The Twilight Zone

Every day when I check my mail, I receive numerous letters, flyers and offers. We call it junk mail. But today’s junk mail is a new breed of posters, special offers for political book clubs, fair and balanced magazine subscriptions and requests for my donation to the Republican Party and the RNC, and even the “Minutemen Organization”. Weeks ago, I received a flyer from Rush Limbaugh. “Hear the ad that Democrats are upset about!” the envelope proclaimed.

I opened Rush's mail and saw a campaign flyer for Vernon Robinson asking me to donate any amount I could afford to help this man get into Congress. I was rather skeptical, because I'm a Wisconsin resident and Mr. Robinson is running for office in North Carolina. While I can't vote for him, Rush assures me that my contribution will help the Republican Party immensely.

I was curious about the controversial ad and decided to check out Vernon Robinson's website. What I found was too good to be true in my conservative mind. Rush was right, the Democrats will be upset about this if they aren't already. The ad called "The Twilight Zone" states "The aliens are here, but they didn't come in a space ship."

Illegal immigration is a big problem in this country. It will continue to be a problem until a fence is built on our southern border. The government is doing next to nothing about the millions of aliens crossing our borders every year. Yes, I know we've sent troops to Arizona and New Mexico to aid the border patrol with reducing alien influx. It's not enough. This country is struggling. Americans are struggling. We can't afford to support any more aliens. I pay taxes. You pay taxes. Aliens? They don't pay taxes.

If I could work a job where I don't have to pay taxes to the already wealthy government, I'd be financially stable. Perhaps, I'd be a millionaire by now. Sure, I'd be breaking the law, but that's okay! The American President wants amnesty! I can break the law AND get away with it!

To be fair, I'm all for immigration to this great country, but I want immigrants to follow the rules. Apply for citizenship. Learn English. Pay Taxes. Is that too much to ask?

I got this mass-forwarded e-mail months ago, instructing Americans to try moving to Mexico in the same fashion aliens migrate to the US:

Enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family. Demand bilingual nurses and doctors. Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc. Procreate abundantly. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural U.S.A. thing. You would not understand, pal." Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper. Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise. Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system. Demand instate tuition even though you are not a citizen. Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico. Drive around with no liability insurance and ignore local traffic laws. Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.

Do you think Mexican President Vicente Fox would provide amnesty to me for breaking his laws? Would I be asking too much?

It's time we started securing our borders and not just talking about it. A fence must be built. Security must be trained. Americans are tired of paying for medical care, welfare assistance and educational assistance for illegals. We need to start taking care of our own. I don't think THAT is too much to ask.

(You can also listen to Bill Cosby's radio ad on Vernon's site and see the television ad called "The Twilight Zone".)

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at September 30, 2006 9:53 AM
Comments
Comment #185333

You forgot to mention the “Fiesta for gays and illegal immigrants.” (Brad Miller’s Mariachi Party)

You actually support Robinson??? Seriously? The guy is a hard core fruit cake with nothing more to offer than vile insults and hate filled rhetoric.

Robinson also insinuates that Miller (who I know very well…) supports legislation that will allow gays to bring in their Mexican homosexual lovers into this country on marriage visas. Obviously, it’s an outright lie - but hey! As long as he sounds bigoted and vile - the Republican party has no interest in the truth??

Are you sure you want to put Vernon up as your Republican party poster boy? I’m game if you are…

(btw - everytime Vernon puts up a new crap-filled ad, I put $100 into Brad’s campaign… and send the receipt to Vernon via email. $400 and counting…)

Posted by: tony at September 30, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #185336

I can not belive that I a Dem would agree with something on this blog. Maybe there is hope for this country. And no anti-Dem slant! We realy need to stop this influx from Mexico or it will ruin this country for both partys. We need to try and keep politics out of this problem, is that possible? Lets hope.

Posted by: Jeff at September 30, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #185342

Jeff -

I have no issue with workign together to fix the immigration issues, but seriously… go check out this nut bag. He’s stupidity is a major source of the political problem.

Check it out… and then let me know you thoughts on holding Vernon up as the beacon of light. (I just dropped $250 to Brad Miller’s campaign.)

