gunbattle last month between kidnappers and smugglers on Interstate 10 at the height of rush hour left four dead. Four others were killed this month in the desert near Phoenix; authorities blamed the deaths on violence between the two groups."

"Kidnappers let smugglers take all the risks of getting immigrants into the country, then rob them once they get here. When they can't intercept smugglers on the road, they snatch migrants from houses where they are known to be hiding. The new wave of violence has made this the deadliest year in Phoenix history with 247 homicides, edging out the previous high of 245 in 2001. Police say 60 percent of the city's crime is related to smuggling and kidnapping."

As these articles demonstrate, a significant portion of crime in our big cities is perpetuated by illegal immigrants. But, as you can also see from David Kelly's article, the victims of these crimes are often also illegal immigrants. This creates a disastrous situation because victims of these and other crimes will not report them for fear of being deported. Vast numbers of illegal immigrants suffer severe abuse, extortion, and virtual slavery at the hands of organized crime and cannot report it for fear of deportation. So the crimes go unreported and the criminals unstopped.

To counteract this problem, many local city governments have adopted "sanctuary policies." These city policies prohibit employees of local government, including law enforcement officers, from inquiring after the immigration status of anyone. Often, even if a police officer knows that a particular individual has entered the country illegally (a misdemeanor) or has previously been deported and has returned illegally (a felony) he or she is forbidden by city statute from arresting that person. Police officers are even forbidden from reporting known illegal immigrants to the federal authorities.

While these policies are supposedly adopted to protect the illegal immigrants who are victims of crime and encourage them to report crimes without the fear of deportation, they have the secondary effect of protecting criminals who are illegal immigrants as well. Even if the police know of an individual with connections to organized crime and a past criminal record, and they know that he is in the country illegally, they are forbidden from using his illegal status to arrest him and deport him. In fact, a police officer can face disciplinary action for arresting someone based upon their immigration status or for reporting them to the INS. Many crimes that might have been prevented by deporting known illegal immigrants are left undeterred because the police cannot use their illegal status to deport them until they have already been booked for a different felony.

Such policies blatantly undermine federal immigration law. Heather Mac Donald explains in her City-Journal article:

"Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city's sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to "terrorize people." Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history."

After September 11th there was outrage over the failure of Federal agencies to prevent the tragedy. And yet the possible contribution of mayor Giuliani's New York City sanctuary policy to September 11th has not been discussed by the mainstream media. While it may be appropriate to inquire into the failures of the federal government in the September 11th attacks, shouldn't there be an equal amount of outrage and demand for investigation into the role of city sanctuary policies? And yet over two years later the majority of the population of the United States isn't even aware that such policies exist.

Despite federal law and September 11th, this outrageous situation is still very common. Sanctuary policies are in effect in at least eighteen cities, including New York, Chicago, San Diego, Los Angeles, Austin, Houston, Minneapolis, Baltimore, and Seattle and in two states, Alaska and Oregon.

Since 1998, the city of St. Paul Minnesota has had a police policy that prohibits officers from "independently undertaking to approach, interview, interrogate or arrest any suspected illegal alien" when the main issue is immigration status violation. And, amazingly, this very month, the St. Paul city council is considering adopting an additional measure known as the "INS/City Separation Ordinance."

Why have the sanctuary laws of our nation's largest cities been so ignored by the mainstream media? You would think that even if they were completely neglected in the aftermath of September 11th, they would at least be addressed in relation to President Bush's proposed changes to immigration. The relationship between illegal immigration, sanctuary policies, and organized crime should be a major issue. Yet the mainstream media is still largely silent on the matter. Instead, they spend hours of airtime, newsprint, and bandwidth discussing how Bush's proposal will affect jobs, and whether it will encourage more illegal immigration. I suspect the media's silence is largely due to political correctness. To discuss any relationship between illegal immigration and crime would be labeled "racist" by the media language police faster than you can say "Francisco Martinez."

There is another group that also deserves a portion of the blame pie. The readiness of U.S. businesses to break the law by employing undocumented workers for the sake of avoiding taxes and paying lower wages is deplorable. If U.S. businesses would uniformly refuse to hire illegal immigrants it would help discourage illegal immigration by taking away some of their motivation. The situation is exacerbated by current immigration policies. Because foreign workers can only work in the United States for a very limited duration, companies that hire foreigners and obey the law must hire new workers on a very frequent basis. That makes it more difficult for them to compete with companies that are willing to break the law and hire illegal immigrants and thereby avoid the extra expense of frequently hiring and training new employees, not to mention taxation, worker's compensation, insurance and minimum wages.

