SAUNDERS: Bush talks big on the border

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/16/6 | Debra J. Saunders

[SmithL]

PRESIDENT BUSH is making a big mistake in announcing that he wants to send up to 6,000 National Guard troops to the southern border. What a shoddy way to say thank you to troops who have seen plenty of action in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina. It is also an insult to conservative and moderate voters, whom he apparently thinks this feckless gesture will appease.

The whole focus on the border shows that Bush is not serious about curbing illegal immigration. Washington already has increased the ranks of the Border Patrol, which is good. Meanwhile, as many as one third of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in America are visa violators. They didn't sneak over the border.

Want to find them? Want to discourage more people from coming to America so they can work here illegally? Squeeze employers.

In the private sector, Chicago attorney Howard Foster has masterminded class-action lawsuits on behalf of legal workers against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers with dubious documents and no English skills. Zirkle Fruit, a Washington-based apple-packing company, recently agreed to a settlement that will require it to compensate legal workers around $1.3 million for the wages they would have earned in a marketplace not depressed by illegal immigrants.

Why put Guardsmen at the border when the government doesn't even require that employers check with authorities to see if workers are legal? In 1997, Washington began work on the Basic Pilot program, which allows employers to check new hires' Social Security numbers. Problem is, Foster noted, Basic Pilot is "only voluntary. It's not mandatory. Congress doesn't want to make it mandatory, they don't want to burden employers with it."

[misterrob]

Different issues.

I would favor him declaring an emergency and mobilizing troops but to do so would be a huge step. Would conservatives have his back and the backs of anyone in Congress or the Senate who support this?

Secondly, he should have gone on TV last night with a dollar figure and talked a bit more about the role of technology.

Lastly, he should have made it clear to businesses that the days of cheap labor are over.

[Savage Beast]

Newt Gingrich offered the best plan yet for fortifying the border and halting and reversing illegal immigration--during a television interview with Tim Russert last week.

During the interview, he said that the Republicans have a 6-month window of opportunity to gain the public confidence and emerge victorious in the November 2006 elections.

The Republicans had better pay attention and not squander this opportunity!

The Democrats will say and do ANYTHING to take over Congress--and the Presidency in 2008--and either would bring disaster to the nation and the world.

To begin with: The Democrats will actively encourage open borders and illegal immigration because they expect them to enlarge the Democrat base support.

Meanwhile, the Republican base support is furious over the failure of the Republican Presidency and Congress to deal with a number of issues vital to the nation, notably: open borders; illegal immigration; government expansion; increased entitlement programs (the prescription drug plan, e.g.); litigation that has priced medical care out of the reach of everyone while enriching trial lawyers, major financial supporters of the Democrat Party; failure to nullify the Supreme Court's nefarious Eminent Domain decision, etc., et al.

The Republican base support will probably remain faithful to the Republican Party in November, despite its FURY because everyone knows that the Democrats will be FAR WORSE on every one of these issues, their election would bring about a national security disaster, and they are determined to sink America into the same catastrophic cesspool of decadence that has doomed Europe!

However, if President Bush's proposals to secure the border and end the problem of illegal immigration once and for all prove FECKLESS--if his actions fail the American people--if his promises to solve this problem prove insincere--it will become obvious immediately, and the fury of the Republican base support will become a tsunami!!!

If the Republicans have any brains at all--they will take these words to heart--take meaningful action--satisfy the demands of the American people, especially Middle America, the Republican base support--and avoid a Republican--and National--disaster this coming November!

The Republican Congress and Presidency had better pay attention to Middle America!

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT BE FOOLED! AND THEIR PATIENCE IS RAPIDLY RUNNING OUT!

[goldstategop]

The key to getting illegal aliens to go home is to squeeze employers hard. It can be done. But you know, we keep being informed there's work Americans won't do. Damn right. I won't do work at a wage that doesn't give me an incentive to work hard and save for the future. I'd work for a wage that gave me enough to live on.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[John Jorsett]

Squeeze employers.

Yes.

This can be done on the local level by pressuring local politicians to do so.

I've lost all confidence in politicians or our enforcement agencies having the guts to do anything about this problem. Much as I despise the plaintiff bar, I'm ready to consider passing laws that allow private parties to sue employers of illegals. If the employers come under attack by hordes of litigation privateers, it'll remove much of the incentive to hire illegals.

[trubluolyguy]

Lastly, he should have made it clear to businesses that the days of cheap labor are over.

---

Agreed

[reagan_fanatic]

[Darkwolf377]

That's a good idea. See THIS is why I love FR!

There is a restaurant near me that closed on the morning of that "Be Kind to (illegal) Immigrants Day" (or whatever) and I will never step foot in there, and am letting them know why.

We need to participate more, complain less.

[blitzgig]

We need a fence and we need to fine employers who hire illegals. That's the only way to get rid of the incentives for illegals to come here. If employers get the message that they will be in trouble for recuiting invaders, there won't be any more jobs to attract the scum from across the border. Add a fence to that and you've got a working formula.

[Hurricane]

Simple solution. Fall back and create a no-mans land. Set up armed OPs every 1000 yds. Shoot anything that comes across. It worked for GTMO. I saw it.

