Is it possible to find a middle ground on the right in the immigration debate that can unite both sides and forestall the eventuality of schism and holy war that would lead to disaster at the polls in November for Republicans?
Perhaps. If people were to get off their haunches and sit down like the friendly, rational, adults that we truly are, it may not be too late to salvage something from this mess. Let’s examine what we have in common before looking at where we part company.
First, and most importantly, there isn’t a conservative out there who isn’t for strengthening our borders. I think there is also overwhelming agreement that this issue should take precedence over all others. Shore up the borders first, then deal with the other problems.
How to accomplish this is open to question. But certainly most conservative would argue for some kind of physical barrier and increased border patrols. The President has already informed us that he supports an end to “catch and release” along the southern border (why not everywhere?) as well as the construction of additional fencing and more border agents – augmented by the National Guard on a temporary basis who we assume will be handling the logistics of this increased effort.
Secondly, most conservatives support putting much more emphasis on assimilating new arrivals. This includes respecting the heritage and culture of the United States (without surrendering any pride in their native culture in the slightest) as well as adopting English as a primary language. To some, that makes us “Latinphobes.” (Leave it to liberals to invent a new name to call their political enemies whenever they’re losing an argument with the American people.)
What it makes us is America Firsters. Lost in all the debate on this issue is the clear delineation between the open borders crowd and those of us who want sanity and the exercise of our sovereignty on border issues; some of us are looking out for the interests of the United States of America first and foremost while others, to put it charitably, are just as concerned with what Vicente Fox thinks about all this.
I have nothing against President Fox. He seems a typical Mexican President, perhaps even a little less corrupt than what the Mexican people have had to put up with in the past. But he seems to think that the border between Mexico and the United States is his own private fiefdom, a Mexican preserve. Any demonstration of US sovereignty such as increasing patrols or moving troops closer to the border to assist in securing it is met with statements that seem to suggest the United States has no right to stop Mexican citizens from entering the US illegally. If Fox is smart, he will keep his mouth shut on this issue and let Americans decide it without any nonsense from his office. His threat to sue if the National Guard actually takes part in rounding up illegals is a stupendous blunder as it only proves the point I made above; President Fox thinks that he has a say in the internal affairs of the United States.
What many of us desire above all else is simply a more nationalistic approach to the problem of border security. If that means Vicente Fox throws a tantrum, so be it.
Conservatives generally agree on all of the above. The problem is that there seems to be a total lack of trust regarding the Bush Administration’s commitment to rectifying our border security problems. I never thought I’d see the day where conservatives would abandon President Bush on a matter of national security. The Anchoress has a good perspective on this:
I have to tell you folks, your passion is not persuading. What it is doing is suggesting to me that – as he did on the issue of Embryonic Stem Cells – President Bush is trying to find a way to deal with this decades-in-the-making problem that will work in the real world, in the world “as it is,†and not as you would like it to be or wish to believe it might be. Pope John Paul II also said – often – that we had to deal with the world, “as it is,†if we were going to foment change that was just, lasting and effective. Everything a president does cannot be popular – or exactly right – all the time, but my goodness, taking into account all the ways this man has delivered, (in the face of a spineless GOP and a heated and hostile opposition) I’d say the scales still fall in his favor.
We all have many issues with the way President Bush has carried out his duties as President. But the unreasoning “mouthfoaming” as the Anchoress calls what’s been passing for analysis of the President’s immigration speech is simply beyond my understanding. I was not prepared for the virulence, the over the top rhetoric used by some of my friends on the right not about the President’s ideas but about the President’s character.
This is not conducive to the effort of trying to reach a compromise on anything which leads me to believe that while some of us may be willing to reach out and meet our brethren halfway, there has yet to be any reciprocal gestures on the part of those whose views differ.
The point being, are you on the other side interested in getting something done about immigration or are you more willing to destroy the party, this President, and perhaps the country simply because you believe you are more right than everyone else?
