Immigration Plan Splits Conservatives

NewsMax.com ^ | Monday, Jan. 26, 2004 | Wes Vernon

[fatso]

Immigration Plan Splits Conservatives

ARLINGTON, Va. – President Bush's controversial immigration program produced a rhetorical head-on collision, as “compassionate conservatism” slammed into national security, at a conservative gathering this past weekend. And it spotlighted perhaps the most volatile dividing line between President Bush and his party's conservative base.

At the concluding session of the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference, thousands of grassroots activists Saturday gave spirited responses as the president’s program was alternately described as “compassionate conservatism at its best” and “a stupid mistake we should not make again.”

Daniel Griswold of the libertarian Cato Institute said today’s immigration statutes are ineffective, not unlike such scofflaw-encouraging measures as Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit.

“The choice,” he argued, “is not between immigration or not. It’s between whether it’s going to be legal, orderly, safe and dignified, or illegal, disorderly and unstable.”

Most of the “undocumented people in our midst are not bad people,” Griswold added.

“Most of the people who rode those planes on 9/11 were not bad people either,” Eagle Forum icon Phyllis Schlafly shot back. “But 19 of them were. And we are paying a heavy price.”

Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin warned that the president’s plan allowing illegal aliens to apply for jobs Americans supposedly don’t want is “dangerous” in that it undermines national security and “provides more opportunity for Islamic terrorists to insert themselves into the American mainstream.”

To which Schlafly, who is from Missouri, added it was not true that Americans won’t take menial jobs. Illegals, she said, gravitate to a few states. In most of heartland America, she said, “the peaches are picked, the sheets are laundered, and the beds get made.”

America, in her view, cannot survive as one nation by serving as “the hiring hall for the world.” Meanwhile, she complained, “corporations have laid off thousands of [American] engineers.”

She charged that a major push for looser immigration standards and enforcement came from “the corporations that want the cheap labor,” which she attributed to “the corporate donations that have become very powerful, unfortunately, in the Republican Party.”

“There’s no such thing as a job no American will take,” she argued.

'Americans Move Up'

Griswold then cited a National Academy of Sciences study showing the “small number” of native Americans who compete in the job market with newly arrived immigrants are those without a high school degree. A century ago, he recalled, new low-skilled workers arrived on our shores in “much higher numbers in terms of percentage of our population.” Native Americans responded at that time by going to high school to get their degree. “That’s what happens. Americans move up.”

“Although,” interjected panel moderator John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, “given the current state of many public high schools, that may not help much.”

Documented Euphemism

Malkin, herself the daughter of Philippine immigrants and author of the best seller “Invasion,” mocked the term “undocumented immigrants” as a politically correct weasel word.

Those who break our laws and sneak over our borders end up with lots of documents, she noted: fake Social Security cards, fake green cards, fake driver’s licenses, fake IDs of all kinds.

Malkin also took issue with President Bush’s declaration that his proposal unveiled last month is not an “amnesty” plan. She pointed out that the word “amnesty” is derived from “amnesia,” i.e., to forget. “Amnesty” for lawbreakers does not depend on a Clinton-style debate “on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

That prompted a retort from Cato’s Griswold, who pointed out that under the Bush plan, illegals would have to work their way to ultimate citizenship, if that is the path they choose to follow. Also they would have to pay a “fee” that, to many of them, is no small amount of change.

“If some of them had to give up their first-born, [opponents of the president’s plan] would still call it ‘amnesty,” he said. The Cato analyst further recalled that President Bush “had started talking about this the second month he was in office” because “in his heart, he really believes this.”

Griswold described most illegal aliens from Mexico as “hardworking family values people,” who merely want a part of what Ronald Reagan called “that shining city on the hill.”

“We should keep the doors to the shining city open instead of slamming the door shut.”

Attempts to find consensus among the panelists was, at best, difficult. When Fund, a veteran Journal editorialist, noted the Bush administration had finally decided to revise the “joke” citizenship test that “everyone agrees is meaningless,” Schlafly disagreed: “No, everybody doesn’t agree that it’s meaningless.”

