Month: May 2006

11 Comments Posted on Illegal Immigration

those who do not learn from history…

you know the rest. amnesty doesn’t work. we tried this already in 1986. the INS(immigration and naturalization service) released a study on this back in 2000. guess what they found out? here are a few highlights (courtesy of the center for immigration studies).

Amnesties clearly do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. About 2.7 million people received lawful permanent residence (“green cards”) in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the amnesties contained in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. But these new INS figures show that by the beginning of 1997 those former illegal aliens had been entirely replaced by new illegal aliens, and that the unauthorized population again stood at more than 5 million, just as before the amnesty.

In fact, the new INS estimates show that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly increased illegal immigration, as the relatives of newly legalized illegals came to the United States to join their family members. The flow of illegals grew dramatically during the years of the amnesty to more than 800,000 a year, before dropping back down to around 500,000 a year.

shouldn’t we take this into consideration when thinking about the consequences of a second amnesty for even more illegals? we shouldn’t reward them or the employers that hire them for breaking the law. we should care more about protecting the rights and the jobs of american citizens than we do about taking care of those unfortunate souls who are citizens of a corrupt socialist government. border enforcement should be a priority, but we also need to destroy incentives for employers and illegals to break the law. that’s the only way to significantly reduce illegal immigration. that’s where the senate bill fails to deliver the goods.

here are some important facts to know(from the heritage study):

  • 85% of the current illegal immigrant population will be granted amnesty under the senate bill…which adds up to 10 MILLION PEOPLE.
  • there are NO numeric limits on the number of illegal immigrants, spouses, and dependents receiving LPR(legal permanent resident) status.

you can dispute heritage’s actual numbers(and the white house already has). however, even if those numbers are wildly overestimated, it’s alarming that there are no caps on the number of illegals that would be able to come in to our country under provisions of that senate bill.

here’s what i would like to see:

  • enforcement with teeth
  • fines for employers that would take a significant bite out of their bottom line, which will increase on each violation knowingly committed
  • deportation for those who commit crimes in addition to the one committed when sneaking into the country
  • frequent periodic checks on employers suspected of hiring illegals, and especially those who have already been caught doing so.
  • strengthen existing laws where necessary to decrease the possibility that there will be repeat offenders
  • increased funding for border security so that those charged with enforcing our borders will have the resources they need
  • no citizenship for felons, drug smugglers, or those with 3+ minor infractions

these are some common sense suggestions that i think could be starting points for an immigration bill that would actually begin to deal with the problem. i do think that there should be some exceptions for those seeking political asylum for legitimate reasons, and those cases should be fully vetted.

there are many more questions to answer before we can accept a final immigration bill from this congress, and i hope that they will figure out the right answers to those questions.

related:

Immigration Bill Is Worse Than You Think-human events online
House Negotiator Calls Senate Immigration Bill ‘Amnesty’ and Rejects It –NYT
Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years–heritage
Immigration Deal at Risk as House GOP Looks to Voters–washington post

tags: illegal immigration

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration(CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

2 Comments Posted on Illegal Immigration

retire mexico

occasionally i will be cross-posting posts on illegal immigration from other bloggers as part of the coalition against illegal immigration. feel free to comment as usual, but for responses from the original author, i suggest visiting the linked blog. otherwise, read and enjoy.

crossposted from CommonSenseAmerica :

One of the biggest divides in the immigration debate is whether or not to freely gift U.S. citizenship to over 12 million illegal immigrants already in this nation and their family members.

Did all of these people really come to America to become citizens? Or did they come merely to earn a better living and then return home?

We hear from one side of the debate that these people are just here to work and they should be treated with dignity and respect. That’s fine with me. But out of the same mouths we hear that we should allow them to become citizens and thus have access to all of our Federal, State, and local benefits.

If the majority of these people simply come here to work, to send money back home, and to retire in the country of their origin, why is our Senate hell-bent on handing them guaranteed retirement benefits equal to that of American citizens.

The average wage in Mexico is approximately $70 to $100 per week. Our Social Security benefits are near $1,000 per month for even a modest workers income. So, these workers could retire quite nicely in Mexico courtesy of America.

The way I see it is that an illegal immigrant who had no intention of ever becoming an American citizen but wanted to work here for a time and then go home, would be an absolute fool to pass up this offer.

And don’t think that the Mexican government hasn’t thought about this one, folks.

