El Norte: The case against Bush's immigration plan

Opinion Journal ^ | 01/19/04 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Pokey78]

SELMA, Calif.--President Bush's recent proposal to grant legal status to thousands of Mexican citizens currently working in the U.S. under illegal auspices seems at first glance to be a good start--splitting the difference between open and closed borders, and between amnesty and deportation. Politically it was a wise move on the eve of a Mexican state visit to grant some concessions to Vicente Fox. After all, the president of Mexico cannot ignore the $12 billion in worker remittances sent his way--and he can either encourage or discourage millions more of his citizens to head north in lieu of needed radical reform at home.

[RKV]

Right again, VDH. I only wish W would wise up.

[B4Ranch]

Without massive illegal immigration, Americans would rediscover their fondness for measured legal immigration.

Ten Easy Questions - No Pencils Needed!

Scan the whole page for good reading!
Conservative Debate Handbook

[TheAngryClam]

W is too stupid to listen to the smart conservatives.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

After all, the president of Mexico cannot ignore the $12 billion in worker remittances sent his way--

This is inaccurate. They sent home a record $45,000,000,000 last year. That figure alone is a good indication of how many illegals are now in the country.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Supporters of the proposed law say that something is needed since Americans simply refuse certain backbreaking jobs in construction, agriculture, hotels and restaurants.

That is a lie. Here in Vegas, American citizens are working in all of those fields, yet are presently being let go and their jobs given to cheaper Mexican illegal labor.

[RKV]

He is listening to big business, not to the people. When Al Queda moves a dirty bomb across our borders it will be too late. I really hate being sold short by the REPs. I expect it from the RATs, but W knows we have nowhere else to go.

[DLfromthedesert]

Bump for later.

[Map Kernow]

More importantly still, our laws would recover their sanctity. Without massive illegal immigration, Americans would rediscover their fondness for measured legal immigration. At a time of war, our borders would be more secure. And we could regain solace, knowing that we are no longer overlords importing modern helots to do the jobs that we, in our affluence and leisure, now deem beneath us.

As Ann Coulter said on Drudge Radio last week: We should have as much immigration as the American people want...but there's something INSANE about tying immigration policy to the number of people who've succeeded in breaking the immigration laws---whether we're talking about persons who enter the US illegally or persons who hire those illegal entrants.

As for the political implications of Bush's January 7 immigration proposal, I agree with Peter Brimelow (formerly with National Review, but now an "unperson" because of his "anti-immigrant" book Alien Nation): the immigration issue is so divisive that it will eventually cause a split among self-identified conservatives, particularly those in the Republican Party. This split may indeed wind up helping the Democrats in the short term, and I'm not happy about that. But in the long term, there's got to be a political movement or party in this country that is working to restore some sort of orderliness and lawfulness in our country's immigration policy---not to mention one that seeks the implementation and conscientious enforcement of an immigration policy that is genuinely reflective of the popular will of America's citizenry as a whole, not simply its moneyed elites.

[primeval patriot]

bookmark

[Zipporah]

PING

[The_Eaglet]

Daily Campaign Finance Reform Thread

[A. Pole]

He is listening to big business, not to the people.

Of course. They are his social environment.

[RKV]

I have become quite a bit more cynical than that. It isn't just family history and friendships (which I could understand).

[JustPiper]

BumPing!