The president has moved measurably, but insufficiently, toward that position. He has offered about 6,000 new Border Patrol agents. That number is insufficient by a factor of about four — the probable need is between 20,000 and 30,000 agents. He has, for the first time, agreed to some structural barriers and sensor technologies — but his vagueness on the details suggests that we will have to hard bargain for substantially more than he has in mind. The 6,000 National Guardsmen that he proposed for one year in limited roles are essentially rhetorical window dressing. But if we get sufficient permanent forces, structures and technologies mandated and fully funded in law that will suffice.(HT: Powerline)
President Bush has made significant movement toward the hardcore conservative position on border security. If we could temporarily suspend our disbelief and distrust and examine what he’s proposing, I see much for conservatives to agree on. Not enough border agents? Let’s work to add them in conference committee. Ditto the fence issue. And stiffer penalties (and rabid enforcement) for employers who hire illegals would, as Mr. Blankley points out, help reduce the flow of lawbreakers to a trickle.
As for the issues that divide the two sides, they are certainly serious and can’t be swept under the rug. Many of us draw the line at rounding up illegals already here and placing them in camps while they await their deportation hearing. Yes they’ve broken the law and should not be rewarded for doing so. But such a policy is not politically viable. The American people, the press, the left, and many of us on the right would never stand for it.
And Bush’s insistence on including some kind of amnesty program – call it what you will – will almost certainly be opposed by the House conference committee members. Some compromise may emerge that is more acceptable than what the President has proposed although I can’t imagine anything pleasing those of us who oppose it. But remember, we’re trying to compromise here – give a little, take a little. If we have to barter some kind of guest worker program for more border control agents and more miles of fencing, would it be worth it to you?
As Blankley points out, we should be concentrating on what is politically possible – that is, if we want any kind of immigration reform at all:
If — and it is a big if — all of that can be gained by congressional negotiations over the next two months, the question remains whether the anti-illegal immigrant and resident movement should accept some undesirable guest-worker or path-to-citizenship provisions — if that is the price we have to pay for getting a secure border.This is where the sanity matter comes into play. Especially regarding the guest-worker provision, if we pass no legislation this year we will continue to have a de facto guest-worker program with millions of new arrivals every year and no secure border. Moreover, it is inconceivable that the November election will elect a Congress more amenable to our cause. The next Congress will have, if anything, more Democrats.
Disgruntled conservatives will have no way of strengthening the anti-illegal immigrant vote: Their choice will be a soft Republican, a bad Democrat or abstention (which in effect is the same as a bad Democrat). It would seem to me that we lose nothing by trading an otherwise inevitable de facto guest worker condition for a genuinely secure border and employer sanction regimen.
Have we conservatives been in the political wilderness so long that we really have no idea what it means to govern a nation of 300 million diverse citizens, the majority of whom have different ideas on this issue than our own? Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate the best possible deal on border security that we can get while leaving some other issues for a later day?
The only other choice we have leads to no bill at all and the very real possibility that the Democrats will win in November and bury immigration reform for years.
Think about it please.
UPDATE
Judging by the emails and comments, it’s amazing how far a little civility will go in getting people to talk to each other rather than call each other names.
That said, a couple of clarifications:
1. It should go without saying that this is pretty much a debate between conservatives. We know where the Democrats stand and their lip service to “border security” is pretty unconvincing if only because they are totally unwilling to do anything more effective than shake a finger at people as they wander all over the southwest. An exaggeration, but no one believes the Democrats are serious about doing what needs to be done to actually patrol the border and put obstacles in the way of people who want to sneak across in the dead of night.
2. I must re-iterate that rounding up illegals is not a viable option – politically or morally. Jesus Christ, people! What kind of a banana republic do you think we live in if we have to keep these people in what are sure to be called “concentration camps” for years? How long would it take to have deportation hearings for 11 million people? It is not practicable.