The discussion went right to the heart of the most emotional of several issues separating President Bush from many of his supporters. They argue that the system, or lack thereof, is unfair not only to Americans but also to legal immigrants, who waited in line and played by the rules.

More importantly, they believe that in a post-9/11 world, our very lives could depend on keeping track of people coming here and knowing who they are.

[fatso]

Sept. 11 Panel Looks at Border Security



By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A border agent said Monday that the suspected ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks raised enough red flags at customs — including having the wrong student visa — that he should been prevented from entering the United States.






Customs agent Jose E. Melendez-Perez, testifying at a public hearing on border and aviation security, said lead hijacker Mohamed Atta's age and impeccable clothes also appeared to contradict his story about being a student.


"I would have recommended refusal," Melendez-Perez said.


Atta's improper entry is one of a series of errors by government officials prior to Sept. 11 that could have prevented the attacks, an independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks said Monday in releasing new details about the attack.


Some of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were allowed into the country despite carrying fraudulent visas and being questioned by customs agents, the commission said.


For example, hijacker Saeed al Ghamdi was referred to immigration inspection officials in June 2001 after he provided no address on his customs form and only had a one-way plane ticket and about $500. But al Ghamdi was able to persuade the inspector that he was a tourist.


"Our government did not fully exploit al-Qaida's travel vulnerabilities," the commission said at the start of a two-day public hearing on border and aviation security.


Investigators say at least two and as many as eight of the hijackers had fraudulent visas. They also found that at least six of the hijackers violated immigration laws by overstaying their visas or failing to attend the English language school for which their visas were issued.


The commission said part of the problem was a lack of coordination among immigration officials and a focus on keeping out illegal immigrants rather than keeping out potential terrorists.


Melendez-Perez, who spoke at Monday's hearing, stopped a man identified by federal officials only as al-Qahtani at Florida's Orlando International Airport in late August 2001. The agent said he became suspicious when al-Qahtani provided only vague answers about what he was doing in the United States.


U.S. officials then put al-Qahtani on a plane back to Saudi Arabia. He wound up in Afghanistan (news - web sites), where he was captured by U.S. forces. He now is being held with other captives at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


"This is an example of how a well-trained and alert INS inspector performed admirably in refusing admission to the United States of an individual who should not have gained entry," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commission member and former Watergate prosecutor.


Tuesday's hearing will focus on vulnerabilities and security failures within the nation's aviation system and the response to the hijackings that killed more than 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon (news - web sites) and in southwestern Pennsylvania.


"There has been a lot written about 9-11, but there are a few things that will change our impressions of some of it," said Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, better known as the 9-11 commission.


"This hearing may cause people to rethink the conventional wisdom," he said.


The hearing, the seventh held by the commission since its formation in late 2002, comes as the panel scrambles to meet a May 27 deadline to complete its report for the president and Congress.


The 10-member, bipartisan commission has been bogged down by disputes with the Bush administration and New York City officials over access to documents and witnesses.





A growing number of commission members support extending the deadline by at least three months. But such a move, which would push the report's release into the height of the presidential election season, has met resistance from administration officials and House leaders.

Mary Fetchet of Connecticut, who lost her son Brad in the attacks, said many family members of those who died support moving back the deadline if it ensures a complete and fair accounting of what went wrong and why.

"An extension is imperative," she said. "This commission started up very slowly and hit every roadblock imaginable. This should be a priority."

___

On the Net:

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:

http://www.9-11commission.gov

[holyscroller]

Excellent article. Glad to see Schlafly joining the fight. The question is, will Bush or Rove listen and wise up?

[Tempest]

Can we retitle this thread to Republicans eat their own?

[fatso]

[You Dirty Rats]

OK, let's assume for a moment that I buy the National Security argument and believe we have to "get control of our borders" and "track people within the country" and "kick all of the illegals out."

