No, that's not how I read it. Yes, there are "opportunities" for renewal, but they have to FIRST go home to get said opportunity. See above.
|
Posted on 01/17/2004 10:01:59 AM PST by 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.
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.
A worthy action made necessary by the appeasement of terrorism by his predecessor.
So why, then, is appeasement of illegal aliens his method of choice to deal with this particular problem, when action has worked best in the war on terror?
No, that's not how I read it. Yes, there are "opportunities" for renewal, but they have to FIRST go home to get said opportunity. See above.
|
Over reacting, crisis-mongeuring and unnecessary, negative projecting does, however.
Downplaying a serious abridgement of First Amendment rights to try and make a political point fits my definition of mendacity.
Over reacting, crisis-mongeuring and unnecessary, negative projecting does, however.
So since I'm over-reacting to McCain-Feingold, perhaps you can tell my what is so wonderful about that bill. Most conservatives I read are aghast that it was passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by SCOTUS.
| Fiscal Year 2003 Apprehension Numbers |
They say that if the Bush, Cornyn, McCain et al plan is shot down in a large enough fire, there will arise from the flames a groundswell of public opinion to deport them all.
The reality is found in Bush's statement that the American public does not have the political willpower to deport them. One should realise that this is not an opinion that Bush pulled out of his hat, it a product of polling data and focus groups.
The second reality is that the left has their ideas about how the the illegals should be handled; Amnesty, as in citizenship. Whatever comes out of Congress will be a compromise and that compromise will be determined by the political power of each group.
Will you be marching down the street holding hands with PFAW?
|
Yes, it will be enforced. Why will it be enforced *after* Bush's new immigration plan takes place, you ask, when the old laws weren't, however?
Glad you asked. The answer, of course, is that something in Bush's plan has *changed* the status quo.
Currently, our government doesn't "know" where all 8 million illegals live and work. All that it can currently do is to make random law enforcement raids to round up a few illegals here and there.
That makes for a big problem. Consider the effort that the NAZIs went to in order to round up 6 million Jews in Europe during WW2. That was a large project.
This one is even bigger. We've got 8 million undocumented illegals here.
What Bush's new plan does is to document them. By registering, they tell us where they live and who they work for.
And *registration* changes everything. It makes our problem much more manageable. Random raids and massive law enforcement resources become much less necessary. We no longer have to guess at where they are located. We no longer have to expend resources to just find them.
Bush's plan also requires that they all go home voluntarily after three years in order to apply for new extensions to work here. That form of voluntary self-deportation is precisely what Sabertooth is calling for in his editorial for this thread above, though he like you seems to be against Bush's plan that does that very thing.
So by *registering* and *self-deporting*, Bush's plan takes care of most of those 8 million. Those few illegals who choose to continue not playing by our rules will represent a much smaller logistical problem than our current 8 million illegals, too...thus giving us a fighting chance at being able to track them down with our limited resources.
Thus, I see these new rules being enforced. Enforcing these new rules is far more manageable than the old problem of attempting to use force and resources on all 8 million illegals.
As far as the "most conservatives" you read, the fringe 1% are irrelevant like Buchannan proved in 2000.
You cannot hide in your bunker forever until they come looking for you. So, figure out a way to join us and change hearts and minds gradually like our President is so thanklessly doing. It's obvious, he has courage you envy.
I can read it just fine, I don't have to wait for it to T-bone me in the crosswalk. And, once again, maybe you can explain why it isn't a big deal.
As far as the "most conservatives" you read, the fringe 1% are irrelevant like Buchannan proved in 2000.
So Rush is fringe? National Review is fringe? The Wall Sreet Journal is fringe?
You cannot hide in your bunker forever until they come looking for you.
Congratulations on a completely inane and irrelevant statement. A bygone art form.
So, figure out a way to join us and change hearts and minds gradually like our President is so thanklessly doing. It's obvious, he has courage you envy.
You're just being an ass now. Apparently to you, I'm not allowed to provide valid criticism of Bush's proposal without being discounted as a right-wing nutbar. But, then again, you also don't think McCain-Feingold is a big deal either. So maybe you APPROVE of the suppression of political dissent.
Because right now we don't know where all 8 million live and work, as well as due to the fact that it would take an enormous logistical effort to forceably round up all 8 million illegals.
On the other hand, *after* Bush's new immigration plan passes, illegals will *volunteer* to register for their new blue cards. Once registered, we will then *know* where they live and who they work for...simplifying our enforcement.
Moreover, most of those aliens will choose to return to their homes after 3 years rather than risk losing all that they've worked for while in Bush's program. That accomplishes our goal of convincing them to deport themselves, and it further simplifies the remaining scope of our enforcement problem because there will be fewer of them left to deal with.
| The False Solution: They say that if the Bush, Cornyn, McCain et al plan is shot down in a large enough fire, there will arise from the flames a groundswell of public opinion to deport them all. The reality is found in Bush's statement that the American public does not have the political willpower to deport them. One should realise that this is not an opinion that Bush pulled out of his hat, it a product of polling data and focus groups. The second reality is that the left has their ideas about how the the illegals should be handled; Amnesty, as in citizenship. Whatever comes out of Congress will be a compromise and that compromise will be determined by the political power of each group. Will you be marching down the street holding hands with PFAW?
|
A Democrat's amnesty plan would be worse, but it would have less of a chance of getting past a Republican Congress.
Government would be safely gridlocked.
The Republicans would have fought a Democrat President tooth and nail, if he'd proposed only half the budget-busting, Socialist programs that Bush has.
Many Republicans are going along with Bush's Socialist, open borders agenda simply because he's a Republican.
IMO, that's the greatest danger of a second Bush presidency.
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.