The Washington Post

SALT LAKE CITY, May 24 — Adding a voice from south of the border to the national debate on immigration, Mexican President Vicente Fox is barnstorming the western United States this week, arguing against fencing off the U.S.-Mexico border and asking Americans for “decent treatment of our people.” But the Mexican leader’s most rapturous reception in Utah came in meetings with immigrants from Mexico and other Latin countries. Each time he met with groups of his countrymen, Fox told them that their long-term ties to Mexico will continue while they live and work in the United States.”Even though you are far from Mexico, you are an integral part of Mexico,” Fox said at the rally here on Tuesday. “Over there, we wait for you with open arms.”

There are a couple of fantastic benefits to the Mexican government in this bogus “earned citizenship”, amnesty program. First, of course, is the fact that Mexico now depends on the monies sent home by its citizens as their remittances have become the nations largest source of income for Mexico.Second, Mexico allows its citizens to obtain dual citizenship and calls on their citizens to vote in the interest of Mexico at the polls in America.

Third, Mexico will welcome home, “with open arms”, all of its citizens who wish to bring their Social Security payments from America.

Yes, this amnesty bill is great news and offers fantastic economic and political perks for Mexico and its citizens.

Would someone please remind our Senators that they were elected to protect the economic and political needs of America?

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

Technorati Tags: ,

4 Comments Posted on Conservatives, Democracy, Democrats, Republicans

you can’t always get what you want

Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government – about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues – they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives’ monopoly of the label “values voters,” the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.

george will

social conservatives have values that are shared by many people in this country, but they have to realize two things. first is that they will never get everything they want. legislating moral behavior to the degree that some of them are suggesting is impossible. the second thing they have to keep in mind is that they won’t do any better than they are doing now by voting for the democrats.

there’s nothing wrong with having absolute black and white positions on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. there’s also nothing wrong with saying that a political party would lose support from your group if it does not do what you tell it to do. the flaw in this strategy for groups like this is that they don’t consider the big picture very often. george w. bush may not be their perfect politician, and likewise the republicans may not be 100% hard-core as far as pressing their core issues.

however, there are not many alternatives for groups who see supporting life and opposing gay marriage as their core issues. where would these social conservatives go if they took back their support of the republican party? not to the current group of democrats, that’s for sure. we are talking about the party whose leadership is strongly in support of abortion, of gay marriage, and which also does not have a very comfortable relationship with the Christian community. as well as being out of step with the centrists in his own party, dnc chairman howard dean can’t seem to find much common ground with the rest of the country.

he opposes missouri’s voter id law, which requires voters to have a valid photo ID in order to vote. if he was really concerned about election fraud and people being disenfranchised, you would think that the democratic party would want to support this and other similar laws. this is another one of the many unpopular positions dr. dean has taken while representing the democratic party. even on the war in iraq, the american public doesn’t seem to agree that immediate withdrawal (whatever the current definition of that seems to be) is the right answer to what should be done about iraq.

dean’s attempts to reach out to the 700 club crowd have also fallen flat. that is because he lies about where the democrats are on social issues, and even goes as far as to claim that the democratic platform of 2004 supported the idea of “one man one woman” for marriage. it did not. dear howard, please stop before you hurt yourself. (I guess it’s too late for that warning, isn’t it?) if the centrists don’t like where howard dean is taking their party, then they had better take some serious action now, or they
are headed for another election defeat in ’06.

there is always the option for social conservatives, and for small-government conservatives, to take their ball and go home…that is to stay home on election day, possibly handing the congress over to the democrats. it is a tempting idea, but not because the republican majority hasn’t taken a hard enough line on abortion or the federal marriage amendment. the appeal lies with other areas where republicans haven’t lived up to the expectations we had for them when we elected them. one is spending. as i pointed out previously, these republicans aren’t fond of small government, and have demonstrated that quite well. even those who wish to make the attempt to reduce spending, such as mike pence, are brutally shot down.

the question is then: how do we reform the system? i don’t know if there is a way to significantly impact the process in washington and change the way it currently works. we hold politicians to a higher standard because they represent us, and we should. because i’m a conservative, i believe in personal accountability for everyone, and especially for those in DC representing me. unfortunately, a self-policing system will never provide the level of accountability that is necessary to keep our politicians on the straight and narrow.

that’s why it has become more important to stay engaged and to pay attention to what your representatives and senators are doing, and not just 6 months before an election. even if your congressman or senator is not in your political party, you still have a voice. you still can write letters, make phone calls, and bang on the door (figuratively, of course) until you get an answer.

