You really didn't read the article, did you?
Posted on 05/21/2007 9:10:14 PM PDT by jazusamo
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Nothing is more common than political "solutions" to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.
The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people.
Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.
As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?
If the current immigration bill is as "realistic" as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?
We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it?
Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill.
Its advocates' argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.
The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.
Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.
For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice.
But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status?
Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society?
Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.
All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.
Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.
Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.
Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
This isn’t about cheap tomatoes...it’s about our country’s survival.
The WH is holding construction of the fence hostage to the passage of “comprehensive immigration reform.” That is despicable because national security is involved and it is inexcusable after 9/11.
enforce the law
Thanks
Can’t let up on the pressure, they will think we lost interest and aren’t dedicated enough to oppose this. Instead the opposite should be true, this should be an opportunity to reach out to our democrat neighbors who oppose this as well. Strange bedfellows is what is gonna beat this thing.
He did. But, surely, you don't believe that Dr. Sowell was ADVOCATING the practice, do you?
Our lettuce is cheaper because of undocumented labor, but our property taxes are higher, are streets are less safe, are hiways are certainly less safe, our insurance rates are higher, the education of our children suffers, our health-care costs more because of illegal immigration. So we pay thousands more at one end for cheaper lettuce at the other. That sounds like a royal screw job, if you ask me. These idiots in Washington want to bankrupt us so we can have cheaper salad bars. Some how, the logic of this escapes me.
inexcusable after 9/11.
yep
Exactly. A million bucks a pop for every violation; each individual illegal (criminal trespasser), for every violation. Make the most recent employer responsible for the subsequent behavior of any "between jobs" illegal who commits a felony.
No, he isn't. Dr. Sowell points out that, despite the fact that every crime is not solved, we still have deterrents to breaking any U.S. law.
He applies the same logic to this deceitful ploy the White House and some members of Congress advocate. That is, the honest approach to the illegal invasion sensibly demands that we seal our southern border first. That is the deterrent.
Only after that is accomplished, we must we deal with the problem of the millions of people who broke U.S. law by entering our country illegally.
Interesting quote. You have to figure that congressional leaders met before all this began and planned how they would rush it through and put one over on the public. But what were they telling each other about the real reason for passing it? Does it all come down to the Hispanic vote and campaign contributions from those who want cheap labor?
If we could be assured that they will never enter this country again, I suggest we skip the jail time and deport them immediately. They managed to get in here because our government has blatantly broken the laws already in place. Law-abiding taxpayers rightfully have no obligation to foot the bill to keep these foreigners in our prisons.
Frankly, I'm more willing to pay more for fruits and vegetables than have my tax dollars supporting a bloated government.
On the subject of "too" big government, can you imagine the number of government employees that will be needed to locate and issue "tamper-proof" ID cards to millions of illegal aliens here?
Aside from their laughable proposals, who even believes they'll get this right.
Enforce the laws, White House. The solution is right in front of you.
Agreed. Imprisonment and fences are bad ideas. The best thing to do is deny illegals the priveleges of those who are here legally. No welfare, no health care, no voting, no driving, no jobs. If those things are achieved, their home country might start to look a tad better.
You really didn't read the article, did you?
“When the jobs start drying up, most of the illegals will go home on their own.”
Or turn to crime or welfare. Those are often better alternatives than returning home to no job and no welfare. I think putting the onus on companies when it is the government which has failed in one of its principal functions: national defense, is misdirected. Many of these IIs use false IDs to demonstrate they are legal to employers. So now the employers have to be checking the validity of the IDs because the goverment has failed to keep these guys out?
Why do you think this has not been done so far? I believe some of the advocates of this bill are more concerned with their own political future. Others like the idea of a North American Union, i.e., one big continent with NO borders. Obviously, if so, they don't have a deep allegiance to the United States of America.
Then add in any who may simply want America destroyed.
I, George W. Bush, do solemny swear that I...will...preserve, protect and devend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Time to impeach.
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.