Posted on 02/02/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
Two years ago, Border Patrol agents began to voice what many believed were legitimate concerns about "armed incursions" into the United States from Mexico-based assailants. Now these invasions occur routinely putting federal agents' and law enforcement officers' lives in jeopardy.
They reported that heavily armed Mexican army units and federal police, called federales, had infiltrated US territory and fired upon them, in some cases because –- federal agents would later discover –- Mexican drug lords had put prices on the heads of American law-enforcement agents strung out along the border. Where was the outrage by our political leaders and the mainstream media over this blatant violation of our national sovereignty?
Many of our political leaders and most in the news media ignore these violent attacks on our national sovereignty while more and more Americans are saying, "This has got to stop!"
While tens of millions of Americans watched and listened to President George Bush's much anticipated State of the Union speech, many were disappointed at the lack of emphasis on the biggest threat to national security today: unmitigated illegal immigration and porous US borders.
President Bush continues to maintain a contradictory and perilous position regarding illegal immigration, claiming his plan does not amount to amnesty. Standard American language usage contravenes the President’s specious explanation in that his plan clearly overlooks the offense of illegal aliens who entered this country in violation of law and would not seek prosecution; a full amnesty within contextual and explicit meaning.
The current position of the Administration on illegal immigration is demonstrative of a flawed public and enforcement policy which undermines national security by encouraging future mass illegal immigration. Additionally, the intention of the President sends contradictory signals to agencies tasked with securing our borders as well as police commanders across the nation.
In a recent Washington Times article in which the President attempted to justify his position on illegal immigration, the President stated the current immigration situation is a “bureaucratic nightmare” and the Border Patrol is “overstressed” due to “people [illegal immigrants] streaming across [the border].”
Further evidence of the Administration’s contradictory position on illegal immigration are statements made by political appointees charged with protecting the public. In September of 2004, in an effort to build support for the Administration’s Amnesty proposal, Asa Hutchinson, former Homeland Security Undersecretary, publicly stated it is “not realistic” to arrest or deport illegal aliens already in the country.
More recently, budget problems within the Department of Homeland Security further called into question the priorities of the Administration as agents are forced to release illegal aliens and curtail operations due to ongoing financial constraints. These circumstances all contribute to a “bureaucratic nightmare” and “overstressed” Border Patrol.
The position of the Administration on illegal immigration has had a profound and negative effect not only on law enforcement operations, but also border patrol agent morale. The impact on agent morale was measured in a survey conducted by independent Hart Research Associates during the summer of 2004.
The survey found a majority of agents were demoralized and were not getting the full support needed to protect the country, clearly indicating a conflict between the view of professional field agents and the Administration in regard to national domestic security. The Administration’s current immigration plans will exacerbate, not alleviate, that problem.
For those tuning in to hear President Bush address the problems faced as a result of rampant illegal immigration and Mexican military incursions, the speech was a major disappointment.
You're not being clear about the difference between people who are already here illegally, and ones who might come illegally in the future. Are you saying that we should let the people who are here illegally stay here illegally? I'm not in favor of that, and closing borders doesn't help.
I think people who are looking for an easy answer (eg., build a wall between the US and Mexico) are deluded. There are many ways to get here, and I've already mentioned many of them. Border control is only one part of it.
I'm quite convinced that we need to give people a legal way to get here (if they are people we want to come), and that we need to find a way to locate the people that we really don't want to be here.
Offering guest-worker status to either group, at the very least, will do nothing at all to reduce border-jumping. Hopefully we can agree on that much.
And if, for the sake of argument, we do make the distinction you're talking about, the distinction would have to be between those who come before this program is enacted, and those who come after, is that not right? Since no such program has yet gone into effect, everyone who's currently jumping the border would fall into the "before" category. Each time this proposal is floated, therefore, especially by someone as high-profile as the President, it gives encouragement to foreigners to continue jumping the border. These facts can not be denied.
I think people who are looking for an easy answer (eg., build a wall between the US and Mexico) are deluded. There are many ways to get here, and I've already mentioned many of them. Border control is only one part of it.
But it is a part of it. I don't see how it can reasonably be denied that closing the land border to unauthorized entry will substantially reduce the number of people who can get into the country illegally each year.
No, we don't agree. I think the people we really would like to have here are the ones who would choose a legal way to get here if they could. The problem is that it has been many years since there has been a legal way. Guest worker status would allow us to sort out the ones we want from the ones we don't.
Right now, border crossers are both the "good guys" and the "bad guys". A guest worker program would reduce that to just the bad guys.