The greatest danger to our nation is, in part, the result of widespread lawbreaking by businesses and law nullification by city governments. Conservatives seem ready to condemn the illegal immigrants who come seeking work and often advocate the harshest punishments for them (i.e. shooting them at the border) while at the same time barely hand-slapping the lawbreaking businesses and ignoring city sanctuary policies designed to undermine federal immigration law. This hypocrisy contributes to the unfortunate impression that conservatives are racists.

Under these circumstances, it is simply impossible for the Federal Government to enforce immigration laws. Even if the cities and businesses were cooperating, there is no way the federal government could muster the manpower and the funds necessary to identify, capture, and deport the vast numbers of illegal immigrants and then keep them out.

The immigration system is clearly broken and casting the blame on the Federal government alone is a huge oversimplification and misdirection of energy. Critics of the failure of the U.S. to enforce its immigration laws should direct their ire toward local governments that are endangering our nation with their ill-conceived and illegal sanctuary law.

How does President Bush's proposal relate to this immigration headache?

Rather than develop a detailed, specific plan for immigration reform, Bush wisely proposed principles upon which reform must be based if it is to be successful:

1. "America must control its borders...America is acting on a basic belief: Our borders should be open to legal travel and honest trade; our borders should be shut and barred tight to criminals, to drug traders, drug traffickers and to criminals and to terrorists."

2. "New immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country. If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."

3. "We should not give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully or hope to do so."

4. "New laws should provide incentives for temporary foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired."

By focusing on principles rather than specific plans, Bush provides a much more realistic and flexible approach to reform. The principles remain constant while the specific implementation may change according to how well it adheres to those principles.

The first principle and primary concern is about controlling the borders. Currently, city and state sanctuary policies completely thwart any attempt to apply this principle. The cities justify their sanctuary laws as a necessary measure to allow illegal immigrants who are victims of crimes to report them without fear of deportation. By allowing undocumented workers to receive a legal, temporary worker status, Bush's proposal takes away that necessity and leaves city sanctuary policies without justification. Under Bush's plan anybody who has an honest employment would have temporary worker status. All remaining illegal immigrants, lacking honest employment, could be assumed to be criminals and police officers could demand immigration documentation from anyone and arrest and deport anyone based solely on their immigration status.

In his proposal, President Bush explained:

"Our homeland will be more secure when we can better account for those who enter our country."

"Instead of the current situation, in which millions of people are unknown, unknown to the law, law enforcement will face fewer problems with undocumented workers, and will be better able to focus on the true threats to our nation from criminals and terrorists."

"And when temporary workers can travel legally and freely, there will be more efficient management of our borders and more effective enforcement against those who pose a true threat to our country."

By eliminating the excuse for sanctuary policies, Bush's principle-based plan would then allow local law enforcement to freely cooperate with federal authorities to control our national borders. The Bush proposal makes it possible for federal immigration authorities to focus their limited resources on those who pose the greatest threat to our domestic security: organized criminals. Contrary to the characterization it has received, Bush's proposal allows for more strict enforcement of immigration law and greater control over our national borders by facilitating the repeal of city sanctuary laws.

A related benefit of Bush's proposal is that without city sanctuary policies, law enforcement officers who apprehend illegal immigrants would be able to more easily identify businesses that break the law. Any organization or company that continued to employ undocumented immigrants rather than temporary workers would be suspected of involvement in organized crime or of supporting terrorism and could be investigated and dismantled.

The implementation of Bush's immigration proposal could eliminate a significant amount of crime in our large cities. It could be a significant blow to crime organizations, drug and weapons trafficking, and organizations that covertly support terror. It could help us control our borders to keep criminals and terrorists out.

Bush's proposal is not a scheme to appeal to Hispanic voters. It is a well informed, strategic move calculated to undermine the forces that are currently preventing our immigration laws from being enforced and endangering our nation. Bush's proposal is a brilliant move in a complex chess game. We should support him and encourage our representatives to support his proposal.

"so, which laws do we obey and which ones we don't? As far as the seatbelts go, you're only hurting yourself so I see your point. However, having an immigration policy /sets of laws is reasonable."

It's not that I'm only hurting myself. The measure is whether, or not it is a fundamental assault on individual Freedom. One way to gage a judgement is whether, or not the command of the law fits the dictates of an overprotective mama. How to dress, what to eat, what activities you can't participate in, what safety measures you must take, ect.

The seatbelt law is a perfect example of a cunning, sneaking, lying, vicious overprotective mama. First they forced the belts into everyone's vehicle, then after some time passed they made it a secondary offense, so that each time they were repremanded for one thing, they'd bitch about that too. Now that most of their children are wearing them, they use it as a primary justification to scrutinize, harass, punish and even some really nasty ones use it as an excuse to go after other people's kids to rob them on the hwys.

"However, having an immigration policy /sets of laws is reasonable."

That's right it is. Now whether any particular laws, or points of law are, is another question. That's what this thread is about. The gages to measure a law's reasonableness, fairness and whether it is at all justified is whether and how it affects Freedom and whether it fits the the govm'ts sole justification for existance, which is rights protection.

Out of all that's been said, it is clear that the present law does not differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are the ones that are hard workers and have a job. The others are screwups that have no decency and work ethic. They way the present law is written has that overprotective mama aspect. It places arbitrary limits on those searching for opportunity. There is no justification for doing so, other than to make an erroneous claim that those limits protect American workers.

The focus of the proposal is to have Congress create a set of laws that will in effect give LE everywhere a clear and reasonable order to deport bad guys. Those same laws can and should be structured to order business, States and locals to get with the plan.

"over a third living off welfare"

The proposal calls for a fundamental change, the creation and implementation of a sorting mechanism and prohibition of State and local interferance with the plan. Welfare is not gainful employment.

" but the real problem is then the citizens of Mexico who want better lives will have to demand that of their own officials --- that is not what the ruling elites of Mexico want to do --- they don't want changes that would allow the majority to have a piece of that pie --- they like having all the wealth to themselves."

They are corrupt socialists that have no respect for Freedom at all. The US should do what it can to promote it there, but that's really a separate issue. The issue here is ops here in the US. The number of rats and moderate wanderers in this country that have to be dealt with are a more pressing problem that Americans need to deal with.

This proposal allows those that are good, but have no power to change MX tyrany and corruption to escape. If implemented correctly, it leaves no room for reasonable, or justifiable claims of human rights violations, or compassion for strict enforcement.

"but often that work ethic they have is kind of backward --- you can tell a Mexican to plow your field, he'll grab a shovel and get to work, you tell an American to plow your field, he'll ask where is the tractor."

That's not my observation. Work ethic is independent of any choice of tools. Tool choice depends on intelligence and amongst all groups there are varying levels. Freedom calls for allowing individuals to make their own choices, business arrangements and associations, tool use...In general to determine their own destiny in their pursuits.

"95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in L.A., which total 1,200 to 1,500, target illegal aliens and up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens."

"A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico."

In this light, Bush is right, they are doing jobs no one else wants.

There may be some relationship between the two, but to suggest this is the single cause and effect seems a bit simplistic.

Ending the guest worker program was the biggest piece, IMNHO.

Suppose a law were enacted forbidding you from obtaining gainful employment.

You now have two options:

1. Starve

2. Break the law

Which one would YOU pick?

Guest workers usually took their money and went back home to their families at the end of the season.

The problem is that, without a guest-worker program, each border crossing is made illegally and thus has an element of risk.

To minimize this risk, the illegal alien has to cross once and stay. That changes the dynamic considerably. In addition, the illegal alien now brings his family--and so, instead of one guest worker coming and going, we now have 2-5 illegal immigrants here on a permanent basis.

You suggest that none of us who oppose the President's immigration proposal, have offered anything but platitudes, etc.. But that is simply untrue. A number of posters have done considerable work, and made positive selections.

Frankly, I offer links to my own essays on the subject, rather than take up bandwith by posting them, as a consideration both to the Forum and to other posters. It would take you only a couple of seconds to click on the links below, to read my proposals on Immigration--which incidentally are consistent with my support for the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act from my Freshman year in College, on. The following essay, simply brings the argument for an origins conscious policy--the traditional Conservative approach--up to date:

Immigration & The American Future.

If you want to debate ideas on immigration, by all means do so. But do not just rely on the argument that at least the Administration has a proposal, as a reason to accept that proposal.

William Flax

God's concern is with individual hearts. Borders on Earth are man made constructions for the defining the geographic area of a nation. Moral, spiritual and physical laws have some analogous component, but borders here are man made geometric limits. The Holy Spirit does not counsel men to concern themselves with borders when dealing with others.

Deuteronomy 34:5 "And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said."

God does not reign over the dead, but the living. The only important borders are between Heaven, Earth and Hell. In the same way Moses is not dead, He also crossed over into the promised land.

He's putting the nation on notice to this very fact, and how he wants to change it.

He's been in offfice for three years but hasn't enforced the law, why is he just now getting around to putting us on notice? That's the whole point, if he's been unwilling to enforce the law in the past there's no reason to believe he'll do so in the future.

What would you do, and how would you do it? And how would you deal with the millions already here?

Simple, I'd enforce the law, primarily through employer sanctions and cutting off all benefits. Many would self-deport on their own. The illegal Pakistanis proved that's what would happen when the government finally made a half-hearted attempt at enforcing the law against them. They voluntarily left by the thousands.

The CLEAR Act in Congress is another important piece of legislation I support. It would utilize the resources of the police by encouraging them to turn over all illegals they come into contact with to BICE.

As Eisenhower proved in 1954, enforcement works. As the amnesty of 1986 demonstrated, rewarding them does not.