I would be in favor of deporting illegals convicted of crimes upon their release from prison, especially those who committ a criminal act like using forged drivers licenses or social security cards to get a job. Catching them should be a higher priority than it is presently. If we increase our vigilance there plus put employers in jail for hirering illegals while dramatically increasing border security, we could really make a dent in the problem.
But like Andrew McCarthy has written , we’re kidding ourselves if we think that there’s some kind of “Big Fix” to this problem. Better to do what we can within reason to dramatically improve the situation rather than turn our borders into an armed camp or disgrace ourselves by being forced to imprison millions of people for years in order to adjudicate their cases.
11:15 am
It’s also necessary to consider what’s going on in Mexico – a presidential election on July 2. The candidate from Fox’s party is currently leading in the polls, but the second place candidate (who goes by the acronym AMLO) is a communist. His campaign is financed by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
If the US gets too tough before July 2, we might see a communist elected president – and then what problems would be have? Would we be able to turn back refugees fleeing a communist dictatorship?
11:28 am
Rick,
You can’t fault conservatives for not trusting Bush when it come to illegal immigration. Since he was elected, he’s been more than willing to defer to Fox on this issue. If we consider this in light of the last amnesty that was granted and its horrendous consequences, it might be easier to understand why so many conservatives remain intractable. You know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, and I’m just a friggin’ idiot.
You should also concede that Democrats are equally unwilling to compromise. They stand everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by a) maintaining the status quo or b) futher liberalizing immigration non-policies. I realize you’re addressing a specific audience, but recognizing the purely political dimensions of this issue necessitates exposing our opponents’ motives as well.
11:38 am
There can be no middle ground this time because we have had so many, so-called, “immigration reforms,” that have just led to more illegal immigration. In 65’ it led to the amnesty of about 2 million. In 86’ it led to the amnesty of 5 million. In 96’ we amnestied a few million more. Everytime we were told, that after the amnesty we would crack down and get serious about border security and illegal immigration, nothing of the sort happened the problem was allowed to grow. So now people are asking, if you weren’t enforcing the previous laws, why should we believe you will enforce the new laws. And you can tell the congress is selling us smoke and mirrors because they voted down an amendment that would have required us to secure the borders and enforce immigration laws before we should even consider amnesty and a guest worker program. As the WHO said, we won’t be fooled again
11:45 am
I think it is not only possible, it will happen. I would suggest we not worry about the order of things. We do them in parallel and get them all done ASAP. Each prong in this effort will have its own pace dictated by the details. The fence will probably take less time to implement than the guest worker program.
But they all will take years to get done!
11:57 am
[...] OK, Let’s Deal Filed under: Blogs and Blogging, Borders? What Borders?, Politics Blogs and Blogging, Borders? What Borders?, PoliticsLC & IB Rick Moran is suggesting that maybe it would be a good idea for all of us on both sides of the border mess issue sit down and negotiate rather than slinging mud at each other. [...]
11:57 am
[...] Seems the fevered tempest over immigration may finally be abating on the right. There are too many posts to link to so I will just link to the latest one I read concerning the new perspective. It seems the over the top anger by some has finally forged a coalition of common sense. Rick Moran has a great piece up describing a path forward. Is it possible to find a middle ground on the right in the immigration debate that can unite both sides and forestall the eventuality of schism and holy war that would lead to disaster at the polls in November for Republicans? [...]
12:18 pm
[...] FOLLOW-UP (05/17/06): Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse writes the following in a well-thought post today: I have nothing against President Fox. He seems a typical Mexican President, perhaps even a little less corrupt than what the Mexican people have had to put up with in the past. But he seems to think that the border between Mexico and the United States is his own private fiefdom, a Mexican preserve. Any demonstration of US sovereignty such as increasing patrols or moving troops closer to the border to assist in securing it is met with statements that seem to suggest the United States has no right to stop Mexican citizens from entering the US illegally. If Fox is smart, he will keep his mouth shut on this issue and let Americans decide it without any nonsense from his office. His threat to sue if the National Guard actually takes part in rounding up illegals is a stupendous blunder as it only proves the point I made above; President Fox thinks that he has a say in the internal affairs of the United States. [...]
12:29 pm
With all due respect Rick this debate does come with a little baggage. The reason anyone who pays attention to this issue is so upset with president Bush is based on his statements and behavior, not the vapors pal.
He has shown himself resistant to securing the border so it’s a little hard to trust him when he holds border security hostage to his pet “temporary guest worker” program (which again comes with some history attached, see Bracero program).
Like I say, I have supported president Bush to the hilt until he showed himself to be unserious about securing our southern and northern border.
I’m more than willing to compromise, what I’m not willing to do is usher in another IRCA, and that’s exactly what I see coming down the pike.
12:31 pm
First of all the phrase ‘middle ground’ smells like ‘compromise’. There can be no ‘middle ground and no compromise’! Either we secure the border, don’t grant ‘worker permits’, (Worker permits are amnesty by another name) and begin ‘mass deportations of all illegal invaders Mexican or not’ or we don’t. If we don’t do the aforementioned we have signed away our national sovereignty and condemned our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to live in a nation what ‘will closely resemble a 3rd world pest-hole of today. ’
There is never any ‘middle ground or compromise’ in right and wrong. The invasion of America is wrong and all the hand wringing and sob sistering by the usual suspects won’t change that.
BTW, not all so called Conservatives back the securing of US borders. I’ve seen far to many comments on blogs by so called Conservatives to belief that horseshit.
12:36 pm
A MIDDLE GROUND ON CRIMINAL OFFENSES. THAT IS AN INTERESTING CONCEPT. SOME GET PROSECUTED AND OTHERS DON’T?
CONGRESSMAN HAYWOOD[I THINK THAT IS HIS NAME] SAID IT BEST ON THE IMUS PROGRAM THIS MORNING. “THE PROBLEM IS THAT MY FRIENDS ON THE RIGHT WANT CHEAP LABOR AND MY FRIENDS ON THE LEFT WANT CHEAP VOTES.”
HE ALSO POINTED OUT HOW WHEN WE WANTED TO GET RID OF ILLEGAL MIDDLE EAST IMMIGRANTS AFTER 911, ABOUT 15,000 LEFT WITHIN A WEEK OR TWO AND ABOUT 2500 WERE ARRESTED
1:13 pm
“Have we conservatives been in the political wilderness so long that we really have no idea what it means to govern a nation of 300 million diverse citizens, the majority of whom have different ideas on this issue than our own?”
I think that over the past five years, y’all have proven the answer to this question, on most all issues, not just immigration, in spades.
1:19 pm
I admire your efforts Rick, but I don’t think you will make much progress with your knuckledragging comrades.
I kinda like Richard Vigurie’s take on this:
“[Bush] may get his way, but he won’t get it this year. He may get it next year because the conservatives will be so angry at the Republican leadership – starting with the president, but the congressional Republicans also – that I’d be surprised if many, many don’t stay home, turning the congress over to the Democrats. And, of course, the Democrats, next year, would give the president what he wants because then they’ll be able to govern America for the rest of the 21st Century [with the support of former illegal aliens who had become newly-legalized voters].”
Stock up on those canned goods, my RW friends.
1:22 pm
I agree with that part. He is extremely presumptuous to start dictating terms of our own border management. As for Bush trying to fix the borders, I think he went kicking and screaming into attempting to handle it. I honestly don’t think for a minute he wants any sort of resolution. Pardon my cynicism but it took a major storm of complaints before he went front and center. Frankly I agree with the conservatives on this issue. Shore up the borders first before agreeing to any amnesty. It would be very easy for GWB to agree to one and in exchange for the work visa and then just never get around to securing the borders.
1:39 pm
Mark Steyn makes a point that I have not seen elsewhere that makes sense to me.
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001618
“No civilized society should have a guest worker program. That’s what countries like Saudi Arabia have, and that’s what Germany has with the Turks, and it hasn’t worked out well for them. If there are jobs that people need doing in this country that they can’t find Americans for, then those people should be admitted on the same basis as any other legal immigrant.”
2:22 pm
How Do We Legalize Illegality?
You know posts like this really tee me off. On Monday I said the vultures were out and of course they were just revving up, culminating into the usual feeding frenzy. So now if we disagree with the President on anything, it’s labeled “Bush cult impea…
2:57 pm
I live by the norther border. Its not much of a discussion point really is it? If the Canucks come down here, no one really cares.
Plus its WAY to big to effectively control. Thousands of miles instead of hundreds.
For the southern border, I really don’t actually think that Bush is any more interested in securing the border than Vicente Fox is. Both benefit from lax enforcement. I think (and I know there are those who disagree) that lax enforcement benfits everyone.
Hispanics have more children than most ethnic groups. They are the future of America, like it or not. White folks dont have that many kids. Who is going to work in this growing economy? I mean it is growing slowly (3-6%/year) but it is still growing. Meaning more jobs, eventually.
Who is going to fill those jobs? The net growth is cumulative. if in year 1 the total is 103% of what it was last year (100). In year 2 the 3% is calucated against 103 not 100. In 0hter words, it goes up exponentially. Doubling every now and again.
Our workforce is getting older. The baby boomers are retiring. I think these are the realities that make immigration popular among politicians. But best of all they get to not do anything and get something done at the same time. Because it isnt popular to tell folks that yes, as a country, you will no longer be the white majority. The fact is, you wont. Every trend in the census tells us that. But we don’t want to hear it.
The face of America is changing. How willing we are to acknowledge that is another thing altogether. We cannot wall ourselves out of this issue. No amount of effort will keep people who want to be here out. Setting up an orderly way to make this happen would be a great compromise, and save us all one hell of alot of money, effort, and anger.
If the immigration policy does not make room for the people who want to be here, they will come anyway. And no matter how much the politicans appease their opposition by doing this or that, the reality is that they need these people to do the work. And that if they were truly hurting the system, there would be a military border already.
In some ways, the non-policy was working ok. Work was being done, the economy was growing, and inflation was in check. Unitl we got all concerned about “security”. Then the immigrants are the new target – make it a felony the house said – suddenly immigrants woke up, realized that although they work here and buy houses here, they were targets. Wouldnt you march too?
In other ways it wasnt working. Border towns were being innundated with illegals who were crossing property, strains on social systems, etc.
An orderly system is what everyone wants. But curbing the (now legal) immigration from mexico will make for some very interesting and potentially fatal errors.
Our growing economy will need workers, and we white folks are not having enough babies to keep up with demand.
Foston
Foston
3:48 pm
Immigration – The Crawford Kid
Back when I was a kid, my dad liked to pull surprises on me – especially around Christmas. For instance, I would ask for a bike – fully expecting that my dad would get it for me. But when I would get up on Christmas day it wouldn’t be there and I wou…
4:20 pm
[...] Rick Moran has sensible stuff up. [...]
4:39 pm
Rick,
Thanks for being a refreshing voice of reason, and for highlighting other like viewpoints. While I support the house version, I agree we just need to bargain hard to craft the best possible bill and not destroy ourselves so that we’ll be sitting ducks for the Democrats in November. I was especially pleased to see you point out that there were some things in Bush’s address that represented some positive movement that we can work with. He did say more than he had about specific border security, such as real fencing, which probably helped get the Sessions amendment through. That’s a step in the right direction. The Kyl-Cornyn amendment was probably helped as well, given that it was considered a poison pill before the speech. These developments narrow the differences with the house version and improve our chances of getting a bill that will make a difference. We need to welcome progress when it occurs and encourage them to keep it up.
Ken
5:43 pm
Finally, a voice of reason in the blast furnace of retoric I’ve been reading since the presidents speech. I lived in Texas all of my life, and plan to move back there one day. This stuff has been going on for decades, and now that our president lays out, what appears to me, a fairly reasonable approach to the situation, many conservatives go ballistic. Granted I’m not the brightest bulb in the pack, but to paraphrase some famous author, I think you bitch too much.
6:40 pm
“Is it possible to find a middle ground on the right in the immigration debate that can unite both sides and forestall the eventuality of schism and holy war that would lead to disaster at the polls in November for Republicans?“...
No its time for Republicans to act like they talk, dumb the R.I.N.O.s, and enforce the law…
Do we need another reenactment of the ?
Simpson-Mazzoli bill
7:42 pm
It’s less of an issue of Republican vs. Democrats. At heart, it is a battle between the political classes and the American people.
Don’t 70 to 80% of the American public want a buttoned-down border first? I’d think a majority are on board for employer sanctions too but all we get from Bush is a weasel word – “accountable.”
No elected official that I’ve heard is calling for mass deportations. I personally don’t know anyone that mean. Bush’s use of that particular strawman was uncalled for and a low blow.
The obvious compromise is a proven, buttoned-down border, clear and visible employer sanctions THEN we can grant permanent resident visas to those established here with clean noses. I live in the VERY liberal San Francisco Bay Area and everyone I talk with agrees.
The anger over this issue is due to 20 years of dishonest government.
8:21 pm
Looking for Middle Ground in the Immigration Debate
As usual, Rick Moran talks some sense on immigration:
We all have many issues with the way President Bush has carried out his duties as President. But the unreasoning “mouthfoaming” as the Anchoress calls what’s been passing for analysis of the President
8:28 pm
1. It is not at all true that all conservatives want the border secured. Kerry wanted to merge the US into Europe. Bush wants to merge the US into Latin America.
2. There is no reason to trust Bush’s motives on this at all. Nor those of the open border lobby in general.
3. Securing the borders cuts across both parties on class lines. Get this. Blacks are every bit as hostile to illegal immigration as working class Whites. They are being pushed out of the unskilled job category and with a guest worker program poor blacks will be pushed out of the job market entirely. They understand that. This is a wonderful opportunity to split the Democratic Party along class lines. Given this divide, don’t be so sure that a Democratic majority will be in a position to open the borders.
8:57 pm
The problem is that there seems to be a total lack of trust regarding the Bush Administration’s commitment to rectifying our border security problems.
Compare “employer enforcement actions” between Clinton and Bush… The figures I saw went from 1500+ to 3!
I think I’ll wait until I actually see a ‘commitment’!
I must re-iterate that rounding up illegals is not a viable option – politically or morally.
This is a truly ridiculous “straw man”... Nobody is calling for all 12 million to be deported in the next 3 days!
It’s simple…
1)Stronger employer enforcement—and huge penalties on the CEO’s and CFO’s!—if you are the “Chief” Executive or Financial Officer, you know!- (or should know…).
2)Close the border.
3)Absolutely no tax-supported benefits to illegals.
Bush himself said we have deported over 6 million illegals over the last 4+ years— we only have to eliminate the continuing flow, and then enact some slightly harsher measures to persuade the rest to “go home”... the exact same way they got here.
The problem is solved in five years!
9:00 pm
Your solution sounds familiar. I know I’ve heard it somewhere…
OH YEAH! I wrote the exact same thing (with the exception of no benefits to illegals) in the article.
I agree. I agree. I agree.
9:04 pm
Oops!
Missed the end of my line…
...to persuade the rest to “go homeâ€... the exact same way they got here.—(silently!- one or two at a time…)
9:33 pm
Rick-
OH YEAH! I wrote the exact same thing (with the exception of no benefits to illegals) in the article.
But, you seem to think that ‘scenario’ actually has a chance of coming to fruition… (snicker!)
