Posted on 11/23/2011 10:32:54 AM PST by TBBT
All he said was, “Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.” That was my reaction last night when Newt Gingrich argued that the federal government should refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for many years if the effect would be the break up of a family.
I did not take him to be proposing a new law conferring amnesty. To do what the former Speaker proposed would require no change in U.S. law. All you’d need is the sensible application of prosecutorial discretion.
A successful immigration enforcement policy, easily implemented under current law, would secure the borders; use the capability we have to track aliens who enter on visas to ensure that they don’t overstay; and target our finite law enforcement resources at (a) illegal immigrants who violate federal or state criminal laws (i.e., other than the laws against illegal entry), and (b) employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and therefore provide the incentive that induces them to come. (An even better policy would deny illegal immigrants various social welfare benefits, but some of that would involve changes in the law so I put it to the side for present purposes.)
Such a policy would materially reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. — if they can’t work, many will leave and many won’t come in the first place. Such a policy would also call on government lawyers to exercise discretion (as they do in all aspects of law-enforcement) to decide which cases are worth prosecuting. Obviously, if an alien has been here illegally for a number of years but has been essentially law-abiding (again, ignoring the fact that it is illegal for him to reside and work in the U.S.), and if his ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
National Review was touting Jeb Bush a few months ago. Thankfully, I have never subscribed to that magazine. It is garbage like The Weekly Standard.
Radopolis, your arguements would be funny were they not so pathetic. Scotsman, you are correct, but that is not the way the market works. There will always be hidden costs ... that is the nature of any government regulation and the core of crony capitalism. The key is to try to minimalize them and make them equal across the board.
If you, as the consumer, had to pay the real cost of an apple, at such a rate that the US Citizen laborer would be willing to pick it, the US Citizen farmer would be willing to grow it, the US Corporation would be willing to accept for fertilizer and machinery and fuel, and the US Citizen transportation infrastructure would be willing to accept to ship it, and the US market would accept as profit to sell it, then you get a $10 apple. The key in all this is each part of the chain has a profit motive, and just because you are hungry, it does not mean they should go without profit. Were I the liberal you claim I am, we would simply say everyone accept less profit (or no profit), and we would all be happy as part of OWS, not the Tea Party.
Now, the US farmer is competing with farmers from around the world ... have you ever bought any Chilean produce? How is it they can grow it, pick it, and ship it to the US and still be cheaper? Simple, our cost of living, which includes the hidden costs you infer Scotsman, are built into our costs, whereas the Chilean’s only have the last mile of costs to incur ... shipping from the port to the grocer and the grocer’s profit. Thier cost of labor, land, fuel, etc is all lower than ours. Part of this is true lower direct costs, part of this is government subsidy and “free trade zones”. That is how a country paying $5/gal for gas can still undercut our prices.
Real economics (which by the way Rad, unlike you, I studied Econ and know what I am talking about) accepts the fact that if we actually charged what things actually cost, we would have REAL runaway inflation, because what the government has done for the last century is subsidize FOOD. You get rid of farm subsidies in this country overnight, and even if you have a job, you will not be able to afford to eat!
This is the gordian knot that the socialists built into our system, and idealogs like you want a sound bite answer and I am sorry, but it does not exist. That does not make me a liberal, it means I know what I am talking about. It is going to take real fortitude in the part of our leaders to unbreak this egg, and it is going to take time. You start one step at a time, and the Guest worker program, if properly managed, is that first step. Again, the reason it has not worked up to this point is that the D’s have no desire to see the illegals go home. They want them to vote.
Register them, set up a check in - check out process, let them work for piece-meal, and then you start to cut into the other hidden costs that you are talking about Scots ... we at least go from year round services to partial year services. Next you cut off citizen benefits.
This cannot happen overnight folks ... there needs to be a strategy, and under the strategy tactics. Sound bites mean nothing. Newt has laid out the clearest strategy that gets us to our goal. Like I said, his plan is actionable ... so rather than trying to smash Newt, how about you tell me what your candidate would do different, and back it up with thier words, not just what you believe. What you are going to find is, most of them stop at “Humane”. Sarah did, Cain did ... they both said that word, and described a high level plan similar to Newt (some would get to stay) ... but Newt described what he meant by Humane. Sarah and Cain did not.
That may be what he did, but that is not what he said. If you are correct (I have not taken the time to validate your claim), then his problem is that he cant communicate very well.
Let’s be humane in the enforcement of breaking and entering laws. If the alleged perpetrator has been a good citizen for 25 years or more, then it’s excusable. And if he’s unemployed or underemployed and he’s only trying to feed his family, then it’s only humane that we let him go. And we should allow him an extra ballot in the next election.
That is an excellent and accurate post, RainMan.
It’s obvious that you and your bride were paying attention.
I did note that you were very kind in using “misinterpretation” when describing what Bachman had said. I, however, will not be so kind... Bachman lied.
She has been lying about this ever since. Bachmann is desperate, so I expect her to continue spreading this lie.
Cheers.......
If you pay someone $10 per hour to pick apples, it will cost ONE CENT per pound for that labor.
If you pay someone $20 per hour to pick apples, it will cost TWO CENTS per pound for that labor.
You may want to reconsider your allegations.
You are talking out of your arse.
1. The US has traditionally subsidized agriculture to boost prices, not lower them. The entire point of the Food Stamp program was to give away surplus food supplies to the poor. So your notion that we need illegals to keep food costs down is a bogus one.
2. There is no evidence of food inflation before the illegal invasion of the last 30 years when Americans grew their own food.