Posted by: tony at September 30, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #185344

It’s funny you bring up the immigration issue. I live in Tennessee. Senatorial candidate Corker has issued strong anti-illegal immigration ads that I agree with. However, if one looks into this millionaire-developer’s business practice it is easily seen that not only was he warned that some of his development sites employed illegals….he ignored those warnings. INS ended up raiding his job site and deporting many of them.

Talk is cheap. I agree with what he SAID. I strongly disagree with what he has ILLUSTRATED.

Posted by: Tom L at September 30, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #185346

I’m producing some media for STOCK building supply - and we went to shoot some video at the job site. 95% of the workers went AWOL as soon as they saw us with the video camera. These are large scale, $600k+ homes being built… by a single contractor.

You think they’re aware that they hire illegal immigrants?

hmmmmmm

Posted by: tony at September 30, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #185347

The sad truth is that these people will stop coming into the country illegaly only when we stop hiring them illegaly.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #185357

The “War on Illegal Immigration” is going to be as much of a failure as the “WAr on Drugs”. As long as you flash they cash, they will come.

There is a demand for their services (cheap labor), so the supply of workers will not stop. Even if they are caught and return later, the life they seek in the U.S. is much better than their life they are running from, and they can easily find work here. If we want to stop illegal immigration, we must stop the demand. The ones that need to be prosecuted are the ones that hire the illegals. All the toughest security and fences will not stop the flow, they will find a way, if their is a demand for their services.

The illegals are not the problem, it is the ones that hire them that are causing this problem.

Posted by: mem beth at September 30, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #185358
If I could work a job where I don’t have to pay taxes to the already wealthy government, I’d be financially stable. Perhaps, I’d be a millionaire by now. Sure, I’d be breaking the law, but that’s okay!

If there are no taxes being taken out of paychecks, then it is the employer who is guilty of fraud…there are laws against hiring illegal workers and there are laws that require employers to withhold social security, medicare, and federal income taxes from paychecks…Why isn’t the executive branch of the government (mandated by the Constitution to “enforce” laws) enforcing these already existing laws against employers???

Hmmm? No answer why Bush isn’t enforcing the law???

Posted by: Lynne at September 30, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #185360

mem beth -

Since Vernon Robinson was brought up in this post - as if to support his campaign or beliefs - I’d strongly encourage you and everyone else posting here to go to his web page and listen to his ads… and then tell me whether you find solutions there, or just vile rhetoric…

(It’s worth the extra few minutes just for the exposure to an ideal that is very much still alive and kicking in the US.)

Posted by: tony at September 30, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #185361

Tony Idon’t know the guy just responding to the post but I will check him out. Going after the people that hire them is most likly the best way to deal with the problem.

Posted by: Jeff at September 30, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #185362

Quotidie damnatur qui semper timet.

Posted by: Lynne at September 30, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #185364

Again I am a Dem BUT Pat Buchanan is right read his book! I don’t often agree with him but I like the guy he’s what reps used to be before bush and the neo-cons hijack the party.

Posted by: Jeff at September 30, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #185365

Things are getting bad when Dems are plugging Pat Buchanan!

Posted by: David S at September 30, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #185368

The brain of even the fruitiest of the fruitcakes can occasionally come up with a lucid idea. Robinson has a point, he just doesn’t know how to enunciate it.

The sad fact is that nothing is ever going to be done about illegal immigrants, the overwhelming majority of whom are from Mexico and Latin America. They will continue to pour across our southern border and our government will continue to wring its hands and do nothing.

If you’re smart and if you love your children and grandchildren, you’ll make sure they can speak Spanish so they can survive and hopefully prosper in the new “Latin” America of tomorrow.

Posted by: ulysses at September 30, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #185373

Oh, for those who didn’t take Latin, “Quotidie damnatur qui semper timet” translates as “The person who is always afraid is condemned every day.”…

Posted by: Lynne at September 30, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #185402

Tony Snow on Bush’s immigration policies

Illegal immigration seems to have spawned a dreary debate about the merits of Mexicans, when it should be drawing attention instead to a very different matter: how to build on the luster and wonder of the American dream.

