Just when I thought I was becoming known as the “anti-immigrant blogger,” Michelle Malkin relieves my anxiety and demonstrates her mind-reading skills: “Whenever they say ‘anti-immigrant,’ substitute ‘pro-enforcement’. And shout it at the top of your lungs.”
I am not racist nor anti-immigrant. I am pro-enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Thanks, Michelle.
Yes, I’m back on immigration again, dear readers (see the Immigration category). Once I start blogging about it, I just can’t stop. You know why? Because it’s the big, fat elephant in our faces, a growing problem that George Bush seems to have no interest in fixing. Embedded in the 911 bill that Republicans in Congress refuse to pass is Bush’s plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens who illegally entered the country through illegal means by committng the crime of unlawfully crossing the southern border. Are we clear?
Congress is where the real conservatives are. What is Bush’s problem? Even a 911 Commission made up of rude, loud-talking Democrats (and mealy-mouth Republicans) concluded that our immigration enforcement was lax, which contributed to the terrorist attacks on September 11! Good grief.
The most pressing matter facing America is not “poverty” or “racism” or “lack of health care.” It’s illegal immigration by people who have no interest in embracing American culture, and I’m not talking about the degradation and filth coming out of Hollywood. I’m referring to valuable things like respect for the rule of law and a common heritage and language.
This is the one thing about Bush I will never understand, no matter how much it’s explained to me. The president himself could pay me a visit, sit me down in a quiet place, explain the intricacies of his plan, the rationale behind it point by point, the policy implications and all the research that had gone into it, and why he believes it’s necessary for our country and illegal aliens. I’d respectfully listen. After he’s done, I’d still ask, “But why are you rewarding and encouraging lawbreakers?”
Think I’m kidding? I’m no hypocrite. Most of what I write on this blog about the NAACP, John Kerry and other liberals, I’d say to their faces. I’d remember my manners, of course, but I’d get my point across very clearly. I’m just grateful that other Republicans are fighting Bush on this issue:
Republicans who want to slow immigration to the United States and crack down on illegal immigrants believe they are gaining political strength and public backing, which may pose a problem next year for President Bush.Bush has already signaled his intention to push a major proposal to allow some of the estimated 8 million to 10 million illegal immigrants in the country to gain legal work visas for up to six years as part of a “guest worker” program.
But he may face growing anti-immigrant sentiment, not only his own party but in the country at large, several opponents claimed. (Source)
In the age of terrorism, how could a wartime president, who led the country after a vicious attack on our own soil, encourage more foreigners to enter the United States? Does anyone care to fill me in? As you explain it, pretend like I’m 5 years-old.
Back to Mrs. Malkin. She mentions the organization I wrote about the other day:
Flavia Jimenez of the National Council of La Raza illustrates perfectly this blustering open-borders tactic in a hysterical “action alert” this week titled: “STOP ANTI IMMIGRANT PROVISIONS FROM BECOMING PART OF THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM BILL.” La Raza and their fellow travelers argue that tough enforcement measures “needlessly scapegoat all immigrants,” are “extraneous” and “harsh,” “would not have prevented the terrorist attacks and will not make us safer,” and are “non-solutions that will only drive people further underground and cause panic among immigrant communities.”
Remember La Raza? It’s the open-borders advocacy group that our next Attorney General belongs to. Are you failing to grasp the conflict of interest here? The AG is supposed to enforce immigration law but is a member of a group that wants to flout immigration law. Is it just me? Unbelievable.
Check out these sources on illegal immigration and what it’s costing taxpayers. See this report on alarming statistics from the Center for Immigration Reform. The Federation for American Immigration released a report on what it’s costing California.
In my younger days, I didn’t appreciate my country of birth. I took it’s culture, ideals and my freedom to bad-mouth it for granted. Now I realize I’m living in the greatest country on the planet, and I understand why. But I voted for a man seems to have no interest in preserving what makes America great. Bush talks a good stop-terrorism game, but as I’ve said on this blog many times, what people do is more important than what they say.
Some of my detractors claim that I’m a blind party loyalist who dares not criticize Republicans. Well I’m doing it now. Are you reading? I do not support George Bush’s amnesty plan. I think it’s wrong-headed and dangerous, and Bush is getting bad advice.
Do you still think I’m a party loyalist? I’ll read your mind: Nothing short of my parroting your views will ever convince you otherwise.
Update: Michelle blogs about her column. More from Right Wing News.
La Shawn,
I agree with you 1000 percent! I’ve always been a conservative, Republican and voted for the president. But, I will not support “anyone on anything” I believe is wrong, including this issue. We have an obligation to scream to the president against this as loudly as we screamed for him to get him elected!
Comment by Dave in AZ — 12.01.04 @ 9:53 am
The majority in AZ agree with your views. The passed prop 200 which denies illegal aliens the ability to vote or receive public benefits. Unfortunately illegal immigrant advocacy groups are likely to get this overturned in the courts prior to it becoming law.
Comment by Tim — 12.01.04 @ 10:10 am
I have a simple immigration plan. We let anyone who wants to come in the country, and is willing to fill out the paperwork, go through the background check, etc…in.
Then, for every person we let in, I get to throw two out.
Give me 10 years and this will be a much better country.
Comment by kevin — 12.01.04 @ 10:26 am
La Shawn,
As I have commented before, I totally agree with you on this. As someone who deals, on almost a daily basis, with the problems brought into our society by illegal immigrants, I can see why the policy of non-enforcement of immigration laws is a disaster for this country.
In addition, it is now almost mandatory for police officers in this part of the country to at least have some command of the Spanish language, something totally unheard of when I first got into police work. This is a prime example of what you are referring to when you say they have no desire to embrace American culture. This country is made up if immigrants from around the world who spoke many different languages in their countries of origin. The first thing most of them did in the past was learn to speak English. Yet, it seems that most illegals nowadays have no desire to learn English, and we empower them by catering to Spanish speakers in nearly every avenue of life in this country.
In addition, we are seeing a growing proportion of crime, particularly gang crime being perpetrated by illegals. We now have more hispanic gangs and gang members in Tulsa than any other group, a situation which has only arisen in the last 5 years. If this problem has grown to such a degree here in the midwest, imagine how bad it is in the border and southwest states.
Comment by Montie — 12.01.04 @ 10:39 am
I agree that immigration is a steadily growing problem. However, I do not know if I’d agree that it is as large a problem as you do, but that is semantics.
I will note that the immigration policy that causes my the most concern is the one dealing with the tratment of Cuban refugees. Our policy of allowing anyone to stay who reaches shore is absolutely absurd.