I dare you to go pull out the charts over the last 50 years documenting food inflation to defend your theory.
3. Most countries in the world grow their own food without the support of illegals and have no food cost inflation as a result of their relatively high paid domestic workforce, notably in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and Europe, where no Mexican illegals are growing their food, yet they all seem to be able to feed their populations at a low cost.
4. You harp on about the hidden costs of US subsidized agriculture, yet complete ignore the economic and social costs of the state supporting illegals in education, health care, housing, and welfare.
How many Americans would trade more expensive produce for the lower public sector costs of taking care of the illegals?
I dare you to break down the cost per American of having domestically grown food versus the cost per American to publicly subsidize an illegal.
5. We have 13 million illegals in this country and there are only a 2 million people at most who work in agriculture, and the United States already gives out tens of thousands of AG visas out a year.
6. Most agricultural communities already have doubt digit unemployment. What will make you happy, when farm communities have 50% unemployment instead of 25%?
You have no clue what you are talking about and just spew your La Raza liberal propaganda because you have no loyalty to this country or the American people.
You can’t even make an honest, open borders economic argument in defense of your Free Traitor theories.
It was just an example.
He proposed amnesty is legalizing illegals. This invites more parasites and the next step would be to demand citizenship. Why should be allow them to win the first round?
Secure the border
Mandate e-verify
Streamline deportation proceedings
I like that plan (the “Red Card”) and it actually addresses what I’ve long felt to be the BIG immigration problem, one of loyalty and culture. If you want to be an American someday, we should treat you differently than if you’re just using us for our labor market to send money back to East Bumwipeistan.
IMHO, fully enforcing E-Verify would cause millions of illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., and fully protecting the U.S. borders (yes, with Canada, too, as well as along both ocean coasts) would cause millions of more illegal immigrants to leave, too. If and when the U.S., finally, fully enforces the present laws about illegal immigration, then illegal immigrants will respond by leaving the U.S., and it, also, wouldn’t stop legal immigration from continuing to take place as well as being improved upon, for the short-term and long-term. Same federal U.S. laws for everybody, equally and always, is the long-term goal for the entire U.S.
The only one talking out of thier arse is you bucko. Call me whatever names you want, you are full of it.
1. Subsidies do not boost prices, they keep them low (affordable). Tariffs boost prices moron. That is why the push for free trade zones.
2. The problem started before 1981. Go back to the 30’s and 40’s look at Cheese subsidies. The goal was to feed the poor, so the government bought cheese at market rate, then gave it to the poor. This morphed into the infamous paying farmers to not grow crops, under the auspices that it would prevent the next dust bowl (crop rotation). Your timeframe is dishonest.
3. Most countries did not embark on the social engineering programs that we did in the 30s and 40s. Take away the government subsidy infrastructure, and we would all be used to paying more for food.
4. You did not see me address the hidden costs of regulation ... can you not read?
4a. Very few would be willing to pay higher costs day in day out without complaining ... it is called inflation, and if it starts in one sector of the economy, it transfers to other sectors. You might want to read up on it some day ... just sayin.
5. And your point is ...
6. See below. Locals wont work for farm wages, even with high unemployment.
This article is from 11/9/11, talking about how apples are rotting on the trees because the season was late and the illegals moved on to other crops, and the locals who are unemployed dont want to work for those wages.
Our financial problems have many causes, but the overall tent includes a very significant amount due to illegal immigrants sucking taxpayer dollars in dozens of "programs.".
Newt, and McCathy et al, I have a question.
If an illegal had been here 24 years and 6 months and it's "unreasonable" to deport him/her, what is reasonable?
Twenty years and 6 months?
Fifteen years and 6 months?
Ten years and 6 months?
Five years and 6 months?
Two years and 6 months?
One year?
Six months?
Six weeks?
Six days?
Six hours?
As for "separating families..."
It is entirely the illegal's choice when he/she is deported.
Take the rest of the family along.
Or leave them with legal immigrant residents.
Or abandon them altogether.
Why should I, other citizens and legal immingrant residents allow criminals (and their pandering politicians) impose an onerous burden on us?
1. You are utterly clueless. The federal government involved itself in the AG sector because of deflation not inflation.
2. You refuse to give any before or after food inflation data between the time illegals started invading and now.
3. You refuse to acknowledge that most countries in this world can provide cheap food for themselves without the support of illegal labor.
4. You refuse to acknowledge that most farm communities with large illegal populations already have massive unemployment rates.
5. You refuse to acknowledge the economic and social costs of the public subsidizing illegal labor with public benefits.
6. People will work for market wages, wages not distorted by illegal labor, but I guess you don’t believe in supply and demand of the labor market, and while you believe that government wrongly distorts food costs with subsidies, you see no problem with distorting labor markets with illegal labor.
We can continue to have this conversation and I will keep punching hole in your La Raza liberal propaganda.
Yep that is what Luntz said, but did you notice how many of the group wanted to send them all home?
Luntz continually tried to put lipstick on that pig by posing amnesty questions in such a way as to make the group look mean spirited. Then in the spirit of FOX's Romney promotion they put on a group from Nevada and forced them to answer pro or con on only Romney.
Pure propaganda but it was hard to coverup the first groups absolute rejection of any form of amnesty.
Ten dollar apples pale in comparison to the cost of supporting a new wave of illegals when most of them neglect to go back home. if it has happened every time in the past, what's to prevent them from doing it again?
The lame excuse that "we can't deport them all," has worked every time. All that is needed is to say it and, Shazam! it becomes a fact. Not to me.
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.