Posted on 05/24/2007 12:57:12 AM PDT by ruination
Compromise is incessantly praised, and has produced the proposed immigration legislation. But compromise is the mother of complexity, which, regarding immigration, virtually guarantees — as the public understands — weak enforcement and noncompliance.
Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has slowly come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.
In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?
Concentrate on border control, and workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.
Under current immigration policies, America is importing another underclass, one "with the potential to expand indefinitely," according to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute. To sentimentalists who cling to "the myth of the redeeming power of Hispanic family values, the Hispanic work ethic, and Hispanic virtue," she says:
From 1990 to 2004, Hispanics accounted for 92 percent of the increase in poor people. Only 53 percent of Hispanics earn high school diplomas, the lowest among American ethnic groups. Half of all children born to Hispanic-Americans in 2005 were born out of wedlock — a reliable predictor of social pathologies.
The legislation supposedly would shift policy from emphasizing family unification to emphasizing economic criteria (skills) when setting eligibility for immigrants. Critics will say this will sunder families. But the sundering has happened; it was done by illegal immigrants who left family members behind and are free to reunite with their families where they left them.
Anyway, the supposed shift from emphasizing family relations — the emphasis that results in "chain migration" — to economic merit may be diluted to nothingness. It is highly suspicious that there was a rush — fortunately stymied — to pass this legislation through both houses and get it to conference, where the majority of participants will be Democrats eager to court Hispanic votes.
Some Democrats argue that liberalism's teetering achievement, the welfare state, requires liberal immigration policies. The argument is: Today there are only 3.3 workers for every retiree. In January, the first of 77 million baby boomers begin to retire. By the time they have retired, in 2030, there will be 2.2 workers for every retiree — but only if the work force is replenished by 900,000 immigrants a year.
On Monday, however, Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation stunned some senators who heard his argument that continuing, under family-based immigration, to import a low-skilled population will cost the welfare state far more than the immigrants' contributions to the economy and government. He argued that low-skilled immigrants are costly to the welfare state at every point in their life cycle, and are very costly when elderly. Just the 9 million to 10 million illegal adults already here will, if given amnesty, cost an average of $300,000 — cumulatively, more than $2.5 trillion — in various entitlements (Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.) over 30 years.
To those who say border control is impossible — often these are the same people who said better policing could not substantially reduce crime, until it did — one answer is: It took just 34 months for the Manhattan Project to progress from the creation of the town of Oak Ridge in the Tennessee wilderness to the atomic explosion at Alamogordo, N.M. That is what America accomplishes when serious.
In an attempt to anesthetize people who sensibly say "border control and workplace enforcement first," important provisions of the legislation would supposedly be "triggered" only when control of the border is "certified" by the president. But in what looks like a parody of the Washington mentality, certification would be triggered not by border control but by the hiring of border control agents and other spending. So, the supposedly hardheaded aspects of the legislation actually rest on the delusion that spending equals the achievement of the intention behind the spending. By that assumption, we have long since tranquilized and democratized Iraq.
>>”underclass?”
woe to us who now use this highbrow terminology to couch our bigotry.<<
I find the term “underclass” quite appropriate, and not in the least “bigoted.”
They do not speak English and display little willingness to learn it.
They have the highest illegitimacy rate of any minority.
They have the lowest educational level and the poorest occupational skills of any minority.
They have the highest crime rate of any minority.
They will undoubtedly make the (proportionately) highest use of our social benefits, while at the same time making the lowest contributions to it.
America does not need to import this new underclass.
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them.
ping
Enough said.
They? Who are they?
We all know you are talking about Mexican immigrants, so let me correct you, if I may, by way of some experience.
The overwhelming majority of Mexican immigrants I meet insist on learning and speaking English, and several have told me so explicitly, politely stating that they'd prefer that than speaking to me in Spanish.
Those I have worked with demostrated unfailing aptitude for any task given them, and a creditable work ethic.
All were unswervingly devoted to their families. Most were far better at attendance than any of the white men I worked with.
In short they possessed in admirable fashion the makings of great citizens, ones I would be proud to call fellow Americans. Incidentall, if allowed to vote, "they" would vote largely republican.
Your remarks are woefully misinformed. They certainly don't jive with my experience, and frankly I trust the veracity of that far more.
Unless your ancestors came over on the Mayflower, and perhaps even if they did, someone, somewhere, called them "underclass," too.
You strike me as an out and out bigot and your sentiments are a scourge to conservatism.
Thanks for the anecdotal “evidence.”
The hard, cold statistics belie your “warm, fuzzy feelings” towards these illegal invaders.
Yes, these teeming hordes of illegal aliens (and it was only to THEM that I was referring - not to Hispanics per se... how presumptuous of you to assume that I meant any particular ethnicity!) will definitely prove a GREAT asset to our country.
FYI: I am myself not a citizen of my country of residence. But I AM a legal resident.
Further, I have no doubt that many of my ancestors belonged to an “underclass.”
Meanwhile, your shrill accusations of bigotry fall on deaf ears.
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.