Candor on Immigration (Robert J. Samuelson Op-Ed)

The Washington Post ^ | 06/08/05 | Robert J. Samuelson

[bourbon]

Immigration is crawling its way back onto the national agenda -- and not just as a footnote to keeping terrorists out. This year Congress enacted a law intended to prevent illegal immigrants from getting state driver's licenses; the volunteer "minutemen" who recently patrolled the porous Arizona border with Mexico attracted huge attention, and members of Congress from both parties are crafting proposals to deal with illegal immigration. All this is good. But unless we're brutally candid with ourselves, it won't amount to much. Being brutally candid means recognizing that the huge and largely uncontrolled flow of unskilled Latino workers into the United States is increasingly sabotaging the assimilation process.

[bourbon]

Another excerpt:

To make immigration succeed, we need (paradoxically) to control immigration. Although this is common sense, it's common sense that fits uneasily inside our adversarial political culture. You're supposed to be either pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant -- it's hard to be pro-immigrant and pro tougher immigration restrictions. But that's the sensible position, as any examination of immigration trends suggests.

[hershey]

When the WashPost prints Robert J. Samuelson on illegal immigration, something's in the wind.

[Irontank]

Its good to see that the MSM is on to the issue...the only problem is that Samuelson seems to advocate Bush's amnesty plan...essentially grant amnesty to all the illegals already here then really crack down on the borders...yeah...sure...didn't we already go through this exercise in the 1980's?

[Lobbyist]

Samuelson, as others before him, think we should give legal status to illegal aliens. There should be no legal status for anyone who violates our laws. Fear of law enforcement, no access to banks, home loans, jobs, etc. would force them to deport themselves.

[EagleUSA]

This year Congress enacted a law intended to prevent illegal immigrants from getting state driver's licenses...
------
Yes, how valiant and appropriate of the Congress. We, the citizens of this country, are very impressed with the proper attention and action of the Congress on the matter of illegal immigration/invasion of our country. We can see that the Cogress is right on the issue and making sure our EXISTING LAWS ABOUT OUR BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION are being enforced and upheld. If it were not for the prompt and appropriate action of our great Congress, we might have ACTUALLY BEEN OVERRUN BY ILLEGAL MEXICANS and other potential undesireables, MAYBE EVEN TERRORISTS, at huge cost to the American citizen.

Thank God that the Congress saved us from this....

[holdonnow]

I don't think he's arguing for legalizing illegals already here. I think he was listing the ideas that are out there, only to then conclude that this won't work and something needs to be done.

[truthkeeper]

Samuelson, as others before him, think we should give legal status to illegal aliens. There should be no legal status for anyone who violates our laws.

Agreed. I don't want to give legal status to the lawless creeps who have practically taken over my community. They're everywhere, schools, shops, streets. Traffic and graffiti alone must have tripled in the last three or four years. (Thanks for nothing, GW.) The fact that we give them so many percs - social services - just adds insult to injury.

If we refuse to deport them, let them STAY in the shadows as far as I am concerned. They have already taken enough!

[Dane]

I don't think he's arguing for legalizing illegals already here. I think he was listing the ideas that are out there, only to then conclude that this won't work and something needs to be done.

Yet he doesn't have an answer. IMO, he's more timid than the politicians he's criticizing.

Personally, I believe the Kyl/Cornyn bill will be the way to go, instead of the Mckennedy bill, Samuelson will probably support.

[onyx]

FYI

[cinives]

And what does the Kyl/Cornyn bill say ?

[layman]

yeah...sure...didn't we already go through this exercise in the 1980's?

Amen.

[Happy2BMe]

I'm being brutally candid about this folks . .

(As we read this, the GOP is sinking . . sinking . . sink ..)

=====================================

Being brutally candid means recognizing that the huge and largely uncontrolled flow of unskilled Latino workers into the United States is increasingly sabotaging the assimilation process.

[Dane]

I'm being brutally candid about this folks . .

(As we read this, the GOP is sinking . . sinking . . sink ..)

Well I'm not going to argue with you since you seem to be an expert in directing sinking ships, oh wait a minute sorry, happy, you don't direct the GOP, nevermind.

[DumpsterDiver]

didn't we already go through this exercise in the 1980's?

Yes, and it worked so well, too.

< /sarc >

[Sterco]

Dane sounds angry this morning. That is a good sign. Keep those cards, calls and e-mails to congress flowing people.

[Dane]

Dane sounds angry this morning

LOL! Typical liberal projection.

I can't help it if Samuelson is being a hypoctrite himself(by reading his wash compost article) as he criticizes "politicians" who are "timid", when Samuelson is too "timid" himself to give a solution.

[GarySpFc]

Personally, I believe the Kyl/Cornyn bill will be the way to go, instead of the Mckennedy bill, Samuelson will probably support.

I have been looking for a copy of the Kyl/Cornyn bill. Do you have a link?

[gubamyster]

ping

[nathanbedford]

Immigration itself, not just illegal immigration, is inimical to conservative and therefore, American, values. One need only reflect on the fact that we cannot induce our politicians to enforce our immigration laws against illegal aliens to understand that there is no hope of imposing any rational control over legal immigration.

The main obstacle to a rational immigration policy (which in essence means no immigration except for extreme hardship, real prosecution, family compassion, great wealth, and technical and scientific achievement) is not our alleged economic need to staff undesirable jobs, but the timidity in immigration opponents to withstand demagogic charges of racism. So it is generally with liberalism, it could not emotionally or intellectually survive its own absurdities without the prop of moral superiority gained from bogus charges of racism and, to a lesser degree, homophobia and religious zealotry.

The population of America has doubled in my lifetime and shows no signs of moderating its tumor like growth. I do not argue as a Hobbesian that we we cannot feed or house these teeming masses, but why should we inconvenience ourselves to accommodate a wave that is engulfing and distorting a way of life and inevitably turning our society into something that only a liberal could love? Conservatives, you will lose your guns, your freedom of the roads, your hunting grounds, your neighborhoods, and, ultimately, your way of life.

If you think your conception of your American constitutional rights can preserve you and protect your children from the overwhelming power of numbers, you will probably live long enough to be wretchedly disappointed. Just as an example, consider how your rights to use your own land have been wrested from you in the name of preserving the environment for your neighbors. This is a constitutional battle you have lost and will continue to lose. Your problem is not that your neighbors are blind to your constitutional rights of property, but that you have neighbors.

[bourbon]

Just curious: Do you have a solution for this problem? Or is your position that Samuelson is wrong to call this a "problem"?