Hugh Hewitt comes out of the Amnesty closet
By Sabertooth Posted in User Blogs — Comments (120) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hugh Hewitt has publicly embraced his inner elitist and called for an amnesty for illegal aliens, in so many words last Friday:
...if you look at the "compromise" that collapsed today, it said begin the process of exploring the initiation of a potential fence sort of stuff. Why not just do what the House said, mark the 700 miles, and say we'll make the amnesty effective the day the 700 miles are finished?
Hewitt's hardly surprising remarks came during a radio interview with WaPo columnist Charles Krauthammer, after years of denying he was in favor of amnesty, and denying that President Bush was in favor of amnesty.
Hugh's been spending a lot of time recently promoting his new book, "Painting the Map Red," in which he warns of a potential GOP civil war over immigration, and that such a rift might cost the Republicans their majorities in Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections.
What Hugh fails to understand is that the rift isn't over immigration, it's over illegal aliens and amnesty, and any plan that legalizes illegals in any way would be an amnesty. Pro-amnesty folks are prone to marvelous equivocations about how their particular plan to reward illegal aliens wouldn't be amnesty, and they succeed remarkably well at kidding themselves, but none of them fool any of the angry Republican voters that Hewitt is warning might stay home this November.
Hewitt's time would be better spent, if he really wants to motivate these voters and paint the map red, in opposing amnesty in all its forms, but it's unclear how he'll do that now.
Hugh might start by backing off his pro-"regularization," pro-amnesty position on illegals. It would also be constructive if he gave up the Beltway/Wall Street Journal epithets such as "restrictionist," "anti-immigrant," and "nativist," which unfairly smear the vast majority of Americans and particularly Republicans who oppose illegals as knuckle dragging bigots. Paul Gigot, William Kristol, Tamar Jacoby, etc. are as much on the fringe of this debate as the moonbats barking about the NWO or the reconquista are.
Getting back to Krauthammer, we know he wants amnesty for illegals. He said so in his response to Hugh:
It seems to me the solution is so obvious. You do the enforcement, you do the shutting of the border, and then you do the amnesty, in that sequence. It's pretty simple. But it looks as if maybe it's political pressure, maybe it's simply a pollyannish idea that if you had employer sanctions, somehow that's going to stop the flow. But we know that's not so. Employer sanctions were at the heart of the last reform in 1986, the Simpson-Mazzoli law. And it legalized 3 million illegals, and here we are, 20 years later, with 11 million new illegals. So obviously it's not going to work.
Actually, the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli (aka: the Reagan Amnesty) was the legalization of most of the illegal aliens then in the country.
Employer sanctions weren't enforced to any significant degree. According to a June, 2005 GAO report:
...the number of notices of intent to fine issued to employers for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers or improperly completing employment verification forms decreased from 417 in fiscal year 1999 to 3 in fiscal year 2004.
Saying that Clinton and Bush's toothless employer sanctions didn't work is like saying that a never-imposed death penalty isn't a deterrent. Krauthammer should know better, but like most elitist illegal alien apologists he hasn't done his homework.
Nevertheless, Krauthammer wants another "very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty," even as he admits it's a phony solution.
The "solution," Hewitt and Krauthammer tell us, the thing that makes their amnesty really a good idea--this time--is... the fence!
But...
Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we can do that, everything becomes possible -- most especially, humanizing the situation of our 11 million existing illegals.
The reason a fence with amnesty is no solution is that about 40% of illegals didn't enter the country by illegally crossing our Southern border with Mexico. A 40% failure rate is not a "manageable trickle." A fence would not be a deterrent at all to illegals who get around the border or enter legally and overstay, which millions have done.
All amnesties for illegal aliens are always incentives for more people to become illegal aliens, but never you mind: Hugh Hewitt, Charles Krauthammer, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, William Kristol, Karl Rove and President George Walker Bush would legalize them anyway.
Without question, a fence with amnesty will simply provoke a market adjustment by illegals, their enablers, their employers, and their smugglers.
The opportunities for would-be illegals to overstay a lawful entry would be vastly increased if there's a temporary guest worker program, and the incentive to overstay would be provided by the amnesty currently being supported by Hewitt and others. A guest worker program is desirable, but is only workable if there is zero prospect of amnesty.
It's time to move this debate beyond the false dilemma of "do nothing, deport 'em all, or amnesty." Doing nothing is unacceptable to everyone. Amnesty isn't the answer, it's the problem; 2.7 million illegal aliens were "regularized" under the Reagan Amnesty, and over a million amnesties under Clinton via Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code. These amnesties and the refusal by the last four Administrations to enforce our immigration laws in the American interior have attracted at least 11 million new illegals. A Bush Amnesty or any other amnesty, especially if Trojan horsed through a guest worker program would only result in more illegals in the future. However, if amnesty proponents are right about little else, they are at least correct when observing that "we can't deport them all."
What Hewitt, Bush, etc. fail to realize is that we don't need to deport all 11 million illegals. Illegal aliens got here on their own and they're capable of leaving in the same way. A shrewd reform of our immigration laws would create a market environment that would encourage illegals to willingly self-deport.
Self-deportation is the overlooked solution to America's illegal alien problem. Here's a sketch of how such a market would work:
1. No more amnesties for illegals. Ever.
2. On January 1, 2007 and every year thereafter, one to two million temporary guest worker slots would be made available to applicants who are physically present in their countries of origin.
3. On July 1, 2007 employer compliance with the voluntary PILOT Act (federal verification of an individual's eligibility for employment) would become mandatory, as proposed by House Rules Chair David Dreier (R-CA). Employers who fail to comply would actually be prosecuted, with stiff fines and jail time if they hire illegals.
4. Also on July 1, 2007 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would begin conducting targeted sweeps of day laborer sites, removing the illegals they find there and conducting stings against those who would hire them. All illegals apprehended after this date would be biometrically scanned and made permanently ineligible for lawful entry into the United States. Such sites would be vacated in short order.
The dates and numbers of guest workers are negotiable. #1 is essential or everything else fails. However, if implemented in the sequence above, such a plan would prevent a disruption in the labor supply by giving employers a window to determine if they have illegals currently on their rolls and to find replacements either among citizens and lawful immigrants, or by way of the guest worker program.
This plan would dry up much of the employment and hope for amnesty that currently motivates many illegals to come here and stay, while offering them an opportunity to apply for legal entry if they return to their home countries and get in line with their countrymen who haven't broken our laws. Unlike the Bush Amnesty or any of the phony guest worker Trojan horses for amnesty, under the self deportation plan illegals would have no advantage over others who've played by the rules.
"Waitaminnit," you say. President Bush likes to claim:
One thing the temporary worker program should not do is provide amnesty for people who are in our country illegally. I believe granting amnesty would be unfair, because it would allow those who break the law to jump ahead of people like you all, people who play by the rules and have waited in the line for citizenship.
Amnesty would also be unwise, because it would encourage future waves of illegal immigration, it would increase pressure on the border and make it difficult for law enforcement to focus on those who mean us harm. For the sake of justice and border security, I firmly oppose amnesty.
President Bush needs deprogramming; he's read far too many focus group summaries from Darth Rove. It's nice that he's willing to inconvenience illegals sufficiently that they wouldn't have an advantage over lawfully admitted immigrants, but his plan most certainly would give illegals a huge advantage over foreign nationals who have applied for and not yet received permission to enter the United States. Under the Bush Amnesty, those who haven't broken our laws would not be able to compete for the jobs that the illegals have taken illegally: those jobs would be reserved for those illegals.
So, the President's plan is unfair, gives advantages to illegals, would encourage future waves of illegal aliens, and would make it difficult for law enforcement to focus on those who do us harm. For the sake of justice and security, as well as for a continued Republican majority, President Bush, Hugh Hewitt, and every patriotic American ought to firmly oppose the Bush Amnesty and every other amnesty.
- Build a wall on the entire length of the Mexican border.
- Increase the border patrol as much as possible. The limit here is training.
- Use the border area for National Guard Training to support the border patrol.
- Employer sanctions for those employing illegals. Heavy fines that get much nastier if you are a repeat offender.
- Cut off all government services to illegals except emergency (as in real emergency) hospital services. No school for kids, even if the kids are US citizens because their parents are illegals. No welfare. No driver's licenses. If an illegal is driving a company vehicle and is involved in an accident, the business owner goes to jail.
- Make guest worker visas available to those who are here now. They are good for no more than one year. They have to go back to Mexico (or other country of origin for all those illegal Canadians) and reapply. If employers are found to have expired gw's on their payroll, fines double.
- Increase the number of regular work visas available.
- Make being an illegal immigrant a felony. Make employing an illegal, harboring a felon. Give the churches a waiver to feed and clothe them. If they employ them, treat them like any other employer.
- If an illegal is convicted of a crime in either the US or Mexico they are not eligible for immigration or gw program. If they are deported and come back, 10 years in prison.
Nobody gets rounded up. The jobs dry up. Illegals go back to Mexico. Let the Mexican government deal with them, I really don't care about them. And frankly, if their own government doesn't give a hoot about them I don't know why I should.
I heard him today. He also called for 700 miles of fencing.
How bout a triple fence, $10,000 in fines, a Shakespeare exam, and a two lie detector test sadministered by Jack Bauer and Mitch Rapp? Would that appease you?
Face it: we're not deporting 12,000,000. Do you want them to start paying taxes or not? (They already pay SS TAX.)
I'm for a fence and more enforcement, now the "call everything amnesty" crowd must come to the bargaining table. If you didn't like Bush's heroic election stance on immigration, you shouldn't have voted for him.
Mr. Tancredo, do you support deporting Emilio Garza?
'compassionate conservatism' goes the way of the constitution in your book.
Depriving a lawful citizen of the right to go to school because his or her parents are illegal?
And again I ask where is the reality in your stand?
Look around you: the tide is flowing against what you are promoting, not for it.
the chances of a majority in congress placing into law anything except a shadow of what you are asking for is as unlikely as the illegals jsut shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Well, excuse me! I had no idea I was supposed to leave. i will jsut pack up and leave quietly and neatly."
Your plan frankly puts the Republicans nationally in the same condition they are in California: out.
It guarantees nothing will be done, so the illegals will jsut cruise along until the dems give them the vote carte blanche.
And it basically assures we will lose the GWOT.
Although I agreed with Hugh and Dennis Prager, I have enormous respect for anyone who even attempts to debate Prager. The man is a genius.
..."If you didn't support Bush's heroic stance on immigration, you shouldn't have voted for him."
We shouldn't be one issue voters. What we should not surprise us, however, is Bush's stance on the issue. He has never changed.
Depriving a lawful citizen of the right... I'll give you that one. And I would press Congress to pass a law that redefines "birthright citizenship" to those who are here legally. Let SCOTUS rule on it.
...the tide... Just because most men cry for it does not make it right. That is a totally amoral argument. I understand that implementing what I would like to see is a longshot, but it's my longshot.
...puts the Republicans... I don't care. I also don't think you're right, but even if you are I don't care.
Bottom line, your position is "open borders" position and when we implement that (McCain/Kennedy) there will be no United States of America in one generation.
Thanks! It was an unexpected treat to get to talk to both Hugh and Dennis at once.
Dennis is a good guy, but he hasn't really gotten beyond feelings in his understanding of the illegal alien problem. No amnesty is going to fly with the voters that Hugh is worried will stay home this November. Whether Dennis likes it or not, single issue voters are part of the equation if the GOP wants to maintain their majority in November. We can have an amnesty or a majority, but probably not both.
Hugh's fence will simply divert the flow of illegals to more overstayers of legal entry. It won't prevent millions people in the future from becoming illegal aliens, if they believe that they'll eventuyally be amnestied as well.
The problem is you just want your position, consequence and reality be darned. The Congress, you might recall, can't change the Constitution. It will take an Amendmant to deprive native born Americans of auotmatic citizenship. And I will bet you the votes are not there, either in Congress or the states.
Compromise is what held this country together through tougher times than this.
I am very willing to compromise. You are not, apparently.
I also completely reject your mischaracterization of my position as one of open borders.
It is not. My position is not amnesty and it is not open borders. It is called a reasonable position that gets us more good than we have now, and gives us possibility of getting farther in the future.
Your fecklessnes to the party that has kept us away from the European disease and won us the cold war and has won us, so far, the GWOT is very disappointing.
You say you don't care, but I bet you really do.
it may not require an amendment. Let Congress pass a law & let SCOTUS rule. If they rule against me, so be it.
With respect to your position, any position that attempts to address the people who are here BEFORE the borders are secured and employer sanctions are put in place is amnesty. Been there, done that.
I'm perfectly willing to compromise. I almost don't care what happens to the current crop of illegals. I want the border secured. I want employing illegals to have serious sanctions that can and will be enforced. I want government services to illegals stopped. Non-negotiable.
I'm fine with a guest worker program. I'm fine with increasing the number of visas available. I'm not fine with the status quo because your kids and my kids will be discussing why the entire population of Mexico and Central America lives in the US without documentation if we don't secure the border.
At least you have to give him credit for at least telling it like it is rather than screaming over and over "it's not amnesty." I think amnesty is inevitable but we need to have the fence, increased enforcement, and triggers on the amnesty as part of the deal. I think it should be targeted to Latin America only as well. I don't want any jihadists getting in on it.
Amnesties beget more illegals, which beget more amnesties. How many times do we have to try amnesty before we understand that it exacerbates the problem?
As for the fence, I don't have a problem with building it, but let's not oversell it. Had we had an impermeable 2,200 mile fence on the Mexican border for the last 20 years, we'd still have at least 5 million illegals who would have arrived by other means during that time.
Amnesty will undo any good done by a fence.
I want the border secured. I want employing illegals to have serious sanctions that can and will be enforced. I want government services to illegals stopped. Non-negotiable.
I'm fine with a guest worker program. I'm fine with increasing the number of visas available. I'm not fine with the status quo because your kids and my kids will be discussing why the entire population of Mexico and Central America lives in the US without documentation if we don't secure the border.
In the eyes of Paul Gigot and William Kristol, that makes you an unappeasable, anti-immigrant nativist.
Funny how that works.
That's why you have triggers on the bill which are based on meeting enforcement targets. Illegal immigration over the target amount, and it goes on hold until it is low enough to continue. That in combination with stepped up zero tolerance enforcement on hiring employees outside the amnesty program, and beefed up visa enforcement, and of course the border fence, might just do the trick.
National ID card and criminalizing illegal entry. I'm even willing to give them the first time free, after that they should get a minimum of 1 year in prison for every attempt they've gotten busted on.
of the birthright citizenship issue is that people born overseas (like me) have been made citizens by birth at different times for under different criteria by statute.
If Congress has the power to decide that someone born outside the country can be a citizen by birth then clearly they have the authority to determine what consitutes the criteria for citizenship. One might then extrapolate that they have the authority to decide who isn't a citizen also.
I was called anti-person the other day (whatever that means) and told I should be pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and a radical environmentalist if I wanted to be consistent with my (moderate) anti illegal-immigration stance.
A quasi amnesty (I wouldn't call it a text-book "amnesty") that is quite punitive will lead some single issue voters to stay home. I believe, however, that in the long term the courtship of Latino voters (who are extremely pro-life btw) will suffer a huge blow if we maintain the status quo of this semi-permanent shadow class, and breaking up families with mass deportations would be not only immoral but disastrous for the party. My two cents. Good job on Hugh.
The fence issue is not an either/or proposition. I am a zealous promoter of the border fence, but you are right; if no other immigration reforms are enacted, they will come illegally and overstay. That is why we must have electronic employee/job status tracking and mandatory periodic reporting in by immigrants. Along with a host of other reforms to streamline the system, reduce physical labor through technology (which will take private business), and diverting some manpower and money from detention/deportation to monitor/control.
And if that's too "Big Brother-ish", remember we're talking about migrant workers (currently illegals) and not U.S. citizens.
The fence is the beginning, and an integral part of the whole process.
The people who come across the border cannot get visas. That would clearly be their first choice if it was at all possible. It is vastly preferred to crossing the border. The problem is we don't just give visas to anyone. If you are a poor farmer, we aren't going to give you a tourist visa.
politically correct pandering to the open borders crowd and the Democratic National Committee.
I'm constantly amazed that a call for enforcement first, namely a wall and very strict employer sanctions with no call for mass arrests of illegals is always branded as the current equivalent of Kristallnacht.
If you grant amnesty, and any "solution" that does not address border security first IS amnesty, we will be wonder how to keep the Brazilians out. Of course in another 30 years or so there will be so many Mexicans here that THEY will adopt the Mexican version of open borders. That will keep everybody out and they won't bat an eyelash about using the military to round up those worthless, nasty Brazilians.
VERY strict employer sanctions, a guest worker program that is restrictive and increase the number of available visas.
But in that order. Fence. Sanctions. Then guest worker and visas.
The order of enforcement should be: fence, guest worker, sanctions.
Why? Because the only way to get current illegals into the system is to give them a chance to come into the system legally, which can't happen if sanctions are enforced first.
There should be a six month period in which workers are allowed to sign up and get biometric IDs. At the end of that period, there should be severe penalties for both employers and employees who don't comply.
They'll stay and riot. We probably have to swallow some kind of amnesty. What we can't afford is more immigration on top of that. It has to stop now, to give us a few decades to attempt to assimilate them, or failing that, to figure out what we're dealing with. Things don't look good.
Republicans did not lose California because of Prop 187 and mean old Governor Wilson. They lost it because Republican voters started fleeing the state in the 1980s for Arizona and points east, largely in response to the reduction in quality of life brought about by the very sort of lax immigration control that the Stupid Party desperately is trying to see brought to the whole country. I'm not aware of any research, but I'd be utterly unsurprised if it didn't turn out that the vast majority of beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty became Democrats, and in the process turned California blue. Politics is as much about demography and ethnic, racial, and religious faction as it is about "ideas." The overwhelming majority of voters can't hold a conversation about "ideas," but they know who they are, and probably more importantly, who they don't like. We forget this to our peril.
of "187 killed the Party in CA" has become the coventional wisdom of a Republican elite that sought to stigmatize all attempts to arrest the problem at an earlier stage of its growth, and now argue that a problem they were instrumental in creating has metastasized to such immense proportions that the only feasable approach is... more of the same.
File under: Weakly Standard.
modified sentance receive amnesty?
The claim that anything other than 'toss them out is amnesty' is ridiculous. I am getting tired of the misuse of the language.
The massive income tax increase that Wilson was responsible for, and the property tax increases that he wanted, the increased sales tax he wanted. This guy was a Republican? Maybe, just maybe, that might be related to the fact that the CA GOP can't win it's way out of a wet paper bag. Now they are just reinforcing the lesson with Arnold. He'll set them back another 10 years.
When his position has not changed? If Bush were to change now, he would be pandering to Perot voters. Anyway this issue is killing the GOP. The longer we go w/o a sane bill complete with carrots and sticks the more the Democrats win. Harry Reid and Chucky Schmucky don't want us to get a bill because they're delighted that we're un-unified.
Look, every side (including the President, who I believe doesn't believe in a fence) is going to have to swallow a few bitter pills on this one. The end result should be a bill with a huge fence, and a non-amnesty punitive path to citizenship for those here more than 2 years. Once the current illegal crop has work permits, start cracking down on employers. To do so beforehand would be an anti-growth maneuver that would hurt the booming Bush economy.
BTW we could use a few more Brasilen~as;)
When his position has not changed? If Bush were to change now, he would be pandering to Perot voters. Anyway this issue is killing the GOP. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/immigration_debate_is_kil
ling.html
Look, every side (including the President, who I believe doesn't believe in a fence) is going to have to swallow a few bitter pills on this one. The end result should be a bill with a huge fence, and a non-amnesty punitive path to citizenship for those here more than 2 years. Once the current illegal crop has work permits, start cracking down on employers. To do so beforehand would be an anti-growth maneuver that would hurt the booming Bush economy.
BTW we could use a few more Brasilen~as;)
When his position has not changed? If Bush were to change now, he would be pandering to Perot voters. Anyway this issue is killing the GOP. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/immigration_debate_is_kil
ling.html]. The longer we go w/o a sane bill complete with carrots and sticks the more the Democrats win. Harry Reid and Chucky Schmucky don't want us to get a bill because they're delighted that we're un-unified.
Look, every side (including the President, who I believe doesn't believe in a fence) is going to have to swallow a few bitter pills on this one. The end result should be a bill with a huge fence, and a non-amnesty punitive path to citizenship for those here more than 2 years. Once the current illegal crop has work permits, start cracking down on employers. To do so beforehand would be an anti-growth maneuver that would hurt the booming Bush economy.
BTW we could use a few more Brasilen~as;)
You want the current people in the system, if you put sanctions before guest worker their employers will get them into the program. Put guest worker before sanctions and you've got nothing more than we have now, except for the fence.
I'm willing to "swallow the bitter pill" of amnesty (by whatever name) for the sweet solace of a fence and an enforceable policy.
Why anyone, on any side of this issue, wants people coming across the border, without dignity and at great peril to themselves, without declaring their identity or destination, is beyond me. Who is for that?
That's the alternative to a wall.
It was wrong, dangerous to national security, and a disaster for our national sovereignty in 2000 and it hasn't changed.
By the way, his position on Education - expansion of the DoE, NCLB - was a disaster for education and for the country in 2000 just as it is now.
I support his foreign policy, for the most part. I support his judicial nominations, I just wish he would fight for them.
His domestic policy is worse than either Clinton or Carter's foreign policy. With the possible exception of taxes (at least he did something) his domestic agenda is a pathetic joke and he's done the Republican base and the American people no favors and has been a generally lousy President by expanding the role of the Fed and allowing spending to go absolutely unchecked.
Maybe we are saying the same thing, I'm not sure.
I want current workers to come into the system legally, but I want to prevent more people from coming here illegally. Are we on the same page up to there?
As I see it, once the fence is built (or as it's being built), you give people a one-time opportunity to sign up, pay taxes, pay a penalty, etc. Any employer or employee who refuses at the end of a six month sign-up period, gets hit with big penalties (deportation for employees, big fines for employers).
All three aspects (fence, employer sanctions and amnesty-light) should be passed simultaneously to make it work.
Are we saying the same thing?
"toss[ing] them out". I haven't.
- Build a wall.
- Strict and enforceable employer sanctions.
- Guest worker program.
- Expand the number of visas available.
I'm not advocating round up anybody. I'm advocating a system that protects our national sovereignty and secures our borders.
This whole argument amazes me. In EVERY other country on earth people would be either laughed out of the public arena or thrown in jail for suggesting such silliness. It's a heck of a note when the Europeans and the Mexicans take their national sovereignty more seriously that we do.
Its sad that Bill Clinton was better at interior enforcement than President Bush.
Bush is my favorite President since Lincoln. How can you say that Carter's foreign policy is better than Bush's domestic policy. Have you realized that Carter's foreign policy is about to start us another World War?
was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. The statements of its chief sponsor, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, make it quite clear as to who was covered, and again, children born to those here illegally weren't on the list.
Now its probable that our Sup Court would agree with you seeing as how they rarely take the original intent of the Constitutional provisions into account. But it doesn't change the fact that the current interpretation that grants birthright citizenship to chidren of illegals is a bogus one.
For blowing that off.
Which is another way of saying we are at fault.
I am all for the tightening and strengthening of our borders.
I would say if we did that and nothing else, it would be a good thing.
But I do think we need to assimilate the 11-15,000,000 here now.
of regulation by the State. Wanna build a house or start a manufacturing business that employs 1,000 people? Don't do it in California.
Example: Intel built a manufacturing facility in the Silicon Valley. Bought the land, built the buildings. Got ready to start installing the manufacturing equipment. Somebody said, "Hey, if we scrap this site and go to Gilbert Arizona and buy some more land and build another building just like this one and install the equipment we were going to install here, we could save enough money on WORKERS COMP to pay for the whole project."
Intel moved several thousand jobs to Arizona primarily because of the cost of workers comp and regulation.
And, by the way, Arizona passed a referendum initiative that makes Prop 187 look like a neon sign that says "Welcome Illegals". Under the AZ initiative (which, of course has been held up in Federal Court) no government services, including school, will be available to illegals. The Republican Party is doing quite well here if you discount the fact that we reelected John McCain in 2004. Other than McCain and a couple of Southern AZ Dem's, we have the most conservative delegation in Congress. We do have a Dem Governor, but she ran a really center-right campaign and her Republican opponent ran the worst campaign since Alan Keyes in IL.
proof of legal status and they won't stay and rot. They mostly came here because they were rotting in Mexico. They won't rot here, they'll comply or leave.
Maybe we could buy them bus tickets to Canada with an explanation that they are avoiding service in the US military because they are against the war. Two birds with one stone.
a rational way to assimilate some of them, force some to leave and most importantly, not have my sons have to face this issue in another 20 years. Any form of amnesty without a fence, actually a wall, and strict, enforcable controls on employers will accomplish nothing.
By allowing mass immigration for about 30 years now, the GOP has put itself in a bad situation. Most legal immigrants who come now and who go on to become citizens, vote Democratic. If the current illegals are granted a path to citizenship (i.e. amnesty), then most of those who follow it through will go on to vote Democratic. If we increase legal immigration, then most of those who become citizens will vote Democratic. If we increase legal immigration in the guise of a 'guest' worker program, then most of the 'guests' who remain (which will be most unless they are given incentive to go home) and who go on to become citizens will vote Democratic. Most Hispanics favor the Democrats. While Asians used to favor the GOP, they now favor the Democrats. If immigration increases from Africa, or the Middle East, then most of those immigrants would almost certainly favor the Democrats as well. Even if immigration from Europe somehow picked up again, then even then the Democrats would likely gain as conservatives in Europe bear little resemblance to American conservatives.
No matter how you look at it, mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is bad for the GOP over the long run. That doesn't mean that aggressive outreach shouldn't continue, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we can actually out-pander and out-promise the Democrats. That outreach and assimilation would function much better in an environment of less immigration seems to never enter the mind of the pro-mass immigration conservative.
. . . is that they can and will be modified or even waved when it's expedient. We have sort of the same problem now with the current House rule that requires that appropriations legislation be made available 48/72 hours (I forget which) in advance and is routinely waived by the House. The same problem happened with Gramm-Rudman which was supposed to "trigger" spending cuts which didn't really happen when they were supposed to and kept getting pushed back.
On the other hand, not allowing Congress or the appropriate administrative agency to make these sorts of judgment calls can have the effect of locking us into a particular course of action when circumstances have changed in an unforeseeable way (e.g. think of the calls for establishing a timetable for leaving Iraq when certain benchmarks have been met).
So really we have to balance the need for a certain amount of flexibility with the problem that we've become so flexible that the standards we set have become meaningless. I think a concern that a lot of folks have is that the benchmarks in any immigration reform bill that includes a guest worker/amnesty program will end up being modified or waived at some point in the future.
The Fourteenth Amendment establishes a criteria where someone is automatically a citizen (e.g. native-born) but the fact that Congress can also set up rules to grant citizenship to others through naturalization does not mean that they can deny it to those who are granted it by our Constitution.
Congress already has the power to do anything they want down the road, including a new amnesty plan every year if they really want to. It far better to have them in there in the first place, even if there is a chance they will be modified at some point. Just about everything could be modified at some point down the road.
I wrote r i o t... And it will work. We see in the marches, with their angry, shouted demands (I demand this, I demand that) a giant sense of entitlement on the part of foreigners! Illegal aliens, subject by law to deportation, who have the nerve to call us terrible racists (in the name of la Raza, natch), from within our country! The chutzpah is breathtaking. People with such giant chips on their shoulder don't go gently into the dark night. They resist, and they'd have plenty of supporters who think they can ride the tiger to political success.
Personally, I'm with the idea that they would riot. That pretty well draws the line about their willingness to be "legal". One really good riot and you'd see a wall going up on the Mexican border so fast it would make your head spin.
One really good riot and you'd see a wall going up on the Mexican border so fast it would make your head spin.
With the group of block heads we currently have in Congress? Don't bet on it.
After the inevitable riots you'll be lucky if that bunch of dunderheads doesn't use eminent domain to take our houses and give them to the illegals.
----------------------
has forced us into the position where we will likely NEVER be able to downsize the role of the federal government in our lives. What do think the probability we'll ever see the Dept of Education closed down? Or any other federal program for that matter.
Bush has allowed the Republican Congress to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave. He has imposed no restaints of any kind.
You're concerned about a World War? We've got one going on right now. Come to Arizona I'll show you the combatants. We are being invaded by Mexico in order to prop up their country and increase their hard currency position. They are much bigger threat than Iran will EVER be. Even with nukes. And Bush is not just ignoring the problem, he's enabling it.
If things in the Middle East eventually work out well, Bush will get high marks as President. Probably in the top six or seven. He'll NEVER be on a par with Lincoln or Reagan or FDR or even Truman. If things either work out poorly in the ME, or we just maintain the status quo, Bush will be remembered slightly ahead of Carter but behind Clinton.
As an addendum, I'm listening to CNBC talking heads talking about what a mess the Medicare drug benefit is. This is W's signature piece of domestic legislation, after NCLB. Both are huge expansions of the federal government that will spend TRILLIONS of dollars and provide zip for real benefit. Shame, shame, shame on anybody who thinks Bush is anything like a conservative. If HRC had proposed either of these programs we would be on the warpath about the expansion of government.
What will we do when the fence does not work?
We will be dealing with human migration issues for the rest of our history.
I happen to agree with you on your desired goals, btw.
That is pure unbridled Buchanan paleoconservatism. Fred Barnes wrote about this in the Weekly Standard, my favorite weekly: [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/960hxfvi.
asp].
Prescription drugs was a triangulating campaign 2000 promise that helped Bush win the election. The benifit tucked in HSAs, which are a great Consrvative answer to SHrillary style health care. The program is bloated, but much better than WHAT WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN with Algore, and it contained those stellar HSAs.
but that's a routine procedure. One doesn't describe the normal functioning of the justice system that way. When we contemplate a one-off, one-time mass reduction or elimination in the legally-established penalties for some act of lawbreaking, it's hard to know what else to call it, if not an amnesty.
I obviously hadn't thought that through well enough.
Gotta go now. I have ammunition to buy.
is better than AIDS. No interest in that argument, thank you very much.
The federal government is bleeding the country dry and we're willing to settle for a compression bandage on a cut while the guy with the big knife is still standing there grinning. No thanks.
"paleocon" doesn't make it untrue. As for Fred Barnes and his dreadful article, it's a mendacious call to anyone to the right of LBJ to sit down and shut up for the sake of party unity. In other words, "Give us your votes and your money, boys, but shut your mouths: If we wanted your opinions we'd ask for them. And don't, you know, expect anything for your support."
Yes, the likelihood, if not near certainty, that we are replicating the pyramidical class and racial structure of most of Latin America, along with the crowding of Europe, is a great deal more important to the future of America than some minor colonial wars on the other side of the world.
dramatic metaphors but I know that HSAs are DEFINITELY a movement in the right direction. Since a drug program would have been enacted at some point, it's better that we got HSAs with them.
Just wait until a burgeoning population of illegal, semi-legal, and "guest workers" drives up the demand for, and costs of, public services generally. The flight of the middle class will continue.
is effectively dead in the Golden State, and will be dead nationwide in 15-20 years. All of the new, Spanish-speaking citizens and, ahem, Democratic voters, won't be voting GOP.
Twenty years subsequent to that turning point and, well, anyone like the Canadian and Belgian bi-lingual/bi-cultural societal models?
is that building will not go to waste. The State of California can now use it to house their new Department of Illegal Alien Services.
They are going to share it with the feds. I understand its going to be called the McCain-Kennedy-Specter Illegal Alien Service Center.
----------------
mbecker908 in 2008! Where do I send my $2,000?
Good post, frustrating though, cause it'll never happen.
but I feel impelled to ask, once more, for the benefit of anyone who might happen to read this thread: what is the existential significance of a political class who govern, not for the benefit of those they ostensibly represent, but for the benefit of noncitizens?
No. Longer. A. Nation.
Right on all points. It is important to note that the children born in the US to foreign diplomats are, by statute, not US citizens. They are citizens of the nations that have "jurisdiction" over their parents.
was swell 12 years ago. Recent governments have gone all multicultural/moonbatty leftist.
...on birthright citizenship rests on US vs Wong Kim Ark; when given the opportunity to contradict it in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld the USSC declined.
There the matter currently rests. Much to various peoples' annoyance, I've noted.
new monasteries will be, not only actual monasteries, but social formations akin to those that have been widely mocked in recent months. Few of those unsympathetic to those concerns will possess the fortitude to preserve our civilizational values over the long run.
and the administration is AWOL on pushing the program. They've made it available. That's like me taking out a personals ad in Popular Mechanics to let JLo know I'm available. All she has to do is call.
HSA's have been around for a LONG time. If the administration wants to do something, they need to go out and SELL the program. It is "non-traditional", which means most people haven't heard about it and those who have don't understand it.
HSA's is one of the "poster" programs that could show how innovative the administration is. Instead, it is a "poster" program that shows how incompetent the administration is when it comes to communicating with the American people
All the more reason to be upset about how the judiciary has made itself supreme in all questions of Constitutionality, something Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Lincoln certainly didn't agree with.
The Supreme Court's job is to have appellate jurisdiction over the laws, with the exception of whatever Congress decides to exempt on a case-by-case basis. If Congress chooses to not exercise its Constitutional right to engage in said exemptions -
- and, for the record, proponents of ending birthright citizenship are never going to get the 2/3rds majority that they need to overturn the Bush veto that will occur if things get that far -
- I see no reason why I should make a blanket condemnation against the Court for following its Constitutional right.
...but I figure that you got the gist.
to the US than Iran. Before I start, let me say that I am absolutely opposed to Iran acquiring a nuke and I'm willing to do very drastic things to stop them.
That said, first of all, IF Iran attacks, they are most likely to attack Israel. Or they may attack our troops in Iraq. If they do that the cost to Iran will be overwhelming. There will likely be no Iran to deal with in that event.
The cost on non-enforcement of immigration law and continuing to allow open borders is nothing less than a rot that will destroy the country from the inside out. We are already an unofficially (in some instances officially) bilingual country. Illegals do not assimilate. They can't afford to, they retreat into "little Mexico's" in their communities. We are seeing more and more politicians declaring "sanctuary cities" where they are refusing to enforce federal immigration laws. Mexico is in the process of officially encouraging their people to move here so they can improve their hard money position. The rest of Central America won't be far behind.
Iran will likely be a sad page in the history books. Following our current track on immigration will be the final chapter in American history books.
...wholeheartedly. The man has been the most monumental disappointment, and will likely be viewed by history as unusually inept. I get an LBJ/Jimmy Carter feel every time I see him on the tube these days.
At least we can remember how Carter repelled that invading rabbit and how LBJ killed some folks to win his first election. No such fond memories of this White House pResident.
Great comment from a caller on Rush. We should just call this immigration bill the Guest Voter Act!
Bush MUST know that he is importing millions of Democratic voters. He knows it, the Dems know it and WE all know it. It has the potential to sink the Republican party and at the same time destroy conservative influence in American politics for generations to come.
That being said, what is Bush's motive for doing so? My opinion, Bush is the worst kind of RINO this country has seen in decades. This is a deliberate act to subvert conservatism. In all, we've been "hoodwinked".
there will never be an override vote.
Bush has no veto pen.
I know that the above sentence is likely to cause gasps of anger, horror and/or laughter. To that I can only reply: try him, and see.
For what it's worth, I stopped reading at the first line. The 'elitist' crack tells me you have some longer-term grudge against Hewitt, and it probably colors your whole analysis of his position.
Why do people do this?
Bush vetos something like this and there will be a third party. It's becoming more and more obvious that the Republicans don't care about US national soveriegnty any more than the Democrats.
with the same club. We probably quibble some on the nasty details, but generally we're on the same page.
Your turn with the club.
Maybe it was MY attention span... :>d
I'll take the cash because I'm a filthy capitalist. I won't run though.
You can be confident in the sure knowledge that your kind contribution will be well spent on pampering the well deserving and long suffering Mrs. mbecker908. I'll send pictures.
:>)=
I'm not so sure my non-suffering and probably much less deserving girlfriend would appreciate that!
...in response to the GOP's working positions on abortion, fiscal responsibility and growth of government, I somehow doubt that there will be one formed over birthright citizenship.
As I said: try it, and see.
Mrs. mbecker908 will certainly not tell her. I'll send the pictures to a private email address if you prefer, or send none at all. I'll just post a "happy diary" on RedState.
We can work this out.
modified sentance receive amnesty?
If vast categories of convicts nationwide received reduced or modified sentences by an act of Congress, then yes, that would be an amnesty.
The claim that anything other than 'toss them out is amnesty' is ridiculous. I am getting tired of the misuse of the language.
By your reckoning, was the Reagan Amnesty a bona fide amnesty? Why, or why not?
It will not stop 100% of the illegals, it will likely stop 90+% of them. We will need dramatically more border control folks along with the wall, it is not a singular solution.
The wall looks something like this:
- Reinforced concrete sections 15 to 20 feet high and buried at least 12 feet. (Think HUGE Jersey Barriers).
- 30 feet on the US side of the wall, a 10 to 12 foot high chain link fence. In the space between the wall and the fence, double layers of razor wire.
- 30 feet inside #2, do it again.
- A really nice touch would be a canal inside #3, but not necessary. More of a boon to agriculture in the region or a tourist trap.
Is it breachable? Sure. Will you breach it and move 10,000 people across? Highly unlikely. Additionally, I would rearm the Border Patrol with much heavier weapons (M16's at a minimum, with armed Humvees) and let them shoot on sight anybody attempting to breach the barrier who is armed.
It's doable to stop (or at least constrict to point where it's irrelevant) illegal immigration. It's done in many countries all around the world. The only thing we may be lacking is the will to do it.
For what it's worth, I stopped reading at the first line. The 'elitist' crack tells me you have some longer-term grudge against Hewitt, and it probably colors your whole analysis of his position.
LOL. When Hugh took my call yesterday he introduced me as his "nemesis," but said I was "fair and well informed." He's jokingly called my blog a "Hugh Hewitt hate site," but pestered me on the air last Fall to start posting again after a long hiatus. The "elitist" crack was just me laying down a little smack. Hugh's been very generous in giving me airtime over the years, and I appreciate it. He let me take on Dennis Prager and him yesterday, gave me an opportunity to quiz John Campbell at length about illegals on the eve of his special Congressional election last year, and Hugh also let me chat with him and Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee for some extended analysis of the CA Recall Election in 2003.
So, how much do you charge for psychoanalysis? Got any inkblots you want me to check out?
It will not stop 100% of the illegals, it will likely stop 90+% of them.
Not possible. 40% of illegals enter legally and then overstay. Another chunk comes in over the Canadian border or through other ports of entry. Maybe half of the illegals currently here came over the Mexican border.
If a border wall was 100% effective, it would only cut the flow of illegals in half, at best.
the mrs mbecker is going to go to Victoria Secrets and drop some cash then show us what she bought, I'm better off taking pictures of mine girl right here!!!! My apologies to the mrs mbecker, I hope she understands.
is a doable thing to stop. Or something like that :>).
It's a matter of employer sanctions, institutional sanctions (in the case of ed visas) and improved trackable ID's.
As I said, the wall is only one part of the defense of our national soveriegnty.
Well, that's the thing: I don't come to Red State to read someone "laying down a little smack," whatever that's supposed to mean.
Oh well... at least you did admit you're having a back and forth with him, although you say it's more playful than I might have expected.
Overstaying visas is a doable thing to stop. Or something like that :>).
It's a matter of employer sanctions, institutional sanctions (in the case of ed visas) and improved trackable ID's.
I agree those things are doable, yet we don't seem to do them. Why must we have another amnesty to get the government to do all of the things it was supposed to do to prevent the problem with illegals we currently have?
We've had amnesties before, and the promised enforcement never came. If we had the enforcement, we wouldn't need another amnesty, yet the promised success of this latest very last chance amnesty depends on enforcement measures the government won't make, whethere the President is Clinton or Bush.
Where is the evidence that President Bush has ever been serious about diligently enforcing our laws against illegals? In December of 2004 the President signed an intelligence and security bill that had a provision for hiring 2,000 new Border Patrol agents each year for the next five years. The President's budget request a month later only sought funds for 210 hew hires. The number of illegal alien absconders has more than doubled under President Bush to more than 400,000. More than four years after September 11th, the President is only starting to pay lip service to the thought that maybe it's not a good idea to catch and release the illegals we do apprehend and trust that they'll show up for their deportation hearings. Why is that?
In light of the above, should we find any significance in the fact that if President Bush gets his amnesty in return for a promise of enhanced enforcement and absolutely temporary visas, that he'll be out of office before the deadlines on those temproray visas would have to be enforced?
If President Bush gets his amnesty, we'll legalize more illegals that came in on his watch, during wartime, than the Reagan Amnesty legalized altogether.
What makes this amnesty worth trusting, when every previous amnesty has led to more illegals and the man seeking the latest amnesty is the most pro-illegal alien President that America has ever had?
Lack of will. Amnesty is the easy way out. The vocal people in the equation are the illegals. The rest of us just shut up and go about our business.
With respect to your question about Bush and enforcemet... he's been nowhere. He doesn't want the law enforced, he wants amnesty granted and he doesn't want to offend his good friend Vincente Fox.
Don't misunderstand me, in no way do I think that amnesty will produce enforcement. Anyone who beleives that, I've a great bridge for sale. This may well be our last opportunity to protect and secure our borders. If we just grant amnesty this time we might just as well disband the border patrol.
The Texas-Mexico border would not be practical with much of what you are describing. The border is defined by a river. Much of the border is carved canyon land. There are is a national park along a big piece of the river. The visual impact alone makes what you describe as unacceptable. As the Rio Grande floods, it will destroy much of the fence complex you are describing.
There are existing treaties regarding the river and its use, as well as a great deal of private land, along the river. There are small towns all along the border where families live on both sides and have for generations. They go back and forth daily. they are not involved in the problems you are so concerned about. By the way, the kind of footings you are proposing have what point?
The cost would be astronomical.
Please tell me some of the countries using this kind of border control?
and would be more than offset by savings in schools and health care.
If the wall won't work (and I haven't been in TX, only CA and AZ) then use claymores.
to stop coming up with reasons why we can't do things? Why it will cost too much? Why it will get flooded. Why its an eyesore (although I admit that's the first time I've heard that one.)
This is America. We went to the moon. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the "Big Dig" (strike that, bad example.) We can find a way to build a wall from ocean to Gulf. We can find a way to deal with the private land situation. We can find a way to deal with people on both sides of the river. We can find a way to deal with river treaties (I'd tell the Mexicans I'll worry about the river treaties when they stop treating my border like its a crosswalk in Guadalajara.)
We can solve all of these problem. We must solve all of these problems and all the others too.
We could make a great big deal about the labels people attach to the program, then use our best "gotcha" tools to demagogue an issue straight into the ground, and call a program that imposes a felonious fine an "amnesty."
Or, we could, I don't know, check the definition of amnesty, and then read the bill, and after that we could spend some time reading the alternate proposals and determine if a workable solution is on the table.
I know it's much more fun to scream and shout and play gotcha, but color me unimpressed.
for trespassing?
I hope you are joking.
is the reasonable plans are rejected as amnesty or not strong enough.
I'm having a real hard time finding much of anything about the Senate bill that I find reasonable.
- If you've succeeded in breaking the law for 10 years pay a small fine and welcome home.
- Nothing for border security
- Nothing for employment enforcement
- Nothing for the agencies that have to do the work created by the bill
- Nothing for fixing a broken immigration system
- Replacing immigration judges with immigration attorneys
- Nothing for nothing
A whole lot of nothing but 11 million new Democrat voters.
With reasonable plans like this who needs unreasonable?
Are you talking about alternatives for a wall? This seemed to be part of the problem, we want an all or nothing solution. Build me a wall (real or virtual just so long as it is impenetrable) and you will find quite a bit more support for amnesty, quasi-amnesty and other "not strong enough" or as you say reasonable measures.
and load them with glow in the dark paint. Fly over with a UAV. Spot 'em, snag 'em. Take away all their ID. Put 'em on an airplane and fly them to Guatamala. Let 'em try to cross Mexico's southern border without ID.
There will never be an impenetrable wall. There has never been one in history and there will never be one.
And the border security, real or fantasy, does nothing about the millions here.
What is going to destroy us all is the lack of reason in this debate.
The left sees the power grab of all power grabs, thinking they can control the mob.
The right dreams of a magic wall and 11-30 million illegals just going home all nice and quiet.
This is very likely going to be a slow-mo version of the sacking of Rome.
Congress never exercises its power to limit the Court's jurisdiction, in part because of the hysterical howls from the Left that to do so is to assault 'judicial independence', by which they of course mean judicial supremacy. And even if they did (as the House did with marriage laws in 2004, but the Senate never voted on it), then you'd have a bizarre situation where the Court would likely rule that Congress can't do that.
Its probably a safe bet that even Hamilton would be shocked by the level of power the Sup Court has given to itself.
they aren't "trespassing". They are illegally crossing our national border. Not even close to the same thing.
Some of these folks are coming across the border dressed in what appears to Mexican Army uniforms, many are armed with assault weapons. Those people, I would absolutely shoot to kill with no warning shots. They are an invading force, whether they are the MA or just drug dealers. Get film to document the fact they are armed, shoot them.
Impenetrable was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I realize ther are no degrees of an absolute. Our border should be more impenetrable or less "wide open"
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree with your point "And the border security, real or fantasy, does nothing about the millions here". I also don't believe that it should, these are separate issues that can be addressed independently. The only real link between border security and the disposition of illegal immigrants is cited (accurately in my opinion) by those who claim that lax treatment of illegals incentivizes additional immigrants to violate our immigration laws. My point is that if we implement real border security, you will find more support for "more reasonable" approaches.
Another point you made
The right dreams of a magic wall and 11-30 million illegals just going home all nice and quiet.
is a straw man. I don't believe that and I haven't seen anyone with credibility on the right make that point. Reagan got away with amnesty because there was a promise of increased border security. The lack of follow up in that regard is precisely why we are now dealing with the 11-30 M that you cite.
You should have known his stance on immigration when you voted for him. If not for Tancredo, Bush would definitely continuing the trend of Latinos to the GOP.... 35% in 200, 44% in 2004, to over 50% in 2008...
However, all of the paleocon rhetoric that Bush has urged under the table has come back to bite the GOP in the butt. It's all of Ross Perot's old voters. These are the true RINOs, not Bush.
detentions centers?
run 'em out?
Toss out the American born kids as well?
Liquidate their property?
That sounds like a pretty rough solution.
In case you missed it, we have 2 parties in this country, and the other party is even less likely to do anything reasonable with immigration.
Do you think the votes are in the nation even today to do what you propose/
I think they are not here, except in the fever swamps of the angry right talk shows.