Skip to comments.Tancredo furious with Hutchinson comment on immigration
Posted on 09/14/2004 5:17:54 PM PDT by 4.1O dana super trac pak
click here to read article
The labor force isn't being expanded in a guest worker program. The labor force didn't magically disappear in 1965; it simply went underground, into a black market.
2. What politician will have the guts to enact such legislation? As I understand, it is not part of the Bush proposal.
You're trying to have it both ways again: you're claiming that politicians lack the guts to do what you want, and then state that what you want done is allegedly very popular. Which case obtains in reality?
Bush's proposal does not establish residency; it does not allow dependents into the country.
Wrong. You're looking at it backwards: you are attempting to use the power of government to artificially decrease the size of the labor pool.
By recognizing them, that artificially expanded number becomes the new normal.
Wrong. The norm remains the same; it is merely recognized as reality.
Rather, the should deport the illegals they find and punish their employers,
Ah, yes. The authorities should punish employers--not their fellow citizens, who have proven to to be insufficiently motivated.
The government, the last time I checked, was the servant of its citizens. You seem to wish that the government become our master.
shrinking the illegal population and allowing the real market for wages to be established.
The real market wage was determined long before you were born, pal. You just don't like it.
2. The fact that a politician does not do something does not mean that it is unpopular. Are you aware of the concept of cross-cutting cleavages? Or the concept of interest group politics?
Sorry, you said "politicians" in the plural form. Now you're changing the frame of argument to avoid looking at your premises to closely. A fine move, Mr. Rather, but us pajama-clad bloggers are a wee bit too smart for you.
3. I never said that Bush's proposal establishes residency.
However, any child of an illegal born in America becomes a citizen and can then pull in his/her family.
By not establishing residency or allowing dependents to come in on a guest worker visa, the anchor baby problem is eliminated.
A large chunk of the middle, in my opinion, is composed of left leaning voters, who are at present leaning toward Bush. Bush needs these voters this election. They would most certainly be offended by any kind of needed border clamp down.
You make some very good points.
What do you suggest doing to (1)secure our borders against a tide of non-assimilaitng illegals (2) keep terrorists from using our open bordrs to attack us ?
I have not said anywhere that securing our borders would be either cheap or easy. I just think it is something that needs doing. Whatever the cost, it would be money, time and effort well spent. If you think otherwise, this is just going to be something that we disagree about.
The only thing keeping our borders unsecured is a lack of the will to properly secure them. Perhaps that will shall appear if we get hit hard enough next time.
In no particular order:
1. End the welfare state. That way, America sucks if you're poor.
2. Set up a guest worker visa that does not grant residency. We had one for over a decade prior to 1965. Johnson killed the program to pay back his liberal supporters in the AFL-CIO; the current illegal immigration problem started up immediately thereafter. I submit the two events have a cause-effect relationship.
3. By making it far easier and safer for all concerned to be legal as opposed to illegal, the perverse incentive for illegal immigration is removed, and that makes the job of securing the borders a great deal easier. Fewer illegal immigrants coming over to begin with allows for more complete investigation of those that do come over, as opposed to the current revolving-door policy, for example. Less illegal immigration also allows for a more sensible allocation of manpower along the border.
The key is to identify an fix the main problem. Simply trying to keep people out, without any real reform of American law, is not going to work--there is no way in hell that the average American is going to support the intrusive enforcement measures needed to do that.
We agree about more than we disagree about, I think. I agree that it would be tough getting the needed measures past the leftist media, who sadly enough, control public opinion in this country. (For a little while longer, anyway.)
Maybe if we get hit hard enough the next time, the will to secure our borders will materialize. Until then, I am not holding my breath expecting anything positive to happen along these lines.
Here's the new law and policy.
A holding compound in each of ten regions in the US, each served by a air cargo transport. One distribution point near the border served by a fleet of buses.
As illegals are identified, they are placed in the regional compound with one hearing, the opportunity to prove beyond doubt they are citizens of, or in the US legally. If that documentation is not presented immediately, it is presumed they are illegal and deport able.
When a plane load is accumulated, the load is flown to the distribution point. From the distribution point is a constant run of buses over the border, well into Mexico, and the passengers dropped off.
This all coupled with a change in the status of babies born in the US. NO baby born in the US is a citizen if born of an illegal mother.
If Mexico protests or hinders, offer to turn their country into a ceramic bowl.
