"Incorrect, there is no such requirement." - Sabertooth
Then we disagree on a fact. One of us must be wrong, and that error will impact the rest of our logic, one presumes.
That is a key point worth resolving.
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.
We won't necessarily know where they are working if they change jobs. And if they work for someone illegally after their 3-year visa has expired, we won't have any idea where they are.
Regarding the need to apply for the visa renewal abroad--what is your source for the contention that they have to go back home to renew it? Here is what the fact sheet on the President's proposal says:
The program will require the return of temporary workers to their home country after their period of work has concluded. The legal status granted by this program would last three years, be renewable, and would have an end.
That says only that they have to go home at the end of their "period of work". It does not say they have to go home in order renew. It is somewhat ambiguous but it is more reasonable to conclude that they only have to leave when their total time here is done.
"Incorrect, there is no such requirement." - Sabertooth
Then we disagree on a fact. One of us must be wrong, and that error will impact the rest of our logic, one presumes.
That is a key point worth resolving.
Mere thousands won't cut it. The scope of the problem is too large. There are 8 million illegals, and we currently don't know where they all are, hence, random raids *are* currently required...something that Bush's plan will change.
No, just pointing out that your claim of registration will fix the problem is false.
Registration is just one of many things that have to happen. None of the many things that have to happen will work unless they all happen at the same time.
Right now, the US-VIST program registers approximately 99% of every person that uses a visa to enter the country, but to what effect? None. At this time, there is not outbound registration and no way to track then while they are in the US. So at this point, US-VISIT is useless as a registration system.
The same will apply with Bush's proposal. Unless we can track them and register them going outbound, inbound registration is useless.
We have to attack the whole problem, not parts of it. Attacking parts of the immigration problem is a waste of money and manpower.
The last phrase was contradicted by a member of the Bush Administration at the Cato conference referenced above.
Her response indicated there would be NO end to renewals.
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? 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?
|
Oh dear gullible child, the phrase "sneak-and-peek" does not even exist in the Patriot Act.
Ergo, it is clear that you haven't read that law (which explains why you are so easily manipulated by those who have).
As far as your calim that by me, defending the President and my Commander in Chief is interpreted as "flame baiting" that is simply your ego talking again.
You, by perpetuating such negativity and division in our forum, are the "Flame baiter". If you hate our President so much, just go join the Democrats or start your own web site.
Sorry I don't call having Dean or Clark as Commander in Chief as being safely gridlocked.
| *"Random raids aren't necessary now. I can find thousands of Illegals for you, any day of the week." **Mere thousands won't cut it. The scope of the problem is too large.
|
Hey, that sounds great, but too bad that real, actual employers know full well that *turnover* and new training for employees, especially for "unskilled" jobs, is a business killer.
1. Taxes and payroll deductions coming out of their pay may result in less money for the jobs they do now or less money than a job they can do off the books.
2. They all work now for people that are not going to add the overhead of legitimate operation. (If this weren't a problem, then why aren't they operating legitimately now?) If new guest workers become legitimate, they will lose the "illegal" jobs they have now. And make less money to send home.
3. Do you think that new guest workers will give an accurate address if they have a nefarious purpose for being here? Or for that matter, will they always have the same address they first give the government? Don't people come into this country now with Visas that expire and are nowhere to be found at their address on record?
This does very little for the illegals here, but it does enable MORE people to come here who aren't here now and I have no confidence we can find them once they come here if they do not want to be found. We can't even find them now. The ones that don't want to be found are the danger. So this is a security risk we shouldn't be taking. It allows potential terrorists to come here under the guise of legitimacy for three years, and then disappear once there is no answer at the 123 Elms street address we have on file.
What makes you say these people will return home after three years? Because the situation in Mexico has improved? LOL. They can stay here illegally, work a black labor market job, make more money.
I will. I'm in the business of stopping illegal immigration and the Presidents plan will neither stop illegal immigration or terrorism and it will not impact either in any negative way.
The president's plan is strictly a political move to import cheap labor and appease Mexico.
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.