Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Obviously Five Believers | Main | Telephone Line »

May 15, 2006

Comments

MayBee

The Anchoress has the best line of the night:

Lots of bills that were ignored by past presidents, particularly during our “vacation from history” have come due on Dubya’s watch. The whole world seems to be coming due on his watch, and damn him for not handling everything perfectly. What a loser, eh? And it’s easy to kick a guy when he’s down, isn’t it?

via flopping aces.

What distresses me is that although I understand the seriousness of the problem, I have difficulty understanding the utter inability for many to allow for any kind of compromise.

It's the Dubai ports deal all over again.
IMPEACH!

owl

Capt Ed seems to have retained his sanity and that quote from the Anchoress sums it up.

JM Hanes

Reposting from another thread, in the hope of keeping track of which discussion is where:

The tide of illegal immigrants will not be turned by border guards with high tech tools. There's one, and only one, real solution -- which neither party has the guts to implement. Until we agressively pursue, prosecute and levy serious, attention-getting, penalties on the companies & the folks who employ illegals, everything else is just window dressing. Considerably more expensive window dressing, apparently, after tonight.

For a millisecond, when the Prez pointed out that hiring illegals was, well, illegal, I almost thought he was going to go for it. Alas, he handed out a total pass...it's just sooooo hard to tell, you know! I'm pro-immigration and I'm not anti-business; I just think it's time to fish or cut bait. If we can't afford the corporate cost, let's not penalize the public who will be footing the bill for geegaws and ultimately paying the price for an immigration system that's royally screwed.

eli

Rather than planting the Leopold story, maybe he should have not scheduled the speech.

I still don't know why he doesn't push "build a wall," let the Dems in the Senate block it, and finally have an issue that pops for November. "Screw stemming losses, we need MORE Republicans" etc.

Of course, I'm not the achitect.

Neo

I've been getting this feeling that the next President will shot him/herself before the end of his/her first term.

The 700 trial lawyers cheering news of a political "indictment" of a White House operative, will lead to something equally ugly 3 or 4 years from now. The "hate" will continue, but on the opposite pole. The cries of "hypocrisy" will come from today's hypocrites. The "Jason Leopold"s of the world will turn a blind eye to the failures of their candidates to deliver utopia, as the hope of the "dream," like communism, will always be over the horizon, around the verizon, and just after the next election.

And God help us all if they ever drop the Electoral College. Without the Electoral College to "firewall" each state from one another, there will be a contest for ever vote in ever ward of every state. Just imagine the SCOTUS and virtually every state supreme court, hundreds of state courts, thousands of lawyers occupied for 18 months with recount questions after the balloting has been completed. Any politician that utters this possibility has lost his/her sanity and my vote.

MayBee

I thought the speech was good. I think an adult conversation can be had about the issue, and I think Bush tried to open up that conversation.
Unfortunately, too many on both sides are happier NOT having a conversation, but just screaming louder.

JMH- I answered you on another thread as well. I too think there have to be more consequences for employers. Bush mentioned a high-tech card but it seems to me even requiring employers to verify social security numbers with the national database would be a good start. Fine them if they are found not to be doing that, just as they would be fined for not filing taxes. Making it harder to get a job in the US coupled with tighter border security seems a solution that, while not perfect, may bring things down to a more manageable level.

richard mcenroe

We need a distraction from immigration? How many bombers do we have in range of Iran?

richard mcenroe

Yes! Go for the employers! I want to see Pelosi doing the perp walk — or crushing her own grapes...

Neo

Secure the borders with "deathray" fences, which not only keep illegal aliens out, but keep all the current illegal in. Then make them all new citizen applicants having them pay double (why not triple) their Social Security and Medicare taxes until they achieve citizenship.

This just might keep Social Security running till I met my maker. After that I don't really care, as you all will probably be screaming "allah ali akbar" as the bombs from Iran create a heavenly virgin shortage.

JM Hanes

From Sara on the 5 Believers thread:

JMH -- I don't know what speech you were listening to ... there were no free passes in the one I heard. All bases were covered and they MUST be seen as a package deal or nothing will work. I live down here on the southern CA border and I can say for sure that all 5 steps the President covered have to be part of the deal. I particularly like that he is going to authorize the use of unmanned aerial vehicles which, in my opinion, are the only way to patrol the areas of the border that I can see from my bedroom window that run through the uninhabited high desert rugged areas.

The underlying problem (dare I say "root cause"?) is a matter of supply and demand. Unless you make it counterproductive to hire illegal employees you're just sticking your finger in the dike. As long as employers are hiring, illegals will keep coming; they'll just find new ways to get here. It's conceivable that eventually you could just make it too expensive for them to get here, but you'd have to spend so much to do it, I don't think you'd end up with a net win.

As noted, I think we should do everything the President suggested and we should penalize folks who hire illegals severely. That's what a really comprehensive package would look like, IMO.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well, you get no disagreement from me on severe penalties. It is a real problem around me. My other beef is that just try to land a job here and not be bilingual. I was raised in PA where I took 4 years of French, so I'm just out of luck, no matter how badly I want to work, since I don't speak Spanish.

JM Hanes

I was interested that the Prez actually brought up the subject of speaking English. I'll try to dig up a recent source for employment stats, although unfortunately, I may have just seen it on the tube. One figure really knocked my socks off. Something like 29% of the roofers in the States are illegals. Along with a hefty slice of the dry wallers, among other typical niches. It's a big, obvious change, here in North Carolina too, although I first became aware of the demographic shift when my local ATM was reconfigured to accomodate Spanish speaking clientele.

JM Hanes

Funny, but I remember my mother, nearly a generation ago now, wondering why our schools were still teaching French, when most of the rest of the Americas spoke Spanish.

noah

Bush erred in my opinion by including the last 1/4 of the speech. The "people" (and me) want border enforcement. The last part of the speech sounded like what usually comes after "but"...the negation of what comes before.

And isn't politics the art of the possible? Is comprehensive legislation really possible or even wise at this point?

kim

We should rejoice that America is a destination.
=============================

HerbieWilkers

You're asking ME about immigration?

Well about all I can say is I'd rather spend a weekend in Laredo than a day in Berkeley.

MayBee

Always insightful, that Herbie!

Sara (Squiggler)

Noah, comprehensive legislation is wise, possible another question entirely. The President is spot on, however, when he says that in order for the propsals to succeed, they must be enacted as a whole, a package, leave out one part, the whole program fails. Each step is critical in its own right, sort of like the heart, lungs, brain, kidneys are each critical and at the same time dependent on one or more of the other parts to function properly.

I just hope the spoiled brat voices like Malkin and Powerline don't get traction.

Dwilkers

Well hell. Looks like the right of center blogosphere has just about gone into full meltdown over the immigration thing and nothing is going to change that short of a Great Wall between Mexico and the US.

I don't know what to say about this having been watching it develop over the last couple years. So much of what is said reflects a level of thought on the subject that is so shallow I am amazed. In fact I am so amazed by the level of thinking that people display on this subject that I usually don't say anything about it - and of all the ones I've read Malkin is perhaps the worst.

To put it briefly yes it would be great if we had control of our southern border. No, its not going to happen.

Of all the things to be pissed at Bush about this is about the lowest one on the list for me.

kim

It's thermodynamics. And entropy increases.
==========================

Sara (Squiggler)

Dwilkers I am with you. And I must say I am shocked at the level of crybabying coming from the Malkin wing of the party. I did a roundup on The Squiggler of the after speech reactions and it is frightening. Lorie Byrd just got kicked off Polipundit as a Guest Author because she wasn't towing the Polipundit line 100%. How can we have a discussion of any substance with attitudes like that?

kim

Surely you jest about Lorie?
==================

kim

Emigration/Immigration, Janus's two faces is actually a horde. Everyone, literally has a unique opinion. This subject has been evaded politically precisely because consensus is difficult.
=======================================

Sara (Squiggler)

No, saw it first on Capt. Quarters then saw Lorie's post. Shock!

Sara (Squiggler)

The Squiggler is getting ready to add a Guest Blogger who has asked to specialize on Iran, a subject I don't want to blog about. So, I wrote Lorie and asked her if she would consider us as her new home, but I doubt she'll do it. Afterall, why would she want to come to a blog where the stats suck after being part of one of the "big boys?" Would be nice though to have another woman and to build us our own "powerhouse." Tomorrow is today's dream, as my Mom used to say.

kim

Polipundit was the poll guy there, Lorie the heart and soul, Jayson a bitter Harlequin.
========================================

Cecil Turner

And I must say I am shocked at the level of crybabying coming from the Malkin wing of the party.

I had an interesting e-mail exchange with her a couple years ago on the subject. Basically (IIRC), I asked her if she thought it was truly feasible to seal off the southern border. She thought it was, I didn't, and we agreed to disagree (civilly: she was quite pleasant). But I think it's worth noting that we'd need a sizeable proportion of our armed forces (e.g., the entire Marine Corps) to do an effective job at it . . . and we'd still have leakers. That doesn't begin to address the 10+ million illegals already in the country. Shipping them out isn't feasible even if we wanted to live in the kind of country that would round them all up, which I don't think we do.

Speaking of which, the real problem here is the illegals. (And the rapidly building underclass with attendant crime and social issues.) The obvious answer is occasional amnesties and assimilation, with the obvious caveat that the deal must be sweet enough to entice those folks to sign on (since you can't force them, and if they don't cooperate it merely preserves the status quo). If we need to call it something different because "amnesty" doesn't poll well, fine. Sealing the border and shipping them out is impractical, and folks who proffer those solutions are unserious.

kim

But he did defend me from a sockpuppet pretending to be me, and Lorie once laughed at my comment that Carter went to Rome after the Pope died to observe and accredit the cardinals' voting on the new Pope.
====================================

lurker

Quite frankly, don't we already have laws in place to enforce illegal immgration? If so, then why do we need reform? Why not just use existing laws to build the fences, both physical and virtual, along our borders, including water?

If we can get the public to begin questioning the need for reform by using existing laws, then we wouldn't have to deal with the compromising process with the dems and moderate republicans. It's difficult to deal with the Senate and House even with the majority when half of the majority are moderates, which lead to apathy and discouragement among the conservatives and a desire to sit out the November elections. I informed www.gop.com (?) of my disappointment in our performance in the Senate and House and that the only reason I will be voting (at this point) straight republican in November is to keep the dems in the minority.

I believe that Bush did the right thing for us. Border fences weren't his number one priority before 9/11. 9/11 changed it. We need to show Bush that he has our support.

kim

Are the immigrants in Europe largely legal or illegal? I understand that many are from former colonies. We are fortunate that the mass of our immigrants are virtually co-religious with us, and largely speak a language cognate with our own.

Truly, blessed be we. Be thankful.
=====================================

Pofarmer

"Shipping them out isn't feasible even if we wanted to live in the kind of country that would round them all up, which I don't think we do."

Make it illegal to employ them and they will self deport, along with their "Anchor babies." No need to get rough. The problem is, enforcement on businesses has been damnably lax the last several years.

Dwilkers

Its just not conservative is all. Its really like some mondo-bizzaro version of Cons Gone Wild.

Conservatives believe in market solutions and if anything was ever market driven it is illegal immigration. The fundamental solution is the creation of a middle class in Mexico. Once that happens and people can make a living there they won't be trying to walk across a thousand mile of desert and cactus to get a job in the US.

Bush believes in big picture solutions. That's why he's done what he did in Iraq, that's why he supports free trade with Mexico and a North American economic bloc including the US, Canada and all of Central America.

--------------------------------

Man. I'm getting worked up and I have a lot to say on this so I'll just shut up for a while after one more point. If we did not have a Pub majority and President we'd have 2 new Ruth Bader Ginsbergs instead of Alito and Roberts, OK?

And if we had 2 new Ginsbergs we could damn well find ourselves with it being un-fooking-constitutional to restrict immigration into the US at all.

Don't think so? Based on what - the constitution? They found it constitutional to limit purely political speech in campaigns didn't they?

Florence Schmieg

I hope the ideological conservatives are happy with one another because soon that is all they will have left. I wasn't political until 9-11 and then gravitated towards the conservatives because of strength on defense and pro-life issues. But I increasingly dislike them. They are the cause of lower poll numbers for Bush and they will, in their obstinance, cause liberal Democrats to regain control of the country, a disaster for all of us in my opinion. I will never forgive them for that. American Presidents must govern the entire country: large, heterogenous, messy, and wonderful. The ideologues on both sides should just grow up.

Sue

Okay, what happens when those illegals become legal and no longer work for the wages they are being paid? Everyone keeps saying Americans won't do the work they do, but when they become Americans, neither will they. We start over?

Sara (Squiggler)

So, Sue, do we do nothing? Or do we try to implement all parts of the plan so that all parts work as a whole solution? I say the latter. Strict enforcement, employer crackdowns that in themselves will have an effect, and a sensible solution to the guest worker plan and a fair/compassionate plan to deal with those who have proven themselves worthy. I realize this last part is controversial as hell, but it is the least of all the parts. Those already here will remain in a status quo position while we are implementing the other tougher aspects. What I do know ... loading up 12-20 million people on cattle cars and wheeling them off to detainment facilities is NOT a solution and is a distraction.

Semanticleo

They don' need no steenkeen' distractions;

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters’ phone records in leak investigations. “It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration,” said a senior federal official.

Cecil Turner

Make it illegal to employ them and they will self deport . . .

Isn't it illegal to employ them now?

Okay, what happens when those illegals become legal and no longer work for the wages they are being paid?

You get a fresh crop willing to work for lower wages. This isn't a new phenomenon.

lurker

"Okay, what happens when those illegals become legal and no longer work for the wages they are being paid? Everyone keeps saying Americans won't do the work they do, but when they become Americans, neither will they. We start over?"

We have to become a nation of laws by enforcing legal immigration. I believe that this is the message that Bush came across in last night's speech.

As long as we are lax on illegal immigration, we start over. But we cannot just uproot those illegal immigrants that are already here in USA. Nor can we make the process long, difficult, cumbersome, and costly for making them legal. There are probably one too many horror stories about making them legal along the way. Timing (aka 11 years) is not so much of an issue as it is with other issues. Examples: 1) one had to pay a lawyer ten grand just to get a green card. 2) One lost her driver's license, went to apply for a replacement, was told that because she got married and her last name changed, she could not get a replacement until she gets her card updated with INS. INS refused to grant her an updated card with her last name changed. She needs to be able to drive to her two jobs. Now people has to chauffeur (sp?) her around. In the meantime, she's having to deal with a young daughter inflicted with CF.


MayBee

Kim:Truly, blessed be we. Be thankful.

Jeez. That is so true.
You know, I have actually had people strike up conversations with me (on the bus, on the train) to tell me how much they would love to go to America. People from the Philippines, from Africa, from India, from China...

Sue

Cecil,

My point exactly. So stop with this coded 'Americans won't do the work' and 'out of the shadows'. All they are going to do is bring in a new crop.

Sue

Do you know what the fine to an employer is if an employee is using a false social security number? Or one that doesn't match the name? $200. Think about what that employer would be out if he had to pay worker's comp, social security, etc. The fine needs to be one that hurts the employer and they will not willingly employ illegals and write it up as a cost of doing business.

ed

Hmmm.

What utter tripe here. The "Malkin" wing?

1. This issue crosses all political boundries and doesn't just involve conservatives. A coworker of mine just immigrated from Canada, is ultra-leftwing and he's absolutely opposed to illegal aliens. In fact he's to the *right* of me on this, and I frankly thought I was about as far right on illegal aliens as anyone could be.

2. There will be NO fence. All that was proposed was to build "high-tech fences" along urban corridors, the same useless nonsense that we have now. In fact check with Hugh Hewitt's website as he's significantly changed his mind on this speech.

3. The National Guard won't accomplish anything. Take a look at the pre-speech briefing transcript. What's going to happen is that the NG troops that participate in this will spend their annual 2-3 week training time along the border. So we're not going to get "up to" 6k NG troops along the border, spending time there and getting to know the terrain.

Instead we're going to get a rotation of NG troops that'll come in, unpack, work a week, pack and leave. And that's the "package" plan that has to be taken as a whole?

I suggest that everyone who is in favor of this idiot speech take the time to actually read the particulars. The devil is definitely in the details, don't end up looking like an asshat.

4. The latest proposal for the senate bill reverses the normal proportions of educated vs uneducated workers. For the first time MORE uneducated workers will be allowed in than educated ones.

Sounds stupid? It is. Particularly in conjunction with #5. I had no idea that we needed to import illiterates.

5. Another part of the senate bill increases the total annual legal immigration limit to 5 million from 1 million. Frankly the limit may be currently 1 million but the actual number legally immigrated on an annual basis is 2 million. So that 5 million a year figure is very suspect.

I view the prospect of importing 2-5 million uneducated and illiterate workers a year to be unpersuasive.

6. The total number of illegal aliens is far beyond 12 million and is at least 20 million. They're crossing at the rate of 3 million a year so 12 million total is a ridiculously low number used to not alarm people.

7. Scenario: 20 million illegals suddenly made legal citizens, but with nothing invested in either the country or the culture. You can make someone a citizen, you can't make them an American.

So. Each legal citizen now will try and immigrate his/her immediate family bringing in spouses, parents and children. Assume an average of 5 such people per new citizen.

(20m x 5) + 20m = 120 million.

And with the raised legal immigration limits all 120 million would be in America in 20 years.

Is there anyone here who is going to try and push the meme that America can assimilate 120 million uneducated non-English speaking people in 20 years?

But that's not all because the process doesn't STOP. 20 million in 5 years, the initial set. 120 million in 25 years. 220 million total in 45 years.

Anybody see a problem here?

Frankly there's a lot more wrong with this nonsense. It remains to be seen if the pro-Bush immigration people on this blog are willing to debate, or if all you've got is nonsensical venom.

Dwilkers

The only morality in business is money. You want business to stop hiring illegals to do work, you want an effective way to force the issue? Find a way to make the pain greater than the reward.

MayBee

Sue- $200? Ridiculous. I absolutely (although I could be wrong) believe that a huge fine on that transgression, coupled with a legal requirement to check the SS number, would make a substantial dent in the problem. No biometric card required.

Ranger

The one thing that I find most distressing about the debate is the idea of "punishing the employers." Now, I am all for punishing those who deliberately break the law, but small business owners in the country have been put in an untenable situation here. They are required by the law to verify employees’ legal status, but they are denied the ability to actually do that. To start with, the SSN card is the easiest document in the US to forge. Having an SSN is prima fascia evidence of legal status, since the SSA will not issue one to an illegal. Once upon a time, you could demand more documentation from someone if they didn't speak English (English was a requirement for naturalization), but ever since the Clinton administration did away with speaking English as a requirement for naturalization, employers have been threatened by the Federal Government with discrimination suites if they don't hire employees that can't speak English. The Federal Government even ran Public Service Announcements in the late 90s telling employers they would face DoJ action if they refused work to people because they suspected someone was illegal but couldn't prove it.

It's the prefect Catch 22. If someone shows up who can't speak English but they have an SSN and a card, then, if you demand to see a green card or other work authorizing documents before you hire them because you suspect their not legal, you just committed a civil rights violation. But, if you hire them, and the SSN is fake, then you are a criminal for not checking hard enough.

Of course, the SSA should and could know the instant that SSN is registered by the employer for tax purposes, but they only audit a small number of SSNs a month, so that illegal can work for months without being challenged (and the Federal Government gets to keep all that FICA money that they pay until they get around to identifying them).

If you initiated an instantaneous SSN verification program for employers with a serious audit of the current FICA rolls, you'd stop the vast majority of illegal immigration and find 80 to 90% of the illegal population. And, in fact the adut is mostly done already, because the IRS has a list of SSNs for whom refunds are due but, no tax return is ever filed. My hunch is that the vast majority of those are illegal immigrants.

Sue

Maybee,

Unless it has been raised since last year, yes, that is what an employer is fined if his 940 has socials that don't match the name.

ed

Hmmmm.

Actually that 120 million in 25 years is completely wrong. A friend pointed out my mistake:

When you add 20 million voters to the rolls in a single block, and we can expect them to vote as a BLOCK, then this will vastly shift the political landscape. We should expect legislation shortly that would allow the illegals, ahem new citizens, to immediately import their immediate family.

So that's at least 120 million in 5 years, not 25.

Unless there's someone here who is going to try and debate whether or not Congress wouldn't fall all over itself to placate that massive block of new voters?

Frankly that is a curious aspect to this. By making them citizens in such large numbers and so quickly this will distort American politics. How much remains to be seen. But only about 120 million people voted in the 2004 election. And that's on a national level.

By concentrating in specific areas it'll be possible for these new illegal alien cum voters to overwhelm the pre-existing political structure.

Bush's plan is utterly insane.

owl

Reagan tried but the result on the ground was to open the door. It stayed open until Bush tried to at least remove the doorstop. From what I hear, he has driven up the price. When people take money to not see and hear...well as they say, 'money talks'.

I do not think you will stop it, round em up, ship em back....make felons of millions of Americans. A little reason could be practiced and a fence. Stopping big business from hiring zazillions and requiring English. Stop the flow and put a name and number on the new ones.

Ten years ago I probably would not have supported a fence. Times change and the young ones have developed an attitude that needs a fine tuning. The entire country needed a PC/English change.

This is my bone with the Tancredo/Malkins and the crew following. They have made some real solutions impossible and created pure losers for the rest of us. Bush is still sitting where he started...so what else is new?

Tancredo/Malkin and their followers have develped severe BDS and might as well be leading the parade for the moonbats.

ed

Hmmmm.

Then again maybe my numbers are both too low and the timing is too conservative.

Bill permits 193 million more aliens by 2026

cathyf
The fundamental solution is the creation of a middle class in Mexico. Once that happens and people can make a living there they won't be trying to walk across a thousand mile of desert and cactus to get a job in the US.
Bingo. People here just assume that Mexico must always be poor and backward because that's all its ever been. But we need to understand that the root of most of Mexico's problems is emigration. The Mexican government can be corrupt and nutty-socialist and pander to the worst impulses of class warfare, and all of their "best and brightest" can just escape to the US rather than having to stay at home and fix their own problems.

When Maytag closes their appliance factories in the American midwest and moves them to Mexico, people scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs." What they need to understand, though, is that Maytag is making a profoundly pessimistic bet against the Mexicans when they do that. Imagine that Mexico came to have the level of good governence of, say, Louisiana. Their economy would immediately boom, wages would go up, and there would be a huge demand for basic appliances like refrigerators, washers and dryers. All of a sudden the cost of making those appliances in Mexico would skyrocket, so that it would be no longer economicly feasible to ship the stuff long distances. (Maytag's midwestern plants are in the middle of the country, adjacent to rail lines.) And there would be big demand to sell the stuff in Mexico. If the Mexicans ever get their s*** together, Maytag wouldn't have any appliances to ship into the US market, at least not without losing their entire profit margins in shipping costs. Notice, though, that Maytag doesn't look too nervous about their bet (which amounts to billions of dollars.) Kind of depressing, eh?

The basic solution is regime change in Mexico. And that's just not something that we can do for them. Hmmmm... Here's a modest proposal: as a condition of the guest worker program, Mexicans are required to report to a US government office every Mexican election day. There they will take their absentee ballot and vote for the candidates that the US government tells them to vote for. Yeah, yeah, I'm not serious about committing vote fraud in Mexican elections (I'm not a Democrat, after all), but I am serious about pointing out what the root problem is.

cathy :-)

kim

MayBee, I see, nearly daily, the best and the brightest, nearly all dirt poor. All solemn about 'this place'.
==================================

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Is there anyone here who is going to try and push the meme that America can assimilate 120 million uneducated non-English speaking people in 20 years?'