And if, for the sake of argument, we do make the distinction you're talking about, the distinction would have to be between those who come before this program is enacted, and those who come after, is that not right?
Yes. That's why I think the guest worker program has to come before, or at least at the same time, as a border control program. People who have a choice between legal status and illegal status are in a different category than people who have no choice (other than to stay in poverty in their homeland)
I don't see how it can reasonably be denied that closing the land border to unauthorized entry will substantially reduce the number of people who can get into the country illegally each year.
People who can get here legally will prefer doing it that way. It will be much easier to find the ones who can't.
[Offering guest-worker status to either group, at the very least, will do nothing at all to reduce border-jumping. Hopefully we can agree on that much.]
No, we don't agree. I think the people we really would like to have here are the ones who would choose a legal way to get here if they could. The problem is that it has been many years since there has been a legal way.
I had to post back a couple of responses in order to establish the right context of the exchange. Just to put things back on track, once again, when I said "either group", I meant either group of illegals (those who come before the guest-worker program is enacted, vs. those who come after), not either group of aliens (legal vs illegal).
So to repeat: offering guest-worker status to illegals - that is, those who've crossed the border without authorization and are now in the U.S. - will do nothing to stem the tide of illegal border-jumping. Do you have any reason for holding otherwise?
I never said that we should offer guest-worker status to people who come here illegally after a guest worker program is in place. I think it's important that we do not.
That's why I think we should have the guest worker program in place before we try to control the border. We need to have a way to know who the ones already here are, and where they work.
Employers who don't register guest workers within a reasonable time (a month or two) should be severely punished if they are found to have undocumented workers. If the only way to get a job is through a guest worker program, illegal immigration will definitely slow down.
Employers were the key to the success of the guest worker programs we had in the past, and I think they are the only way to have a successful program now.
Even offering it to illegals who arrive before the program is in place will do nothing to slow down illegal entry.
And holding out the possibility to those who are contemplating illegal entry, that they might be able to participate in the program if they make it into the country before the program goes into effect, will encourage them to try to enter illegally.
This of course is completely separate from the question of whether to offer it to aliens who haven't yet entered the country, as a way of allowing them to enter legally. That's not what I'm commenting on here.
Of course. But there are ways to discourage that. Again, employers are the key. If the plan says that illegal immigrants can't prove that they have worked for the same employer for a year or two, they won't be able to get a job, and will be deported, then it won't encourage many to try to get here except through the legal program.
If the program isn't made available to illegals at all, then it'll provide further discouragement to attempts to get through except through the legal program.
And how is an illegal supposed to prove that that he's been working for the same employer for all that time, if there's been no legal basis for his employment? Most illegals work under the table, do they not? They don't have SSN's, so there's no way of tracking them that way. So how is it done?
And regardless of what the legislation ends up saying, perception itself has a strong effect. Many aliens are illegally crossing into the U.S. thinking that they probably will be able to take advantage of a program like this. It has influenced their decision to come here. And the administration has made no public statements to speak of to try to convince them that they're wrong.
Above all, a program like this does not need to be passed before or at the same time as a border-security bill (again, I'm not talking in about guest-worker programs in general here, but about specifically making those programs available to illegals). First we should take all reasonable steps to stem the tide of illegal entry (something we haven't come close to doing), and then we can decide if we really need to do anything for the illegals already here. It's not a foregone conclusion that we would. Instead, we may find at that point that once the flow is cut off or drastically reduced, the sense of emergency won't be the same. We may find that we can remove the illegals currently here through a slow rate of attrition.
It's still my accusation that powerful politicians are pushing for including the guest-worker-status-for-illegals plan in a border-security bill because they know it would have no public support on its own once the border comes under better control.
We're looking at the problem from opposite ends of the spectrum. You are focussed on the illegal immigrants only; I think of the employers who aid and abet them. I have a lot of sympathy for business owners who need workers, and can't find them. Many of the illegals have been working for a long time with phony SSNs, and the employers turn a deaf ear, because they don't have a real choice. Most of the employers know, or at least suspect, which of their employees are illegal.
In many areas of the country, illegals fill most of the jobs for hotel and office cleaners; farming; lawn care; meat packing; seafood processing; unskilled construction jobs; etc. The companies that get these contracts are American owned. They depend on a seasonal or otherwise temporary labor force. Many of them use illegals now. They won't stop until they have a legal source of labor.