accountability is not just about elections. it is also about citizens taking an active role and letting their representatives know where they stand on the issues currently being debated. look at what happened with the dubai ports deal. everybody got motivated to call DC and say “hey what the heck are you guys doing up there?” we need to do more of that. i think we are starting to pay more attention to issues, now that illegal immigration is front-and-center. that’s a good thing. i would like to believe that our voices are having some impact in this debate. we shall see what happens with this current immigration legislation in the house and in the senate.

the last word belongs to john hawkins:

Here’s my advice: set your emotions aside and think long and hard about what a Democratically controlled Congress would really mean. Is the satisfaction of, “teaching the Republicans a lesson,” worth the price? Think back to the Clinton years: conservatives certainly stuck it to Old “Read My Lips,” but the price turned out to be eight years of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In my book, that wasn’t such a great trade-off and keep in mind, when you’re talking about congressmen and senators, it could be worse. Incumbent politicians are tougher to get rid of than a cockroach infestation and 40 years from now, do you really want to be sitting around, remembering how you stayed home and helped the next Robert Byrd get into office? Folks, be mad at the GOP if you don’t think they’re doing a good job. Call your senator, call your congressman and give ’em hell if they deserve it. But, when November rolls around, make sure to vote because there’s more on the line than you might think.

Tags: , , ,

2 Comments Posted on Editorials

shiny happy positive post

politics is depressing. partisanship is tiring. that’s why it’s so necessary to put all these bad things americans may be dealing with in perspective.

for example:

Anyway, my point, whether I can come up with an appropriate intro or not, is that, even though it seems like we have no heroes in politics right now, America is still full of heroes and things worth fighting for. We have the liberty earned by our forefathers, our innovation, our spirit, our awesome economy, and our general kick-assery – and that should be more than enough to get anyone out of bed and glad to be alive each morning. As bad as things may get in Washington and on the world stage, there’s always a supermarket nearby with at least eight different types of Oreo cookies to choose from – and this week they’re buy one get one free!

frank j at imao (read the whole post here)

exactly right. it’s all about the oreos. even if you don’t like oreos, the message is the same. there are reasons for us to be happy. there are positive events in all of our lives that we can be thankful for(maybe even today). we can all passionately disagree with each other on politics, and yet still agree that america is a great country. this is true not because of its politicians, but because of its people.

so do yourselves a favor. turn off the news. spend some time with the family, and with your friends. go outside into the sunshine (where it’s available), and enjoy the day as much as you can. after all, there’s more to life than stressing over the mid-term elections.

2 Comments Posted on Random Musings

one final request

it is time to say goodbye to one of the best shows on TV (in my opinion anyway), ALIAS. rumor has it that someone will die in this final episode. of course there also were rumors that vaughn (or whatever his real name is now) was dead, and we all know how that turned out.

if j.j. has decided to kill off a character, i have one final request. PLEASE LET IT BE SLOANE! at least with the other evil characters, they never pretended that they were otherwise. he killed his own daughter. he betrayed sydney and APO. you can’t end this series without killing sloane.

goodbye ALIAS…a great series suffering a premature death.

if you tuned in for the political stuff, check back tomorrow. 🙂

Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted on Editorials, George W. Bush, Illegal Immigration

this is not good

from nro:

The Senate continues to fiddle with the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in an effort to make it less odious to supporters of serious immigration enforcement. But one vote in particular has exposed the real priorities of the bipartisan pro-amnesty majority. On Tuesday, 55 senators (including 18 Republicans) voted against an amendment by Senator Isakson of Georgia to delay the start of any legalization program until the border-security measures in the bill “have been fully completed and are fully operational.”

This explicit rejection of Enforcement First removes all doubt: The bill is nothing but a rerun of the 1986 immigration fiasco, which featured amnesty for nearly 3 million illegals in exchange for the hollow promise of future enforcement. The other adjustments the Senate made to the bill don’t change this—not the 370 miles of additional fencing, not the ban on felons’ getting amnesty, not even the scaling back of the guest-worker plan so that “only” 60-some million people would move here over the next two decades instead of the 103 million originally estimated by the Heritage Foundation. Without a requirement that the borders be secured before proceeding with amnesty, there is no justification for supporting this legislation.

the white house can dispute the numbers heritage came up with (and has), but the overall point remains the same: border security must come before any discussion of guest worker programs. what’s so hard to understand about this?

maybe conservatives would be able to trust president bush on this guest-worker provision if we were sure that he was just as committed to securing our borders. there’s not much evidence to suggest that committment exists. sending national guard troops to the border may be a quick fix, but we need to do more than that. it would also help to enforce existing laws, and to tear down bureaucratic roadblocks to border patrol agents who are just trying to do their jobs.

