Posted on 05/16/2006 7:36:19 AM PDT by logician2u
May 16, 2006
Bush's Border Buffoonery
Non-binding, non-militarized non-solutions to a non-problem
Give President Bush this much: His 16-minute "major" speech on immigration touched on, however briefly, every key issue related to the topic: border control, enforcement, guest worker programs, I.D. cards, you name it. And in the doublespeak fashion that underpins all political utterance, nothing seemed to mean what it plainly seemed to mean. Or at least imply. Hence, the president is sending 6,000 National Guard troops to keep watch on the Rio Grande, but "The United States Is Not Going To Militarize The Southern Border," says the White House fact sheet on the matter. No way, Jose—because "Mexico is our neighbor and friend." We just don't want our sister to employ one.
In the same vein, Bush made it clear that "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Must Include A Tamper-Resistant Identification Card For Every Legal Foreign Worker So Businesses Can Verify The Legal Status Of Their Employees." But doesn't that mean that all workers—regardless of country of origin or citizenship—will have to show a "tamper-resistant identification card"? Let's leave aside for the moment that there ain't no such thing as a tamper-resistant anything: It's a simple fact that anything that applies to immigrants will have to apply to U.S. citizens (no, no, don't you see—only immigrants will have to show documents showing they are immigrants? Umm...). Oh, and hey, the president "opposes amnesty" but wants a guest-worker program that will let most of the 12 million illegals in the country gain citizenship.
How will this play out? The vast majority of the American people is staunchly in favor of militarizing the Southern border or doing whatever it may take to stop the flow of illegal immigrants from that part of the world. In fact, a plurality of the American people is in favor of reducing the flow of legal immigrants, too. At least for a while. So are the House Republicans, who have passed legislation that is long on enforcement and "cutting off the flow" stuff and extremely short on amnesty, guest workers, and the like. A good chunk of Senate Republicans—along with a handful of Democrats--are in favor of less-draconian legislation than House Republicans. Where any of this might end up is anybody's guess. Especially with mid-term elections coming up, both the Dems and the Reps may want to play to their bases by refusing to "compromise."
This much seems certain: "U.S. policies aimed at controlling the flow of newcomers historically have led to unexpected consequences." As Reason Contributing Editor and San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carolyn Lochhead noted recently, "Many of the most radical changes in the origins and numbers of America's vast flow of immigrants were unintentionally set in motion, experts say, by politicians who expected an entirely different result." That's not a warrant to do nothing, or to assume that all reforms are equally bad or useless or ineffective. But it is a powerful lesson to keep in mind as the country plows forward with major immigration reform, which tends to happen only once about every 20 years.
For instance, the supporters of 1965's major immigration reform predicted that the changes would marginally boost immigration from Europe and have no effect on folks coming from Latin America and Asia. In fact, writes Lochhead, "Within a decade, the proportion of European to Asian and Latin American immigrants had reversed." Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, says that tougher border enforcement—a consequence of reforms in 1986 and 1996--has had a "perverse effect." He explains, "We've transformed what was before 1986 a circular flow of workers into an increasingly settled population of families. We have actually accelerated the rate of undocumented population growth in the United States and shifted it from a relatively less costly population of male workers into a much more costly population of families."
Go figure. There's something else to consider, too. Even in non-totalitarian countries, immigration patterns can be massively influenced by government policies. Hence, restrictionist laws ranging from The Chinese Exclusion Act to The Gentleman's Agreement to The Immigration Act of 1924 massively cut immigrant flows from China, Japan, and undesired nations of Europe. So too do large global economic shifts such as The Great Depression, worlds wars, or the rise to wealth of post-war Europe. But immigration patterns are also largely determined by immigrants themselves, especially when those immigrants live in a country adjacent to the one they're heading to. President Bush noted that 85 percent of illegals caught at the Southern border are Mexican. It only stands to reason that Mexican immigration into the United States is as much or more a function of Mexico's political and economic situation as it is of ours.
