Thursday, May 04, 2006
# Posted 11:44 AM by Patrick Porter
The public now firmly supports toughened border enforcement plus- and this is a big plus for the president - a system for letting illegal immigrants already in America earn citizenship.Without rancour if possible, what do our readers think? Is this a workable compromise? (16) opinions -- Add your opinion
Well, the bill could be considered a compromise if both aspects of the bill are actually carried out. I have a gut feeling, though, that any new border security apparatus will be as insufficiently funded as the last bill increasing the number of Border Patrol agents in the Southwest by 2,100. The citizenship-path side of the bill, being perceived as more desirable to the public, will probably be more fully funded and implemented, and the theoretical compromise will vanish into the haze.
Sadly, we are not quite past the screaming stage of the debate.
Overall, some D.C. compromise will be had, probably bad, as stop-gap measures will be substituted for "success."
The real problem is that folks are just not thinking, on either side of the boder.
How is this solution any different from what was passed back in 1986?
Increased Border Enforcement? Check.
Amnesty for current illegals? Check
Massive Failure two decades later? Double-check
Amnesty has never been a solution. Increased Border Enforcement has never been a solution.
The only way to create a -real- impact would be to hold employers responsible for the legality of their workers.
The only way to do that is to create a national id. Until privacy advocates and christian fundamentalists are willing to concede this point...any proposal is going to be fatally flawed.
I am not convinced that anyone has thought this through.
If there is an amnesty program, will "legals" (for lack of a better term) demand a minimum wage? Assuming they do, what is the economic impact of that demand?
It is my sense that there is a large portion of voting America that equates legalization (aka: amanesty) with higher consumer prices. Paradoxically maybe, is it the minimum wage that creates opportunities (a market) for "guest workers" or those who will do the tough manual jobs for little pay?
Is this a fair concern?
from an earlier post.......
ah yes, the comforts of a familiar circle jerk.
"arrest illegal immigrants, arizona wants control of its borders, second line of defense"
ooh scary. give me a break. they want no such thing. take a look at this map, remembering it's almost six years old. look at it, and look at it good.....
have we all become crack heads. there will be no "enforcement of any laws" which as i have told you is code for "do nothing". it has been this way for forty years and will continue for forty years. 15 million will be 30 million. who are we kidding. look at the color saturation of arizona on the map above. if you think any law is going to be enforced you are eating to much peyote. don't give me any crap about "well laws should be followed". they are not, they are not going to be. the repubs pass a law to cater to their base and the dems veto it to cater to theirs. HELLO. meanwhile back at the ranch 10,000 more illegals come here every week. yes, week after week, year after year. meanwhile we pass new resolutions and everybody claims the higher ground.
close the F’n border with a fence, legalize the illegals with a ten year green card and be done with a problem of our own making.
people against a fence along the entire the border are just making excuses. they want/will get a police state instead with greatly enhanced IRS, FBI, INS etc. they want/will tear this country apart with a new race war because of something we did. we let them in–don’t ever forget it. if people think 40 million hispanics are going to sit still while a bunch of crackers on the left and right jump up and down screaming “its not right, its illegal or whatever” we’re sending you home after extended stays in our wonderful internment camps while the "illegals" legion of attorneys battle us for years in court, while we discuss root causes and other such nonsense, you don't need a vacation, you need therapy.
you had better hope we get this
otherwise we are definitely getting this even though it was never planned.
just remember as we have been discussing the upholstery on the deck chairs for these last six weeks 60,000 more of our little friends have come to say hello.
……i think an fair reading of the above addresses the yelling that is taking place on both the left and right regarding the mix of solutions that we are hearing. by not enforcing laws that were written over the last forty years has given rise to a very large economy employing and attracting illegals. attempting to clamp down on a system so large, 10-15 million people, will have to be stalinist in approach. there would be millions of unemployed just for starters. boy there’s a perfect solution. to the people on the right who are talking about felon status/deportation etc that would take gestapo like actions to execute. yes, yes its been a while since we had a good pogrom!
obviously some don’t want a fence. ok. i do, along with virtually everyone that lives at the border. since i wrote that post on march 17th events i predicted are already happening. the largest organized marches have already taken place with more to come. cities have already announced they will not enforce any laws past or future to penalize employers or illegals and the two step convoluted senate plan has crashed and burned. as luck would have it all the columnists i sent it to are talking up the fence as first option. i admit, all the senators i sent it to told me to f’k off.
i want a fence first and then citizenship for all. no questions asked after a background check. no fines, no back taxes, and a 10 year(2x the norm) green card period. wages and benefits will go up immediately without any government intervention. all the bad guys deported along with anyone who commits a felony while on a green card. if people still feel they need their pound of flesh we can charge them a very, very small citizenship fee for processing. i am just sorry to say that despite our best intentions–”enforce the laws” is just code for “do nothing”. perhaps not for you but certainly for everybody else for the last forty years and it will remain that way for the next forty……….”
bild the fence first then talk......
