Posted on 10/23/2007 10:39:15 AM PDT by Neville72
Thompson’s Plan to Fight Illegal Immigration
From Thompson campaign:
Thompson Announces Plan to Secure Border, Enforce Existing Immigration Laws
Senator Fred Thompson today unveiled a comprehensive border security and immigration enforcement proposal that would make America safer by increasing security at our nation’s borders, enforcing our country’s existing laws to reduce the incentive for illegal immigration and streamlining the legal immigration process.
“A country that cannot secure its borders will not remain a sovereign nation and you cannot have national security without border security,” said Thompson. “It’s not only necessary for any meaningful immigration reform, but border security plays a key role in both the interdiction of illegal drugs and in defending America against terrorist threats. Weak borders allow terrorists and smugglers, as well as millions of illegal aliens, easy entrance to the United States.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thepage.time.com ...
And I think Fred Thompson would have said something entirely different if today was the day AFTER the election.
He threw a bone to the far right kooks who wouldn't understand economics if it had four legs, barked, and bit them on the *ss.
Better late than never, Fred.
We hear this last line a lot, but what does it really mean? Who does the demonstrating? Do they have to demonstrate that no American wants to do that kind of work, or just that there aren't enough? Or just that no American wants to do that sort of work at what employers are willing to pay?
Here's what I HOPE Fred means, and it would be consistent with taking a root philsophical approach in "less government." The thing is, many -- possibly most -- likely voters are mostly sheltered from the realities of that kind of work in their daily lives. They work for mid-sized to large employers and get weekly paychecks. They don't do those jobs themselves, and they don't know many people who do. And they've never had to make a paycheck, turn a profit, take a real risk. Sorry if that offends, as it is kindly and honestly said.
Businesses today are so heavily regulated by the government with regard to their employees and wages, to mention a few things, that businessmen must half go crazy trying to make things work. I read a little math done by a meticulous FReeper here on a thread the other day that had nothign to do with this topic, but it was basically that in the real wages of the 1930s, essentially "minimum wage" was $5 an hour, adjusted for inflation.
It's still worth that much to the guy trying to make the books, the guy that owns the restaurant or the gardening business or the construciton company. But by law he's required to pay $6.25 AND he has to tack whatever Social Security "match" to that, so he's really paying, for the sake of argument let's say, $6.50 for something that pays back $5.
Meanwhile, South American countries are in such horrific economic sludge and turmoil, but the people there are no different than anywhere else. They see a job that down there pays the equivalent of $20 an hour for zero skills, only the willingness to show up -- you're on it.
Much of the illegal immigrant worker problem is a function of economics, not fences. Govermnent's hand in economics and markets has screwed the pooch BIGTIME. I hope and trust that Thompson's whole "small government" philosophy will tend toward that side of the equation in that regard. I mean, honestly!
Think of, say, a special effects firm that does really cool stuff. The owner knows a 14-year-old kid who's aimless but has a slight interest in special effect. The owner can say, "Look, you come in after school and I'll pay you $3 an hour to sweep and stuff." That's such a good thing for everybody all around! Yet it is prohibited, impossible, indeed, it is illegal in today's "free" marketplace.
Enforce the laws, no amnesty, amen. Combined with addressing the real economic functions of this problem created by supressive government regulation, then the source of the illegal worker immigrant problem will reduce. Not completetly (that won't happen without Stalinist tactics), but to a manageable thing. The way it's been in the past, for crying out loud.
He's got this kook's vote.
Tomayto, tomahto. A position is a generalized statement; a policy is specific. I like policy over position because it's what makes the position into a real intent instead of a platitude with no deeper meaning.
When Harry Reid says he "supports the troops", it is his policies that distinguish what he really means by it, and contrasts it with the same position that Hunter takes that he "supports the troops" as well, with a diametrically opposed set of policies. Then there are those who "support the troops", but do nothing concretely one way or the other. They are mouthing platitudes.
Joking that the scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the governnment and I'm here to help you" (Ronald Reagan) is not a platitude. It's a TRUE indicator of the philosophy by which that person will consistently govern. Things that Thompson says and ways he has voted in the past about small government are TRUE indicators of how he would lead as President. Things Romney and Giuliani have said and done in the past are true indicators of their total lack of grasp of the principles of smaller government.
Specific policies NOW from candidates are purely speculative and I lose confidence in candidates who spout specific policies this far ahead of when they can have any context or meaning -- all it does is trap that candidate into something that may well be obsolete by the time the REAL thing happens.
I am much more impressed when a candidate expresses a real understanding of the philosophy that guides his approach to the issues, whatever they may be. There is nothing speculative when a candidate express his core philosophy. When the candidate says "compassionate conservatism" or "I support the troops," he's spouting empty platitudes and hoping folks confuse them for positions. When a candidate says "Big government diminishes freedom in all its forms and should be resisted at every turn," that is a philosophy -- a "position" -- that means something.
Not if the candidate then fails to do anything but say the words. Failure to act, or even to have a strategy in place for action is what distinguishes a position from a platitude, or empty but mollifying words. One man's "Big Government diminishing freedom" is closing the border to cheap, willing, illegal labor. Anothers "Big Government diminishing freedom" is providing governmental services to those same illegals. Until a candidate clarifies which he means to implement, the words could mean opposite things to those two men.
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.