That's more than the entire population of Mexico.

kim

It has become a spiritual pilgrimage. It ain't just economics, it ain't just escape from tyranny. The solemnity is from the sudden extrospection of their dreams.
=====================================

Sue

When your 2nd largest revenue is from money sent back into Mexico from the US, the Mexican government is not going to do anything differently.

J.J.

I have been lurking for months, enjoying the information re Scooter Libby and Fitz. Now I must comment re immigration. Don't be mad at Malkin, et al. re being way out on cracking down on immigration. I was furious at National Review conservatives and others who ranted at Bush re the Harriet Miers nomination, and thought it would help destroy Bush. It didn't. Now we have Roberts and Alito. Sometimes Bush needs to be pushed. If we do not stop the thousands and thousands and thousands of illegals crossing our southern border, the Mexicans will destroy this nation as we've always known it. They are not assimilating. I lived in London in the 70s and 80s and will never forget an article in the Sunday Times by one of their former presidents that actually praised the fact (now remember, this was more than 20 years ago) that their peasants were retaking the land the Americans had stolen from Mexico. There is no way to stop this, but to get tough.

Cecil Turner

So stop with this coded 'Americans won't do the work' and 'out of the shadows'.

Yeah, I hate that "Americans won't do the work" canard (and I notice it changed a bit in the latest speech to: "jobs Americans are not doing"). The "shadows" thing, however, I agree with (it's part of that "underclass" issue). I suspect the "guest worker" bit is going to be a tough sell.

The National Guard won't accomplish anything.

No kidding. 60K troops would be insufficient. It's window-dressing. But then, since I think it's a silly idea anyway, I rather like the fact that it's minimal window-dressing. (And there are some cross-border trouble spots like Tucson and the one in south Texas where they might be gainfully employed.)

Anybody see a problem here?

I think we all see the problem. It's the solution that's elusive. Personally, I think a limited amnesty is about right, which is basically what the President proposed.

Syl

ed

So that's at least 120 million in 5 years, not 25.

Your CRAZY!

There aren't that many people in Mexico!!

Syl

Sheesh people.

Unless you start making more babies, we NEED immigrants.

How did this get from 'We Have To Protect Our Borders so the Nasties Don't Get In'

to

'We gotta get rid of all those damn illegal Mexicans'

I've lost a lot of respect for a lot of people over this issue.

Damn.

Dwilkers

That's more than the entire population of Mexico.

Yeah no kidding.

And even if it wasn't the fact is that the job market would dry up long before that then.

Syl

I'm not saying don't stop people from coming here totally. We have to secure our borders and let as few in as possible from now. We have to know who is coming in.

And we have to demand they learn English like other immigrants. At least their kids.

But I have a big problem with people suggesting we deport 11 million people.

Cecil Turner

Unless you start making more babies, we NEED immigrants.

No kidding. Like it or not, our social programs are variations of pyramid schemes. Try running some of those budget projections with assumptions like zero population growth (or no economic growth) and see how scary they get.

The issues are the rate of immigration and assimilation. And again, occasional amnesties (note to self--find a new word) are necessary to speed up the latter.

Sue

At least their kids.

Why just the kids?

We make it too easy for them. Everything is in 2 languages. Press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish. Stop it. Stop making it easy for them to remain a class unto themselves. Bring them into the fold. Force them to learn English. Force them to assimilate or force them to go home. But stop with this 2 language business.

Sue

My gggrandfather came here from Germany (Prussia) in the mid 1800s. He did not speak English but never taught his children German. When asked by my own grandfather why his own father couldn't speak German, his grandfather told him if he wanted his kids to speak German he would have stayed in Germany. That story has always stuck with me as to why the earlier immigrants came here. A better life and to become Americans. You can retain your culture and become an American but you can't become an American if you only want to retain your culture in a different location.

Syl

Sue

Why just the kids?

Strawman. I said at least the kids. :)

The parents sometimes have a harder time learning English. Been true since forever.

But this bi-lingual stuff in school has to end.

Sue

Harder is not impossible. Learn the language. They would find it easier to learn if they were forced to learn it. That is why it bugs me when the immigrants of today are compared to the ones of yesteryear. The immigrants from yesteryear assimilated, one because they had to and two because they wanted to. Those of today only assimilate if they want to. We make it so easy for them to remain Mexicans living in the United States.

deona

Let me use a couple of simple examples to make the central point to both sides about this issue,

Consider a situation we’ve all seen in a supermarket involving a mother and a spoiled child. (Please. I’m not about to compare illegal aliens to spoiled children. My point is something completely else – just bear with me).

The child grabs a piece of candy, and the mother shakes her finger at the child and says “no, no!” The child stomps its foot, and starts to eat the candy. The mother tries to take the candy away from the child. The child screams, falls down on the floor and makes a huge scene. The mother, embarrassed, lets the child eat the candy, and pays for it when she checks out.

Who is responsible here? Is it the child? What makes the child behave that way? Is the child inherently a devil?

Is the store owner responsible? Why doesn’t he agree to let any child take a little piece of candy if it wants it?

The problem here is clearly the mother. She has the responsibility for her child’s behavior. She is supposed to set the rules. This is clearly not the first time this scene has played out. This is obviously the kind of mother who does not take her responsibilities seriously, who would rather be her child’s “best friend” than to teach the child, with discipline if necessary, the benefits of good, honest behavior by following the rules.


Consider the situation in this country in the 1960’s when it became a popular thing among younger people to abuse drugs. (Again, I am not about to claim that illegal aliens are all drug addicts – my point, which may have become apparent, is nothing of the sort.)

Many of those popular drugs were very dangerous. Most of them impaired the drug users in a way that endangered the public. There were already laws against their use. Drugs were made available to users by law-breaking drug dealers, most of which sold their wares without being arrested and punished..