"But the birth of an American nation will not be found in any act of immigration. America did not arise somewhere else to be transported hither, nor form a motivation for an original settlement."

The driving force was a quest for Freedom and opportunity. Those are concepts that existed long before America became the destination of those seeking the above. It was the folks that loved Freedom and opportunity that gave us that gift with Independence and a Constitution that honored it. They broke the friggin' law to do that. Moreover, they were originally able to stay, because the native Americans didn't have the combat power to enforce their immigration laws.

"You can obfuscate the matter, by bearing false witness against all of them for the crimes of some, but how does that fit in with "LibertyAndJusticeForAll". What Liberty and Justice are you asking to provide to all the hard working decent folks that came here seeking opportunity."

To begin with, I was not bearing false witness against all of them for the crimes of some. This article is about exposing the crimes of the "some".
Secondly, my handle is the end of the Pledge of Allegiance. Allegiance to the United States. Allegiance by American citizens to their own country.

It is not the Pledge of Allegiance to the One-World Government Where Nations Have No Borders.

It is the Pledge Of Allegiance to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

America was founded by LEGAL IMMIGRANTS (Slaves were admitted legally - if not willingly).
The descendants of these legal immigrants and slaves are being burdened by the illegal mass invasion from the south.
Those are the facts.
What kind of Liberty and Justice is there for Americans when our own government and many employers have decided that we are no longer a nation of laws?
Those who cannot enter this country legally should strive for a better opportunity at home. Mexico is a country rich in natural resources. They should have a booming economy. I've always assumed they do not because their government has always been corrupt. Maybe what is needed to cleanup that government is for enough dissatisfied citizens of that country to stay home and try and change it for the better.

" I was not bearing false witness against all of them for the crimes of some."

Your comment said Bush was right, they're doing work American's won't do. THe implication is clear.

"America was founded by LEGAL IMMIGRANTS"

The native Americans disagreed. They were just short on combat power.

" The descendants of these legal immigrants and slaves are being burdened by the illegal mass invasion from the south. "

Since when are hard working gainfully employed folks a burden? Have you been paying attn here, the proposal calls for correction and fix?

" Those who cannot enter this country legally should strive for a better opportunity at home."

Some do, but I certainly can't find any evil in some others that come here for a better life. Others don't either and that's a significant reason the present situation exists. The proposal calls for eliminating that as a stumbling block to effective LE.

"Allegiance by American citizens to their own country."

You're not trying to advocate an America right, or wrong sort of obedience are you? Liberty and Justice are concepts that require understanding and judgement. Perhaps you can explain how there is more justice in maintaining the present situation, even if enforcement approaches zero tolerance, than there is in creating an implementation of the proposal?

My comment was that in this light, Bush was right. The implication is that drug dealers and felons are "jobs" that Americans (hopefully) won't do. And, on this thread, that is what is being given the light of day.
There have been many numerous postings about the enormous costs brought by illegals. You are free to look them up, and read the many graphs and government statistics showing that billions of dollars are spent every year for the health education and welfare of illegals. In many rural communities, medical clinics have been forced to close due to the influx of so many illegals.
No matter how hard working many illegals may be they are criminals the moment they crossed our borders illegally.

The average American has sacrificed a great deal for the rest of the world. We have fought world wars. We have sent foreign aid and knowledge. We allow foreigners to study here and become educated.
All of this is paid for by the American taxpayer. The bill for illegals is becoming increasing difficult to pay. Especially when many low-income Americans are losing their jobs to non-Americans, even illegals.
Furthermore, the income level is dropping due to illegals. Jobs in canneries, car washes, hotels, janitorial and other industries were once jobs that Americans held and could actually live on. Not any more.
And then there is the bilingual nonsense. That is also costing Americans money.
Regarding your comment about legal immigration; the Native Americans were many tribes and nomadic, not having any borders. Undoubtedly they have been ill-treated and lied to repeatedly by our government. But, that is for another thread...

"God does not reign over the dead, but the living.

Precisely why I believe the preservation of "man-made" sovereignty of America, Israel and Britain are the only means whereby Judeo-Christian civilization makes it possible to promote goodness in the world. Whereas, without the US (say, it were suddenly wiped-out by a meteorite), the world world would immediately descend into chaos.

I believe this outlook reflects our God-given mission. Our reason for being as a nation.

When is AMNESTY not an amnesty.

You guys make me laugh.

Semantic hairsplitting redux.

Positively Clintonian.

And as per the usual proAMNESTY types, insults thrown out because of the bankruptcy of your arguments.

Typical. Expect no better from your type.

What's next, explicitly calling me racist. Wouldn't be the first time.

I'm Buchaning? Well, you are BUSH league. Mindless robotic cult of personality worshippers elevating a pollitical to the level of a deity worthy of the minions of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Jong Il.

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.