Immigration is not the pox neo-Know Nothings make it out to be.
Begin with the astounding influx of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom hail from Mexico. While the population includes an eye-popping number of crooks, drug-dealers and would-be welfare sponges, it also provides a helpful prop for sustaining American economic growth and cultural dynamism.

Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey reports that
62 percent of illegal immigrants pay income taxes (via withholding) and 66 percent contribute to Social Security. Forbes magazine notes that Mexican illegals aren’t clogging up the social-services system: only 5 percent receive food stamps or unemployment assistance; 10 percent send kids to public schools.

On the work front, Hispanic unemployment has tumbled to 5.5 percent, only slightly above the national average of 4.7 percent and considerably lower than the black unemployment rate of 9.3 percent.
Economist Larry Kudlow praises Hispanic entrepreneurship: “According to 2002 Census Bureau data, Hispanics are opening businesses at a rate three times faster than the national average. In addition, there were almost 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generating $222 billion in revenue in 2002.”

Skeptics counter that immigrants have clogged our hospitals, which is true — but primarily in places that offer lavish benefits to illegal immigrants.

As for crime, the picture doesn’t quite conform to conventional wisdom. Heather McDonald discovered that illegal immigrants in 2004 accounted for 95 percent of all outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles and two-thirds of unserved felony warrants. (Gangs, aided and abetted by laws that prevent local officials from handing illegal-immigrant criminals over to federal authorities, account for much of the mayhem.)

On the other hand, the most comprehensive survey to date of national crime data concludes, “In the small number of studies providing empirical evidence, immigrants are generally less involved in crime than similarly situated groups, despite the wealth of prominent criminological theories that provide good reasons why this should not be the case.”

Authors Ramiro Martinez Jr. and Matthew T. Lee note, for instance, that the Latino homicide rate in Miami is three times that of El Paso, Texas, which has one of the nation’s largest immigrant populations.
That’s not just an anomaly. Another major study, “U.S. Impacts of Mexican Immigration,” by professors Michael J. Greenwood and Marta Tienda reports that “crime rates along the border are lower than those of comparable non-border cities.”

This doesn’t mean immigrants from Mexico are saints — it just means that they may not be the marauding horde some make them out to be. As it turns out, crime rates in the highest immigration states have been trending significantly downward.

Total crime and property crime in California are half what they were in 1980; violent crime has fallen more than a third. The state’s Hispanic population during that time has increased 120 percent.

Similar trends apply in other high-traffic states, with the exception of Colorado. While Arizona’s population grew 41.8 percent between
1993 and 2003, for instance, the rates for every major category of crime fell.

Why, then, the fuss? In America today, unemployment remains low, employment is booming, wages have begun to grow in tandem with the economy, tax receipts are exploding at the federal and state levels, and the United States continues to run laps around its European and Asian economic rivals.

The United States somehow has managed to absorb 10 million to 20 million illegal immigrants not only without turning into Animal Farm, but while cranking up the most impressive economic recovery in two decades and the most prolonged period of declining crime in a century — all in the teeth of the post-9/11 recession, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the double-whammy hurricane season of 2005.

Rather than panicking, the political class might want to take a deep breath and attempt a little common sense. Virtually everyone agrees that we need to secure our borders, deport lawbreakers and slackers among the illegal-immigrant population, and revitalize the notion of citizenship by insisting that prospective citizens master the English language and the fundaments of American history and culture.

The Statue of Liberty symbolizes America’s affection for the world’s tired and poor, the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Before someone razes Lady Liberty and decides to erect a wall to “protect”
America from the world, shouldn’t we at least spend a little time trying to get our facts straight?

- Tony Snow

Posted by: Max at September 30, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #185405

Pickers are few, and farmers blame congress:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30D17FF35550C718EDDA00894DE404482

Posted by: Max at September 30, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #185408

I pledge alligence to Ol’ Mexico
under the auspices of the United States of America
and to the Mexician Republic for which I stand, one illegal, among millions, abusing American Liberty and it’s justice system, et al.

Is that how it reads now?

Posted by: JR at September 30, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #185409

Tony? Hi. How are you? Did you read my post? Yes? Okay. Tell me where I said I support Vernon Robinson? I simply agree with his message about illegal immigration.