It is only a workable compromise if the enforcement side of it comes first and is given time to prove that it works. Otherwise it'll just cause a new wave of illegal immigration.
I'm not sure why a "compromise" is even necessary. Polls show a clear majority of Americans want toughened border security *regardless* of what is done with the illegal immigrants already here. So lets toughen border security; worrying about what to do with the people who already snuck in can come later.
Let us simply do away with borders alrogether and let people go where they will. This is the natural state of man/economies/the world. This is also globalisation's ultimate goal - we should not fight it, but rather do everything we can to see that it works.
I do not think this would be some terrible disaster because
(a) Despite the talk, the majority of people will be led by their own affections and human inertia to stay where they are if life there meets some basic standards of quality and aspiration.
(b) Finally, we might get some real commitment from the developed economies to address the hunger and poverty and lack of democracy in other places, if only to quel their own invasion fears!
I say, let people vote with their feet. People didn't emigrate to the Soviet Union en masse - was there a surer sign of its failure, and the triumph of the 'West'?
Borders are unnatural and distort everything. They are holding back the tide of history, and the advance of mankind.
I read in the Australian newspaper today http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19030955-601,00.html
that even the best case scenario of global warming will expose 400m more people than now to famine and draught. This is if we even stabilise emissions at double pre-industrial levels by 2050.
Is there a better cause to rethink borders, given that vast tracts of the Earth that were once inhabitable are going to be lost to climate change? It is unfair on the people born there to suffer the consequences of a climatic phenomemon they did not cause. The nations with resources to do so have a duty not only to drop in the sporadic aid, but to evacuate these regions when they become inhospitable and accept their duty. This is even more the case when one considers the causes of climate change.
Duty, responsibility, charity - are these ideas so radical?
Sorry Patrick - last post from me. Just had to congratulate Oxford for voting in so many Liberal Democrats in tonight's local elections, confirming that party as the party of the smart people. I hear they won a majority in Cambridge. Why is that??
Sorry, don't know what happened there!
The 'party of smart people' talk is the kind of talk I am trying to oppose. My Tory, Lib Dem and Labour voting mates are all smart.
The "security now" fence/wall aspect is a no- brainer. This has been ignored for years under multiple administrations. There is simply a need for the will to do it. If it isn't done then how does one propose to ebb the flow? I don't think Mexico is interested in helping.
As to legalization, this is simply a forced reality. We're not going to put 11+ million people on horseback, aim them south and say "lagate" as some would like.
Implementation is the hard part. Start with employers with a reporting & penalty mechanism and maybe there will be a chance to at least get this issue under control.
Finally, stabilization is not going to happen overnight. This is a problem years in the making. I don't think a 10-year plan is unreasonable.
Patrick, love, I am SO PROUD of you! So well behaved on the issue.
The good thing about the entire debate is for the first time we are recogonize that our "immigration" problem is 80% a "Mexican" problem, and until we get the Mexican per-capita GNP to around $4000 or so, we will continue to have a "Mexican" problem.
There are two reasons that foreigners come here illegally: for a better life (this includes work) and for welfare benefits. Yes, don't forget this second aspect - it is a very important part of the issue. I see this all the time. Have a child born in the US and it is a sure check in the mail, plus food stamps, medical assistance and other benefits. People have no idea of the real costs of immigration, but the middle class is bearing the burden.
The border must be closed before any deal is reached, otherwise in two years we will be back in the same situation. We also need to change some laws. I sincerely doubt our leader will do anything. Like Scarlet, they don't give a damn.
I feel strict enforcement at the borders has never been tried... It seems like that would be a massive job, and enough to chew on at first. So I say build the fence, deploy the cameras, and deport the illegals from the interior of the US as they pop up in criminal cases, but don't go looking for them--yet. And leave the employers alone for now, too. Nothing else works if we don't control the borders first--as they have never been controlled before.
Workable compromise? Here's the deal, the Federal Government has lost credibility. In '86 they gave us amnesty with the promise of controlling the border and cracking down on illegals, who didn't do the amnesty paperwork or snuck in later. The Fed's have done nothing other than overturn Prof 187.Post a Comment
So, build the fence, control the border, start enforcing the law internally, then get back to me in a couple of years and we'll see about "a path to citizenship". BTW, I don't see the Mexicans interested in US citizenship, other as a way to continue what they're doing. The don't want to become Americans.
Bottom line, the Feds have to gain credibility thru action, not promises.
Back to the compromise, the amnesty stuff will start immediately, while the fence won't be built. That's what will happen. We have to have the fence first.