Mexican immigration, and let’s be square many of the pundits are speaking directly about this type of immigration, is of little concern for me geographically.
Like too many issues today, both sides find themselves with strange bed-fellows. ‘Pro enforcement’ is used as a party platform of the C of CC, as much as it is a legitimate conservative concern. While open boarders ends up a liberal thought, notwithstanding those who’d oppose it on common sense grounds.
Regarding our cultural concerns; I’d encourage the uninitiated to spend some time in Miami. It is truly frustrating when you can’t get a job in McDonalds because you don’t speak the language, especially when you are in Florida and your native language is English.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.01.04 @ 11:14 am
The immigration policy in this country is so messed up we need to scrap it completely and begin again. It is currently in our governments best interests to continue with the existing policies. They have created an underground of underemployed people that support farm and other menial labor in ways most people just don’t understand.
I employ several of these individuals. Well, not me, but the company does. I am a plant manager. The employees work on a temporary basis throughout the year and collect unemployment and welfare the rest of the time. These people have figured out the system and our government endorses it. If you are not married but have children, you are entitled to more benefits than if you are married. If you are married, you will be deported. If you earn just enough money, but not too much, you can receive other lifestyle (WIC, healthcare for minors) enhancements that would not be available to you if you earned, say $2.00 more an hour. So it’s good to be underemployed and quasi legal. And we have a government that endorses having children out of wedlock (don’t get me started on this one).
What I find most incredulous is the statute that says - if I question the validity of documents presented me by a potential employee, they can sue me for violation of privacy laws - yep that’s right! I am not a governing immigration officer and have no authority to question docs. So I must take what is presented and employ them, even if I think their docs are fake.
The system is a slippery slope that our government has built to ensure jobs for the bureaucrats!
Comment by cooper — 12.01.04 @ 11:20 am
Kevin,
I used to have a similar notion to use on the death penalty and imigration (a two-fer!):
Not too long ago, when France was sheltering Ira Einhorn (and then gave him back when the state of PA, the single largest customer of French wines, refused to buy anymore) and named Mumia Cook honorary mayor of France, an idea struck me.
We offer all convicted murderers on death row a choice: sit in your cell until your execution, or an airline ticket, new suit and a pocket full of Euros; destination: France. I figured that if they want to save our felons so much, they can have them.
Of course, we would have to stipulate that if you step foot on American soil again, summary execution…
Now, like most of our policies, France would pitch a fit on this one. They could always send them to Devils Island, or toss them in the Foreign Legion. I hear they have a home for butchers and killers down in Ivory Coast.
Now, for our immigration… I’ve always wondered why we don’t do what the romans did: to emmigrate, you must serve. Take the people from the southern border, and put them to work for X period of time policing the northern border, etc. Or create a credit system… certain skills and work performed earn you credits towards eligibility for citizenship, and govt services.
Speaking fluent english is worth X points.
Having programming or trade skills is worth another X points.
Each month spent in country as a documented, tax paying person is worth X points.
Political refugee from Cuba and other locales, another few points, etc.
Working the border patrol, more points.
Providing translation services to public accomadations, points.
Serving in the local VFD, points.
This way, the more you want to be here, the more you can work to get points faster.
Still, a minimum time should be established, like 2 years, but I think that is reasonable.
I’ve known plenty of immigrants that grew up wanting to be here, and worked very hard to get their franchise… and the wait was the hardest part.
Oh, and military service should be worth double or 1.5x points.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.01.04 @ 11:55 am
It is difficult to figure out where the support for the President’s position on this issue comes from.
I understand that my personal experiences do not represent a scientific sample. But, over the holiday I visited with relatives from all over the country. Many of them brought up the topic without any prompting. None agreed with the President’s position. This includes people from Delaware, Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana and Missouri. Some are Democrats, some are Republicans.
I certainly don’t agree with it. My spouse is an immigrant. We have not been successful in getting friends or additional members of her family in, because we follow the rules. There is about a 15 year wait from her native country.
Another round of “passes” for those who do not follow the rules could result in people from a lot of countries other than Mexico just flying over for a visit and not leaving.
Comment by Allan Yackey — 12.01.04 @ 12:08 pm
Stephen, I hope that you will consider something for a moment. Mexican immigrants (mostly illegal where I live) come to America for jobs and send most of the money back to Mexico. They could be living in Mexico, in a culture that they like, and they would have to suffer - at most - a lower standard of living.
Cubans come here so they won’t be KILLED!!!!!!
As for your language problems, I agree. Liberals, I think, don’t have confidence in our country anymore. Why then “force” immigrants to learn “our” language?
I, for one, would never go to someone else’s country and disrespect them and their culture the way it is being done in America today.
La Shawn, I love Mr. Bush, but I wish he would get his head straight on this issue.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 12.01.04 @ 12:21 pm
Steven, I am an economic (if not social) conservative. Thus I understand and applaud the Mexican’s choice and motivation. However in leiu of “Cubans come here so they won’t be KILLED!!!!!!,” I submit that their motivation is identical to the motivations of the Mexican immigrant, and almost any other immigrant that hits these shores. I respectfully suggest that you are being somewhat niave in your assesment of the differences between the two, and would be interested to know what , if any differences you see between the Cuban and Haitian Refugee, besides a 45 year old blood fued with ‘the beard.’
Seems the Haitians have just as much if not more reason to fear death.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.01.04 @ 1:08 pm
Thanks Stephen, I forgot to mention Hati. I think that it is absolutley criminal that as president, Mr. Clinton took the side of a socialist! I also support providing refuge to Haitian immigrants.
I’m not accusing you of this; I’ve seen many of your posts before and respect you. I guess it’s just because Cubans vote Republican, but way too many on the left don’t seem to care about their suffering.
I’m not naive (well, not too much) but let’s not forget what communism is. If a Cuban in Cuba starts a business and does something that Castro doesn’t like - they can be killed!
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 12.01.04 @ 1:35 pm
I believe many are only looking at a part of this immigration picture.
Identification and processing of these illegals by any means is better than what we have now - fingerprinting, doing background checks, photographing - at least we will have some idea who these “guest workers” are.
Of course, amnesty is another issue - hopefully not an issue.
Hopefully, the identification process, combined with some common sense border security and law enforcement, would discourage “undesireables” (gang members, etcc ) from coming.
but I am not holding my breath.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 12.01.04 @ 1:40 pm
Steve, I wasn’t trying to be snippy, sorry if it came out that way.
The one thing I think we can all agree on is that it is a problem. I do have some concerns that this issue is another form of bigotry for some, though I do not believe that to be Lashawn’s motivation at all.