Questions:

- How many troops will be needed to "seal the borders"? Where would they be stationed? How much will that cost?

- Are we willing as a nation to take measures to track people inside the country such as registration with the police like they do in Germany and Switzerland?

- Are we going to require national ID Cards and require every person in the country to produce papers to the INS on demand to prove they aren't illegal aliens?

- Will we have a one-time "sweep" of everyone in the country to separate the illegals from the legals and the citizens?

- Are we also going to militarize the border with Canada? After all, there are Al-Qaida in Canada also. That border is 1800 miles, and has been demilitarized for almost 200 years.

I would point out that the Al-Qaida mass murderers generally complied with our immigration laws, while Mexicans coming across the border illegally have not yet proven to be a national security threat on THAT scale.

Dubya's proposals can be criticized on a number of grounds, but there is no simple answer to this issue. One thing is clear: The status quo is a disaster.

There is no point in proposing "solutions" that are unrealistic and have no chance of passing Congress. If anyone thinks that you can get a majority in Congress to vote funds for militarizing all of the borders and sweeping all of the illegals out, IMHO that is delusional in the extreme.

[fatso]

Illegal Alien Sanctuary
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8563

[God is good]

“The choice,” he argued, “is not between immigration or not. It’s between whether it’s going to be legal, orderly, safe and dignified, or illegal, disorderly and unstable.”

Generally, conservatives(I hate to use the term, because its meaning is often misunderstood), consider law and order two important pillars of society. We need not wonder why Bush's decision creates a rift.

[KantianBurke]

"Daniel Griswold of the libertarian Cato Institute"

Funny that only a libertarian is backing Bush and yet his supporters on FR tar and feather anyone who critisizes him as being "Libertoid nuts."

[newgeezer]

“There’s no such thing as a job no American will take,” she argued.

Precisely!

It's simply a matter of setting the wage high enough to get an American to take the job.

Similarly, there will always be illegal aliens happy to do any job for half of what you're paying the American.

I'm tired of hearing "conservatives" parrot this idiotic White House idea that the illegals are doing jobs Americans don't want. What a line of BS.

[Consort]

...Splits Conservatives

Good new for the Democrats..............again.

[Tempest]

How's about Red Meat instead. I like that title better.

You know you throw red meat out and the animals just jump on it and elect a Democrat instead. I'm glad Democrats are going to be in power soon. . . . .

Thanks guys, instead of working to contact your congressmen or contact Bush directly to change things within the party. It's much better to post divisive threads to achieve Marxism.

[Consort]

Now, conservative illegals will sneak across the border to do GOP support work that Conservatives refuse to do.

[George W. Bush]

Why don't we start with sending employers to prison who hire illegals?

Follow up by shortening work-visas to six months or less and allow them to re-apply. All their employment and criminal records tied to their Mexican citizenship. If caught with fake papers, send them to a federal workcamp for ten years.

And go after federal funding to cities that implement the so-called sanctuary policies.

And push hospitals and social service agencies and schools to accept only legal immigrants?

And go after the fake-document mills?

Let's start by cutting off all the rewards.

I think highly of the Hispanics in my community. But they're legal immigrants, hard-working law-abiding decent people. No different than the rest of us. I don't see why they should have to compete in a labor market against these illegals. And I don't see a reason why we should let these felons, and they are felons if they are here without papers, get an amnesty.

I don't think they're good candidates for citizenship if their first act toward becoming citizens is to commit a felony by entering the country illegally.

[Reagan Man]

>>>If anyone thinks that you can get a majority in Congress to vote funds for militarizing all of the borders and sweeping all of the illegals out, IMHO that is delusional in the extreme.

You're right. Along with PresBush pandering to the Hispanic community, Congress is the biggest obstacle here. They're part of the pro-amnesty/open borders contingent that includes all them pandering politicians, hardcore leftwingers, social liberals and all sorts of libertarian minded thinkers.

