Comments on: Home News

By: barker13

barker13 — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:35:24 +0000

No path to citizenship for illegals. Period. To my way of thinking they forfeited that opportunity when they chose to break our laws by entering our country illegally.

What of children brought over by their parents? Well, when they reach adulthood they can decide whether to thank their parents for bringing them to America or curse them for bringing them her illegally and by doing so preclude their ever having an opportunity to become citizens themselves.

"Anchor babies...?" Now that's a crux of the problem. The way to deal with this is for Congress to close this loophole via legislation - and if they were to do so and the Supreme Court ruled such Congressional action unconstitutional... a Constitutional Amendment would be the next step.

(Still, I realize none of this is going to take place - certainly not in the foreseeable future; so, absent removing the ability of illegals to effectively game the system simply by having a child here... it's hard to see how to proceed effectively.)

Dealing with illegals who aren't "protected" by their status as a parent of an American citizen...

Raids. No, nothing approaching totalitarian methods, but regular enforcement raids based upon probable cause... the model being the last year or so of the Bush administration's raid policies.

Sharpen the teeth of the laws dealing with citizen employers of illegals. Large fines. Perhaps jail time for repeat offenders. In other words, raise the stakes.

If any illegal is "caught" (be it in a traffic stop, tresspassing, whatever) immediate deportation. Again... turn up the heat.

Incentivise local authorities to make arrests and detain illegals by making the federal government responsible for reimbursement of all such related expenses. This will also incentivise the feds to act quickly and responsibly because not doing so will end up reallocating money from THEIR budgets to state/county/local budgets.

The public relations message...

We're protecting poor Americans... low skilled Americans... particularly poor, young, black Americans... from unfair competition and depressed wages.

Heck... not just blacks! Poor Americans of Hispanic descent as well. If portrayed as a method of protecting "family first" - the AMERICAN family that is - the policy shouldn't be racially or ethnically divisive. Just the opposite in fact... it would strengthen our bonds as a People regardless of race, religions, gender, et al.

Where might I compromise? On the deportations. I'd be open to a pathway to legal resident status for those illegals who the case could be made are otherwise law abiding productive members of society. Yet... they'd be ineligible for social welfare benefits. They'd pay into Social Security and Medicare without ever getting a penny back - this would be their "added donation" to the nation and the American People for allowing them to partake in OUR society as a GUEST.

Anyway... just a few proposals.

BILL

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:27:36 +0000

sinz54 7:40 AM……….Rasmussen’s “issue” polls aren’t worth diddly squat. There were a bunch of polls at the time showing a narrow majority wanting stricter enforcement and a path to citizenship for those already here. In other words the country is more or less equally divided over the issue. The failure of the bill had little to do with public opinion and everything to do with far right intransigence which as I pointed out was dividing the Republican coalition very seriously. I’m all in favor of stricter border enforcement but I’m not very optimistic about how effective it will be….I don’t think you have any idea what an industry this is. As for the 12-20 million here they have to be regularized, sending them back isn’t an option really. And you posit a route that Obama will not take, he’s really not as stupid as you think he is. He’ll just co-opt the McCain bill which is basically stricter borders and a path to citizenship, slightly soften the path to citizenship qualifications and roll forward with McCain and a Southwestern Dem senator fronting the bill. It will pass with about 25% of Republican votes in house and senate but in the meantime it will have provoked a civil war in the Republican party between the business wing who as you say want it and the fundamentalists who will go crazy.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:40:35 +0000

ottovbvs: The immigration reform bill would have passed in 2007 if most Americans were in favor of it. It wasn't just the GOP right that was against it.

Rasmussen exploded that myth. His polling found that a majority of all Americans were against giving illegals already in America a path to citizenship, UNLESS there was strict border enforcement too. (But if the borders were controlled, THEN a majority said they would favor giving illegals a path to citizenship.) I see no reason to think that attitude has changed much.

And neither liberals nor the business community want strict border enforcement. Liberals don't want it because they just find the use of force icky; business doesn't want it because they want an unending stream of new cheap labor.

If Obama takes the liberal route--provide illegals with a path to citizenship while keeping our southern border open to an unlimited stream of them--it's going to backfire on him. The entire GOP will be united in opposing that. And the Dems will have to explain to the public why they can be for fighting terrorism while keeping our southern border open and undefended.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:44:21 +0000

I agree with much of what DF says in his article. However I think he misses one important point. By not doing anything to normalize the legal status of the millions of 1st gen immigrants who are likely to stay to raise their children here, he leaves them in a limbo status where they can only perform menial labor. They also tend to stick to their own social circles, primarily other Mexican immigrants, speaking spanish and failing to assimilate in any meaningful way. This is partly because they know they could be kicked out at any time, so putting the effort in to learn english or improve their skill level seems like wasted effort that could be flushed down the drain with a knock on the door.

Why does this matter? Because this is the community in which the 2nd and 3rd generation grows up. They go to school with the (relatively at least) rich children of the people their parents work for. They see the double standard -- the way cops treat them and their parents; the way expectations are lowered. They live with the fear that their parents or siblings might be deported at any minute, in spite of hard work and good behavior. They also see drug dealers and gang leaders gain respect in the underworld. These people are usually citizens; they risk years in jail, and yet they will never be banished from the land they call home.

This is a pernicious and soul-crushing experience that I believe has much to do with the lowered achievements of these 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics. We are effectively running an apartheid operation here -- by pretty much turning our backs when they walk across the border, setting things up so they have a very low chance of deportation, and doing nothing -- really nothing at all -- about allowing them to work. We all but send them an invitation -- to be non-citizens, invisible people. The bills we pay for their education and emergency health care are far from invisible.

This is really an issue where both sides have shown an amazing lack of political will and courage to face up to the reality of a situation.

By: bloodstar

bloodstar — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:36:34 +0000

let's say there's 10 million illegals, have them pay a $3000 fine half of which is dedicated towards future enforcement, optimistically, that would be $15 Billion dedicated to future enforcement, with $15 Billion as other revenue.

Set up a good code of what is a deportable offense, then work on keeping the borders patrolled. By Stepping up enforcement and bringing a good portion out of the shadows, you'll both increase revenue, decrease crime (Splenda, how many crimes are committed both by people preying upon illegals, and illegals who are unable to find work?)

By: Splenda

Splenda — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:14:30 +0000

David,

Effective immigration enforcement needs to be a re-thinking of ICE. I work as a deputy prosecutor and it is hard to have illegal immigrants deported for anything less than a heinous felony. I called ICE to see if they would deport a man who was being charged with his third DUI in less than five years and they told me that unless he hurt someone, they didn't have the manpower. ICE needs to be given the manpower to be able to deport illegal immigrants who are already sitting in county jails and state prisons across the nation. I understand that illegal immigration is necessary for our economy. But shouldn't the first rule of being here be that you not break our laws? Local and state law enforcement officers are an excellent front line in this battle.

To respond to ottovbvs, e-verify is not a cure-all. And you are right that it won't stop a farmer or housepainter from hiring an illegal. But shutting down many avenues from larger businesses (it will be much harder to get a job as a housekeeper or janitor or grease monkey at a mechanic), will force more workers into that cash-only sector. The work will become more sporadic and probably lower-paying because instead of needing 1 worker out of 10 to accept his insanely low wage, now Rick only needs 1 in 25 who is desperate enough to take it. This squeeze play will cause even more workers to decide that America is no longer the land of opportunity and leave.

By: midcon

midcon — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:28:59 +0000

I said "Still, the illegal population, while significantly reduced, would still be significantly reduced"

I meant to say "Still, the illegal population, while significantly reduced, would still be significant"

Sorry about that.

By: midcon

midcon — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:27:31 +0000

David,

It probably safe to assume that most of the recent illegals (the ones without deep roots) have not strayed too far from their entry points (Florida, LA County, Southwest). Consequently, a drop in enrollment in LA County of 7% over 6 years (a little more than 1% per year) would not be a representative average across the entire nation. Still using that average of 1.16% outflow every year, after 10 years, only 1,392,000 illegals would have gone home.

We could increase that number by increasing enforcement (using eVerify) to manage demand. If the demand for illegal immigrants decreases by enforcing laws and penalizing businesses who hire illegals, the outflow rate could be increased dramatically. However, you can see that with an outflow of less than 1.5M over 10 years, it would take decades to sufficiently reduce the illegal immigration to more manageable levels. Of course coupled with mechanisms in place to gain legal status (such as marriage), you could further reduce the illegal population.

Still, the illegal population, while significantly reduced, would still be significantly reduced. I would prefer a solution that incorporates some mechanism for them to attain legal status. Make it stringent but attainable because illegals with children who are U.S. citizens are not likely to leave with their children, if they left at all. Wholesale amnesty is obviously not a solution, but the solution must be balanced with reality and I do not believe it is acceptable for the nation or the illegals to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration just because the numbers are small.

We should not raise the immigration numbers and we should apply standards regarding knowledge, skills and abilities when it comes to immigration, but I want a solution encompasses, enforcement to prevent illegal immigration, skill standards to govern immigration, and a mechanism to deal with those who are currently here illegal that recognizes that they arent all going to go home.

While we are at it, lets take the H1B Visa program back to its original purpose of providing visas for those with special skills primarily in the hard sciences (not sitting in offices over at Fannie Mae making mortgage loans). The H1B program is nothing more than a government and business sanctioned immigration program that is widely and openly abused.

Immigration reform may be hard but it can be solved if it is comprehensive and all encompassing. Now we can use trigger words like amnesty but thats just a word employed to elicit a certain response. If someone were to learn English, pay taxes, pay a penalty for breaking the law, perform volunteer service, hold down a job, participate in our society, defend our nation, isnt that the kind of person we probably want to keep? Shouldnt we provide a means to keep those kind of people? You can ship the rest back, but I believe that we need some provision to keep some of them.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:20:34 +0000

David, read your piece. It’s totally unrealistic. The main employer of these folks is not GE but Rick’s landscaping, Rick painting, Rick’s Mexican eatery so the notion of instituting a reign of terror based on punitive fines and maybe prison against the nation’s small businesses is ridiculous just as is the notion that generations of immigrants are going to “adjust” in this climate. It’s also anti conservative. The Chamber of Commerce will be ecstatic. So planks numbers one and two fail. I also expect to immigration to pick up again once the economy gets moving. No, I’m afraid the Bush/McCain/Obama solution is the only one and like you I expect it to be on the agenda once the big initial three of healthcare, energy and education have been completed by the end of this year. Basically the bill is written, it only remains to soften some of the concessions that Bush/McCain had to make to appease their right (not that they succeeded) and it will be fired up again. And it will almost certainly pass relatively comfortably, labor will have been squared and one leg of the Republican coalition (the business community) want it. Now comes time to consider the political implications and they are considerable. If I had to choose a wedge issue to divide the GOP this is it. And so once again Obama does what is basically the sensible pragmatic thing and in the process divides his opponents. Not only divides them but does it in the most noisy and visible way in the run up to the mid terms with considerable consequences. There’s some small risk for the Democrats here and there but for Republicans it will be incredibly destructive.