I respect anyone who TAKES ACTION to improve their lot. And while I don’t condone ‘running the border,’ many come with the best of the ‘immirgrant work ethic’ that is commendable.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.01.04 @ 1:56 pm
The FAIR folk are going overboard to say the illegals pay any taxes. These people have no SS# so they are invisible. That is why they are hired. They are paid in cash; no taxes of any kind, no insurance of any kind. Exclude the costs of illegals and Cal would have had a budget *SURPLUS* the last 22 years! Crime would be significantly lower.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Comment by Rod Stanton — 12.01.04 @ 2:21 pm
Anti-Immigration Conservatives
Sheesh, talk about bias… Anti-Immigrant Forces Said to Gain Strength in U.S. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans who want to slow immigration to the United States and crack down on illegal immigrants believe they are gaining political strength and pub…
Trackback by Say Anything — 12.01.04 @ 2:34 pm
Racism Or Logic: Immigration Reform And The Race Card
There’s a certain portion of our country that will pull out the race card anytime you even mention enforcing immigration laws. They’ll call you a racist and say that deporting illegal aliens is simply because “you just hate brown people”….
Trackback by Diggers Realm — 12.01.04 @ 2:49 pm
‘ In the age of terrorism, how could a wartime president, who led the country after a vicious attack on our own soil, encourage more foreigners to enter the United States? ‘
I thought you weren’t anti-immigrant.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 3:11 pm
I disagree with many of the comments made on this subject.
I suspect that President Bush sees lax immigration control as the lesser of several evils. A closed southern border would create a great hardship on Mexicans who are merely looking for jobs that don’t exist in their own country. The porous border serves as a pressure relief valve, adding stability to the Mexican political scene, while feeding willing workers into industries across the US which pay wages lower than Americans are willing to accept. Without Mexican workers, wages and prices would rise significantly in a great many industries, hitting ordinary Americans hard in their pocketbooks. Companies that could afford to do so would outsource these jobs to other low-wage countries, further reducing job opportunities here.
Most workers must provide Social Security numbers and have taxes withheld. Because these numbers are usually bogus, those taxes, which will never be refunded, create a huge windfall for the federal government. Most illegal workers do not receive government services, because they fear being sent back to Mexico. While here, they spend their wages on goods and services like the rest of us, further contributing to our economic strength. By their sweat and their financial support, they make our economy stronger.
A guest worker program might serve as a good alternative, but it is doubtful that the INS could create a streamlined system that would balance the national security issues with the high demand for laborers in industry. We’re talking about millions of laborers in agriculture, manufacturering, food service, construction, maids, nannies, etc. Government is not capable of handling such a tremendous volume of workers.
Acknowledging the risks that terrorism poses, closing the Mexican border tight will create a host of new problems, and will not prevent terrorists from finding a way into the US.
Comment by Charlie — 12.01.04 @ 3:22 pm
Charlie, how do you know “[m]ost illegal workers do not receive government services”?
While no one here is naive enough to think “tightening” the US-Mexico border will stop terrorists from entering the country, it sure would be nice to know that our government is at least enforcing the laws already on the books to protect us. What am I paying all this money in taxes for if not basic protection??
Comment by LawWife — 12.01.04 @ 3:31 pm
‘What am I paying all this money in taxes for if not basic protection??’
You’re paying it so that the people who run congress can transfer wealth to the powerful.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 3:32 pm
Charlie you underscore my earlier comments. I didn’t mention the Social Security issue. My workers are also paying into a fund that will never benefit them, until their docs are in order. This helps to illustrate my concern over this quagmire. The government has no impetus to change things to correct the “system” they endorse.
You are also correct in the pricing of goods and services. If someone had to pay an inflated price to have citizens to pick strawberries or onions those foods would soon lose their savor (or sweetness) nas the case may be.
Comment by cooper — 12.01.04 @ 3:35 pm
Good post LaShawn,
I definitely don’t agree with Bush and in fact I have always labeled him a left wing liberal. You are right in assessing that our biggest problem is those coming to our country who have no interest in embracing our culture or principles but yet expect to enjoy all the liberties, freedoms and opportunities. They have overwhelmingly changed the political climate in certain areas of our nation and have had major influence on other Americans who also wish to be “tolerant” or embrace “diversity.” It has simply destroyed our nation and our national identity. President Bush does need to rethink his policies. Also, you are right about the House being where the real conservatives are. Keep an eye on the number one conservative, Mr. Mike Pence. God Bless
Comment by aaronjhankins — 12.01.04 @ 3:48 pm
I do not live along the southern border states so my perspective is a little different. Most immigration in my area (which has been heavy the last 5 years) is latino (I suspect Mexican), but really has added a new dimension to our local culture. Most LOVE being here, and work hard at low pay jobs. Our local building and construction boom would be affected if this source of inexpensive labor did not exist. And most have embraced the American dream of upward mobility thru personal responsibility and hard work. I suppose some have come to mooch off our taxes, but I haven’t met any.
That said, I believe anyone here illegally should be sent back home and given the opportunity to immigrate legally. It sounds mean, but if you aren’t here legally, you get no free federal or state funded healthcare or other services. You pay no taxes, you get no services. Those services are reserved for citizens. Private charity and private clinics can provide free or reduced services if they desire. Also, English is the common language and you must learn it to go to school or become a citizen.
All of this is only common sense unless we want to break the budget and take away from our own tax paying citizens. Private & individaul charity should handle the needs of those who are not citizens or legal green card holders.
I am a compassionate person, and I understand why the rest of the world wants to come here. It’s a great country, who wouldn’t? So I have a proposal. For every legal immigrant we bring in, we emmigrate one disgruntled blue-stater to the country of their choice, provided they sign an agreement to not come back.
Comment by michael — 12.01.04 @ 4:08 pm
2 Women of Intelligence, 2 Men Without . . .
There are 2 excellent blog posts today about the issue of illegal immigration. One is by Michelle Malkin, titled REPEAT AFTER ME: PRO-ENFORCEMENT IS NOT “ANTI-IMMIGRANT” . The other is by La Shawn Barber, titled Pro-Enforcement, Not Anti-Immigrant . …
Trackback by Now You Know — 12.01.04 @ 4:11 pm
actus, that is not why I pay my taxes. My taxes go toward funding police and other security forces (including the military)…and of course they go to other things. But if my taxes aren’t being used for the basics (like protection), I have a beef with that.
La Shawn, any thoughts on the tax reform proposals out there?
Comment by LawWife — 12.01.04 @ 4:12 pm
‘What am I paying all this money in taxes for if not basic protection??’
You’re paying it so that the people who run congress can transfer wealth to the powerful.
Actus
I think Actus has it backwards. Many are paying high taxes on money they earned so liberals in the govt can take it and give it to those who don’t work.
In all honesty, I do not resent some tax dollars going to help a struggling family or individual for a limited period of time. But continual and ongoing welfare is not in the state’s interest. There should be accountability for how public welfare dispersals are spent by the recipients (ie you buy drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc with your own money not the tax payers), how the recipeints time is accounted for, and how much effort they have applied to either education or job search. While on welfare, your job is to find a job or educate yourself to find one, a 5 year maximum with accountability standards applied.
Comment by michael — 12.01.04 @ 4:18 pm
‘I think Actus has it backwards. Many are paying high taxes on money they earned so liberals in the govt can take it and give it to those who don’t work.’
Because the liberals run the place. Gotcha.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 4:24 pm
Michael,
I have a question. What happens to the poor, if, after 5 years they are unable to support themselves?
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.01.04 @ 4:41 pm
Stephen
Same thing happened to me when I finished my schooling (which I borrowed money to pay for myself). I either found a job, or went homeless, hungry & dateless (the later being the biggie!). Needless to say, being a hungry and -ahem- virile young man, I found a minimum wage job, worked it for a few years, took on a second job, got married and my wife took on a second job, and eventually worked my way into my current position, where I am still married and raising 3 children. What else would you expect should happen?
Actus
YOU’RE RIGHT! NOT ANY MORE!!!! 4 more years, 4 more years….
Comment by michael — 12.01.04 @ 4:53 pm
What happens to the poor, if, after 5 years they are unable to support themselves?
Soylent Green?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.01.04 @ 4:59 pm
Stephen, you have a job and support your family; Why do you think that other people cannot? Old saying - hunger is a good motivator.
Actus, Marx is dead. He’s been dead for a long time and he ain’t commin’ back. Sorry.
There are plenty of people from all over the world that want to immigrate to this country. I suspect that many will “do the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do.” Why not just make the bureaucrats do their jobs and help people become citizens? It is not our job to prop up Mexican society. We are not some sort of Mexican job ATM.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 12.01.04 @ 5:01 pm
scsi- Funny, lol!
Michael and others- The crime that many complain of is committed by the poor. As unemployment rates increase, so to does property crimes, drug crimes and gang activity. As my father would commonly remind me, the most dangerous thing to a civilized society is its uneducated poor.
The criminal activities are a greater drain on the economy than welfare/workfare/student loans, etc. Economically, as another poster mentioned, these programs are safety valves that allow for the release of systemic pressure.
Further, the poor have a function in society. The ‘poor,’ act as the motivation that many marginal people need to remain productive. While the marginal may be lazy and/or incompetent, they certainly don’t want to be poor, so they keep working.
So just remember, when you have given a man no other hope, hope he doesn’t rob you at gunpoint.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.01.04 @ 5:13 pm
‘Actus, Marx is dead. He’s been dead for a long time and he ain’t commin’ back. Sorry.’
I don’t know what he’s got to do with anything. Powerful people existed before him and after him, and they liked to have the laws for themselves before him and after him.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 5:27 pm
Among the undocumented aliens there are both those using fake Social Security Numbers and those who work for cash. The latter are hired by people who themselves are often working for cash and not paying taxes.
All of this is bad for the country. We have an entire sub culture of people who are breaking the laws of the country in order to live.
That seems to me to be terrible social policy no matter what your politics. In effect it is teaching people to break the law. Rewarding it will only encourage more of it.
Comment by Allan Yackey — 12.01.04 @ 5:31 pm
Yes, I too am PRO-ENFORCEMENT!! You know I could tolerate the illegal immigration thang if the immigrants had car insurance, and drove their vehicle as one whose premiums would increase if one had to file an at-fault claim, and if they had medical insurance, an when in need of assistance and when they wanted to be educated in an American classrom they had an elemental understanding of English, . . . we can go on & on. Are laws just for those that will abide by them? Not, as we keep in mind Romans 13.
AND CANS SOMEONE POINT ME IN THE DIRECTION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IMMIGRANTS DO THE JOBS AMERICAN’S WON’T - because I believe it to be a fallacy. I believe it’s a myth that Americans won’t pick grapes & strawberries and work in textiles factories, etc etc. As long as there are farms, someone will need to harvest the crop; as long as the fast-food industy exists in this country there will be Americans willing to work the fry pans, etc. etc. etc. I am no economist, but I just don’t buy that we must employ immigrants to keep costs down. I believe the consumer drives the market price not vice-versa. Leave a product on the shelf long enough watch that producer lower the price.
Comment by ZIPLA — 12.01.04 @ 5:44 pm
Stephen, poverty is not an excuse for crime! And that includes breaking in to our country. Things are tough all over, but we are responsible for ourselves foremost. When all of the excuses are gone, all that’s left in the mirror is us.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 12.01.04 @ 6:00 pm
Importance of controlling the border, especially after 9-11, was illustrated in a Worldnetdaily.com story several months ago. It concerned a diary written in Arabic that was found by a woman in an Arizona area frequently travelled by illegal aliens sneaking across! Could that have been dropped by some terrorist sneaking in with arms and explosives, or worse yet, biological agents, to set up a cell to conduct terrorism from within?
Comment by Richard Becker — 12.01.04 @ 6:14 pm
I agree with you on the amnesty. I think it’s a bad idea. I’m less convinced about immigration — we could expand legal immigration, if it’s done properly and securely, and if those two conditions are met, I’m not sure what my position would be — but it seems to me to be a really bad thing to reward people who are here illegally.
I had to chuckle when you substituted “pro-enforcement” for “anti-immigration”. Just a reminder there are no morally neutral terms — just like how “pro-abortion” isn’t morally neutral, and neither is “pro-choice” or “anti-abortion” or “pro-life”. Hey, life, enforcement, choice, and immigration are all good when they’re done properly, to the right degree, on the right issues…
Comment by David Mobley — 12.01.04 @ 6:28 pm
As a reformed liberal, I am a big Bush supporter, but also do not agree with everything he does. I am not at all happy about the mandatory child mental health screenings, for example. But I don’t know what to make of the immigration thing. I love Michelle Malkin, but always feel a bit uneasy about her tough stance on immigration. To hear you say the same things makes me wonder if you aren’t both right. But I have spent most of my life in either Texas or California, both of which have vast numbers of Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, and their descendents, and I have great sympathy with these people. And I cheered Bush’s appointments of both Latino men. I can’t pretend to understand all of the ramifications of the choices here regarding immigration, but I wonder if there isn’t some way to bring all of the people who are here illegally into the light of legality that can benefit us all. Not as a way of condoning law-breaking, but as a matter of setting things to rights in a bad situation all around, for the common good. I don’t know. But I thank you for your wisdom, and your generosity in sharing it.
Comment by Peggy Snow Cahill — 12.01.04 @ 7:59 pm
LawWife - Re: your question about my assertion that most illegals don’t receive govt. services… I work as a missionary in the rural communities in Mexico where most of these folks come from. I’ve met many of them. Most undocumented aliens are young married men with (extended) families in Mexico to support. They mail much of their earnings home. Their alternative is growing coffee or some similar crop on small plots of land and selling it for less-than subsistence prices.
Comment by Charlie — 12.01.04 @ 8:11 pm
‘It concerned a diary written in Arabic that was found by a woman in an Arizona area frequently travelled by illegal aliens sneaking across! Could that have been dropped by some terrorist sneaking in with arms and explosives, or worse yet, biological agents, to set up a cell to conduct terrorism from within?’
Well, we know ’bout the AHrabs.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 8:13 pm
Do you ever have a postive contribution Actup?
Comment by Jim R — 12.01.04 @ 9:21 pm
I’m not sure what the answer is on immigration but since so many seem to be Mexican, it would seem to help if there are more people of Latino background helping to formulate the policies and make the decisions. Then things don’t appear as biased and in politics appearances count.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 12.01.04 @ 11:42 pm
Sure, I clarified Mens Rea for people just hte other day.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 11:50 pm
Stephen,
So because they MAY commit a crime, we are supposed to hold them to no level of accountability? I could have said the same thing when my lazy days were up, but i didn’t like the idea of sleeping with bubba or being his “bi***”. Commit a crime, do the time. Pretty simple really.
There are those who will always look for excuses to get someone else to foot the bill for them, and there are those who will always look for a way to overcome barriers and succeed. Society will always have some level of the former, but we should not reward that attitude (because they grow up to be liberals & democrats
) or base public policy on it. That argument really has no merit.
Actus,
What idiotic, parallel universe do you live in? Let me guess: Planet Claire? The B52’s nailed your type back in the late 70’s.
Comment by michael — 12.02.04 @ 8:53 am
Michael,
Not my point at all. I am a deciple of Smith’s economics, and believe in an equilibrium. As a result, The existance of the poor goes to the maintenance of equilibrium. I merely suggest that crime is a constant, a part of this economic ecosystem that is America. The levels however are controllable. It is nice to say “people shouldn’t be poor” “poor should work harder” and “the poor shouldn’t commit crimes to stop being poor”, however economics, as well as human nature tells us otherwise.
Can you incarcerate criminals? Sure it deters others from so being. However, the penalties for crime are but an opportunity cost that, when times get tough enough diminish in effectiveness.
To bring this full circle, immigrants-even illegals, contribute to the equilibrium of the economy. Pulling the rug from underneath them adds pressure to that equilibrium, causing other problems.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.02.04 @ 9:38 am
michael: ‘What idiotic, parallel universe do you live in? Let me guess: Planet Claire? The B52’s nailed your type back in the late 70’s. ‘
I prefer the love shack.
Comment by actus — 12.02.04 @ 11:20 am
Stephen,
I understand that is your theory, and it has merits. Whether it is true or not I cannot say. But from a simple, practical perspective, like a mother bird shoves her young out the nest and forces them to fly on their own, we have to pull the rug sometime. If you can’t do something with yourself in 5 years, the general public has no obligation or over-riding financial or economic interest in providing for you further. Of course this excludes handicapped, disabled, diseased and mentally ill.
Actus,
ACTUally, maybe Private Idaho would be better for you
ARgh! Sorry, thats a red state. Hey, maybe we’ve found some common ground! Rock Lobster is my alltime B52 fave. I was in college when I first saw them on Saturday Night Live do it. At first I thought what a wierd band, but by the end of the song I was floored (blistered too!). Those chicks and dudes were true one of a kinds. My teenage daughter loves ‘em too. But hey, Planet Claire isn’t such a bad place to be…
Comment by michael — 12.02.04 @ 11:44 am
La Shawn,
I agree with you, Michelle Malkin and Michael Savage….. But one point that isn’t mentioned very often is….
This country allows more legal immigrants than all of the other countries combined…..
So why then must we allow ILLEGAL immigrants as well?
Seems to me we are already compassionate and DO NOT have to explain that we are compassionate to cynical detractor leftists like Actus or La Raza or anyone else.
We should demand a stop to illegal immigration and we should demand that nobody who came here illegally is rewarded with a) drivers licensces (ala California - Gray Davis tried) or b) workers permits (ala Bush’s plan).
We should also start demaning the 3rd thing to happen. That is allow for deportations of illegal immigrants to start.
NOBODY. That means nobody Charlie and Actus, is talking about a huge massive effort of a roundup that taxes our resources and our ability to do anything else.
All we are talking about is to allow for deportations to start. Right now we have 25% of our inmate population being illegal immigrants but we can’t deport. Right now we have many instances where illegal immigrants are found to be illegal immigrants but we don’t deport. All I’m asking is for deportations to start. Once that happens a MASSIVE effort won’t be needed because illegal immigrants will know that they shouldn’t come to begin with and if they are here they should probably leave or keep their head low (stay out of trouble and don’t ask for special priveledges like drivers licenses).
Trust me. No amount of calling us anti-immigrant (illegal immigrant) or telling us that we aren’t compassionate will convince us that we have a point. A very common sensical point that ties into national security.
Comment by Baklava — 12.02.04 @ 12:02 pm
Personally, I think society has some obligation to the less fortunate. And I mean the cripples, the mentally ill and others who truly can’t do for them selves. For the bleeding hearts, that think something should be done for this group, or that group, however, STAY OUT OF MY POCKET. Because it is also that pocket that feeds my family, warms my home, a provides for my future. You want to help the X? Fine, help them. Convince others to help you out.
And limo liberals… as long as you lead your wonder lifestyle, that is so far above mine and the average Americans’, knock it off. If you spend a larger % of your income on charity than I do, maybe I’ll listen to you, but stop trying to get the govt. to raid my pocket!
B52s
I used to have a Chrysler. It was not as big as a whale. And when my street flooded, it did set sail.
further off topic, ever hear Fred’s solo album? With the single, “Monster in my pants”?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.02.04 @ 12:04 pm
Baklava, did you notice how quickly Canada said “Whoa, hold your horses” to all of those liberals who said that they wanted to move there?
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 12.02.04 @ 12:43 pm
I am pro-enforcement of illegal crossings without going through customs, processing, etc., but I also think that our immigration laws should allow ANYONE who wants to work here to do so - the limit should only be how many people the system that I propose next can process.
Here is my system: There should be three tracks for people entering the country: 1) Immigrants who wants to be a resident of the U.S. - for that you must become an U.S. citizen, 2) people who want to just work in the U.S. temporarily (however long they want to stay here up to a maximum number of years (5?) before they must automatically enter the U.S. citizenship track or leave the country for at least a year before renewing their work permits - just some specific ideas), and people who are just visiting the country on vacation or business.
The first track: If the intent is to become a U.S. citizen, then there should be a three basic requirements for such immigrants - learn English, know our Constitution, our basic economics and our history, etc. There should be an orientation/entrance exam session for a full day scheduled within two months of date of entry into the country on each of these three subjects and depending how well the person did, then there would be a probationary period (i.e. no criminal convictions) of a year (for those who met the minimum qualifications) or take up to five years to attempt to pass the exam up to five times (for those who scored below minimum). For those that scored poorly, they will be required to take classes in either English, history, etc. to help pass the part of the entrance exam they failed. But, they must take it again within the next year to pass (if pass - joins the one-year probationary track) up to five times within five years or will have to leave the country. I think the process should be paid for by the immigrant (loans could be available to help pay for the process). Then there would be a final written exam - if they fail, they have to restart the process all over again up to the time remaining that they will have (i.e. if it took three years of attempts to pass, but fail the final exam after the fourth year, they have one more year to try the process again); - if they pass - two weeks later they are sworn in as new citzens in a public cermony and presented their new passports as “diplomas.”
If the person does not intend to be a citizen, then they are allowed to work in the U.S. for up to 5 years before automatically being put on the citizenship track. They must at least take the exam (and fail) for another five years on their own money before they will be deported. If they fail to show up to take the exam after they are - they WILL be deported and barred from being able to work in this country for at least a year. A built in advantage of this system is that it gives aspiring U.S. citizens time to practice their English and brush up on their needed skills before they are ready to take the entrance exam without having to spend their own money on required classes if they fail without the needed preparation. Theoretically, they couldn’t game the system as it would cost them money after 5 years in the country.
Vacationers and business travelers just need a simple visa.
With the easy way to being able to enter this country, illegal crossing should be punished with a year in prison where you will not be allowed to speak on official business to the state (i.e. guards, warden, court, etc.) in any language other than English (English classes will be made available at the prison for anyone gain any needed communication skills). Even if a person has attempted to cross illegally once or twice and there was no evidence that the person was part of a terrorist cell (they will have to still serve in prison both times), that person still have the opportunity to apply through normal channels to work or go on the citizenship track. However, at the third illegal crossing and thereafter, five year prison sentences will apply.
I’m sure there are flaws in this plan, the point being - is that I am pro-enforcement to protect this country by securing our borders, but I am also pro-immigrant as I believe that everyone who wants to be here in this great nation and willing to learn our common language and history, etc. should have a relatively easy opportunity to become citizens.
Comment by Matthew Fountain — 12.02.04 @ 12:45 pm
Steven,
Next comment is not for the squemish - - That’s because Steven, Canada doesn’t have enough therapists/psychologists/mental health professionals to handle the influx.
OK. That was a joke you liberals. And for a joke to be funny it has to have an element of truth. For those who aren’t aware there was a few news articles out of cities like Boca Raton (Rat’s Mouth) florida where therapists were deluged with new patients (liberals) after George Bush won. There was also “group” therapy sessions established to help liberals cope.
Comment by Baklava — 12.02.04 @ 12:56 pm
Michael: ‘At first I thought what a wierd band, but by the end of the song I was floored (blistered too!). Those chicks and dudes were true one of a kinds. My teenage daughter loves ‘em too. But hey, Planet Claire isn’t such a bad place to be…’
They are red staters.
‘Baklava, did you notice how quickly Canada said “Whoa, hold your horses” to all of those liberals who said that they wanted to move there?’
I think they said there’s a waiting list.
‘The first track: If the intent is to become a U.S. citizen, then there should be a three basic requirements for such immigrants - learn English, know our Constitution, our basic economics and our history, etc. There should be an orientation/entrance exam session for a full day scheduled within two months of date of entry into the country on each of these three subjects and depending how well the person did, then there would be a probationary period (i.e. no criminal convictions) of a year (for those who met the minimum qualifications) or take up to five years to attempt to pass the exam up to five times (for those who scored below minimum). For those that scored poorly, they will be required to take classes in either English, history, etc. to help pass the part of the entrance exam they failed.’
I’d support this system if natural born citizens also had to go through it. Not as a verification, just intruction, nothing would happen if they failed. But at least they would be aware of the fact those of us who are naturalized citizens may be a good expression of the old saying ‘converts make the best catholics’.
Comment by actus — 12.02.04 @ 1:31 pm
Actus,
If they’re red staters on Planet Claire, then sign me up for their looooove shack (I like women who shave, bathe, and look nice)….
I beleive immigrants do often make the best converts. Once they see thru the folly of liberalism and become true RED-STATE blooded Americans, they really began to add to our culture!
Comment by michael — 12.02.04 @ 2:27 pm
Actus,
Aren’t the public schools supposed to teach the native citizens “English, know our Constitution, our basic economics and our history, etc”?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.02.04 @ 3:37 pm
michael,
All of the immigrants in my office, except the one who came here at age 6 and doesn’t remember soviet Ukraine, are conservatives and republicans
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.02.04 @ 3:39 pm
‘Actus,
Aren’t the public schools supposed to teach the native citizens “English, know our Constitution, our basic economics and our history, etc”?’
Sure. This is just a test.
Comment by actus — 12.02.04 @ 4:18 pm
Interesting proposal, Actus.
Perhaps the Federal Government can require High School Juniors to pass that very same test to obtain a diploma, that way if they fail, they have a second chance to retake the test as a senior. Perhaps colleges can request these scores? I can see this beneficial for two reasons.
First, such statistics will actually measure what our students do know about our country and our spoken language.
Second, it would help identify which schools are actually teaching our kids these relevant subjects (hat tip: SCSIwuzzy) and there could be some measured accountability to that effect.
Comment by Matthew Fountain — 12.02.04 @ 4:30 pm
Matthew, Actus,
Sounds familiar… maybe if we do this, no child will be left behind.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.02.04 @ 5:22 pm
LOL!
It does sound eerily similiar, doesn’t it?
Comment by Matthew Fountain — 12.02.04 @ 7:06 pm
Have you ever seen when Jay Lenno goes on college campuses and ask basic questions like who the vice president is? Sacry.
I find that immigrants who come to this country and want to become Americans know more about our history than the average born in the USA college kid.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 12.02.04 @ 7:37 pm
Steven J.,
Yes, “scary” is so true.
That’s why I like Actus’ suggestion about the possibility a basic citizenship exam, that immigrants have to take to become citizens, be applied to “native” born citizens. Not that it would deny the natives’ citizenship if they fail, but requiring a passing grade to obtain a high school diploma would really be a motivator and reveal the need to improve the state of our education system.
Comment by Matthew Fountain — 12.02.04 @ 7:55 pm
Wait a minute…
They are already supposed to be teaching this stuff in school though… and just getting basic math and english as hard requirement has been how hard of an uphill battle?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.02.04 @ 8:43 pm
‘Perhaps the Federal Government can require High School Juniors to pass that very same test to obtain a diploma, that way if they fail, they have a second chance to retake the test as a senior. Perhaps colleges can request these scores? I can see this beneficial for two reasons.’
I knew that this introspective excercise would be used to gauge some sort of merit to participate in certain parts of society by someone here.
Comment by actus — 12.02.04 @ 9:00 pm
And what is that actus… where is the participation part of his post? Oh, yeah, in your head.
It sounds alot like the SATs and other standardized tests…
Acutally, a civics section on the SATs doesn’t seem too bad.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.02.04 @ 9:41 pm
Folks, we have a problem with no simple answer. There are three choices.
Do nothing
Roundup and deport all illegals
Try to make some attempt at assimilating those who are good hard working people with some kind of amnesty program reward, while we work out how to handle the rest.
We could do nothing, no, we got to do something.
Pro enforcement. Sounds good. Let’s say there are 10 million illegals here today. What do we do? Round them up and provide immigration hearings for each and then deport them? How many officers and holding pens do we hire and build, in what time frame? We don’t have enough resources to accomplish that and pass any kind of Human Rights test.
So Bush proposes a plan that is nowhere near perfect, but is a step in the right direction and every body jumps on him. What is a workable alternative? Until you can provide one, I suggest we support the President.
Comment by Ed Poinsett — 12.02.04 @ 11:18 pm
‘And what is that actus… where is the participation part of his post? . .. .It sounds alot like the SATs and other standardized tests…’
Exactly. Requirements, to enter college, or get a HS diploma, all gatekeepers to participation in certain sectors of our society.
Comment by actus — 12.03.04 @ 12:04 am
Immigration takes on many forms
but to some, it means:
Infinite
Masses
Marching
In
Generally
Refusing
Altogether
To
Incorporate
Our
Norms
Comment by Bucktowndusty — 12.03.04 @ 7:32 am
Ed, I believe ‘amnesty first then solve the problem later’ has already been tried in the Reagan years. The solution is called ‘follow the money’ and remove the incentive at the source, and that ain’t at the border.
Enforcement where the problem lies, hiring of illegal aliens, is the only real solution. Employers must be held accountable for hiring people without a valid Social Security Number or a valid work permit ID and it must be enforced, with public examples made starting with the worst offenders.
In addition, the employer, not the alien, must be held responsible for any money passed to an illegal alien found working on their premises. The employer must be the accountable one, just like the merchant is held accountable for selling alcohol to a minor. Enforcement must be with the same persistence alcohol sales to minors is enforced today. At the same time, we need to make it easier for employers to get foreign workers through valid work permits.
Now, back to the political reality of it all. Enforcement at the source is not going to happen because no pro business Republican Administration is going to enforce the law on employers and no pro-welfare Democratic Administration is going to enforce it either, which brings us back to the mess we’re in now.
I say the ‘do nothing’ solution is better than offering increasing incentive for more illegal border crossings, amnesty for illegal behavior.
Comment by Jim R — 12.03.04 @ 7:44 am
Actus,
We already have these things. Schools admit people based on their SATs. This is current reality.
As for a HS diploma, you are already suppossed to know this stuff in order to get one. So again, what is your beef?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.03.04 @ 10:13 am
‘
We already have these things. Schools admit people based on their SATs. This is current reality.’
I know, but they don’t measure your fitness for citizenship, they measure your scholastic aptitude.
‘As for a HS diploma, you are already suppossed to know this stuff in order to get one. So again, what is your beef?’
Because the test to gain citizenship contains things other than just knowledge, rather it includes a fitness for citizenship. Download the INS forms and check it out.
Comment by actus — 12.03.04 @ 11:19 am
Jim R Thank you for your brilliance.
Ed Poinsett Please see my first post on this thread. Nobody, (that means nobody for those who are named Ed) is talking about having a huge resource draining roundup. Again. Please see my first post so that you can HEAR what our true perspective is.
Once you start to enforce the law, see what follows.
Comment by Baklava — 12.03.04 @ 12:05 pm
Again, who suggested that natural born citizens need to pass a test to participate?
You’re just being obtuse, now…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.03.04 @ 1:23 pm
He did.
Comment by Baklava — 12.03.04 @ 1:45 pm
Yep.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.03.04 @ 2:57 pm
I didn’t suggest they needed to pass it. I was very careful. I suggested they take it just so they know what immigrants have to go through. Its for the natural born to know something about others and themselves, not for others to gauge the natural born.
Comment by actus — 12.03.04 @ 3:10 pm
Hi Lashawn:
Keep up the great work. Your immigration comments especially touched me. I am the son of immigrant parents, so I’ve never been against immigration. But I just can’t understand why we can’t control the influx of illegal immigrants. Some might argue that we won’t find anyone to mow our lawns or deliver our pizza. That’s hogwash. Both my parents struggled, doing menial work for years in order to support four kids and send them to Catholic school. As long as we allow LEGAL immigration, we’ll always find hard-working folks who don’t mind starting out at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, knowing they’ll eventually move up.
Comment by orest — 12.03.04 @ 3:31 pm
This link to an article details what we and our new Governor are up against regarding the illegal immigration invasion of California:
Contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/special_packages/governor_schwarzenegger/10345045.htm?1c
The combination of a very liberal State Legislature and a high population of hispanics almost put drivers licenses into the hands of illegal aliens.
They’re still trying over the objections of our new Republican Governor Schwarzenegger.
Comment by Jim R — 12.05.04 @ 10:13 am
The corrected link for previous post is:
ContraCostatTmes.com/mld/cctimes/news/special_packages/
governor_schwarzenegger/10345045.htm?1c
Comment by Jim R — 12.05.04 @ 10:16 am
I pretty much agree with SCSI, Charlie, Matthew & Ed.
This is a deep and complex problem. Bear in mind that even with 0% unemployment, we would still need “illegal immigrants” to pick up the slack. Consider this (**Source CIA Factbook 2004):
–**Labor force including unemployed = 146 million
–**Unemployement @ 6% = 8.76 mil
–**Population growth = 0.92%
–Estimate # of illegals = 10 mil
–Economic growth =4% (meaning that new jobs are continually being created according to the latest BLS report)
–Those with fake SS# contribute one way into the federal treasury
–Those without, contribute nothing tax-wise, other than State Sales Taxes.
–Both types cost us in welfare services.
However, even if we do nothing but implement a national sales tax while ditching the income tax, we will recover even more in taxes from the illegals.
What most of us forget is that the abject poverty in other nations is caused by US AND EU trade policies that distort global economies, therefore, the illegal immigrant issue is a creature of our making by unintended consequences.
The biggest culprit is our subsidies that support farmers who have NO BUSINESS producing non-competitive crops. For example, sugar growing countries can’t export to us until our domestic producers have sold their crops at thrice the global market rate. That means you and I are paying 3 times what we need to be paying for sugar, just so domestic sugar corparations can continue to tie up valuable natural resources.
In this sense, we need to truly adopt Adam Smith’s proposition that market forces should not be meddled with by the Gov’t. Of course that means there will be an economic hit on de-subsidized farmers, but we have the talent and resources to capitalize on the loses. If Joe 3rd World can make a living by producing & exporting sugar, bananas, chocalate or what have you, he won’t be compelled to produce pot, cocaine etc. (As an aside, our war on drugs is costing us more than it’s producing and needs to be scrapped and new rational drug policies developed.)
So what to do?
I’ve mentioned it before under the Michael Savage post, but I’ll post it again, with a few edits in square brackets & italics:
———————
La Shawn, in a perfect world, illegal immigrants wouldn’t ever be an issue. However, this is indeed a broken world and mass deportation only adds to the misery, not only for them, but for us as well –- think of the economic hit we would take.
I see a possible and compassionate resolution, and Bush has the political capital to expend on, dare I say, a nuanced and credible position on the following;
1) State unequivocably that future illegal border crossing will not be tolerated beginning on a certain date.
[Change “certain date” to henceforth]
2) Lay out the terms for amnesty, set up a review board for every city & town – say about a 30 mile radius – and give all illegals 90 days to register for an amnesty review hearing and receive a number.
[Terms should be something like:
a) No Gangbangers,
b) All adults, over 19 must have a verifiable employment track record of a year or more, dependent spouses are not subject to this stipulation]
3) In that 90 day grace period, those that know they won’t qualify may as well pack up their bags, take care of loose ends and leave. On their way out, they will have to submit to a biometric exit registration, so we know who they are should they think about returning/sneaking before the “undocumented statute of limitations” runs out. (depending on circumstances, several years to never)
[The biometrics technology already exists and underutilized]
4) Those who think they have a shot at amnesty will continue as before while waiting for their hearing. the same conditions will also discourage those trying to sneak across, since:
a) they won’t be able to meet the qualifications, &
b) if caught, they will be registered via biometrics and barred for life – it’d make sense for them to wait and go thru proper channels.
[The Amnesty Hearing would be akin to the draft boards. In the meantime, Cops will be able to ask for this amnesty registration #, and can initiate registration & deportation if the registration # is not produced. Any other Federally/State funded services will also require proof. Naturally, this will be an inconvenience for the rest of us as we may be asked to carry a certified copy of our birth certificate or other supporting documentations to prove we’re bona-fide citizens or legal aliens. I’m just reluctant to go with a National ID and would just as soon avoid that system]
5) Any found here after 90 days without a review number will be summarily barred for life.
[Again any and all public agencies will demand proof]
6) The results of the review could run the gamut from a 3-month per year guest worker visa (seasonal workers) to a green card. (Before ya’ll get blown out of shape, all of the conditions need to be thot out and codified before we start the process.
7) Once the wrinkles have been ironed out, we can then begin processing [future] foreign applicants from their home country for temporary work visas.
Once we have an orderly process, the burden on employers to vet potential empolyers will be dramatically lightened and workers will pay into the tax base – all the more reason for a flat tax/sales tax system. And we will have realistically (can never 100% eliminate w/o becoming a police state) and dramatically reduced the illegal problem.
Comment by Andy — 12.05.04 @ 1:15 pm
Jim, your Contracosta link doesn’t work.
Unless I’m mistaken, (La Shawn, please feel free to correct me) you can paste the link as plain text into your comment(s), just don’t tag it as a hyperlink. For example http://blah.com/blah.htm.
It may take awhile for La Shawn to get around to it if moderation is turned on, but at least we readers can just copy and paste the reference when it does comes thru. I believe that the reason La Shawn doesn’t allow linking is because she doesn’t want referrer tags to show up in the destination logs as coming from her blog.
Comment by Andy — 12.05.04 @ 1:29 pm
Andy, Must be a subscription site??
HOUSE BILL HR 10 TITLE III BORDER SECURITY NEEDS YOUR HELP:
Negotiations on 9/11 Bill resume Mon 12/6/04. The battle is over the removal of critical border security, called Title III provisions, from the final 9/11 Commission Recommendations combined House/Senate bill.
House Republicans led by Sensenbrenner, Hunter, Hyde and Dreier banded together to stop the bill from going to a floor vote until these House Immigration/Border Security provisions are left in the final 9/11 bill. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) supported them by refusing to bring the Bill to the floor for a vote until these House provisions were left in.
Sensenbrenner and company are facing immense pressure from the White House(would you believe!) and the Democrats who are calling them obstructionist!
Please call the people below to thank them for standing firm, and your House(house.gov)and Senators(senate.gov) to tell them you want Title III Border Security provisions left in the 9/11 combined House/Senate Bill.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner WI , Wash 202-225-5101 / State 262-784-1111
Rep. Duncan Hunter CA 202-225-5672 / 619-579-3001
Rep. Henry Hyde IL 202-225-4561 / 630-832-5950
Rep. David Dreier CA 202-225-2305 / 626-852-2626
Rep. Speaker Dennis Hastert IL 202- 225-2976 630-406-1114
Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist TN 202-224-3344 615-352-9411
Also call our delinquent new Prez at the White House 202-456-1414 and tell him to stop pushing for the Democratic version of the 9/11 Bill, the one without the Houses Title III Border Security Provisions.
Here’s what the Senate and Prez want removed. ALL OF IT!: ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2004,1110-hethmon.shtm
Here’s 911 victims families pleading for TitleIII on Cspan:
rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/ter/ter113004_families.rm
Here’s our friends at AmericanHumanists trying to stop them:
americanhumanist.org/press/actionalerts/aa911RIA.html
Comment by Jim R — 12.05.04 @ 7:07 pm