I’m getting sick and tired of paying taxes so that non-citizens can suck up our medical care, education assistance, welfare, food stamps, WIC and other free benefits. Granted I don’t qualify for those benefits because I have a job, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes and I live here legally. But there are AMERICANS who deserve these benefits. There are illegal aliens who don’t.

I love hearing the excuses some people make, “Well they had babies here so their babies are citizens.” Okay, you know what? I don’t care. You have your child here? Fine. But when you’re out of the maternity ward, your rear end will be sent back to Mexico and you can apply for citizenship the right way.

The system is abused. And YES!! We need to stop hiring illegals. I’m ALL FOR IT! Finally, someone else agrees. Companies need to be penalized severly for this practice. There is NO JOB AN AMERICAN WON’T DO! Perhaps if we stopped hiring aliens and started hiring Americans the unemployment rate would drop. Gee, there’s an idea!

Posted by: Dana at September 30, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #185411

“Hmmm? No answer why Bush isn’t enforcing the law???”

Lynne, it’s not just BUSH. It’s Senator Kennedy, too. They’re all for amnesty.

You need to pay attention.

Posted by: Dana at September 30, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #185417

Immigration is an election year red herring to distract focus from how inept the GOP has been at governing in general. The GOP battle cry simply put is “Don’t look at Iraq when you vote, or bin Laden running free, we need to build a big fence!”

Personally, I don’t think it’s as urgent an issue as it’s being made out to be. But, immigration riles up the Archie Bunker “America Love It or Leave It” crowd (i.e., the GOP base). Therefore, every election cycle we will see it as a big issues (see gay marriage urgent timing as well).

The majority of illegals are in menial jobs making minimum wage or less that probably help the economy by keeping food picking costs down. That we are so lax at the borders is more of a terrorism issue to me than “don’t let the Mexicans” in issue. Want to stop the illegals from coming into California and Texas? Have INS at all emergency rooms and school registrations. Come in for free service or school, get a free bus ride to Tijuana. If you come back and we catch you again, you get a nice little six month stay in a border prison - let’s model it after Gitmo. Employers penalties? Currently it’s a fine of up to $10,000 per day for hiring an illegal. How many of these fines do you think are ever levied? I bet if you put 50 INS agents in LA to go into restaurant kitchens for just one day and fined $10,000 or more (dishwashers, prep cooks, bus boys) to a few dozen establishments, the lure of the cheap labor benefit would go away. If not, we can at least fund a few more tent prison camps in New Mexico. Next day, stop every guy in a pickup truck with a landscaping magnet on the door with three or more riders in the bed. Then off to the roofers, strawberry fields and golf courses. Jobs and free government benefits go away, illegals go away. Can anyone here tell me they don’t believe this simple strategy would work? Of course it would work. It’s not that difficult to remedy if we really want to. Therein lies the rub. Immigration is a great issue to talk tough about, but businesses want the cheap labor and their money drives GOP campaigns. So talk tough, but do little.

However, the employer enforcement strategy is almost impossible though because employer enforcement is a low priority now that the INS is part of the Department of Homeland Secuity. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but if we’re truly serious about illegal alien reduction, not just as campaign fodder, employer enforcement is the answer.

The “Build a Big Fence” strategy is simply a nice talking point come election time. It won’t solve problems, but makes for nice TV commericals. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s analysis, ‘show me a 50 foot fence I’ll show you a 51 foot ladder’ sums up the lunacy of building a big fence.

But, bashing some fags and screaming about the Mexicans will get the GOP vote out.

Posted by: Boomer at September 30, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #185420

“Tony? Hi. How are you? Did you read my post? Yes? Okay. Tell me where I said I support Vernon Robinson? I simply agree with his m

You used him as your example… therefor you are inferring support by default. There are quite a few people out there who support you issues with immigration… maybe a better question would be, out of all those, why did you pick Vernon?

“There is NO JOB AN AMERICAN WON’T DO!”

You might want to send that one to corporate America… they don’t seem to get it.

Posted by: tony at September 30, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #185442

Pushing this immigration issue now, just weeks before the election, is just more political bullshit.

What really has changed in the debate since last year, except, of course, the calendar?

Tony,

Actually, it should be phrased;
“What job wouldn’t Corporate America try to do cheaper.”

