Posted on 05/23/2006 8:25:20 AM PDT by Gordongekko909
The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country. Yet it is not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media. Instead, it is being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.
Some of the most momentous consequences -- a major increase in the number of immigrants admitted legally -- are not even being discussed at all by those who wrote the Senate bill, though Senator Jeff Sessions has uncovered those provisions in the bill and brought them out into the light of day.
How many times have we heard that illegal aliens are taking "jobs that Americans won't do"? Just what specifically are those jobs?
Even in occupations where illegals are concentrated, such as agriculture, cleaning, construction, and food preparation, the great majority of the work is still being done by people who are not illegal aliens.
The highest concentration of illegals is in agriculture, where they are 24 percent of the people employed. That means three-quarters of the people are not illegal aliens. But when will the glib phrase-mongers stop telling us that the illegals are simply taking "jobs that Americans won't do"?
Another insult to our intelligence is that amnesty is not amnesty if you call it something else. The fact that illegals will have to fulfill certain requirements to become American citizens is supposed to mean that this is not amnesty.
But let's do what the spinmeisters hope we will never do -- stop and think. Amnesty is overlooking ("forgetting," as in amnesia) the violation of the law committed by those who have crossed our borders illegally.
The fact that there are requirements for getting American citizenship is a separate issue entirely. Illegal aliens who do not choose to seek American citizenship are under no more jeopardy than before. They have de facto amnesty.
Yet another insult to our intelligence is saying that, since we cannot find and deport 12 million people, the only choice left is to find some way to make them legal.
There is probably no category of law-breakers -- from counterfeiters to burglars or from jay-walkers to murderers -- who can all be found and arrested. But no one suggests that we must therefore make what they have done legal.
Such an argument would suggest that there is nothing in between 100 percent effective law enforcement and zero percent effective law enforcement.
The reverse twist on this argument is that suddenly taking 12 million people out of the labor force would disrupt the economy. No one has ever said -- or probably even dreamed -- that we could suddenly find all 12 million illegal immigrants at once and send them all home immediately. This is another straw man argument.
The real question is what we do with whatever illegal aliens we do find. Right now, there are various communities around the country where local officials have a policy of forbidding the police from reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
Why are people who are so gung ho for punishing employers so utterly silent about needing to punish government officials who openly and deliberately violate federal laws?
Employers, after all, are not in the business of law enforcement.
If some guy who runs a hardware store or a dry cleaning business hires someone who shows some forged documents, why should the employer be fined for not being able to tell the difference, when government officials who can tell the difference are not doing anything -- or are even actively obstructing federal laws?
Putting unarmed national guardsmen on the border is another cosmetic move, a placebo instead of real medicine. The excuse is that it is not possible to train more than 1,500 border patrol agents a year. Meanwhile, we have trained well over 200,000 Iraqi security forces while guerilla warfare raged around them.
You can put a million people on the border and it will mean nothing if those who are caught are simply turned loose and sent back to try again tomorrow -- or perhaps later the same day.
I think that the market wage would be above the minimum wage without the illegal aliens bring it down.
The politicans that cry it is impossible to deport 12 million illegals must be voted out in favor of politicans who know we can indeed deport 12 million illegals. Clearly, the word "can't" really means "won't."
Your "Bush has done more for conservatives with judges" reminds of the same arguments made when Souter and O'Conner were appointed.
Meanwhile, in little towns such as mine, businesses (and banks) are being hit with counterfeit $50s and $100s - the new bills!
Nothing wrong with his logic. If that 24% is gone the market will respond with higher wages until they have enough workers. I will pay $1.50 cents for a head of lettuce instead of $1.00 if that is what it takes.
ping
I wish he'd run so I could vote for him!
Another insult to our intelligence is that amnesty is not amnesty if you call it something else.
It is either a green card, or in a brilliant epiphany, an orange card. Or another, there are so many colors to chose from. If this continues, they all need to go. I propose to those that understand this horrible little game and find this outrageous, that they commit to sending $5 to every House and Senate challenger, regardless of party affiliation, during the upcoming elections. Just $5, or $3, just help stop the constant reelection of R's and D's that care nothing about what you, the voting public demand.
We cycle through enough of those willing to do the "public service" and we may find an honest individual. That could take 200 years, but we keep trying.
Otherwise, it's Jeb Bush for Pres. of Mexico and Fox in the Cali Senate seat. You want that?
Well it certainly would be hilarious, if you think about it.