Those employers would most likely be willing to sponsor current illegals who have proven to be good workers. And if they had a source for legal workers, they wouldn't likely risk hiring more illegals.
If we could (and we can't) deport all of the illegals overnight, what would you suggest to the businesses who depend on their labor?
What I'm focused on is getting the border under control. All I'm interested in knowing right now is if offering guest-worker status to illegals - any illegals - will help to reduce the rate of illegal entry to something more manageable. And if it won't (and I can't see any possible way that it would) then our leaders shouldn't even be discussing it until after we've taken all appropriate measures to properly secure the border. Once we do, then we'll be in a far better position to judge what needs to be done with the illegals remaining in the country. But it's premature to worry about that now. First priority is to choke off the inflow.
I think it will. For years, most of the illegal border crossers from Mexico were Mexicans or South Americans looking for work. There still are a huge number of them. We can stop those by making it impossible for them to get jobs here - and that won't happen unless the employers have a legal source of workers.
At that point, most illegal crossers would be drug smugglers, terrorists, those fleeing justice in their own countries, etc. That's a much more manageable number.
I think it will. For years, most of the illegal border crossers from Mexico were Mexicans or South Americans looking for work. There still are a huge number of them. We can stop those by making it impossible for them to get jobs here - and that won't happen unless the employers have a legal source of workers.
What it sounds like you're saying is that the illegal workers currently in the country, if legalized, will take up the jobs that foreigners from the south would be coming here for, and thus discourage them from coming. But if that's the case, then the illegals currently in the country would already be taking up those jobs. Making them legal won't change the economics of that situation.
Not at all. What I've been trying to say is that American employers need to have a way to make sure that their employees are legal (be they guest workers, immigrants or citizens), and that they have to be held responsible for hiring any who are not. Further, they should have a way to hire as many legal workers as they need.
The problem is not the illegals as much as it is employers who need workers, and can't find legal ones.
That doesn't explain why there'd be any greater advantage to making the program available to illegals aliens in the U.S., as opposed to making it available to foreigners who apply in their home countries. It certainly doesn't explain how the former would be more effective at reducing illegal entry than the latter.
There are currently something like 10M illegal workers in the US. There's no way that they can be replaced immediately with a guest worker program that starts with application in the home country.
Try to think about it from the view of the employers. What do you think a small employer who depends on low skill labor would do? Be diligent about checking papers, even though he or she might not have enough workers, or turn a blind eye to some marginal papers?
The problem isn't illegal workers as much as it is finding low skilled workers for jobs we really do need.
Why would they need to be replaced immediately? It's not like they'd be going anywhere in a hurry.
To put the question another way: Say we institute a guest-worker program that's available only to foreigners applying in their home countries. Would that make things any worse for employers than they currently are? If so, how?
If we want to control the borders, they should be going fast. As long as we accept illegal workers, they will continue to come.
To put the question another way: Say we institute a guest-worker program that's available only to foreigners applying in their home countries. Would that make things any worse for employers than they currently are? If so, how?
It takes time to process those applications. Probably months. What would the employers do in the meantime? I agree that employers should only get future hires from a legal guest worker program, but until there is one, the employers will just ignore the status of their workers.
If we want to control the borders, they should be going fast.
I'm not following you here. If we get control of the borders, the illegals who are already in the country won't automatically disappear. They'll still continue working at the jobs they're currently working at, until replacement guest workers arrive. What am I missing in this?
What you're missing is that as long as we continue to allow illegals to work here, they have an incentive to keep coming. And all the fences in the world won't stop them. They can get here by boat, or even by coming in as tourists and just not going back.
If we allow illegals to work here, how would we know the difference between the ones who got here yesterday and the ones who have been here for years?
Until we insist that everyone who works here must have a legal status, then we are inviting more illegals.
Once the guest workers begin arriving, it will be much harder for the illegals to stay here.
And all the fences in the world won't stop them. They can get here by boat, or even by coming in as tourists and just not going back.
It'll slow them down. There's a reason why we're not being swamped with illegals from Bangladesh.
If we allow illegals to work here, how would we know the difference between the ones who got here yesterday and the ones who have been here for years?
That's my point. If we start in with a guest-worker program for illegals, we'd have to start making those distinctions. If we don't, we won't have to. Just let the new guest workers - the ones who apply properly from their home countries - take their place.
So let me ask you this. Say there are two options before us. One is maintaining the status quo for the next six months, the other is instituting a guest-worker program now that's available only to people applying in their home countries. Under which scenario would we be worse off than we would be under the other at the end of six months?
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.