I recently lost a tour because someone would do the job cheaper than I would, not because they even had the same qualifications.
This isn’t about quality, it’s about putting cheaper, warm bodies, in positions to enhance the bottom line.

Posted by: Rocky at September 30, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #185443

Why a fence? The motivated will cross, and with plenty of jobs open with money out the ying-yang, relatively speaking, they will come.

The larger problem is one of not accepting a reasonable level of labor costs for the American economy.

The Conservatives talk about encouraging people to get off of welfare and other government programs by work, yet they allow such rockbottom wages to exist in the workplace that people struggling to keep afloat have no choice but to avail themselves of public assistance.

Additionally, prices in the market are out of control, fueled by a loosely regulated system that allows high risk loans and investments to be made, but doesn’t deal with the aftermath of these propositions. What is our big idea here? leverage our economy so much we can’t see straight?

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. The Republicans have told us that this is what they’ve given us with deregulation and tax cuts, but in truth, they’ve just defered the costs to later, not only piling them on future generation, but making them more expensive and economically crippling in the process.

The problem ultimately concerns the evolution of what was supposed to be a means of starving the beast and bringing spending under control into the very means by which the beast now feeds. We’re starving ourselves now for the tax dollars to pay for what the beast ate from China, Japan, and other countries during the 80s and 90s. Eventually, we’ll be starving ourselves over the current Republican fiscal policy. The time has come to restart pay as you go.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #185444

Boomer,

“I bet if you put 50 INS agents in LA to go into restaurant kitchens for just one day and fined $10,000 or more (dishwashers, prep cooks, bus boys) to a few dozen establishments, the lure of the cheap labor benefit would go away.”

Screw $10,000 fines!

I want $100k or more, per offence, otherwise their will be no incentive to change.

Posted by: Rocky at September 30, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #185452
Lynne, it’s not just BUSH. It’s Senator Kennedy, too. They’re all for amnesty. You need to pay attention.

Dana, you need to read the U.S. Constitution…we have 3 branches of government…the Congress (House & Senate) are the legislative branch and their duty is to pass laws to help govern our country…the Judicial Branch’s duty is to interpret the laws that are passed by Congress and executive presidential orders and policies to make sure that they follow the Constitution…the Executive Branch of government, of which the president is the head, has the duty of ENFORCING FEDERAL LAWS…

Again…why isn’t Bush enforcing the laws against companies hiring illegal workers that have all ready been PASSED BY CONGRESS and INTERPRETED by the Supreme Court (or lower federal courts) to be following our Constitution…

It’s not the Senators’ jobs to ENFORCE laws, their job is to PASS laws…

Why are current laws being enforced…that is the only question…can you answer it??

Posted by: Lynne at September 30, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #185459

Stephen asked Why a Fence? The Fence is the first part of a multi-faceted approach needed to solve the problem. The fence drives up costs for illegals, which deters many, and diminishes the rate at which they cross, giving our border patrol more manageable numbers to deal with that make it across. The fence is only a first but absolutely necessary step to stem the time. It must be followed immediately with investigations of illegal hiring practices with stiff prosecutions. And it must be followed by a legal process for immigrant workers which permits sieving out the illegals. And finally, the borders must be upgraded where appropriate with the investment of detection and interception of illegals. Finally, we need to put the screws on Mexico to force their aid and assistance in arresting and prosecuting coyotes, ending their trade in human flesh and life.

Without a fence, physical and virtual where appropriate, all other measures are worthless because of the sheer size of the problem and traffic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #185461

I was talking with a Canadian yesterday. She said most Canadians are upset that the US is building watch towers along the US-Canadian border. I was unaware of this effort. All the press goes to the southern border I guess.

As far as the Mexican problem goes, it is the same as with drugs — supply and demand. We have an insatiable demand for drugs and cheap labor. Any war on Drugs/Illegal Immigration/Whatever needs to attack the demand side. The supply side will dry up accordingly.

The fences on the North and South borders are not about illegal immigration. They are about security. Fences make good neighbors, so they say. They will do nothing to stop determined Islamists from entering this country and setting off a nuclear device. And that my friends is where we need to concentrate our attention. If there is a way to stop it we must find it.

