Posted on 03/30/2006 10:33:10 AM PST by Hillary'sMoralVoid
There is a remarkably simple solution to the impasse with immigration reform. It involves a balance of recognition and respect of United States laws, along with the need for a reasonable process for dealing with the illegal immigrants.
First of all, all illegals currently in the country would have to sign a written document stating that they had broken the laws of the United States by entering the country. Those who wish to stay on as guest workers would be placed on probation for a period of three years, during which time they would be granted status as "conditional" guest workers. They would be required to report their location to the INS annually, and any other violations of U. S. or state laws could result in loss of status and deportation.
Those who successfully completed their probationary period would become official guest workers. Those who wish to apply for citizenship would be eligible, however, those applying legally from outside the country (who have not immigrated illegally) would have priority over those who entered the country illegally.
All employers would require illegals working for them to apply for conditional guest worker status (along with the required probation period). There would be fines for both the illegals and the employers who fail to initiate the guest worker application process.
This approach offers a road to amnesty which recognizes that an illegality occurred, a probationary period was served, and that illegal immigrants are not placed ahead of applicants who apply legally.
What gets me is that twenty years from now, we'll probably be paying "reparations" to all of these illegals. Because, of course, it's unfair that they had to pay a coyote and endure such an arduous journey through the desert. They even had to crap in some greedy landowner's back yard.
"actually it's not propaganda. wages would shoot through the roof short term. long term or goods would be left on the shelf for lack of customers. Al Greenspan liked illegal aliens. A lot."
We are paying a lot of $$$ for social services for people who are not here legally. Not to mention that illegal aliens from Mexico make up a significant proportion (17% I believe) of people in our federal prisons (lots of $$$.) Yes, someone is making money off the illegal immigrants but I suspect it isn't Joe Taxpayer. Anyways, I'm not worried about short-term, I can live in a tent for a few years if I have too. I'm worried about the long-term effects. The protests over the last several days by Mexican flag carrying illegals demanding that the U.S. people bow to their demands I'm afraid is just a foretaste of what is to come if our politicians don't grow some spine.
The only thing that might save us from that is Ted Kennedy will be long gone and perhaps Jesse Jackson too.....
I couldn't agree more. We need to change this standard of automatic citizenship for the children of those here illegally.
So true...
But also, and equally important, the public does not have the intelligence, the understanding of consequences, and therefore the resolve to fight to win in Iraq as in WWII....Or...to make the sacrifices necessary to get rid of the illegal Mexican parasites who are killing our country.
America is in deep do-do...exactly following the Roman decline of long ago.
I hear alot of people saying that there are so many illegals that they could not possibly be deported. Strictly speaking those people have no way of supporting their claims. There are cases in US history that suggest the opposite. For example, Operation Wetback successfully deported approximately one million illegal Mexican immigrants in the space of almost a year, though it has often been criticized for its heavy handed enforcement of the law. Thats not bad for a program that was going on without the sophisticated technology of today.
What year did that occur?
I believe it was in 1954.
Your mechanism puts way too much emphasis on enforcing the current laws, which are about as enforceable as the Volstead Act was.
The problem is that in 1965, the federal government completely overturned over a century of social and legal custom in the Southwestern United States, and they did so about as casually as one gets a cup of coffee. The Washington social engineers put a lot of people in a very ugly place: a lot of Mexicans were given the option of either violating a capriciously imposed law or starving. Stupid idea--only Islamist extremists are that willing to kill themselves, so this law sets itself up for failure from the get-go.
< Of course we will not catch them all at this point, but we can and must make the effort to show we are seruious and catch as many as possible while putting the fear into the others. Then tie that in with securing the borders. Most Americans will support this.
Then, when the border is secure, and the new mechansims in place, an environment will have been created to ensure that the programs we do come up with from that point on are believable, credable, and able to be enforced.
That's just my opinion.
Tony got it right:
Mexican illegals vs. American voters
By Tony Blankley
March 29, 2006
It is lucky America has more than two centuries of mostly calm experience with self-government. We are going to need to fall back on that invaluable patrimony if the immigration debate continues as it has started this season. The Senate is attempting to legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public. The Senate Judiciary Committeemen — and probably a majority of the Senate — are convinced that they know that the American people don't know what is best for them.
National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses). Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.
An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.
Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.
I commend to all those presumptuous senators and congressmen the sardonic and wise words of Edmund Burke in his 1792 letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe: "No man will assert seriously, that when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order is to furnish them with something substantial to complain of." The senators should remember that they are American senators, not Roman proconsuls. Nor is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee some latter-day Praetor Maximus.
But if they would be dictators, it would be nice if they could at least be wise (until such time as the people can electorally forcefully project with a violent pedal thrust their regrettable backsides out of town). It was gut-wrenching (which in my case is a substantial event) to watch the senators prattle on in their idle ignorance concerning the manifold economic benefits that will accrue to the body politic if we can just cram a few million more uneducated illegals into the country. ( I guess ignorance loves company.) Beyond the Senate last week, in a remarkable example of intellectual integrity (in the face of the editorial positions of their newspapers) the chief economic columnists for the New York Times and The Washington Post — Paul Krugman and Robert Samuelson, respectively — laid out the sad facts regarding the economics of the matter. Senators, congressmen and Mr. President, please take note.
Regarding the Senate's and the president's guest-worker proposals, The Post's Robert Samuelson writes: "Gosh, they're all bad ideas ... We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking, many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate, many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished ... [It] is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico ... The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers ? Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits ... [Moreover], [i]t's a myth that the U.S. economy 'needs' more poor immigrants.
"The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force." (For all Mr. Samuelson's supporting statistics, see his Washington Post column of March 22, from which this is taken.) Likewise, a few days later, the very liberal and often partisan Paul Krugman of the New York Times courageously wrote : "Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the [government] benefits they receive ? As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, 'We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.' " Mr. Krugman also observed — citing a leading Harvard study — "that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants 'do jobs that Americans will not do.' The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants." Thusly do the two leading economic writers for the nation's two leading liberal newspapers summarily debunk the economic underpinning of the president's and the Senate's immigration proposals.
Under such circumstances, advocates of guest-worker/amnesty bills will find it frustratingly hard to defend their arrogant plans by their preferred tactic of slandering those who disagree with them as racist, nativist and xenophobic.
When the slandered ones include not only The Washington Post and the New York Times, but about 70 percent of the public, it is not only bad manners, but bad politics.
The public demand to protect our borders will triumph sooner or later. And, the more brazen the opposing politicians, the sooner will come the triumph.
So legislate on, you proud and foolish senators — and hasten your political demise.
The reason that there isn't any will to enforce them is because the general public is unwilling to put up with the consequences of enforcing them.
Unlike your belief, in reality the consequences would not be inflicted solely on brown-skinned folk.
Thanks.
It still does not answer the question: what happens when the guest workers don't leave? Nothing - that's what. Just like nothing happens when they invade our borders. Nothing happens when they break our laws and politicians are always afraid to enforce our laws due to race baiting. A guest worker program full of people who won't leave is what Europe is dealing with now.
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.