FRmail me if you want on or off the Thomas Sowell Ping List.
Posted on 03/27/2006 9:08:57 PM PST by RWR8189
Immigration is yet another issue which we seem unable to discuss rationally -- in part because words have been twisted beyond recognition in political rhetoric.
We can't even call illegal immigrants "illegal immigrants." The politically correct evasion is "undocumented workers."
Do American citizens go around carrying documents with them when they work or apply for work? Most Americans are undocumented workers but they are not illegal immigrants. There is a difference.
The Bush administration is pushing a program to legalize "guest workers." But what is a guest? Someone you have invited. People who force their way into your home without your permission are called gate crashers.
If truth-in-packaging laws applied to politics, the Bush guest worker program would have to be called a "gate-crasher worker" program. The President's proposal would solve the problem of illegal immigration by legalizing it after the fact.
We could solve the problem of all illegal activity anywhere by legalizing it. Why use this approach only with immigration? Why should any of us pay a speeding ticket if immigration scofflaws are legalized after the fact for committing a federal crime?
Most of the arguments for not enforcing our immigration laws are exercises in frivolous rhetoric and slippery sophistry, rather than serious arguments that will stand up under scrutiny.
How often have we heard that illegal immigrants "take jobs that Americans will not do"? What is missing in this argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price.
Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs.
If Mexican journalists were flooding into the United States and taking jobs as reporters and editors at half the pay being earned by American reporters and editors, maybe people in the media would understand why the argument about "taking jobs that Americans don't want" is such nonsense.
Another variation on the same theme is that we "need" the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States. "Need" is another word that blithely ignores prices.
If jet planes were on sale for a thousand dollars each, I would probably "need" a couple of them -- an extra one to fly when the first one needed repair or maintenance. But since these planes cost millions of dollars, I don't even "need" one.
There is no fixed amount of "need," independently of prices, whether with planes or workers.
None of the rhetoric and sophistry that we hear about immigration deals with the plain and ugly reality: Politicians are afraid of losing the Hispanic vote and businesses want cheap labor.
What millions of other Americans want has been brushed aside, as if they don't count, and they have been soothed with pious words. But now the voters are getting fed up, which is why there are immigration bills in Congress.
The old inevitability ploy is often trotted out in immigration debates: It is not possible to either keep out illegal immigrants or to expel the ones already here.
If you mean stopping every single illegal immigrant from getting in or expelling every single illegal immigrant who is already here, that may well be true. But does the fact that we cannot prevent every single murder cause us to stop enforcing the laws against murder?
Since existing immigration laws are not being enforced, how can anyone say that it would not do any good to try? People who get caught illegally crossing the border into the United States pay no penalty whatever. They are sent back home and can try again.
What if bank robbers who were caught were simply told to give the money back and not do it again? What if murderers who were caught were turned loose and warned not to kill again? Would that be proof that it is futile to take action, when no action was taken?
Let's hope the immigration bills before Congress can at least get an honest debate, instead of the word games we have been hearing for too long.
No incentive over being here illegally? Of course it does. For one, they won't have to run every time ICE comes around.
The real disadvantage...an overwhelming one...it that it will make it harder for them to be paid under the table.
How are they commiting perjury on this account?
A gang of criminal home invaders breaking into my house, waving Mexican or Canadian flags, demanding anything would be called "dead". On the other hand a "undocumented workers" invading a country isn't even a felony, is it? My apologies, bad analogy. No controlling legal authority. /sarcasm
The debate has, in fact, gone way past this article by Dr. Sowell. The House passed a bill on Dec. 15, 2005 and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed another yesterday.
The House version is "billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes such measures as enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers. It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.
But it put off consideration of a guest worker program, which President Bush and many in Congress say must be part of a lasting solution to the illegal immigrant crisis." (Click here for the article.)
The Senate Judiciary Committee produced a bill "that would create a foreign guest-worker program and put millions of illegal immigrants on track toward permanent residency and U.S. citizenship." (Click here for the article.)
It's time for a discussion of specific solutions -- not just vague rhetoric.
After the Katrina debacle, local news media were doing pieces on the strain it had put on the social services in the Dallas-Ft Worth area. One was a plea for food items for the North Texas Food Bank. It seems that they were completely out of food for the people who were using it for their daily food allotment.
During the program, the cameraman panned those waiting in line and what I saw was not Katrina victims. What I saw was Hispanic women, with two or three small children, waiting for their daily ration. My mind exploded with the realization that I was enabling these people to violate the laws of my country. When their children become school age, I would be required to pay even higher taxes on my home to provide an education for them.
Meanwhile, what has been proposed by the DISD? A proposal has been floated to hire 400 illegal aliens as school teachers to teach the little Mexicans in Spanish, and to teach them about Mexico. So much for assimilation!
Vicente Fox's minister of finance states that Mexico received $22 billion in transfer funds from the invading army of illegals during 2005. I would be more in favor of Mexico simply taxing me directly and keeping their citizens at home.
Meanwhile, the demoRats see 10 million votes. Certainly enough to put them back in power long enough to criminalize free enterprise and finish the socialization of America.
Please excuse me if this post is a little bit scattered. I'm so pissed I can hardly write.
When I have found myself in disagreement I know it is time to review what information it was that caused me to be in disagreement.
The politicians listen to everyone but get their marching orders from the highest contributors. Watching the RINOs cave to Ted Kennedy today reinforced that lesson.
Now we'll see if Bill Frist will step up or cave in. He painted himself into a corner by saying he'd "work with" whatever the Judiciary Committee came up with if they adhered to his deadline. They did and the result was amnesty with unenforcible strings attached.
Other books by Thomas Sowell
The thing that seems never to get a mention, is that the country of Mexico needs these illegals sending back money.
I heard a supporter of a "Day without Latinos" in KCKS say that if these illegals were returned to Mexico, Mexico would collapse.
/sarcasm
Exactly. He's a national treasure.
susie
They could use a ITIN and it would be perfectly legal.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96287,00.html
From the site: ITINs are issued regardless of immigration status because both resident and nonresident aliens may have U.S. tax return and payment responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code.
"Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs."
A fact that GWB has yet to comprehend.
Me, too. This one is no exception. The politicians are banking that they have a solid enough Hispanic voter base to offset the rest of us.
I am hoping they are wrong, as I sit in my downtown office and listen to the protestors outside... :o(
Thats why I said above board.
Thats pretty much it.
And INS doesn't exactly do it job, even worse, here in NYC, the cops aren't supposed to report illegals unless they actually committ a crime (and even then I have my doubts).
But it still doesn't make it harder to be paid under the table, I've lost count of the number of friends I have (who are citizens and born and raised here) who get paid under the table.
I doubt it would change much for illegals with this idiotic guest worker (aka illegals imporation) bill.
Good point. In fact the salient point.
Like Ghost of Philip Marlowe noted if there were no criminal invaders to do jobs at below living wage wages, the wages would have to rise to survival level and the Citizens would then do the jobs.
Some make the point that sending back the illegals would ruin the economy because jobs would not be done.
I think if the 22 Billion $'s the illegals sent back to Mexico last year had stayed here that would help the economy.
FRmail me if you want on or off the Thomas Sowell Ping List.
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.