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.
That comparison also qualifies as an insult to our intelligence.
There is no parallel between AMERICANS taking a drink and INVADERS violating our sovereignty and being rewarded for it with one of the most valuable things on earth: AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
One solution that has been offered is the "Nuclear Option" at the polls for the House for 2006. (Save the Senate for judicial nominees) Allow the Dems to take the House for the next two years as a message if this passes.
(No harm will be done with all the Dems hearings and investigations. That'll keep em busy for the next two years and they'll show their true colors for 2008.)
"They think you're stupid". -Herman Cain
Great article.He brings up some good points.TS:"Another insult to our intelligence...since we cannot find and deport 12 million people,the only choice left is to find some way to make them legal."That's simply a defeatist attitude propagated by the msm,dims,and pro-amnesty groups.It would take time,but if we secure the border(wall),and begin to deport illegals already here the problem will be solved over time.The big problem is getting everyone from the federal level on down on the same page.
The sad part of all of this is that the Afro-Americans that now do the majority of the concrete and block work and most of the other manual labor in construction will be out of work, replaced by imports that will work for less.
You may think my statement was an insult to your intelligence. But dozens of Freepers have been constantly asking me "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" Clearly, for them if not for you, the issue is more one of legality than of economics.
For them, my analogy is spot on. In the 30s they'd have been yelling about the kind of precedent it would set to make alcohol legal again.
Except that if the illegals begin "working legally," they'll have to be paid, I assume, some kind of minimum wage, thus leveling the playing field for Blacks.
I just find a vast difference between CITIZENS taking a drink of alcohol and FOREIGN NATIONALS trashing the sovereignty of the United States and being rewarded for it. Know what I mean?
The answer is they won't and you shouldn't. To be honest, I'm reaching a certain point of disinterest in this topic. They've shown their cards and it's obvious how this is going to go down. Whether a bill is passed or not, the effect is the same: Dems will eventually (sooner than later) take permanent power as a result of changing demographics.
Since the debate about the course of this nation is essentially over, there's better things to do like figuring out how to get a piece of the new pie. As any Calif conservative knows, they are no longer even part of the debate. So the real focus in on golf, fishing & surfing.
It will be interesting to see what leisure/entertainment industries/services emerge as the rest of the country gets used to these facts.
What about Wal-Mart, Target, etc and Home Dept? I reallly don't know for sure about them, just asking.
Tyson shut down that day the illegals demonstrated and I know there other companies, but can't remember them.
Every worker I have met at Targets in New Jersey, New York, or Washington State has at least had the ability to speak basic English, 95% being native born IME.
Not sure about Home Depot, as I never set foot in that sprawling hellhole.
Good for you. But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that you could somehow be persuaded that having 10 million low wage illegal workers in the country was good for our economy. If that were the case, then you wouldn't have a serious problem with decriminalizing their status, right?
ping
"Not sure about Home Depot, as I never set foot in that sprawling hellhole."
Hey, its a great place to buy concrete and scrap wood.
I don't buy anything else there.
But when will the glib phrase-mongers stop telling us that the illegals are simply taking "jobs that Americans won't do"?
Sowell is usually so right on. Sad to see his reasoning fail here.
Bush has also apparently learned that the word "amnesty" does not poll well. On Monday night, he angrily denounced the idea of amnesty just before proposing his own amnesty program. The difference between Bush's amnesty program and "amnesty" is: He'd give amnesty only to people who have been breaking our laws for many years — not just a few months. (It's the same program that allows Ted Kennedy to stay in the Senate.) -Ann Coulter..
And I'm on the other side of the issue because I take issue with his reasoning. So what?
Our national sovereignty and the value of the rule of law is beyond economic price.
Except that if the illegals begin "working legally," they'll have to be paid, I assume, some kind of minimum wage
The point being that his reasoning is fine. The idea of you taking exception to it has no bearing on wether his reasoning is failing.
It would be like asking Michael Moore to give a balanced view of conservatives in his next movie.
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.