No of this is hard to do and is not expensive. Nor only will it clear the US of the greatest category of illegals in 5 years, very few new ones will be willing to come in.
Asa is a government lackey not worthy of mention. His brainstem rotted off trying to appease rather than demanding amnesty a dead issue be abandoned once and for all. He is a total waste and now probably cannot be voted out of office since he is appointed!
Historically--i.e., from 1845-1965--the labor pool along the border included Mexican nationals living in Mexico.
as for deeming the current state of affairs as the normal that should be recognized instead of remedied is fallacious.
It's abnormal in the sense that we refuse to recognize long-standing custom. Again, the lesson of the Volstead Act is worth studying. It was an example of trying to perform top-down social engineering at gunpoint. Same with the ending of the guest worker program in 1965.
It is "normal" that people have their homes burglarized. We do not "solve" the problem by giving thieves good title to what they steal.
You want a more accurate model of what happened?
Suppose I got a law passed that forbade you from holding your job, and forbade people from hiring you for any job.
Now, you have two choices: (a) starve, or (b) break the law.
Which one would you go for?
And why you seem to have a problem with punishing people who break the law, I don't.
I don't have a problem with that. Again, you are engaging in slanderous argument. I shall return the favor.
The problem with your argument is that a majority of your fellow citizens, when pressed into jury duty, have refused to punish those who violate this law.
Of course, some "conservatives" seem to think that anything that businesses do is good simply by virtue of the fact that they are businesses.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
I am a conservative. This includes conserving such things as longstanding local customs--such as gun ownership and allowing employers to hire whoever they wish.
IMHO, conservatism does not countenance deciding which laws are "good" and should be obeyed.
Ah, I see your problem.
You're not a conservative; you are a statist. Your sole purpose for being is to serve the State, which is your deity.
as to whether government is the master over citizens, this is just silly. Of course the citizens are master. And the master has, through its duly elected representatives, has made hiring illegal aliens a criminal offense.
And, once again, you try to have both sides of an argument, as it suits you.
You assert that, on the one hand, that politicians will do unpopular things. Now, you assert that the fact that politicians did something is proof of its popularity.
The government is duty bound to enforce those laws until they are changed.
As to whether the real market wage has been determined before I was born, 1. You do not know how old I am. I could be 14 or I could be 94.
Your language and demeanor speak to the first option far more than the second.
But before you become a famous PJ model, could you answer my question of whether you are familiar with concepts of cross-cutting cleavages or interest group politics?
Funny, you show no sign of understanding it yourself: the very policies you champion, and demand that the government spend every last cent of national treasure to enforce, were a product of cross-cutting cleavages and interest group politics.
Finally, the anchor baby problem. Here's the scenario you do not seem to understand: Guest worker Pablo comes in sans his family. While in America, he has relations with Julia.
Your scenario, reduced to its simplest component: "Oh, Lordy, Julia might take up with a BROWN person and pollute the Aryan race!"
One slander deserves another, a$$wipe. Aren't you late for a cross-burning or something?
..." Solving the illegal immigration problem is doable, but we have to figure out a way to use this forum to affect some serious change"...
There are a lot of great ideas here, but most of them are concentrating on government efforts. I think we've all come to the realization that the ruling class has decided our fate, and there's nothing we can do to change their minds.
IMHO, it's going to take civilian action like they're doing on the Arizona border with the UAV's...etc. That was a private citizen that developed the ones DHS is using now, wasn't it?
Other than that, a tax revolt is about the only thing that is going to grab attention. They can't enforce the law if there are enough people involved.
Phone calls to law enforcement, city agencies, etc... while being entertaining, aren't effective.
We need new ideas. Ones that can be accomplished quickly and easily, so more people are willing to participate.
I'm interested in finding out if there's any way we can affect Asa's job. There's got to be some way to get this guy either fired or shame him out of office. Some way to petition this government for redress of grievances...
Precisely. I believe that most of those calling for intrusive enforcement think that they would somehow magically be immune from any inconvenience that enforcement would entail.
Son, you started the race to the bottom with the slanderous allegations. I merely repaid you in your own coin. Meditate on that. Adios yourself.
The vast majority of Americans believe in securing our borders and reducing illegal immigration. Bush is not pandering to the middle, but to the far-left and post-nationalist libertarians and tranzis.
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.