Tom Sowell knocks one out of the park!! Common sense from Sowell. He cuts through the BS on immigration we get from the overpaid hacks in DC
"That is a lie. "
My understanding is that prior to the late 1800s, one need only come to America and fill out a form. I believe we did essentially have open borders then. I don't advocate this today.
What's clear is that no one here really wants to discuss this. You and so many others are just knee jerkers when it comes to this topic. I take issue with Sowell, and the first thing out of so many poster's is crap like (paraphrasing here) "you're just like Michael Moore" or "you're a liar." Moreover, I don't think anyone recognized that my Prohibition analogy was not aimed at saying illegal immigration was exactly like illegal drinking. The point was that they both represent attempts to use pragmatic legislation to solve a problem with lawbreaking.
Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Where are the reasonable people around here?
"If the latter, who will the employers hire then?"
My sense is that if they become legal, they'll have to be paid the min. wage for ag. work. If so, my guess is that employers will hire those they believe are most skilled, dependable, first to apply, etc., assuming the jobs are still worth paying wages for.
Or, if employers find they can't afford those higher wages, the jobs will disappear or be done by machines.
"Clearly, the word "can't"really means "won't"...."Exactly.I think the strategy behind all the defeatist talk(ie deportation is impossible,our economy depends on illegals,etc,etc)is simply an attempt to fragment the American public who overwhelmingly want illegals deported.
Great question.
My understanding is that prior to the late 1800s, one need only come to America and fill out a form. I believe we did essentially have open borders then. I don't advocate this today.
Again, it depended on "who" was filling out the form so to speak. For example, in the mid-1800's, the bulk of the Chinese immigrants that came over here to work on the railroads were essentially "owned" by the companies that sponsored them. They were basically indentured servants to their corporate sponsors (that makes their immigration experience not a very practical example for today). As the railroad system neared completion they started to curtail the flow of Chinese laborers to this country. There were issues with Irish Catholic immigrants coming to this country as well. Some groups were granted greater access than other groups due to demographic considerations. This is the way it was with every other sovereign nation.
What's clear is that no one here really wants to discuss this. You and so many others are just knee jerkers when it comes to this topic. I take issue with Sowell, and the first thing out of so many poster's is crap like (paraphrasing here) "you're just like Michael Moore" or "you're a liar." Moreover, I don't think anyone recognized that my Prohibition analogy was not aimed at saying illegal immigration was exactly like illegal drinking. The point was that they both represent attempts to use pragmatic legislation to solve a problem with lawbreaking.
We are not "knee-jerkers". We are simply pointing out the fallacies of your arguments. Comparing immigration to Prohibition was a poor analogy because you are simply comparing apples to oranges. Even you have begun to recognize this and are trying to slowly disengage yourself from your example ("...my Prohibition analogy was not aimed at saying illegal immigration was exactly like illegal drinking.").
The U.S. already takes in more immigrants every year than any other country in the world. That is more than enough . And over the past three decades we have not done it in a very responsible manner. That is why we ( the reform advocates) are now pushing for comprehensive immigration reform that does not include amnesty for millions of illegals. Why cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the '86 legislation.
YES!
"We are not "knee-jerkers". We are simply pointing out the fallacies of your arguments. "
Clearly your post here indicates you are not a knee-jerker. I have no problem with people pointing out flaws in my argument. But I've been called a liar, compared to Michael Moore, and had my intelligence questioned for simply raising points of contention with Sowell. The prohibition analogy was not about equating the intensity of the problem or the potential damage of the problem. It was about Sowell's implicit assertion that it was an "insult" to say we were incapable of deporting millions of illegal Mexicans.
That's not a "disengagement" -- it's a statement of fact about the intent of the analogy. The knee-jerkers read it differently, as an equation of the two kinds of illegal behaviors. If you think about it more, I'm sure you'll see this.
I do believe in comprehensive reform. But I lean toward President Bush's proposal as being more realistic and more in our national interest in the long run. I want border security strengthened, but I do not wish to see the razor wire fence envisioned by some people here.
One other thing that distinguishes me from a lot of people here--and this goes back to the Prohibition thing. I do not view the fact that these millions of Mexicans "broke our laws" by illegally crossing the border and working here as evidence of their moral or ethical character. Were I in their shoes, I would very likely try to do the same thing. This recognition man's desire to work, survive, and feed a family seemed to be (surprisingly) absent from Sowell's column.
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.