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]
Your words, not mine. I was just pointing out one of the numerous (negative) ways illegal aliens impact our society. Others include an disproportionally high crime rate (29% of all Federal prison inmates are illegal aliens) and the overall cost to the American taxpayer (around $100 billion/yr).
I'm tired of listening to the crap that the National Guard is not trained to contain the border. These same Guardsmen types are in Iraq. They have been in Korea maintaining the border. And to hear that they are not as well trained as the Coast Guard is pure nonsense. How much training do they need to point a AK47 at a intruder and say "Get down", cuff them, and march them to a Border Patrol van.
Mostly fall. I am even more disgusted.
"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."
TB You need to go back and read the history of legal immigration during this period.
Many were quaratined or refused entry because of disease.
Thanks for defining what a conservative is and is not. I was waiting for God to come on this forum and tell me.
Bush claims removing illegals as not possible...Bull Sh*t!
I did not hear Bush make the claim that these illegal invaders are driving down wages in an ever increasing over taxed society.
I heard nothing about legal trades people getting shafted as wages for government related jobs go up.
I did not hear anything about a nation of laws and that 30 million ILLEGALS are outright breaking our laws.
I did not hear Bush say anything about a coming civil war that he and his buddies are helping to bring about.
I heard nothing about illegals breaking our welfare and hospital sytem.
WHAT A SORRY SPEECH LAST NIGHT.
Anyone who thinks the Federal government, in its present iteration, will (or can) do anything effective regarding illegal immigration (other than waste more money and increase the power of Federal employee unions) is kidding themselves.
the pubbies have a problem. their choices like those of the people on flight
93 are between certain death and near certain death.
If they allow the illegals citizenship--the illegal/legals will do what they did after 1986: vote democratic and tip the country to a democratic majority as they have done in california and that because after 1993 in California many mexicans began voting in california to preserve gov bennies--for which the dems excel. There won't be social security benefit for Americans of retirement age from the illegals/legals because they will suck up what ever they put into the economy--as they are now. They won't yield a net gain. ie they won't pay for anyone's social security.
Everyone but everyone who has ever been to any government building that dispenses anything from health care to drivers lisences can't help but notice that the place is swamped with foreigners. Basically the welfare state system set up in the 1960's is being totally gamed by foreigners.
If the president gets his way he will demoralize the republicans bringing on the effects of the 1992 & 1996 elections. There may not even be a third party but when W builds in a reversal of the fortunes of the war of 1848--it creates a kind of passivity in people when they see their leaders commit them to the status of world historical losers.
If Bush decides to put up a wall and expel the illegals then there is a chance to preserve Republican majorities. It would be helpful to promise that the USA will kill the cost of water desalination and transport so as to make it economically possible to turn the deserts 1000 miles from any desert seacoast -- green. (this would increase the habitable size of the USA by a third and double the habitable size of Mexico.)This work is already ongoing and will be accomplished in five years or so--or in about the same time frame that GM promises to have a cost effective fuel cell car. For GM as it is for the GOP its do or die time.
The chief difference between the pubbies current predicament and flight 93 is that they are currently in the cockpit. (if you presume that bush is a republican or at least more of a republican than a bilderburger.)
The point here is that if these guys cannot act like loyal americans at least they can act like republicans. ie people who have a stake in the continuity of the republican party.
Since they are not doing this the republicans in the white house and senate all need to be smacked on both sides of the face and kicked in the but.
Yes, you are correct, many (some?) were.
REALITY?... a CRISIS?... O.K. multi million Brand New DEMOCRATS voting in the 2008 election.. either as illegal or legal aliens or new citizens.. not only may elect she who should not be named (Jaws theme).. or her minions in the house and senate.. or all three..
And THATS reality brother.. and a crisis... BUT Not if you're a democrat or a American misanthrope in the White RINO House..
The voteing demographics are rapidily changeing in America as we speak.. from republican to democrat.. Yes thats right from RINO to democrat.. Conservatives are or soon will be a die'ing party.. of paleo Americans.. The secret is RINOs are really democrats cross dressed.. Democrats know that, republicans DO NOT.. (mostly).. Compassionate conservatives a.k.a. the confused.. will be the last find this out.. but won't care anyway..
Rank and gross socialism is heading for America like a freight train.. and the driver is the White RINO House.. and a good part of Congress, especially the democrats.. and the trans-politicos (RINOs)..
You've confirmed once again that FReepers are well above the fray, able to respond with well-reasoned arguments (oftentimes spelled arguements just to make it interesting) never having read the article under discussion, effectively shooting from the hip before unholstering their weapon.
References? Links? We don't need no steeeenkin' links when we have our pal, ad hominem to fall back on.
Trust me.
BumPing!
Since you apparently are, maybe you will email Nick Gillespie and fill him in? I'm sure he'd appreciate it.
(His email link is in the article, under post #1 if you didn't see it the first time.)
Well, the traitors in the Senate want to legislate the admission into the U.S. of another 120 million immigrants over the next 20 years.
Neat, huh?
that'll be 25% non-born people comprising the American population.
real neat.
non-born = non-native born people
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.