Many of the same citizens for whom drug use was popular were also some of the most active protesters of the war in Vietnam. There was some sympathy for their opinion and feelings. There appeared a certain tolerance for their actions, and a reluctance to prosecute them in a way that would effectively discourage their drug use.

So we wound up with a whole generation with serious addictions, damaged brains, and the popular opinion that drugs were OK, and that only token law enforcement was appropriate and sufficient. Most tragically, our black ghettos, already populated by people who were victims of prejudice for whom attaining any success in life was very improbable, became exploited most seriously by drug use.

Who is responsible here? Was it the young people who gave into the temptations to join their friends in a popular activity of using drugs? Were they all somehow devils that just appeared all at once and who collectively started using drugs because they were inherently evil?

Was it the drug dealers, many of whom had absolutely no way to provide themselves with even a minimum wage by any other activity, who caused this problem? Was it the people who produced the drugs, smuggled them into this country and distributed them among all the drug dealers?

Was it the fault of the parents of all the young people who began using drugs? Did they fail in their parenting skills by not instilling in their children a proper respect for the law?

Or was it the legal system in the United States that was a colossal failure in enforcing drug laws? A system that took over a decade to respond to the growing, tragic problem in this country? A system that allowed the drug culture to be firmly entrenched to the point that it was too late or too expensive to significantly eliminate the lawbreakers from the society?

The problem here is clearly with the performance of our law enforcement agencies. There can be no such thing as the “rule of law” in any country if there is a tolerance for failing to enforce the laws of the country. Just the fact that most people who sell drugs, and most people who use drugs are never arrested and prosecuted for their wrong-doing does not make it right for those people to continue to sell or use drugs. But it certainly makes it understandable why they do it.

The illegal immigration problem in this country is the fault of the executive branch at every level of government in this country – from city, to county, to state, to the federal level, over the past 50 years. If I were a decent young person born in Mexico, married with several children, and I had seen numerous friends leave for the U.S., get jobs, and send money every week back to their family, while my family and I fought deep poverty and privations by staying in Mexico, I can guarantee you I would soon become one more of those to cross the river.

I’m saying that one cannot blame any illegal alien who has come to enjoy and depend on relative prosperity in this country, and who wants to do everything he can to be allowed to stay, or one who has no qualms about “going to the front of the legal immigration line” of those who have already spent 5, 10, or even 15 years trying to by the rules.

But the concept that it is wrong for a country to enforce its own laws, no matter how lax it has been previously, and no matter how many people have benefited from breaking those laws for decades, is absolutely ridiculous. That argument has no credence whatsoever, nor will it ever have. It is understandable that the benefits are so great to an illegal alien who has had the opportunity to work in this country for a long time that he would be compelled toward protests, violence and any other response to allow himself to stay here. But it would not be improper for a U.S. citizen to suggest to such an illegal alien that he should give thanks for his good fortune in the past, but that he should know better than to expect us suddenly not to have a right to enforce our own laws.

If someone were to crack down on that child that has become used to taking candy in a store, it would be an unpleasant experience for the child, and that unpleasantness is the fault of the mother who allowed the child to do that when it wanted to. But it is still wrong for that child to behave that way.

If we were somehow able to arrest and jail every drug user and drug dealer in this country, and to totally eliminate the market for drugs, certainly millions of people would suffer, especially those around the world who have profited from the production of drugs. But their suffering would be caused by the fact their behavior was allowed, and, for dealers and producers of drugs, actually rewarded, for almost fifty years!

There is simply no acceptable rationale for any illegal alien to fight his deportation in accordance with the laws of the United States of America. And there is simply no acceptable rationale for anyone to criticize any government for wanting to enforce its own laws, just as Mexico insists on enforcing its own, very severe, laws on illegal immigration.

Get over it.

cathyf
The immigrants from yesteryear assimilated, one because they had to and two because they wanted to.
The big problem is that a very major reason that immigrants of yesteryear assimilated was that it was too hard to go back to where they came from other than for an occasional vacation. My SIL's dad taught at a Chicago public high school with large Chinese, black, and Mexican populations. The Mexican students did significantly worse than the black students, even though they came from the same sort of poverty. When you asked the students why they didn't learn English, why they dropped out, they said it was ok because they were going back to Mexico. That they didn't actually ever get further south than Joliet didn't matter -- it was that they could that made the difference. Even the small number of hispanic students from Central and South America were more like the black students than the Mexican students -- Guatamala is a whole lot further away from Chicago than northern Mexico.

That's not something we can solve either. But it helps to understand that threats to "send 'em all back to Mexico" are counterproductive as far as those problems caused by the belief on the part of Mexicans that they can just go back to Mexico. In order for these immigrants to become good citizens, they need to feel "ownership" just like all the previous waves of immigrants did. Constantly threatening to send them back doesn't help them assimilate.

cathy :-)

Pofarmer

"Unless you start making more babies, we NEED immigrants.

No kidding. Like it or not, our social programs are variations of pyramid schemes. Try running some of those budget projections with assumptions like zero population growth (or no economic growth) and see how scary they get."

It's still economic. Change the scene, and people will start making babies. That's the poorest argument. If there are fewer of us, the Opportunities will be better, and we won't need all the social programs. Problem solved. Right now, we're being overrun. How does that solve anything?

Give employers the resources to do background checks. It shouldn't be that hard with the internet. And prosecute accordingly.

Sue

I don't think I asked for them to be sent back. Just to learn English. And for us to stop making it so easy for them not to learn English. And to punish employers who knowingly hire them.

boris

punish employers

If there isn't a real program to remove them, taking away their jobs and putting employers in jail just creates more problems.

Any workable solution has to happen in stages, where each stage adapts to the results of the previous stage.

lurker

I know, I know! I have an idea!

Why not annex Mexico as the...what...52nd state????

No, let me start with "It is rumored..."

"It is rumored that in 5 years that Mexico will be annexed as the next state of United States of America."

And, no, I'm not the original source of this rumor.

Cecil Turner

If there isn't a real program to remove them, taking away their jobs and putting employers in jail just creates more problems.

Another "no kidding" moment. I'm open to a different solution set on this subject, but I don't see any workable proposals proffered.

Dwilkers

What is assimilation in the US anyway?

I would contend that it is education, speaking English, home ownership, voluntary compliance with the rule of law, etc. Love of freedom and liberty, leaving your kids in a better position than you were in, the American Dream. People don't generally obey the rules in this country because they are forced to do it. We aren't a country that enforces a rule set at the point of a gun.

That's one of the problems I have with the idea of militarizing the border. Its just not how we do things in this country.

Sue has it right IMO. No more bilingual education, no more bilingual crap. In order to get citizenship they have to speak English. In order to vote they have to be citizens. So why do we need bilingual ballots please?

If you accept that our economy requires the labor they provide - and I do - then they need to be given a legitimate path to assimilation. Right now they don't have one.

Sue

I don't think I said anything about putting someone in jail. When you make the fine something worth noticing, that should be sufficient.

Barney Frank

I think I posted this awhile back but maybe not. And I think Ranger, upthread, alluded to it. There is something called the NICS (National Instant Check System) used by gundealers nationwide to instantly check on the criminal and psychiatric history of a prospective gun purchaser. There is no reason a similar system couldn't be implemented for prospective employees. It would be more difficult and subject to the same problems of forged documents of course, but it would suffice to elimninate probably 90% of the problem. Once that is done the illegals will self deport.
Then maybe the 50% unemployment rate for inner city youth might drop a little as a consequence.
And incidentally you don't have to completely seal the border. Greater perceived enforcement is enough to curtail a good many illegals, just as more visible Highway patrolmen curtail speeding even if they're just sitting by the side of the road taking a snooze.

lurker

Just saw this:

"CNN has a poll just up, and the results are staggeringly in the president's favor. 79 percent of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of the speech, and those who support the president's policies rose in number from 42 to 67 percent."

cathyf

I think that assimilation is more about what the kids do. Adults have a hard time, and no adult immigrants have completely assimilated in great numbers in any era. But kids not assimilating is the disaster. Which is why we need to get rid of the bilingual crap. This is why Asians are doing so much better -- even though most of the adults are limited to living in chinatown or koreatown or the like, the kids assimilate just fine. And I think it's because spanish/english bilingual doesn't hurt them.

cathy :-)

clarice

CNN Poll [John Podhoretz] David Frum, the smartest man I know, got it wrong. CNN has a poll just up, and the results are staggeringly in the president's favor. 79 percent of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of the speech, and those who support the president's policies rose in number from 42 to 67 percent. Posted at 1:02 PM http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmY4Y2MxOGM1OWY2Njk1ZWM2NGNlN2ViNjhmMzU2OTQ

Gary Maxwell

Clarice

You beat me to it. So the President has hit a note that is quite resonant with most Americans. Count on the Congress ( I mean the Senate I think ) to screw it up.

clarice

No. Here's how I see it. The Senate will pass a candy ass bill. The House will enanct a far tougher one. It will go to the conference committe which is full of hardliners, and a more rather than less tough Act will emerge. This gives the President cover with the middle, the left cover with its base (we tried to turn the country over to Mexico but the meanies wouldn't let us) and the right with its base. Each will vote for what is most popular in their district and not be hurt by the outcome and the President stays in the center right which is just where the majority is.

Royal Flush.

Sara (Squiggler)

Tancredo/Malkin and their followers have develped severe BDS and might as well be leading the parade for the moonbats.

79 percent of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of the speech, and those who support the president's policies rose in number from 42 to 67 percent.

Malkin and her gang won't be satisfied with anything short of gestapo-type roundup with detention camps, cattle cars, etc. I was embarrassed for her last night when I saw her on O'Reilly. What a snippy, snarky little bitch she sounded like. And, I'm normally a Malkin supporter, but I don't know who sounded worse, Tancredo or her. They come off as racist bigots and in the final fatal stages of BDS.

Now as to the English requirement. I live on the border, I deal with the border issue every single day in my normal course of the day. On the day of the big "strike" my daughter-in-law was left to try to run 3 dry cleaning establishments by herself because she was the only employee not allowed to take off because she was the only "white" on the payroll and the owners are Korean immigrants who supported their Hispanic employees striking. They won't give my d-i-l a store of her own because she isn't sufficiently bilingual. I am sitting here at sixty trying to break back into the job market in So. CA after a 6 year hiatus taking care of an elderly parent and not one job in the paper a week ago that I would be qualified for skill wise was available to me because everyone requires the applicant to be bilingual. I think we should immediately make it illegal to require Spanish for anything except jobs that can prove the person is going to actually be working out of the country.

I can see the border that runs through the wild terrain of the high desert from my bedroom window. Traditional enforcement and border security won't work in those wilder areas. The electronic fences and unmanned aerial surveillance is the way to go and the National Guard getting in the act will bring some more of the technology on the scene not to mention the other equipment and training they can bring for building access roads and other features needed to even get enforcers into some of these areas that the illegals use to sneak across on foot.

Busting employers is an iffy proposition, although I do support it. But, my d-i-l isn't trained in forged documents. She is barely over min. wage herself. Yet she is responsible for hiring and filling out new hire paperwork. Without a fraud-proof ID system, you can't expect businesses like hers to do much more than they do now. They don't have fancy check systems or the money to run sophisticated background checks. So, I support a fraud-proof system with biometrics or some other similar alternative.

The President's speech was an A. What Congress does now will determine what overall grade the government makes. The President did his part, now let's get thinkiing people, not idiots like Tancredo and King, making this happen.

Specter

ed,

lol...funniest logic I ever heard. Almost 1/2 the population of the US will cross the border in 5 years. Sheesh. Of course...I got it now. China is going to invade Mexico, take over, and send all of their worst prisoners there. Those are the ones that will be crossing....

Sue

Actually, Ed is just citing something he got from somewhere else. I can't remember where I saw it, or heard it, but his is not an original thought.

JM Hanes

TM!!!!

Could you check out how your software handles URL's? This is one of the few sites I know where a long URL is simply chopped off at the end of a line, instead of wrapping to the next. That's why so many of Clarice's links don't work, which is a shame.

Even for those of us who are comfortable with the html tags, the odd fact that the actual URL doesn't wrap into the comment box either is really annoying (not that I think we freeloaders have any right to be annoyed, of course). You end up having to scroll way out of the window to complete the tag, which also makes for a lot of extra errors and a lot of extra preview windows to correct 'em.

I think it's safe to say that this is a bug, not a feature, especially on a blog like yours where off site linking is so important. Since the problem seems unusual, I suspect there should be a readily available fix.

Clarice:

Here's your Podhoretz item.

clarice

Gee, I'm sorry. What I do is click the link and paste it in the address and it works..though there's a trick..delete the first paste and then hit it again and it does seem to work. I'll go to html tags or tiny url.

clarice

Thanks jmh

cathyf

clarice, the problem is that the window is pretty skinny, and if the url is too long it doesn't fit. Some url's will wrap, if there is a character in there that allows a wrap (like a '?' or a '-'). But those that don't just get cut off. There are a couple of solutions... If you go to the View...Page Source you will get the whole thing. Use search for however much of the url that you can see to get to the right place. Or you can set your font size to be really small so it fits.

As for TM fixing the code on the page, I think that's a typepad thing, and I don't know if TM has access to modify it. But if he does, I'd vote for the css being modified so that </div> (closing the <div> which encloses each comment) automatically closes unterminated formatting sequences...

cathy :-)

windansea

here is the truth and from a source you wouldn't expect:

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Illegal immigration to the United States is "Mexico's disgrace," caused by the government's failure to create enough jobs, the country's leftist presidential candidate said on Tuesday.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who trails conservative Felipe Calderon in polls ahead of July 2 elections, accused President Vicente Fox's administration of causing the flight of millions of Mexicans to the north, which prompted President Bush to order National Guard troops to the border.

"They are the ones mostly responsible for what is going on because there is no employment, there are no jobs in Mexico so people need to emigrate," Lopez Obrador said on his morning television show."


He said Bush's plan, announced on Monday night, to deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to help secure the Mexican border would not end the flow of illegal aliens.

"It is not the solution. It is not an alternative but it is a disgrace for us Mexicans because of the irresponsible rulers of this country," the leftist said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-05-16T192145Z_01_N16412332_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-IMMIGRATION-LEFTIST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Sara (Squiggler)

We need to understand what the purpose of using the Guard is all about. They bring manpower, technology, equipment, and expertise. We need them for building access roads, bringing the technology used in Iraq such as the unmanned aerial surveillance that is primarily a military technology. We need them to build not patrol.

Sue

It makes no sense that Mexico isn't what Canada is. Canadians are not flocking across our borders looking for work.

lurker

What are the instructions for adding a link to an URL?

Javani

Bush was reaching for the center? Hahaha. He was setting his far-out plan as the "center". One can have border security without inflating the country with 50 million people.

The distraction was for the Democrat base. The Bush proposal is the ultimate union buster, which the Dem elites support.

kim

Non US central and south Americans have always somewhat resented the US abrogating the name America to ourselves. Before long, it'll just be America, the whole hemisphere. Monroe could see it. Learn Spanglish.
========================

clarice

Lurker it is like this (note the only space is between the a and href)
Close the last bracket..Remember to do this after the last bracket> I'm not doing it or you wouldn't see the instructions,

windansea

It makes no sense that Mexico isn't what Canada is. Canadians are not flocking across our borders looking for work.

true dat..

people think mexico is a poor country...it ain't...net exporter of oil, govt owns it all including the stations, 15% sales tax on big ticket items, 10% income tax

the govt and the rich here don't want the US to ruin the big game they are playing with their people...I might just root for Obrador to win

clarice

Yipes, maybe this will work:Do this but put < this at the beginning of the string and > at the end.


A HREF="http://www.htmlgoodies.com">Click Here For HTML Goodies

windansea

from another expat in Mexico

Another crucial question is this: If half the children today are of minorities, then in no more than eighteen years half the kids of college age will be. Unless they show a sudden scholarly afflatus which has not heretofore been in evidence, this means that soon the US will have to compete with China with the brains of only half the nation. This is not to mention secondary effects, such as enstupidating all schools to hide the failures of the minorities. Do you suppose that the Chinese are doing that?

Now, from the same story in the Washington Post, this: “William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, predicted that the United States will have 'a multicultural population that will probably be more tolerant, accommodating to other races and more able to succeed in a global economy.'"

How heart-warming. I suggest that William H. Frey is a thoroughgoing fool, but this is common among academics.The whole touchy-feely multy-culty idea that forcing people together will make them love one another, kum bah yah, is simply wrong. Right now, there is a tremendous repressed hostility between blacks and whites, the lid being held on by federal power, tight control of the press, and rigorous political correctness. Whites, huge numbers of them, detest Latino immigrants and would love to expel them from the country. Serious friction grows between blacks and Latinos as Latinos push blacks out of regions they once controlled. We’re not moving toward accommodation. We’re moving toward trouble.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

boris

<a href="http://www.google.com">google</a>

produces ...

google

Lurker

Mac's opinion

Ok, will try the link instructions here.

There is one paragraph that jumped out at me because of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Meyers last night. Meyers said that the fence won't work because people will dig tunnels, climb fences, etc. In fact, when we stayed in Vista, CA for a short visit back in January, we read an article about a major tunnel dug into one of the warehouses in San Diego - discovered a few days before.

Then I read that 6,000 to 6500 illegals cross the Arizona border nightly.

Well, if Arizona puts up that fence, it will certainly slow down to perhaps a few hundred per night instead of 6K or 6.5K/night.

And those tunnels will eventually be discovered over time.

Put the fence up.

Lurker

Another perspective is Israel. Didn't Ariel's fence slow down suicide bombings?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame