The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

January 17th, 2004 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

Debate rages, and will through 2004, about President Bush’s “not an Amnesty” Amnesty proposal to legalize the 8 to 12 million Illegal Aliens his Administration has said are currently here in our country.

Amnesty proponents and enablers uniformly offer only three solutions to the Illegal Alien problem.

1. Coexistence: Just maintain the status quo through inaction.
2. Amnesty: This is appeasement, and surrender.
3. Xenophobia: Build a police state.

That’s a pretty thin list, and as we’ll see, not an accurate one. Its exclusive presentation amounts to a fallacy of False Dilemma.

It should be noted that Amnesty is a nearly inevitable consequence of Coexistence. Not surprisingly, therefore, Amnesty proponents commonly raise the specter of Xenophobia so that they can paint dark insinuations and distract attention from the symbiosis of their appeasement with the failed policy of Coexistence. Calling other people Nazis is a neat way of cloaking one’s own kinship with Neville Chamberlain.

If we had accepted the same false dilemma in the War on Terror, we'd never have fought it. We'd be the same as Democrats, who’ve made a willingness to appease a party litmus test.

The War on Terror didn’t begin on September 11th, 2001, it began with the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and was conducted against us by Al Qaeda and our enemies all throughout the 1990s. President Clinton, however, opted not to take the fight to the enemy, and so the Clintonistas held throughout the 90s that terrorism was an intractable problem with which we'd just have to Coexist , and made their policies accordingly. Not surprisingly, when President Clinton had an opportunity to take Osama bin Laden into custody, he lacked the courage to do so. Clinton’s spine also failed him on three occasions where our Special Forces were in position to kill bin Laden. By the end of his Presidency, Clinton’s appeasement of terror was in full bloom; visits from uber-terrorist Yassir Arafat were a source of pride to him, and ultimately, he even granted pardons to Puerto Rican terrorists.

Pardons and clemencies, like Amnesties, absolve wrongdoers of further responsibility for past crimes. When a policy of Coexistence with wrongdoing is pursued long enough, absolution of wrongdoing will eventually become part of the negotiation to make the craven failure to confront it appear magnanimous.

On September 11th, 2001, the War on Terror changed. America didn't accept the false dilemma of Coexistence, Appeasement, or Xenophobia. Coexistence had failed, and with it went any thought of absolution for wrongdoing. Clintonian appeasement was over. Xenophobic notions of “kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” and “nuke Mecca” were also ruled out, because we’re Americans, and hold ourselves to higher standards of morality and ingenuity.

What then, of the fallacy presented in the false dilemma of the Coexistence / Amnesty / Xenophobia triad?

We rightfully threw it on the ash heap of History.

We took a fourth, Asymmetric approach to the Terrorists, and are now reaping the benefits. After wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly Libya is turning over their WMD programs without a shot being fired; Iran is on the bubble and contemplating the same thing; Syria and the PLA are increasingly isolated; and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are finally getting the message that coddling Al Qaeda is a losing proposition. Early on in the WoT, it was understood that victory is a policy which reaps a sweet harvest. While the investment in the initial successes was relatively high, they generated a momentum that is making inexpensive windfalls of subsequent victories.

Yet none of this could have happened if we’d followed the appeasement tendencies of the Democrats. In ten years, we’d have been looking at a Middle East full of North Koreas, which was the crown jewel of President Clinton’s failed policy of Coexistence and appeasement.

Naturally, being innate appeasers, the Democrats and Clinton also have pursued Coexistence and Amnesty in dealing with the problem of the millions of Illegal Aliens currently living in our country. Three times in the 1990s, Clinton signed legislation enabling Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code, thereby granting Amnesties to more than a million Illegals Aliens (twice with at GOP House and Senate). Appeasement failed, of course, as it must, and by the end of Clinton’s eight years, there were millions more Illegals than when he started.

Now we have a Republican Administration, as well as a GOP House and Senate. The Clintonian policies of Coexistence with and Amnesties for Illegal Aliens have clearly failed. So, President Bush has taken the initiative and offered an “Immigration Reform” proposal that would legalize not just a million Illegals, as Clinton did, but millions of them. Rather than turning from the failed Clinton policies, President Bush is embracing an even more radical version of them.

So now, pro-Amnesty Republicans and their enablers are offering the same solutions on Illegals as the Democrats did: Amnesty (even though they split hairs and pretend otherwise. They are attempting to frame the debate with the same false dilemma that the Democrats did with the War on Terror: Coexistence, Amnesty/appeasement, and Xenophobia.

Where is the fourth option, Asymmetry? It has worked so well in the WoT; why are we not exploring Asymmetric solutions to the Illegal Alien problem?