What we will get is:
1)vague promises (with no follow-thru),
2)empty gestures (6000 Guardsmen?),
3)stupid pandering (“Vincente—this is Jorge… I know I’m the leader of the most powerful nation in this planet’s entire history, but I’ll kiss your ass and take the 1/2 million people a year who are so dumb they can’t get a job in Mexico...”),
4) outrageously ignorant ‘catch-phrases’ (“Jobs Americans won’t do”—I’ve been a dishwasher, a landscaper, a framer, a roofer, a drywall guy, a painter… and a cook in a Mexican restaurant!),
5)...and 40 million more illegals in the next 20 years.
12:47 am
Senate Approves Border Fence
Passing these two amendments has created momentum for conservatives and is moving the comprehensive immigration bill toward the middle. If the final bill falls somewhere between the President’s and Kyl-Cornyn proposals, then it is a reasonable compro…
9:21 am
Great civil discourse on a very divisive topic. Why did you have to resort in your update to using “Jesus Christ” as a way of making your point? It cheapened your entire presentation in my eyes.
10:39 am
“Have we conservatives been in the political wilderness so long that we really have no idea what it means to govern a nation of 300 million diverse citizens, the majority of whom have different ideas on this issue than our own?â€
When it comes to ILLEGAL immigration and border security, a very clear majority of Americans DO agree with conservatives.
It’s the political class, both Democrats and Republicans, who doesn’t agree with ordinary Americans on these issues.
11:43 am
clap, clap, clap
Compromise, eh? I live in Texas, and I’m living with the long-term results of such compromise. But nevermind the reality, moderation is the key, right? I’ll bet everyone feels really, really good about themselves as a “voice of reason”. Good for you. Because that’s what it’s all about – feelin’ good about yourselves. It’s even better when you get to call other conservatives names like “mouthbreathers” and “knuckledraggers”. Heh heh – how very high brow. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go very far in bridging the divide, does it? And isn’t that what you claim you want to do?
So don’t break your arms patting yourselves on the back just yet…
After 5 1/2 years of doing nothing, Bush’s plan is nothing more than placatory, inneffectual half-measures arranged around the centerpiece of his amnesty plan to gussy it up a bit for the masses. “Ahh, but wait,” you cry, “he’s against amnesty.” Right. UNLESS he can call it a “guest worker program” instead.
FACTS: Bush promised and authorized 10,000 new border agents. Last year he reneged and authorized funding for only 200. He spends more time explaining himself to the Mexican president than he does his own people. The Mexican military has invaded our border hundreds of times, and have actually kidnapped Americans on several occasions. Our citizens live in the wasteland of a war zone on the border. If Bush’s plan gets shoved through AGAINST the will of the American people, within 20 years we will have more aliens than our infrastructure can sustain. That’s a fact, not histrionics.
And if you think Americans are framing this debate, think again. As the illegal immigration debate has risen to the surface over the past five years, it has been molded and defined by Mexico. Read it before you airily dismiss it from your high horse. It’s Fox’s Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2001-2006. We’ve been led like sheep. Step by step, the Mexican government has accomplished a comprehensive plan, while we’ve been wallowing in rhetoric like yours. Today’s debate has been deliberately defined in emotional, extremist terms not of OUR choosing, but of Mexico’s. And you’ve fallen for it.
“Concentration camps”?! Sheesh.
7:27 am
I posted this back on May 4th:
-Barry Goldwater
10:44 pm
I am opposed to the ‘compromise’ because in truth it amounts to a total surrender since Bush has made it abandantly clear that he has absolutely NO intention of enforcing laws against illegal immigration.
He has NOT enforced the laws on the books now against those who employ illegal aliens.
The Justice department is refusing to prosecute smuglers of illegal aliens.
Bush alerts Fox as to areas being patrolled by the Minutemen so that the illegal aliens will know what areas of the border to avoid.
