Posted on 12/29/2005 5:53:27 AM PST by harpu
"We have a supply and a demand problem. The supply problem is coming across the border. We are in this bill doing something very specific about that with the inclusion of the amendment, with the passage of the amendment, to build some barrier along at least 700 miles of our southern border. I hope we continue with that, by the way, along the entire border, to the extent it is feasible, and the northern border we could start next." -- Rep. Tom Tancredo (R., Colo.)
So there you have it. Tom Tancredo has done everyone a favor by stating plainly the immigration rejectionists' end-game -- turn the United States into the world's largest gated community. The House took a step in that direction this month by passing another immigration "reform" bill heavy with border control and business harassment and light on anything that will work in the real world.
For the past two decades, border enforcement has been the main focus of immigration policy; by any measure, the results are pitiful. According to the Migration Policy Institute, "The number of unauthorized migrants in the United States has risen to almost 11 million from about four million over the past 20 years, despite a 519% increase in funding and a 221% increase in staffing for border patrol programs."
Given that record, it's hard to see the House Republican bill as much more than preening about illegal immigration. The legislation is aimed at placating a small but vocal constituency that wants the borders somehow sealed, come what may to the economy, American traditions of liberty or the Republican Party's relationship with the increasingly important Latino vote.
-big giant snip-
...At some point, the president of the United States will have to get behind the Statue of Liberty or Tom Tancredo's wall.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
This is the duplicate thread.
Bizarre, with my apologies to harpu.
This one was on top of the sidebar while the other was farther down.
How the hell did the newer article get farther down the sidebar?
Another day, another euphemism.
I came across a new one the other day. The article I was reading referred to illegals as "the Spanish-surnamed population".
They may be or it's possible that they just think that nobody will question them about it. Also, employers who hire people off the books (like day laborers) aren't withholding any Social Security or Medicare taxes either.
Nice - 'hispandering', it's got a nice ring to it.
This post was added to editorials later.
I wonder what he thinks about our plans to help build a wall across the Dominican Republic to keep out Haitians?
"How the hell did the newer article get farther down the sidebar?"
The "editorial" topic was added later. But if you check the time of each post, this thread was indeed the first.
We need to control our immigration. And that starts with a wall, then jail for people who hire illegals.
Gated community? Wow, the left is really going to like that idea! Maybe we have some common ground, finally.
Another joke from the Wall St. Journal, as usual hiding behind an outdated poem to mask their real agenda, which is the importation of a never-ending supply of cheap labor. It must be lonely for them knowing their views are supported by about 1% of the population.
Totalitarian States can do amazing things...such as murdering anyone crossing the Berlin Wall, murdering anyone helping those crossing, and domestic spying. Ultimately, East Germany was proven unstable.
America must find another way. One that is sustainable and stable while protecting our national interest. A wall is a start but it is not sufficient.
"The number of unauthorized migrants in the United States has risen to almost 11 million from about four million over the past 20 years, despite a 519% increase in funding and a 221% increase in staffing for border patrol programs."
What an intellectually dishonest argument. First, its irrelevant how much MONEY we are spending the only thing that matters is how many BORDER PATROL AGENTS are actually employed and enforcing the immigration laws. Second, the Border Patrol didn't have enough people 20 years ago. Third, had many BP agents are needed is a function of how many illegal aliens are attempting to enter the country.
For example, If you start out with 10 BP agents in 1985 and increased it to 100 BP in 2005, you've increased the number 1,000% but you still only have 100 BP agents when you need 10,000.
To anyone who's been around this argument is depressingly familiar. It was used by Liberals against the war on crime in the 1960s and 1970s. Y'know - "Lets not hire more policemen or build more jails because we've done that and crime hasn't gone down. We need to attack the root causes of crime." Of course, it wasn't until we actually started putting enough people in jail that crime has come down.
Its rather pathetic when the WSJ adopts liberal talking points to argue for breaking the law and not enforcing it.
How about prosecuting (under criminal penalties) employers who hire illegals?
How many WSJ editors and writers live in gated communities or buildings with restricted access?
The irony is that the editors of the WSJ all live in actual gated communities with private security. They could care less if the rest of the USA turns into a third world country--in fact that's how they like it.
And they have damned high walls around their own gated communities.
Culturally, the US is not a nation that would accept Elian Gonzalez style apprehensions once let alone 15 Million times.
Politically, the resulting deportation print and video would hand the White House, House of Representatives, Senate, and the keys to every washroom to the Democrats.
Another way it vital. A wall is a start but voluntary registration with an exit date certain is practical. Doing nothing but debate is dangerous.
The WSJ and the Open Borders Elitists are dead scared of a wall, because they fear it just might work.
Some employers are prosecuted. If there are 15 Million illegals and maybe 12 Million employed. Practically, can the US prosecute maybe 5 Million employers?
Few are calling for a massive roundup and implying the only option is either that or a guest worker program which registers them is a strawman argument. Nobody will ever be shipped home after their term expires anymore than they are now and such an action would only encourage millions more to illegally enter to get in on it.
A more practical solution is to close the borders and begin enforcing the law as illegals are encountered. A policy of attrition over time would greatly reduce their numbers.
If it's determined we need a guest worker program then maybe one could be considered but only those who sign up in their home country should qualify.
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.