The big question is, how long will American's allow their Congressmen to support foreigners breaking US law? Right now most folks oppose amnesty and want the borders sealed shut. The reason we have such massive problems with illegal aliens is directly related to the 1986 amnesty legislation that PresReagan signed into law. Reagan had the best of intentions, but that legislation didn't solve the problem and only perpetuated a bad situation. That's why today we have 8-12 million illegals living in the US.

We shouldn't support PresBush`s immigration reform proposal or the other plans coming out, like the Hagel/Daschle plan. The 1986 amnesty was a mistake. Our elected leaders should've learned from that mistake and not be so foolish to go down that road again.

[George W. Bush]

For those opposed to the flood of illegals, I'd like to mention The Liberty Committee. We are the grassroots of the Liberty Caucus, led by Ron Paul. We have Hostettler, the strongest gun-rights advocate in Congress. We have Arizona congressment Flake and Shadegg. And we have Tancredo, the single strongest voice in Congress on stopping the invasion of illegals.

In any fight for the Constitution and conservative causes, we start the game with over 20 congressmen with a strong record. And we've won many times already on issues like National ID.

We need you for grassroots activities like letter-writing and emailing and faxing and calling. We have enough congressmen to get legislation heard. We need people to help push for it. And you won't have to put up with endless begging for money.

The Liberty Committee

Sign up for the Liberty Committee's email list. We can win. We've done it before.

[Map Kernow]

Immigration Plan Splits Conservatives

Well, according to the "stalwarts" here, only the good, mainstream conservatives from the fringe extremist, racist ones. Some people are shamelessly partisan enough to call people like Phyllis Schlafly and Michelle Malkin the latter.

[Cubs Fan]

It doesn't split conservatives

it splits Conservatives and RINOS

[Jack Black]

- How many troops will be needed to "seal the borders"? Where would they be stationed? How much will that cost?

Well we can bring troops home from places like Europe to do this. Maybe Korea too. Given that our GI's can't eat in a lot of places there due to anti-US feelings.

- Are we willing as a nation to take measures to track people inside the country such as registration with the police like they do in Germany and Switzerland?

Yes, I think we should be. I have no problem with this.

- Are we going to require national ID Cards and require every person in the country to produce papers to the INS on demand to prove they aren't illegal aliens?

Well I think when you get stopped by the police you should prove your here legally. If you can't you should be arrested, and if illegal, deported. Today most big city police agencies are not allowed to ask the question. I personally think a secure ID would be OK as long as it was limited to name, picture and citizenship status.

- Will we have a one-time "sweep" of everyone in the country to separate the illegals from the legals and the citizens?

No, that would be obnoxious. Better to make the penalties on employers horrible, and enforce them. If they can't get jobs they will repatriate themselves. If they are millionaires not needing to work, who cares?

- Are we also going to militarize the border with Canada? After all, there are Al-Qaida in Canada also. That border is 1800 miles, and has been demilitarized for almost 200 years.

Yes, I certainly hope so. Unless we want Al Qaeida to use it to get terrorists in. They are obviously aware of this hole. We could work with with Canada to make their borders our borders. That might be easier, as most everyone enters Canada via air. A few points to patrol.

I would point out that the Al-Qaida mass murderers generally complied with our immigration laws, while Mexicans coming across the border illegally have not yet proven to be a national security threat on THAT scale. Well they had fake IDS, or real IDS they should not have had, like USA drivers licenses. Most had overstayed visas. Still I take your point: they didn't sneak in. They used the many loopholes to stay here after initally complying with most laws. Mexican terrorism is not about blowing up the the WTC it is about 80% of the felons in LA county being from Mexico. That's terrorism too.

In summary, at least this Freeper is willing to consider hard choices and agree to them to end this huge problem.

[RiflemanSharpe]

...Splits Conservatives
Good new for the Democrats..............again.



One of the many reasons the amnesty needs to be dropped, NOW!