Bush refuses to secure the border first, but tells the gullible that he will enforce new laws (not existing ones) AFTER he gets his amnesty proposal. So, what happens when we have essentially NO enforcement?
1:27 am
Submitted for Your Approval
9:18 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Looking for Middle Ground in the Immigration Debate†[...]
6:05 pm
Ours is the nation that simultaneously fought, and defeated, two world powers. (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan)
Ours is the nation that sent men to the moon and brought them safely home again.
Ours is the nation that won the Cold War.
We CAN secure our border AND solve the illegal immigrant problem, if only our political leadership had the will.
2:26 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Let Us Make Them All Welcome by Ga…
11:29 pm
I agree with the notion that let’s not sacrifice border security over the idea, as to whether or not the estimated 11 million illegal aliens will be legalized. Looking at the bigger picture and by choosing the lesser of the evils, we have the opportunity to keep the bad guys (i.e. terrorists) out, while relieving some pressures off of our local law enforcements, by giving the illegal aliens, who complies with the requirements of the new immigration reform act, the opportunity to legalize their status. What difference does it make, when perhaps, your neighbor, co-worker, a friend of your friend, whom you have known for many years, happens to be illegal? Nothing. He or she is still the same person that you know and have known, and perhaps liked. Rather than expending all our energy in condemning them, why not focus, with vigilance on a neighborhood watch, looking after these radical religious group trying to harm us. In addition, if there needs to be a middle ground between the House and the Senate Bill, I suggest the following:
1) Split it in the middle: Instead of the 5 years and longer group that the Senate wants to grant legalization, make it 10 years or longer for the first year. The remainder to follow on the second year. The rest must leave as it is now provided in the bill.
This will reduce any backlog and will provide time for thorough review of applications.
2.) In addition to the background check, pay back taxes, etc., give priority to the ones who are educated and will less likely or become a public charge, rather a benefit to our economy. Immigration is a previlege and not a right. America has the right to choose who she wants and when she wants.
3.) Dependents will only be limited to spouse and children, even if they have acquired their U.S. citizenship in the future. Parenst may come, but will not be entitled to any entitlements.
It is also worth noting that the American Heritage dictionary defines the following cross-referenced words, to wit:
1.) Amnesty – an general pardon.
2.) Pardon – to release from punishment; exempt from penalty.
3.) Penalty – a punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense; something, especially a sum of money, required to forfeit an offense.
Deportation is a (civil) penalty. However, even Mr. Sensenbrenner is not in favor of massive deportation, let alone practical. Therefore, it leaves with one possible penalty – an imposition of a fine (sum of money). Since the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill carries a hefty fine, it does not therefore fall within the meaning of the word amnesty. It may be a penalty in its reduced form, but still a penalty and no one is exempted. Again, we can debate this, but just for a moment compare this to the necessity of having a stronger border security. Which is the lesser of the evils?
9:38 am
Has anyone looked into the costs of a complete double wall security fence (with doors/gates provided for legal immigration) with a nominal required amount of border patrol on our U.S. southern border vs. fully manned border security using primarily border patrol without the fence??? My question seeks both initial construction and annual maintenance costs vs. total a manned
Much of, if not all costs, arising from illegal immigration and deportation could be provided by stiff fines applied against companies involved with the employment of illegals. Most of the illegals would soon be providing the price of their own way back due to ever increasing economic pressures.
One last comment, any of the following countries Japan, Taiwan or, Hong Kong would love to have the natural resources of a country like Mexico!! What keeps that country from helping itself??
11:12 am
We have to fix our borders, why don’t people realize that we are beginning to look a lot like the middle east by letting people come to this country illegally and tell us what we need to do to make them happy, doesn’t anyone see the similarity, it is scary to me and it should be scary for all americans. We have always been the United States, lets not change to please those who don’t want to follow our laws, they want us to change them, most of them don’t want to be americans anyway, so whats the problem, send them home and let them tell the government the came from to change