THE ULTIMATE COMPROMISE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Free Republic | 04-23-2006 | EEE

[cvq3842]

Here's my "just had coffee - stream of consciousness" rant:

No form of "guest worker" program will work. If illegals are hired because they will work for less than minimum (or prevailing) wage, then "regularizing" their status will make them unattractive to employers since they will be more clearly subject to employee protections. The businesses will just hire more illegals and dump these "guest workers."

The businesses and governmental officials who are acquiescing in the mass migration are in effect repealing minimum wage laws through the back door. AND the politicians are looking for votes on the insulting racial notion that Hispanics favor the illegal actions of these people since they share an ethnic heritage. Would one go easy on drunk driving in the effort to win Irish votes? Or on the Mafia to win Italian votes? See how offensive that sounds? But instead of EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, these folks kowtow to the race-baiters who see regulation as bigotry, and of course make their business constituents happy.

There's been a lot of discussion here on whether to stick with the Republicans given their weakness on this issue. I still say we should - bad is better than worse. But the politicians have to know that many WILL NOT feel as I do - that's a fact I can't change. I fear the consequences of a split in our ranks. If it happens, though, there will be a lot of blame to go around.

[cvq3842]

I know what you mean.

[Jim Noble]

What puzzles me is the panic in Congress over the need to pass a new law, which is leading to the need for "compromise".

What is it about the laws we have now that is inadequate? The legal structure that the representatives of the People have created to regulate immigration and naturalization is perfectly sensible, clear, and adequate to our needs.

Why do the authors of those laws now believe we need "reform"? What's wrong with what we have?

[cvq3842]

PS Your post is also an answer to Bush's "straw man" claim that it's not realistic to deport them all.

I am generally supportive of President Bush (see my other post here) but I must point out that deposing Saddam Hussein was also deemed "not practical" by many - although not by me. I thought it was difficult, but necessary, and still do. So is this. If Bush is not up to the job of addressing this problem as we know it must be addressed, with ENFORCEMENT, then he's not the leader I thought he was.

[Buffettfan]

Crack down on the employers that are hiring these illegal invaders and they will self deport. There is no need for the government to deport anybody.

[wolfcreek]

I fear the consequences of a split in our ranks. If it happens, though, there will be a lot of blame to go around.


I too, fear this! The FReep poll showing those who would vote third party or abstain from voting, is the most self-defeating thing I've ever seen. For those of you who choose this route, enjoy being ruled by the factions We fight against on a daily basis.

[cvq3842]

That's where I come down also, but I understand the feelings of those who feel especially disgusted and betrayed by the leaders we have supported.

The Democrats have their potential fractures too. Let's hope we heal ours, and they don't heal theirs. :)

[Little Ray]

This is a compromise?

More like a surrender.

[chris1]

They don't even solicit me anymore.

[savedbygrace]

Let me think about this proposal long and hard. No.

[GAB-1955]

"I got a better idea: let's just enforce the old laws and deport these people."

That would work if it were the old law. But in the 1880s, the Supreme Court ruled that merely being in the United States illegally was not a deportable crime; there has to be due process. That's why Bush spoke up yesterday about deportation. Imagine 11,000,000 hearings (and me not in law school yet!)

[newcthem]

"Why do the authors of those laws now believe we need "reform"? What's wrong with what we have?"

What is wrong is that we have a bunch of politicians and beaucrats who believe, thanks to the actions of BLOWJOBBilly and now Senior Bush, that obeying and inforcing laws are purely optional.

This will either destroy this country or will lead to an revolution by the citizens who still believe in the principle upon which this country was founded.

[Tzimisce]

That ruling is 100 years dead. It's time to start deporting people again.

[GAB-1955]

No, it is not. If stare decisis is something conservatives hold on to, then the decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be overturned on whim. They must be overturned by the Court itself through cases and controversies; the Congress can pass new legislation that provides for changes in deportation procedures that will meet Constitutional objections; or the Constitution can be amended.

We are not our enemies. We do not change law on whim or for inconvenience. I pointed out an obstacle. It is up to the Courts to do something about it.

[hosepipe]

[ We must continue to advocate for strong border security and do what JimRob says and keep the heat on Republicans ]

Exactly.. I agree somewhat with some of your thoughts..
Bush is a RINO and a RINO WILL run for president in 2008 too(some RINO)..
More than a RINO is unelecteable.. Your ideas will SLOW down the bleeding away of this republic not stop it.. But I agree we are at the stage that slowing it down would be wise.. AT least here at FR.. we should be realistic.. The Bushbots would follow Bush if he was caught doing crack with Marion Berry and Cynthia McKinney..

[Rick_Michael]

I'm with Lou Dobbs on this...make sure the border is sealed and secure....then think about the illegals currently here.

[RHINO369]

I don't hold onto stare decisis. The constition is a clearly worded document that anyone with an 8th grade education can read. If they made a bad decision that long ago then it should be over turned. However it probably wasn't a bad deceision. What would happen if someone made a mistake and just took you claimed your illegal and deported you without the chance to even prove your own innocence.

Make it illegal to hire them, don't give them welfare, and provide free buses to Mexico City and they will deport themselves.

[mo]

IMHO, any amnesty package should be coupled to the FairTax bill....makes a lot of sense if you think it through.

[He'sComingBack!]

Suggest two additions to your program:

1. Any immigrant who wants to enter/live in the United States on a permanent basis must GIVE UP / FOREGO Citizenship of their home/birth country. No Dual-Citizenship to be allowed in the U.S.

2. Public & Private schools to teach Mandatory U.S. History & Civics (no revisionist MeCHA fantasy or other multi-cultural B.S. permitted).

[Marine Inspector]

But in the 1880s, the Supreme Court ruled that merely being in the United States illegally was not a deportable crime

That Supreme Court ruling does not effect 1 deportation.

Every illegal is in violation of several immigration laws and illegal presence in the US is irrelevant.

Also, if there were 11 million illegals, there would not be 11 million hearings. Most would voluntarily return to their home country to bypass a formal deportation.