[ChiefJayStrongbow]

What about putting referendums on the state and local level regarding:
- severely fining employers who hire illegals, either directly or via contracting firms
- severely fining landlords that rent to illegals
- denying state reimbursements to hospitals that treat illegals, unless the illegal is turned over to the authorities
- denying state and county funding to any school that accepts illegals as students, including colleges where students have overstayed their visas
- severely fining judges and holding them in contempt for releasing illegals
- severely fining law enforcement officers who do not take known illegals into custody

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Or...just move the laws to accomodate lawbreakers. That should create more respect for our laws.

[Jim_Curtis]

Chicago attorney Howard Foster has masterminded class-action lawsuits on behalf of legal workers against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers

This is the solution for the public to fix the problem that our elected officials refuse to fix.

The outlaw businesses might be able to fool the government into believing they don't hire illegals but it will be much harder for them to convince juries.

Legitimate producers/contractors should also be compensated by the outlaw competitors because it depressed the value of their product/service.

[Darkwolf377]

These are great ideas--the problem is with state reps who don't want to hear about them. So the answer is to target sympathetic ones who WILL and are willing to make a name for themselves by championing illegal immigration. The emphasis should be on protecting those who play by the rules and became LEGAL immigrants.

It might be smart to pick ONE state rep for each state and focus our attention on him/her to push legislation; then we could call the others and focus them on that. It's useless to just call and say "Hey, don't support illegals" or whatever, they need their sites trained on ONE target, one specific goal.

[lemura]

I'm ready to consider passing laws that allow private parties to sue employers of illegals. If the employers come under attack by hordes of litigation privateers, it'll remove much of the incentive to hire illegals.

They already exist and we're already in process. As I've stated in the past, the way to attack illegal immigration is not via criminal prosecution (or lack thereof), but through the civil courts.

Plaintiff class-action attorneys may fund Democrats, but in the end, they're really entrepreneurs looking for the next 'big thing'. Foster pioneered extending RICO as a civil procedure - right now there's a mad rush in the legal biz to figure out how to get a slice of the coming illegal alien litigation pie.

Think about who's going to be sitting in the jury box - a lot of pissed off Americans. No one has to prove intent (the criminal threshold) - only damage.

[Darkwolf377]

P.S. I realized when I rewrote my last post I clipped a couple of lines, what I meant was that referenda were the number one goal BUT it would be useful to also push for such aims in legislation--in fact, it'd be interesting as a way of getting the issue moving by having both, so people could choose which seemed best as a solution.

Great, GREAT ideas you've got there.

[sinkspur]

Plaintiff class-action attorneys may fund Democrats, but in the end, they're really entrepreneurs looking for the next 'big thing'. Foster pioneered extending RICO as a civil procedure - right now there's a mad rush in the legal biz to figure out how to get a slice of the coming illegal alien litigation pie.

And you'll help fund Democrats by getting in bed with these sleazeballs, won't you?

With the ID card and a foolproof SS verification system, Congress will also insulate employers from lawsuits if they act in good faith, just as they've insulated junk food producers and gun manufacturers.

Better get on this shyster bandwagon now, lemura, while you still can. It will go away very quickly.

[Barney Gumble]

But then that wouldn't be compassionate would it.

Studies show that while mainstream Americans favor tolerance for liberal ideas -- like increasing government control of schools and tax-funded prescription drugs -- they would rather call it something else, like "compassionate conservatism." http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001115.html

[Digger]

One thing I noticed about that speech was the "up to" 6000 troops. I have a feeling this is the same as those walkie-talkies I have that operate "up to" 2 miles apart. I'm lucky if they go a fourth of that.

New York city has 35,000 cops. I believe they have weapons also. What a frick'in joke! Your poor children & grandchildren. If you have any desire for their future we have to physically get in the faces of these CONgress critters. This can't be implemented. Who will organize it. Please, someone with clout come forward.

[varon]

PRESIDENT BUSH is making a big mistake in announcing that he wants to send up to 6,000 National Guard troops to the southern border.

I don't trust Bush any farther than I can throw him, especially when it comes to illegal immigration and border issues and therefore I question his bold statement of 6,000 troops to the border.

Mr. President, do you mean that the 6,00 troop level will be maintained for the entire 12 month period as the NG rotates in for their 2 week annual training exercises or are you being a crafty political bull sh*tter and what really will happen at the most is 500 troops per month spread out all along the border, in which case, for all the good they'll do, allow them to train in their regular training grounds and apply the funds toward fence construction.

[pawdoggie]

If the House holds firm against the competing Senate bills (so that no "Immigration Reform Bill" materializes), then we may yet have a de facto "enforcement first" policy in the sense that the "temporary" Guardsmen will still go to the border, the Border Patrol (suitably reinforced) will still be expected to arrest and/or turn back an even larger number of illegals, and there will still be some pressure on Vicente Fox to control the coyotes (at least) until after the congressional elections. When the effects of increased enforcement (or the lack thereof) are made known to the American people, the demand for even more enforcement will grow into a cacophony that not even the President can ignore.