related:

Barrier of suspicion now separates Bush from GOP base–chicago sun-times
Why Enforcing Our Immigration Laws Will Largely Be Irrelevant If The Senate Gets Their Way–RWN

Technorati Tags: , ,

5 Comments Posted on Editorials, George W. Bush, Illegal Immigration

speechless

you’ve got your reasons
none of them are mine
if that’s the way you want it
go ahead that’s fine

i’ll just get on out of here
i won’t get in your way
if in time it takes you under
well..that’s just the price you pay

but don’t ask me how i feel

–swirling eddies, “don’t ask me how i feel”

i have no words for this immigration speech by president bush. fortunately, many other bloggers are ready to fill that void.

michelle malkin weighs in.

california conservative has some helpful suggestions here and here.

the uncooperative blogger has more posts on illegal immigration. he hosts the coalition against illegal immigration. go to his site for more info and/or to join the cause.

sarahk at imao is unimpressed.
wonkette hosts the unofficial liveblog drinking game during the speech, as per usual.

something to think about:

If there is an honest debate about how many million people will be given a chance to come to America under the Senate bill, we’re told the number is between 30 million and 36 million people. When the average American learns that, they are going to be furious if the Senate Republicans allow that kind of bill out of the Senate. The Senate bill expands substantially who can be brought in as a member of the family. So you take 11 million and add the other people, and we believe the real number is between 30 million and 36 million.

–newt gingrich (h/t RWN)

good luck tony snow. you’re going to have a tough time defending this dog of an immigration policy.

tags: illegal immigration, george w. bush

related stuff i wrote:

simply outrageous
illegals and the rest of us

4 Comments Posted on Conservatives, Republicans

feeding the beast

The defining premise usually used (in these days of tanking and now near-thirty-percent approval ratings) to disassociate the failures of Bush, the House, the Senate, all their advisors, all their supporters, and the cats they loved as children from so-called true conservatism is primarily that true fiscal/governmental conservatives suppose themselves to value “restrained federal power”, aka small government, which Bush allegedly does not. This, though, is a load of horsehockey. Fiscal and other conservatives may say that they value small government, but it is a fact of the movement that when in a position to actually implement those policies, they do not.

hunter at daily kos

it’s a fair point, i suppose, to dismiss the rhetoric used by politicians to get elected as not having much relationship to what they do after they settle into their nice new offices. it’s a rather common political game that everybody plays. this is not solely the domain of republicans or conservatives.

it is suggested, by some on the left, that the small-government conservatism that we get nostalgic for cannot exist as a permanent fixture in public policy. they see our philosophy on the role of goverment as “unsustainable” and see the current congressional republican failures as flaws of this kind of conservatism. this is an incomplete answer to the question, “what the heck is wrong with the republican party?” the left believes that this failure can be attributed to a lack of willingness by all of the true believers in conservatism to actually follow through with implementing their agenda. it’s not that simple.

here’s the truth of the matter: small government types are an endangered species in congress. not all conservatives, or for that matter, republicans, subscribe to that philosophy. that’s why we have such unchecked federal spending, and in addition to that, not much interest by the controlling party in making any changes in that area. the republicans may have the majority, but that doesn’t mean that conservatives of this stripe are controlling policy.

that’s certainly true of the man presently occupying the oval office. it doesn’t matter how many policy advisors he has that are sympathetic to the cause. there’s no “alleged” about bush 43 and opposition to the idea of shrinking government. george w. bush hasn’t proposed reducing government programs/dependence at any point in his presidential life, and that’s all on him. he has never been a small government guy. EVER. this wasn’t why we elected him. it was about the GWOT and appointing conservative judges to the supreme court, which he has done.

continuing from the kos post:

And that is not a unique phenomenon: it is a traceable pattern of the movement. They shuffle the tasks of government around, yes; they close so called “liberal” governmental tasks such as environmental protections and citizen welfare and safety programs, while hyper-boosting “conservative” governmental tasks such as defense spending and business-based “incentives” and other sops, and they outsource basic government tasks from government to for-profit industry without actually removing those tasks from the mandates (or budgets) of government, but post-Nixon conservatives have been remarkably consistent in their actual actions: increase spending; increase deficits; increase government; increase interference in citizen lives under banners of “religion” and “morality”. At no point in the modern-day movement have conservative adherents actually implemented this notion of small government or fiscal responsibility that they supposedly carry around with them as guiding force. It’s the label on the package, yes: but it’s not in the candy bar.

what most government regulations on business and industry lack is any sense of balance. either the scales are tipped in favor of business (which they generally seems to be right now) or they favor excessive environmental controls on essentials like gasoline. the results of those regulations usually have more of a financial impact on the average consumer than an environmental one.

let’s address this question of the difference in funding priorities between the republicans and the democrats. we consider national defense and military spending more important than saving the spotted owl. call us crazy. we also believe that the current welfare system is keeping people in poverty, not helping them achieve independence and to become successful, productive members of society. that’s why reform is absolutely necessary in this area. it would be a different thing entirely if all these social programs worked, but they don’t.

this is not at all meant to excuse the men and women abusing your tax dollars. if there is any turnover from government control to control by private industry, then it goes without saying that those items should be removed from the federal budget. shame on any member on congress who does not help to ensure that this happens. there is no defense for the reckless spending. there is also no defense for the trend toward increased government regulation or creating more ineffective bureaucracy.

there is no easy answer to fix this problem. if it were just a matter of replacing all those who agree with the status quo of feeding this government beast, then there would be more hope for real change in the system. we can’t just replace the people. we must reform the system that perpetuates big government, or nothing will ever change.

related:

Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity–david frum (cato)
Why Advocates Of Small Government Are Like A Certain Hockey-Mask-Wearing Serial Killer–john hawkins (rwn)

3 Comments Posted on Editorials, George W. Bush, Illegal Immigration

simply outrageous

i don’t understand this strategy by the US government in dealing with illegal immigration.

from the daily bulletin:

While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen — and telling the Mexican government where they are. According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants — and if and when violence is used against border crossers. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants’ rights are being observed.

so the US government doesn’t want to seriously deal with the illegal immigration issue. not only that, but they are actively helping the mexican government find those who are willing to do something about the problem. michelle malkin has more here(where the DHS labels the report “inaccurate”) and here.

if this is happening on ANY level, it’s wrong. i am finding it hard to accept that those who break our laws to get into this country should have any rights. of course they shouldn’t be abused, but they should be arrested and deported when they are caught. there’s nothing inhumane about enforcing our laws.

there are many areas where i agree with bush 43, but he’s making it harder and harder for me to defend him. i agree with him on social issues, iraq, and on the selection of conservative judges to the supreme court. i can’t defend this. we elected this guy for the most part because of concerns about national security and the GWOT. i think it’s fair to say that his report card is incomplete at this point.

president bush should care just as much as securing the borders of this country in addition to his concern about the security and future of iraq. right now i just don’t see that commitment to this country’s security.

related:

U.S. Border Patrol: Reporting To Mexico? –california conservative

1 Comment Posted on Editorials, Illegal Immigration

illegals and the rest of us

i’m opposed to illegal immigration. how’s that for analysis? maybe i should elaborate just a bit on that. i don’t think that anyone who is here illegally, whether they are mexican or any other nationality, should be allowed to stay in the country. i’m not sure that there is a simple way to address that problem. it’s clear that we need to make the attempt to enforce current laws as they exist today. however, we have seen that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. that should be something that both sides should agree on. the disagreement is about what we do to fix the problem.

i find it annoying that people who sneak into our country, break our laws, and continue to flaunt those laws by staying in the country, have the audacity to complain about having no rights. citizens have rights. non-citizens do not. employers in this country are breaking our laws to give those people jobs, and for this concession, they get people walking out to join a protest. yeah…that makes sense to me. if the mexican people should protest about anything, it’s their ineffectual socialist government that keeps them in poverty. if we really want to help mexican citizens, we should start introducing a different economic model for them, not a brand-new guest worker program.

there are laws in place ALREADY that address many of the current problems we are having with illegal immigration, as california conservative points out. we need to start enforcing the laws we already have. making it easier for someone who sneaks into the country to become a citizen seems kind of backward to me. we shouldn’t reward people who break our laws by giving them a shortcut to citizenship, especially because there are people here already who are trying to go through a legal citizenship process.

what message does that send to those who actually want to be citizens of this country? let’s be clear on this. many of these illegals don’t really want to be US citizens. so giving them the option doesn’t really make sense. our priorities are screwed up when talking about this issue. border security should be the top priority as well as enforcing current immigration laws. even if we will never see terrorists cross the border through mexico, it is still important that we know who is coming into our country. then maybe we can entertain all these other suggestions.

related:

we don’t need no stinkin’ reform –california conservative
the intellectual dishonesty of the open borders crowd — right wing nut house

tags: illegal immigration