Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty
January 17th, 2004 | Sabertooth

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.

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; US: California; US: New Mexico; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; bushamnesty; gop; illegalaliens; illegals; immigration; selfdeportation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-270 next last
To: Southack
On the other hand, *after* Bush's new immigration plan passes, illegals will *volunteer* to register for their new blue cards.

Not will, Southack. Might. Or, more likely, might not.

61 posted on 01/17/2004 11:20:45 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard Dean - all bike and no path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Southack
And *registration* changes everything.

No, it changes nothing.

When they first enter, they tell us where they will live and who they work for. After that, it's the same old song and dance. They move and change employment and we are back where we started. It's not about registration; it's about tracking. How are we going to track them?

62 posted on 01/17/2004 11:20:53 AM PST by Marine Inspector (TANCREDO 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
Thanks for your research.
I understand that among our many government departments, not one is bothering to check how many Americans have lost their jobs to offshoring/outsourcing/visa-workers.
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.
63 posted on 01/17/2004 11:21:37 AM PST by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"If the President won't make a Mexican Illegal go home to Tijuana to apply for a blue card, he's not going to make an Indian go home Calcutta for renewal."

No, the leverage is different. You don't make them go home to get the blue card because you always make it easy for someone to take the bait.

However, once someone takes the bait, you then have leverage upon them. After they have registered to get their blue card, they have lost their key advantage of being off of our radar. Suddenly, they have to play by our rules...something that they don't have to do prior to taking the bait.

64 posted on 01/17/2004 11:23:49 AM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
When they first enter, they tell us where they will live and who they work for. After that, it's the same old song and dance. They move and change employment and we are back where we started. It's not about registration; it's about tracking. How are we going to track them?

What the heck do you know about this? It's not like you do this for a living!

Oh, that's right, you do this for a living....

65 posted on 01/17/2004 11:24:17 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard Dean - all bike and no path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Southack; dirtboy; Sabertooth
From www.zazona.com (regret earlier mis-post of the URL):

You can find the video referenced here at the CATO site. The conclusions are those of the author at ZaZona:

You can see a video clip of their 1 hour and 22 minute discussion, but if you don't have the stomach to the whole thing, let's just cut to the chase. For the video, go to: http://www.cato.org/events/040116pf.html

Fast-forward to 7:50 minutes into the video clip and you will hear some of the most disturbing features of Bush's plan. (Hint: I save the worst for last if you are a techie!)

* The 3-year visa is just the same as H-1B, and it's renewable. Spellings didn't explain how many years it can be renewed, but if it's anything like H-1B or TN (trade NAFTA) visas, they can be renewed until doomsday. Keep in mind that H-1Bs can be extended for 3 additional years and then at the 7th year visas can be renewed in one year intervals until the alien gets a green-card.

* Circularity - aliens can work in the U.S. but visit their home countries whenever they feel the need. This will be very popular with agricultural workers who can only find work on a seasonal basis. Circularity will also be very convenient for spies that need to bring trade secrets and other subversive types of data back to headquarters.

* Tax sheltered savings accounts. Assuming that there are enough American workers to subsidize these savings accounts they will be portable so that aliens can move back to Chihuahua or Bangalore and collect from the savings accounts.

* Totalization - foreign workers will get paid social-security even if they move back to their home country. Those "guest-workers" that move back to Chihuahua or Bangalore can count on US social-security checks until the entire system goes bankrupt.

* Green Cards - the number of Green Cards will be increased far above the present limit in order to accommodate the flood of workers that will want amnesty after their period of indentured servitude.

* Visa Fees - if the alien is illegal, they will pay a modest "fee" in order to get a work visa. Aliens residing in foreign countries will be able to come to the U.S. free of charge.

* Limits to visas - NONE!

* Family Members - family members are allowed to live in the U.S. as long as one of them who has a work visa

* Automatic citizenship will be granted to all children of visa holders. It's very rare for illegal aliens to be deported once they give birth in the U.S., so they would be smart to have their kids once they get the work visa, not before!



Non-sector Specific Visas - THIS MEANS YOU!



Non-sector specific means that this visa is for any and all jobs that pay a salary.

Most middle-class people that have heard about Bush's "guest-worker" proposal probably are under the impression tht Bush's sole intention was to provide farmers with cabbage pickers. That's not the case, however. Spellings gave specific examples of jobs that these visas can be used for:

.........................
nurses
teachers
students
hotel workers
agricultural workers
.........................

I can just hear the collective sigh of relief from all of those programmers and engineers that receive this newsletter, but don't relax for too long. Skip to 49:30 of the video to hear the bomb that Spellings dropped on us - she said that these visas can be used for high-tech workers!

It's now official, Bush's proposal is intended to include every type of worker in the USA. There are no exceptions, unless of course you are a politician. There will be no need to use H-1B or L-1 visas if Bush gets his way because this visa is so much easier to obtain. The price is right also since it won't cost employers a dime in fees for people coming from India and China to take our jobs.

So why, you might ask is the press just focusing on farm-workers and illegal-aliens? The answer, Bush's spin-doctors want to the public to focus on the illegal alien issue while he pulls the rug out from under the feet of the American middle-class.

This is a classic "bait and switch" con-game because nothing in Bush's proposal will stop illegal aliens from crossing our border. This bill is no about illegal immigration or border security, it's about destruction of the American middle-class.

66 posted on 01/17/2004 11:25:14 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I was thinking the same thing about you the first time I read your rants!

Oh, and your opinion is valid while mine is not? Is this based on what you consider correct ideology?

You truely are arrogant.

67 posted on 01/17/2004 11:25:30 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (Help put a RAT in the White house......vote THIRD PARTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LibertyAndJusticeForAll
Your welcome.

Those numbers will never be tracked by the Government. They don't want the public to know how many jobs are being lost.

I agree, Bush just wants to import cheap labor for his corporate friends and of course, pick up a vote or two.

Marine Inspector

68 posted on 01/17/2004 11:27:51 AM PST by Marine Inspector (TANCREDO 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
"It's not about registration; it's about tracking. How are we going to track them?"

You would propose that it is easier to track them if they *never* register than if they do?!

69 posted on 01/17/2004 11:28:03 AM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Southack
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.

The problem with this promise is that the Bush Administration knew exactly where the 100,000 new Illegal Alien absconders were the moment the verdicts were handed down in their deportation hearings.

They were released.

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.

Objection:

appeal to the Xenophobia option of the Bush Amnesty false dilemma.

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.

Random raids aren't necessary now. I can find thousands of Illegals for you, any day of the week.

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.

Incorrect, there is no such requirement. Your reading of the President's proposal is wishful thinking.

Therefore, this is nothing like my plan for self-deportation, where Illegals would leave without any Amnesty.


70 posted on 01/17/2004 11:28:05 AM PST by Sabertooth (Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Sabertooth; dirtboy
If the Patriot Act is harmless...

Why did Jim Sensenbrenner (WI/9th/R) vote AGAINST it when it was in Judiciary, of which he is the Chair?

Why does Bob Barr (ex GA/R) oppose it on a national lecture circuit, accompanied by the ACLU figures who are just as vehement?

And WHY is there a provision for "sneak-and -peek?"
71 posted on 01/17/2004 11:28:06 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Let's see: you propose creating a massive new Federal bureaucracy to deal with rounding up and processing criminals (and you're a conservative who faults Bush's domestic agenda?); creating a new class of criminals - American employers (not just "big business", but middle class families and individuals); prosecuting and deporting and/or jailing millions of people whose crime is that they wanted to feed their families (as if you wouldn't try to sneak into Canada if you woke up tomorrow and found yourself in the same situation that millions of Mexicans are in), is that about it? Well, I have a few questions.

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)? 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? Not in this country, and probably not on this planet. You correctly identified the three current proposed solutions to the problem. Unfortunately your proposed "fourth way" is less practical and politically acceptable than any of the others. Guess we're stuck with "solution number 1" for now.

72 posted on 01/17/2004 11:28:10 AM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
;)
73 posted on 01/17/2004 11:29:17 AM PST by Marine Inspector (TANCREDO 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
You are an artful dodger.
74 posted on 01/17/2004 11:29:49 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Oh, and your opinion is valid while mine is not? Is this based on what you consider correct ideology?

I have requested several times that you provide a defense of McCain-Feingold, or at least explain why it isn't such a big deal. You have failed to do such. It's kinda hard for me to judge your opinion when you can't be bothered to defend it.

You truely are arrogant.

Apparently, you are not here to discuss Bush's proposal but are only interested in flame baiting, which the moderators are trying to discourage. So I won't rise any more to your nonsense. Good day, and have the last word in our exchange.

75 posted on 01/17/2004 11:29:56 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard Dean - all bike and no path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: Southack
However, once they register for Bush's reward/carrot, poof, we suddenly know who they are, where they live, and who they work for. Now the INS can track them and the IRS can tax them. Like I said, *registration* changes everything.

If I were an employer who knowingly had illegal alien workers on my payroll, and I were now required to adhere to all employment and wage laws in regard to my newly "legalized" illegal alien employees, I would consider getting rid of them and replacing them with illegal aliens who haven't been "legalized", and by doing so, save myself a lot of money and paperwork.

77 posted on 01/17/2004 11:30:43 AM PST by judgeandjury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Southack
If you want the un-documented Aliens to leave on their on accord; Starve em out! Identify every American Company that knowinglly hires un-documented Aliens and put them in prison and throw away the key! Soon enough the illegals will follow their noses back to their home of origin or finally resolve to emigrate legally and come out of the shaddows and do things right as we require; otherwise let em starve, if they refuse to abide by our laws. Is your Birthright worth doing this ? It is if you are a real American. America First and forever! Its the JOBS STUPID!
78 posted on 01/17/2004 11:31:21 AM PST by winker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Banning Partial Birth Abortion leaves you cold and you want nothing to do with it?!

Should have been done by the states not the Feds using the interstate commerce clause.

79 posted on 01/17/2004 11:31:47 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie
Let's see: you propose creating a massive new Federal bureaucracy to deal with rounding up and processing criminals (and you're a conservative who faults Bush's domestic agenda?);

This happens to be a task the federal government is SUPPOSED to be doing.

creating a new class of criminals

Uh, I hate to break this to you, but employers hiring illegals is already against the law. No "creating" required, only enforcement of EXISTING laws.

80 posted on 01/17/2004 11:31:58 AM PST by dirtboy (Howard Dean - all bike and no path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-270 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson