Posted on 07/24/2006 6:02:35 AM PDT by PDR
In trying to reconcile two dramatically different bills addressing illegal immigration, Congress is in danger of forgetting an important lesson of life on the southern U.S. border: whatever legislators do has to recognize the reality on the ground. In part, that means understanding that the millions of crossings every year by illegal aliens will be curbed only if the problem can be made manageable. Right now, with Border Patrol agents trying to apprehend potential busboys and gardeners along with terrorists and gang members, the problem is too big for any law enforcement agency in a democratic society to tackle.
Those who believe an enforcement-only approach to the flow of illegal aliens--the basic approach of the House-passed bill--is sufficient should recall that in 1969 President Richard Nixon visited the Mexican border to declare a "zero tolerance" policy on drug smuggling. Operation Intercept deployed thousands of additional Border Patrol, Customs Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service agents along the 2,000-mile border and subjected every passenger and cargo vehicle to a thorough search, creating a nightmare for millions of legal commuters and truck drivers. The unworkable program was soon moderated, but the resources were shifted to Nixon's vaunted "War on Drugs." For the past 37 years, billions have been spent to halt the flow of drug trafficking. Anyone who thinks the program has been successful in stopping the flow is likely under the influence of one of the substances Nixon was trying to stop.
The truth is that there is so much money to be made in smuggling both drugs and people across our southern border that even the tripling of the size and budget of the Border Patrol in the past decade has done little to stem the flow...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Ping.
It's not really "enforcement only". It's "enforcement first". By FIRST showing that the government will enforce existing law, and will pursue that enforcement aggressively, perhaps the politicians may be able to convince us that their other ideas - which will ONLY work with effective border enforcement - could be contemplated.
I want to keep out anyone who doesn't belong here. That means ANYONE who does not have legal permission to be in the U.S.
I don't disagree with you on that point... though I would not call most of the proposals out there "amnesty" -- from a political standpoint, there needs to be a sense that the broder is secure before the country will agree to move ahead with pro-growth, sensible immigration reform.
Howard - is that you?
This quote from the article is pure bullshite.
America can do what ever it wants to secure the Southern boirder as a matter of sovereignty. The easiest solution is simply to invade Northern Mexico and secure an administrative buffer zone occupied by US troops, a solution which would have a basis in International law and precedent. Mexico has a duty to contain its citizens,and instead it promotes the exodus of 15 per cent of its work force.
All Americs needs is the will to solve the problem and that means keeping illegals out. Making them felons would be a beginning, and shooting illegals as they attempt to cross is another, which BTW is what Mexico does if you or I failed to stop when hailed by Mexican border agents. Reciprocity with Mexico has not entered into the equation. Make illegal entry a felony and shoot those who try.
Exactly what does that mean?
One low-cost approach would be some serious employer sanctions ~ e.g. 25 to life, for example.
We could also begin dealing quite harshly with illegal aliens with dependent children ~ just take their kids away and adopt them out, or set up "national orphanages" where those children would be fed, housed and indoctrinated in the virtues of military service (kind of like the Janissaries in Turkey in the old days).
There are many, many, many "solutions" to the problem of convincing foreigners to learn to obey our laws.
Howard?
Fund, you are being disingenuous with your slanted argument: "enforcement only".
No one is saying "enforcement only" is the only solution. Those who are emphasizing 'enforcement' are saying 'enforcement first', and then other elements.
Come on, John Fund, you know better.
It is enforcement first, not only.
Peter, shame on you. Race-baiting again. Despicable. Loathesome even.
You and John Fund ARE the Usual Suspects on this issue. The WSJ's escalation of the derogatory rhetoric ...only highlights the fact that you, collectively, the NYT, the WSJ, the President and his entire political staff, Foggy Bottom, the Senate, all have lost this argument, as Cheney says, "Big Time." The People have reached a consensus. And it will not be shaken by an arrogant elite of New York (New Babylon) and Beltway lobbyists and pundits.
You've lost the argument as an intellectual case. Both factually and philoosphically. Your side is without merit. And you've lost it as a national political dialogue. The increasing hysterical shrillness of your position indicates the impending political correction which will end the influence of this arrogant elite of globalists. Hence your side's resort to broad-brush defamation and smears.
As we say in law, "if have the facts, argue facts, if you have law, argue law, and if you have neither 'baffle 'em with bull-shit!" The borderless world order folks, which you are apparenlty colluding with, have been steeped in B.S. now for six years...and are descending deeper as you dig in. Pretty soon, you'll all need a tunnel to see the surface.
As long as we're using the comparison, let me know when the Prez embraces drug legalization.
Saints be praised! An article that realizes that we do need to examine BOTH sides of this issue. I am all for enforcement, and the hubris of these lawbreakers never fails to get my goat, but recoginizing that we will never completely end the migration of people trying to better their lives is an important part of this equation.
Standard FROBL horse manure. From the article: "The unworkable program was soon moderated (in actual fact, terminated), but the resources were shifted to Nixon's vaunted "War on Drugs." For the past 37 years, billions have been spent to halt the flow of drug trafficking. Anyone who thinks the program has been successful in stopping the flow is likely under the influence of one of the substances Nixon was trying to stop.
Drugs are a LOT easier to conceal and smuggle than people. Increased enforcement will drastically slow the influx. Deportation will take care of the rest.
As to your slur, I don't give a damn WHAT color they are, or WHAT their ethnicity or nationality is--if they are illegal, deport'em.
Even though they are?
from a political standpoint, there needs to be a sense that the broder is secure before the country will agree to move ahead with pro-growth, sensible immigration reform.
And it has to be a perception grounded in reality. No more smoke and mirrors. Promises won't cut it. Only results will restore credibilty that has been burned to a crisp...and is blowing away never to return.
Fund has either mistakenly or dishonestly defined the issue.
His characterization of this issue is something like saying that people who want to turn off the water before fixing a water leak must be unconcerned with then addressing the damage.
No. We're just saying, "Resolve this matter in a way that makes sense."
I can only conclude that his agenda is to maintain the status quo, and that is bad public policy and unacceptable.
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.