Immigration Is Not National Security: Lack of It Imperils the Nation

Policy Review ^ | Dec 2006 | Mary Eberstadt

[varon]

Of course, we have the silly theorists here who get all worked up about the Mexican Border, where infiltration by Islamists is not much of a hazard, and forgetting about Canada, where it is.

And then we have posters here that don't understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL regardless of which country they're from and which border they cross. Jeeeez!!!

[arnoldfwilliams]

And then we have posters here that don't understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL regardless of which country they're from and which border they cross. Jeeeez!!!

Ok, fine, issue them a citation, let them pay a fine. Or do you assert that every violation of any law is a capital felony?

[wolfcreek]

"There are no illegal aliens in my client list: they don't buy shopping centers, or set up office buildings, or renovate the apartments I find loans for."


You would probably be surprised to know how many illegals are doing the work you just described. You're profitting from illegal workers as We type.

[DTogo]

That's because we have sensible laws on coffee import. We don't have sensible laws on people.

Funny, I live with/amongst a LOT of LEGAL immigrants that obeyed the law.

we don't have the luxury of sweeping through and arresting everyone

If we have the "luxury" of liberating 60M Muslims we were told could never be done, on the opposite side of the earth, why can't we enforce our own laws at home? Oh, that's right, because very few in Washington have the cajones to do so...

[VOA]

Immigration Is Not National Security: Lack of It Imperils the Nation

Mary Eberstadt...we take more immigrants per year LEGALLY than
just about the rest of the world combined.

Idiot!

[arnoldfwilliams]

"You would probably be surprised to know how many illegals are doing the work you just described. You're profitting from illegal workers as We type."

You'd be surprised to find out how many construction loans are negotiated through Union pension plans. Let me suggest, gently, that there are requirements about who works for these projects as part of the loan. Be careful as you assume: the Colonias don't get my help, either. I don't assume tnat any of you rents space in office buildings that hire illegal aliens as janitorial services (after all, there are auditors for that sort of thing in my area, now), nor do I assume that any of you wash your cars at commercial carwashes that employ illegal aliens, or eat bacon packed by Swift, nor do I assume that you torture puppies in your basement for fun. Would I be wrong?

[Silly]

And of course, we all know that only Latinos can penetrate our southern border.

[arnoldfwilliams]

"Oh, that's right, because very few in Washington have the cajones to do so..."

Then elect different ones.

And prepare for the labor shortages elsewhere while we go through the grim arithmetic of trying to add enough policemen, secretaries, supervisors, inspectors, busdrivers, jailers, jails, and holding pens to transport 12 million people: but don't make it too permanent, you're going to fire them when they're done. Doesn't sound practical. Let's choose a bit among who we have, and work that way.

[arnoldfwilliams]

And of course, we all know that only Latinos can penetrate our southern border

At 15 a year (Tuscon jurisdiction), you're using too many people to catch them. If that is your focus, there are better ways to do it. Quit distracting the Border Patrol with immigration. Unless you think that they should all be there to catch one.

[arnoldfwilliams]

we take more immigrants per year LEGALLY than just about the rest of the world combined.

And more than that illegally, and still we're running behind.

[Silly]

Quit distracting the Border Patrol with immigration.

We need more, not less, integration and cooperation of agencies, imho. Seperating BP from IMM is like seperating the FBI from the CIA.

[wolfcreek]

"Let me suggest, gently, that there are requirements about who works for these projects as part of the loan."


Don't kid yourself! (or us) One thing I've found since the illegal immigration problem has raised it's ugly head....most proponents of an open border-amnesty policy have the most to gain financially.

[wolfcreek]

"eat bacon packed by Swift,"

Wouldn't that be a bad analogy? Seems to me, Swift is unionized. The Unions are licking their chops for amnesty.

[mthom]

"Quit distracting the Border Patrol with immigration."

You suggest we meet mexican demand for immigration instead of enforcing immigration law at the border. You must know that the country will not go along with unlimited immigration. So if your desired solution were adopted immigration from the rest of the world would not be increased and likely reduced. How "pro-immigrant".

[DTogo]

while we go through the grim arithmetic of trying to add enough policemen, secretaries, supervisors, inspectors, busdrivers, jailers, jails, and holding pens to transport 12 million people

As opposed to the grim arithmetic of having these same Americans deal with the 12M+ people here ILLEGALLY; who need schools for their children, healthcare, a residence, drivers license, a car, space to drive on the crowded highways, etc. Why do us law-abiding Americans have to pay for all that with OUR taxes??

Have you ever lived/worked overseas, legally or otherwise?

[VOA]

And more than that illegally, and still we're running behind.

Yes.
We're lagging places like Australian and New Zealand in being
leaders in mechanized agriculture in the 21st century.

But why bother? We've got a de facto slave labor force
that is compliant and exploitable.
Why waste money in capital investment and R&D?

[arnoldfwilliams]

As opposed to the grim arithmetic of having these same Americans deal with the 12M+ people here ILLEGALLY; who need schools for their children, healthcare, a residence, drivers license, a car, space to drive on the crowded highways, etc. Why do us law-abiding Americans have to pay for all that with OUR taxes??

Cute. You do realize that you don't provide cars and driver's licenses, and that schools, healthcare, subsidized residences and highway space are paid for in taxes that all immigrants pay, illegal or not: but it's nice rhetoric.

You might also realize that educating their children is a good way to get tax money out of the children, as well as ensuring that you have people available for other productive work. But who's quibbling?

What you have to understand, though, is that capitalizing "ILLEGALLY" and screaming about it would have more effect if it were a morally, rather than economically, based statute. It's illegal because you want it to be. That you can then scream "Criminals!" allows you to assure yourself that this is the James Gang out to destroy society, and keep up the moral confusion.

The fact that the statute is based on economic considerations, however, ought to cue you to the idea that the correct approach to applying, and reforming it, is to study the economy that you are regulating part of. So far, all I see is handwaving from you: and from Nobel-prize winning economists, I see lists of benefits, with some cautions about the 819,000 mentioned earlier.

[arnoldfwilliams]

You suggest we meet mexican demand for immigration instead of enforcing immigration law at the border. You must know that the country will not go along with unlimited immigration. So if your desired solution were adopted immigration from the rest of the world would not be increased and likely reduced. How "pro-immigrant".

Actually, I'm suggesting that you quit fooling yourself that it's a security, rather than an economic issue. Re-read the prior post. Or, don't bother. You've got your pigeonhole, why think?

[arnoldfwilliams]

....most proponents of an open border-amnesty policy have the most to gain financially

Your suspicions are, like everyone who denies the rule of economics, misplaced economics. Suffice it to say that I have a friend who has run a local body shop for years, and he isn't hiring any illegal aliens: yes, they'd be cheaper. But he doesn't want to operate that way. Economics does not trump everything: it merely indicates that opposing values may have different consequences, and that certain "obvious" thoughts dont' hang together very well. See, for example, Ricardo's Difficult Idea

[mthom]

I never claimed it was security. "Quit bothering the border patrol with immigration" Is clear in its suggestion a particular policy and I was referring to that policy.