And that the flow of migrants is unlikely to be stopped or even slowed much by, as the president put it, "high-tech fences in urban corridors...new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas" and, relatively speaking, a handful more of border patrol agents. As it stands, about 60 percent of illegals enter the country without visas or other documentation, typically via the Mexican and Canadian borders. That also means that 40 percent enter the country through officially sanctioned channels (such as tourist and student visas), which makes them that much more difficult to keep track of. As important, kindness to today's immigrants in the form of amnesty--er, guest workers programs, regardless of threats to get tough in the future, will inevitably have the effect of ginning up more immigration. Why? Because potential immigrants recognize that such "time inconsistency" clearly signals that we will be lenient to immigrants despite rhetoric to the contrary. As Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute summarizes, "If we are willing to grant amnesty for immigrants today, we will be willing to grant amnesty again five years later." And clearly we are: Virtually no one--and certainly not the president or the Senate--is talking about mass deportations of currently undocumented workers and children.
Which suggests that the president missed a chance to recast the issue in a way that might actually reflect reality. The first thing is to challenge the notion that immigration--legal or illegal—in any way represents a "crisis." And to at least suggest that the North American Free Trade Agreement should apply equally to people as to widgets. As Fox News stalwart Tony Snow wrote just a couple of months before becoming Bush's press secretary,"Immigration is not the pox neo-Know Nothings make it out to be" (here's hoping he brings that POV to bear in the White House). Far from it. Unemployment is low and crime is down everywhere, but especially in areas teeming with immigrants. Those who worry for whatever reason about languages other than English being spoken in America can rest easy knowing that most Latinos are Spanish-free by the third generation.
[continued below]
It sounds more like hypocrite conservative voters staying home in November as they try to justify dishonoring the soldiers who died to give them that right to vote.
You got that bassackwards, TB.
Actually, I suspect if illegals were legitimized, they would get earned income tax credit, rather than paying taxes.
I agree, and I've begun to imagine what it will be like to have a Dim House and/or Senate. It would be hell for the White House which would be up to the ceiling in subpoenas. The public would see Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Leahy regularly make fools of themselves, and I would hope that after 2 years of this theater, the Republicans would return to power in both chambers and elect a conservative President (who among other things would secure our borders.)
>>Did he touch on repealing the anchor baby laws? How about ending all illegal alien welfare benefits? ...Iow, did he touch on the incentives for many third-worlders to come here in the first place?
<<
He left out any mention of punishment for employers.
That is not true, at least for me it isn't.
We shall see, I suppose.
I avoid reading WND, religiously.
Anti ILLEGAL
There is no better time than now to organize and fund a 3rd political party that will tap the base of common American Citizens as a priority and relegate the Pro-NAFTA, amnesty for illegal, citizens of the world mentality to the back.
The current two party system is a failure over and over again. yet we keep re-electing the same guaranteed failures with the same guaranteed promises to do better "next year" when re-elected.
Everyone is so scared that a 3rd party will take from the base of republicans. Well it seems that if there is only a 30% favorable rating for republicans, and a 30% favorable rating for democrats, the 50% of eligible voters who do not vote should stand for something. It is obvious they don't vote because of the guaranteed status quo.
Give the 3rd party a lot of thought. We must overcome Name Brand political recognition of those we elect and get some new ideas into the fold with people who are not afraid of offending race A or corporation B.
Smooth talking politicians fool some of the people some of the time. but they can't fool all the people all the time.
WAKE UP!! see tagline
I'm sure 19th Century Italy, Ireland, and Germany were germ- and disease-free. Of course, our medical knowledge and care were so much better back then.
You're right: we're doomed!
Ah, yes, first you said we were UnAmerican for not voting Republican.
That argument didn't work.
Now they blame the blood of our soldiers on our head.
Maybe when you wake up and face reality you'll understand as soon as the massive influx of poor and uneducated masses from Socialist/Communist countries are legalized they will consign the conservative movement to death and Republican Party to minority status. Meaning it is the pro-open borders crowd that endangers their mission.
Contrary to claims the administration's investigation and arrests of employers hiring illegals is down from the Clinton administration, this table tells a different story. Credit RedBloodedAmerican for finding this:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632888/posts?page=187#187
By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000, according to the Pew Hispanic Center analysis of multiple datasets collected by the Census Bureau and other government agencies.
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53
Note that I don't think anyone is claiming that nothing should be done, but the hysterics claiming that nothing is being done couldn't be more wrong.
Fact sheet:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1633068/posts
I can see the GOP retaining control of the House since that's the chamber that's serious about immigration control and enforcement. I'm just thankful Bush got the opportunity to appoint two conservative justices to SCOTUS before the 06 elections.
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.