We can effectively solve much of the Illegal Alien problem, without Amnesty, if we apply a similar, Asymmetric approach to that of the War on Terror. Obviously, it's not necessary or moral to conduct a war against Illegals, but by applying systematic pressure to all of the factors that encourage the Illegals to violate our laws and sovereignty, we can win early victories that generate and sustain a momentum whereby the problem starts to solve itself.

The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative.

They Will Deport Themselves

There are plenty of steps we can take to do this.

Eighteen Illegal Alien solutions that are better than any Amnesty

Not only is encouragement of Illegal Alien self-deportation humane and cost effective, there has already been considerable success in this regard with Pakistani Illegals.

25% of Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deported Themselves since 2001 -
Facts against the Bush Amnesty

If we project that modest 25% self-deportation rate of the Pakistani Illegals onto the the 8 to 12 million Illegals that DHS Secretary Tom Ridge concedes are here, we’re talking about 2 to 3 million fewer Illegals in a short period of time. However, the Pakistani Illegals self-deported in response to a set of incentives that was far from comprehensive. A much higher rate of self-deportation of Illegals is certainly feasible, if we simply roll up our sleeves and get on with it.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson recently said:

We never would have had this conversation [about Illegal Aliens] in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.
Paradise Lost? (Victor Davis Hanson comments on Bush's immigration proposal)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (FR link) - January 10, 2004
Bill Steigerwald with Victor Davis Hanson

As with the War on Terror, so too with the Illegal Aliens; it’s now time to throw the false dilemma of Coexistence, Amnesty, or Xenophobia on the ash heap of History. Amnesty failed under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and will fail under President Bush if it’s attempted.

Rewards for lawbreaking beget more lawbreaking.

Diligent enforcement of our immigration laws succeeded in the 1950s, and would again; but we would be better served by a more humane, Asymmetric approach today, whereby relatively few deportations would result in a great many self-deportations of Illegal Aliens.

[Marine Inspector]

I believe he is in the process of doing something about that currently..

Keep believing. It's good to have faith, even if it's missed placed.

Marine Inspector

[arete]

I mention it here because I think that Bush's Amnesty plan is really just a smoke-screen to allowing foreigners (no limits) into our country for employment. This must delight all of his close friends and family in Corporate America, as it means lower wages across the board for every hard-working American.

You have the smoke and mirrors right. Treas Sec Snow promised (bet his reputation on it, he did -- LOL, what reputation?) huge new job creation this year. What better way to pump up the BLS (or is that now "Workforce Security") numbers than to have all those off the books jobs suddenly start showing up in the stats. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

Richard W.

[spodefly]

Great work ST.

BIG BTTT!!!

[txdoda]

You mean that immigration would be the same or lower if that bill hadn't permitted employers such as myself to determine if employee applicates were legal (for real, without forged papers)?!>>>>>>

This 'verification' bill will indeed help *honest* employers, who play by the rules.

Many say it's hard to charge the *dis-honest* employers, because the forged paperwork is so good.

If this 'verification' bill had been made mandatory, dis-honest employers could then be charged with not verifying the SS #'s, & FINED accordingly.

[dcwusmc]

Hey, bro. How are you this fine Saturday?

Tom Tancredo in '04 fer shore!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[arete]

The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats want the US ruled by a combination of national and international despots while the Republicans will settle for tyranny by just national despots. The end result is the same - the destruction of our freedom.

The Nazis hated the communists too. The choice of the two party system is always the same -- do you want to be shot or hung?

Richard W.

[Marine Inspector]

If you fast track the visa apps of people using the system now in place with a job in the US then many will self deport once the word gets out.

Agreed. Let them get out and get in line like the rest.

Most will, IMO.

Marine Inspector

[Amerigomag]

Do you really think that the American people are going to stand for the adverse economic impact of all this

Yes and here's just one example of why.

Right now approximately one third of California's public schools are populated by the consequences of 50 years of unregulated immigration. That's over $9,000 per student in tax money being shelled out needlessly each year and that number grows yearly.

Nothing we do will even approach the billions being wasted just this year in California alone. Mutiplyed nationally those unnecessary expenses and we could probably fund an enforcement activity approaching that which we undertook in Iraq.

[Marine Inspector]

How are you this fine Saturday?

Doing great.

We have 20 officers at my port. Over half are Republicans and about half of those are hardcore republicans. Not one will vote for Bush in 2004.

Most will write in Tancredo, Keys or someone else.

Semper Fi,

Marine Inspector

[Roscoe]

868,453 (83%) of the apprehended aliens stated they were seeking employment.

Incredible.

[pawdoggie]

The bureaucracy necessary for enforcement of our immigration laws would be similar, I imagine, to that necessary to run the background checks on 8 to 12 million Illegals and process them for the Bush Amnesty.

Who says I'm in favor of the "Bush Amnesty", or the creation of a massive new bureaucracy in any case?

Nor would there be a new class of criminal employers, just enforcement against the existing ones.

First of all, read the Fifth Amendment, you have to be convicted to be a criminal. Assuming that the "existing" laws are adequate to obtain convictions, especially in the areas of prospective employee identification and proving employer intent to hire illegals, you're still creating a "new class" of criminals whenever you start enforcing laws that previously went unenforced. If you don't believe me, just speak to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I think you grossly underestimate the potential number of US citizens you might snare in your employer dragnet.

Nowhere do I suggest incarceration for millions, which suggests to me you didn't read carefully.

You're right, you were vague about what happens to "deportees" who become repeat offenders, whether they're "self-deportees" or not.

Do you really think that the American people are going to stand for the adverse economic impact of all this ("short term", i.e. 2-5 years though it might be)? Yeah, I think it will be a blip that hardly goes noticed, though unemployment will decrease, as well as welfare costs. I sincerely doubt that our economy is as dependent on Illegals as apologists suggest.

And you have some science/statistics to back that up?

Where, in any known party or walk of American life are you going to find the politician/leader who can "sell" your proposal, and where will you find the legislators to implement it? Since the vast majority of Americans don't support Amnesty by any name, I think you're overestimating the difficulty here.

The majority of Americans don't favor drug legalization either, so the War on Drugs should have been won long ago. Unfortunately, the American people (at least at this time) won't support the kind of politically sensitive and Draconian measures it would take to stop the drug trade, or to end illegal immigration.

[international american]

"So, the trick now is to get President Bush reelected, while simultaneously defeating his Amnesty, for good."

That is indeed the trick....we need to be proactive on this one

[supercat]

It seems to me, as I've suggested elsewhere, that Bush may be trying to use a little strategery here. Illegal aliens currently have a competitive advantage in the workplace because they can be relied upon not to squeal on employers who violate labor laws. Bush is saying people can come here and stay legally iff they can show that they have an employer who's willing to go on record as hiring them. But employers who intend to skirt labor laws aren't going to do so with an employee of record.

So now what will happen will be that the undocumented workers will split into two classes: (1) those who would be able to show that they have a job lined up, but who have no competitive advantage over citizens or permanent residents, or (2) those who aren't willing to show that they have a job lined up. Having made the first option available may make it politically much easier to deport people of the second group.

[Triple Word Score]

Terror and taxes are so crucial you can't dismiss them. Only Lieberman promises to be reasonably effective on the first count, and not one Dem will even keep the present very modest tax cuts. Lieberman can't win. I'm hoping he'll Mean What He Says enough to give his endorsement to GWB when he does drop out.

You say your vote is the President's to lose, but the system we have is hardly going to give you a more palatable alternative.

Focus on Congress and what is actually going to be written into law and funded. Our President will sign any politically-viable legislation that actually addresses the problem. Whether or not such legislation will actually get funded and supported depends on grassroots pressure, not a President's opinion one way or the other.

I'm proud of our President for being willing to confront the problem instead of continuing to pass the buck. I happen to support his proposal personally, but I see that it is politically dead on arrival. What has to happen now is leadership at the Congressional level, and that comes about when voters have had enough of the game-playing and delays

[Magnum44]

I tend to agree with your sentiments, both with what you agree with GWB on, and with what you disagree with him on. I struggle to justify his actions wrt the illegal alien issue, for two reasons. First, the alternative viable candidates offer only worse solutions, and second, I do believe that some things this administration would like to do have to be dealt with in such a way that the generally anti-GOP, anti-Bush media do not brainwash the sheeple into a DEM victory during this time of war next November.

One thing that has not been mentioned in all the media hype about the guest visa proposal is that bringing hundreds of thousands of workers into the system means those people who were hiding their funds in matresses have incentive to invest that in the market, via retirement alternatives to Social Security.

GWB is supposed to try to resurrect the privatized Social Security program at his SOTU speech. Suppose the social security program he intends for guest workers is privatized? It becomes a vehicle to get rid of the current redistribution tax, and an incentive to invest in the market.

I have a problem with bringing foriegn workers into SS (of course I personally would opt out and relinquish all my contributions if I could stop pay FICA today), but I have no problem with mexican workers investing in the same mutual fund IRA's, 401k's, and other retirement mechanisms available out there, and collecting the dividends upon their retirement. In my mind, that is good for the US economy as well as any worker, domestic or foriegn, who contributes.

So if I have "kool-aide" thoughts, its that there may be linkage between these two issues that through stratery, the admin is thinking about, but just not advertising yet.

Please note, my support of this is concept contingent upon the program being a guest visa program, not an amnesty program. But I acknowledge those who point out that the illegals are already here, and politically, it would be impossible to simply deport them all, what with Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw broadcasting every night into our living rooms the terrible impact it will have on their lives once they are returned to third world conditions.

[Revel]

Here are some useful links:


Official Citizenship of prison inmates:

CITIZENSHIP

United States: 123,088 (71.0%)

Mexico: 28,421 (16.4%)

Colombia: 3,659 (2.1%)


Cuba: 2,492 (1.4%)

Dominican Republic: 3,432 (2.0%)

Other/Unknown: 12,074 (7.0%)
http://www.bop.gov/fact0598.html#Citizenship


"Criminal aliens—non-citizens who commit crimes—are a growing threat to public safety and national security, as well as a drain on our scarce criminal justice resources. In 1980, our federal and state prisons housed fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. By the end of 1999, these same prisons housed over 68,000 criminal aliens.1 Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities and a higher share of all federal prison inmates.(2) These prisoners represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population. Over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges alone."
http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=1252&c=17


Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html


Even legal immigrants don't have jobs- that is another reason why they are angry about this:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503.html

[Marine Inspector]

Border Patrol union calls plan 'a slap in the face'

By Joe Cantlupe
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
January 13, 2004

WASHINGTON - President Bush's proposal to grant temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants has many U.S. Border Patrol agents grumbling and bracing for a possible surge in illegal immigration. "Everybody thinks it's a slap in the face," said T.J. Bonner, a San Diego-based agent and head of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 10,000 agents.

Bush's plan would create a temporary worker program for undocumented immigrants already in the United States and for people in other countries who have been offered jobs here. Bush said they would not receive special consideration for permanent residence or citizenship.

The Border Patrol union, which doesn't like the proposal, has sent a letter to its members urging them to speak out about it.

"Regardless of how you feel about President Bush, I think most of us would agree that his proposal is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the U.S.," wrote John Frecker, a vice president of the National Border Patrol Council. "It implies that the country really wasn't serious about it in the first place, in spite of what you were told about 'the big picture.' "

Border Patrol Agent Bud Tuffly, who has patrolled the desert in Arizona for nearly 20 years, recalled the surge of illegal immigrants who crossed the border in advance of Congress' landmark 1986 amnesty.

"We saw the numbers skyrocket and all this naturally encourages them to come across," said Tuffly, a union representative in Tucson, Ariz. "You have to do your job. It's very demoralizing to do your job. We have rocks thrown at us daily. We had a guy from Yuma who died. Why?"

In announcing the proposal, Bush administration officials said a key factor in accepting foreigners into the program would be whether they already had a job in the United States - or the promise of one if they are living outside the United States.

While some Homeland Security officials privately echoed concerns that the proposal might trigger an influx, the agency's official reaction was more muted.

"It's premature to comment on any proposed legislation concerning immigration reform," said Mario Villarreal, a spokesman for Homeland Security's border enforcement branch.

David A. Martin, a former general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he believes Border Patrol agents "have a legitimate concern" about a possible rush of illegal immigration while the president's plan is being considered.

"The proposal is fraught with perverse incentives," said Martin, a professor at the University of Virginia. "There is an incentive for people to come in and establish some relationship with an employer. And there hasn't been a cutoff date under the president's plan. I can see the concern that the Border Patrol agents have."

In the past, shifts in immigration policy have triggered rushes.

In 1993, then-President Clinton agreed to consider asylum requests of Haitians interdicted at sea. The announcement was followed by a large number of Haitians taking to the sea in leaky, overloaded boats and rafts in hopes of getting asylum interviews.

Later, the Clinton administration responded to the 1998 devastation of Hurricane Mitch in Central America by granting temporary protected status to Hondurans and Nicaraguans who could prove they were living illegally in the United States before the hurricane. While no mass immigration crisis occurred, border agents reported an increase in the number of Central Americans being caught at the border shortly after the hurricane.

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants and introduced penalties for employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers.

Border agents reported a large surge in illegal crossing in the months leading up to enactment as people sought to get into the United States in time to apply for the amnesty, even though many of their claims were fraudulent.

Although the 1986 act was designed to stem the illegal flow, it didn't work. The estimated illegal population was 6 million then. Today, it is estimated to be between 8 million and 12 million.

Retired Border Patrol Agent Mike Cutler, who has testified repeatedly before Congress about homeland security issues, called Bush's plan "lunacy, crazy, madness, foolish, naive."

"In 1986, we had the first amnesty, it was supposed to be a one-shot deal," Cutler said. "People came out of the shadows."

Deborah Meyers, an analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, said she doesn't expect a significant increase in the population of illegal immigrants.

"The program is very open and very broad - for any willing worker for any willing employer," she said. "I don't think we'll see a lot more illegal immigration. But things still have to be worked out."

[international american]

These stats have been posted here at least 10 times, but the naysayers just ignore them. Sad!!

[Revel]

Probably. I had someone yesterday tell me that 29% number was made up. I went looking for the top link and found the stats On a government website. They will probably still denigh it.

[international american]

California has at least 30 cities which have become third world ghettos....Too many freepers are unaware of what is happening in the western states.