Posted by: Charles Adams at September 30, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #185469

A fence stretching thousands of miles will eat up manpower, resources, maintenance and other costs, if we’re serious about it. If we’re not, that shiny new fence will sprout a nice selection of holes, washouts, and other gaps. Besides, in an era where people can walk into the country off planes, drive through in automobiles, and cross over on boats, what good is a fence? This isn’t the Middle Ages.

Take a cue from the Great Wall of China: immigrants that are real determined are not deterred by fortifications. We are not Israel, with borders that can be measured in the low triple digits. We are America, with two of the longest continuous borders in the world.

Lets reduce demand. Lets enforce the laws on our books properly, and legislate to punish those who knowingly employ illegal aliens, or offer their services to others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #185475

Stephen, I respect your intelligence and depth of thought on so many issues. But on this one, I find your comments very shallow in comprehension.

First, you build the fence - add the other measures - and overtime the problem goes away, very possibly to the point that the fence can be taken down, once everyone is accustomed to enforced laws regarding illegal immigration and consequences are stiff enough to maintain that accustomed behavior of not crossing illegally.

Second, a physical fence is not required on every mile of our borders. There are mountainous regions where only the most wealthy and determined illegals would even venture, and in such small numbers, camouflaged electronic surveillance is all that would be required with regional a stand by regional response team maintained for up to a thousand miles of border, like across the Rockies on the Canadian border. Radar is far more effective over water than over land. People can’t walk on water the way mule deer and coyote’s walk across land, pun intended, giving off false signals. Waterways are far easier to monitor, though certainly, we should be beefing up our Coast Guard and their activity anyway in response to the potential terrorist threat. So that is a synergy saving over water.

Third, while the initial investment will be high, the problem will get solved and the costs will go down as the traffic drops to a trickle instead of a flood.

Fourth, the initial investment cost will be partly offset by the rapid drop in collateral costs of illegal immigration. The costs for personnel and housing intercepted illegals will drop precipitously after a couple years, and the social cost savings from diminished wage pressures, language training in schools, and Emergency Room costs for uninsured, etc. will be a significant offset.

It is a multi-dimensional problem requiring a multi-facted dynamic answer over time which results in the end with an almost complete cessation of the problem and small maintenance costs at the end of the tunnel.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #185487

Jeff and Conservative Bob,

I’m just curious - what did Henry C write that upset you both? I’m not accustomed to not seeing a warning from the Watchblog Editors, for actually attacking the messenger, instead of attacking the message.

He must have written a very offensive post.
I’m assuming that his post was eliminated as I can’t find it.

Just wondering…

Posted by: Linda H. at September 30, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #185496

Dana J. Tuszke,
I enjoyed reading your post. I would like to update you about many Democrats. I tend to vote middle of the road.

I find myself, and many of my friends agreeing with the Republican position Re: Illegal immigrates. I do NOT like Bush’s amnesty program.

Illegal immigrates are ILLEGAL. That is the only thing that counts in my mind.
They have broken our laws by coming here, and I strongly object to rewarding them.

However, this could create an unfortunate economical problem in the short run. Yes, many Americans would love to have the jobs of the immigrants.(but not all - we don’t seem to like blue collar jobs too much), and we also do tend to be fussy about doing the “dirty jobs”

The problems as I see them,

1. Illegals should be deported, (imagine the jobs that would open);

2. Companies that hire these people should be punished. One form of such punishment might be to strongly force\encourage companies to pay a wage that one can subsisted on, AFTER Taxes have been taken.

3. Repeal NAFTA. Bring back the jobs that have been sent overseas. Let Mexico build their own big businesses to subsidized those persons who keep coming here.

4. If we really want to help Mexico, teaching them how to grow and makes much more sense than spending unknown amounts of money to take care of all the illegal aliens and their families.

A fence might help, however if one looks at the cuts, tears, bent nets, and several breakthroughs successful, the cost of such repairs, and, or hiring more people to do the repairs, it makes one wonder. Perhaps it might help some in the short-run.

I suggest we take away the incentives to come over, and then maybe they’ll want to stay home.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 30, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #185521

David R. Remer-
Think NAFTA. Every day hundreds if not thousands of trucks and cars pass the border, most likely without great amounts of surveillance. To apply too much surveillance would slow down commerce.

A similar problem of attention comes up along the length of any fence, which would stretch for hundreds of miles. The logistics of maintaining awareness of what’s going on over that great length, and the price of building the fence to the point of impregnability, would likely put a limit to the quality of the barrier and its permanence as an effective piece of work.

In short, the idea is better on paper than it will likely be in execution, the same way terrorist watchlists were when they were flagging terrorists on 9/11, but doing little to stop them. People will find, perhaps even build, ways around this fence, and as the issue loses political primacy, as most issues are wont to do, those ways will become institutionalized in their own way. The problems will not simply go away, as we often hope with such means.

Enforcement is the key, and enforcement is where Bush has brought this crisis to a boiling point. I can imagine this relaxed illegal immigration policy has a great deal to do with the benefits business around the country gain by being able to lowball labor costs.

As long as there is demand, they will find a way to get their cheap workers, and they’ll corrode obstacles that get in their way. If you don’t believe that this is the way things will occur, don’t take my word for it; look at the last quarter century of the war on drugs. If they can keep smuggling controlled substances into the country, how difficult will people be, in a Fenced-in America?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 1, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #185528

David Remer,

You and I have discussed the fence before, so I believe you already understand my position.

Why, a mere month before the mid-term elections, do you think the fence has now been brought to the forefront of the news?

This bill was crap, plain and simple.
This was a bone to pacify, no, stupefy, the electorate, and to give the impression that something is actually being done.

The approval of a “section” of fence at this time is just so much mental masturbation. A travesty perpetrated on the American public, and specifically designed to help assure that the majority is re-elected.

When can we expect that the laws already on the books will be enforced?

Why can’t the American people expect anything more than politics, just weeks before the election?

Posted by: Rocky at October 1, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #185564

lynne;

” Why are current laws being enforced…that is the only question…can you answer it??”


i know we don’t agree on much, but i too am extremely pissed about the illegal immigration situation. this is one of the times i don’t
agree with the pres., even though i voted for him. the laws should be enforced, and employers sanctioned. this problem could be solved just by enforcing laws already on the books.

the cost to the tax payers for services to these people and thier children is of the hook. in california, they plug up our emergency rooms, and thier children are over crowding our schools, and thats just the start of it.

i’m also tired of being called a racist when it comes to dealing with this. i’m not opposed to immigration, just those who brake our laws and then, demand rights, and think they have a god given right to be here.

Posted by: califrep at October 1, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #185596

Rocky, the bill called for 700 miles on a 5,500 mile border. To that extent, I agree with you, the bill was crap, a political grandstanding tool.

Stephen, I guess you can’t wrap your head around more than one item at a time. As I said, the fence doesn’t end the problem, it begins to solve the problem along with drying up demand by investigating and prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants.

Your biases or hidden agenda is in the way of your grasping a multi-faceted dynamic solution which has many components, of which a physical border which drives up the cost of illegal immigration thereby slowing the numbers of illegals, and slowing the rate at which the cross allowing more effective interception, is but one major component.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #185634

David R. Remer-
No effort is without costs. I’m just saying the fence is only going to cost stuff without giving true or timely benefits. I’d rather we put it all to the task of breaking up illegal alien employment, than waste our money on a boondoggle.

Biases, hidden agenda, inability to wrap my head around it- you’re arguing me. I’m arguing it. I’m arguing fences, having seen fences around ravines and gully, falling down. I’m arguing human ingenuity. I’m arguing people overstaying work visas. I’m arguing that I’m unconvinced that a fence is going to give the expected security.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 2, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #185654

It seems to me that this one just begs some commentary. All sides involved have thier own agendas. The Republicans want to placate their base without alienating the Hispanic vote. The Democrats want to try and maintain their hold on this same vote, which they’re slowly losing. Organized labor wants to try and help its members, who it feels are being unfairly priced out of jobs. Big business wants to keep these cheap labor sources. These conflicting agendas will most likely make it impossible to come up with something that actually addresses the problem, and end up a compromise that makes no one happy while doing nothing to fix the issue.

It seems to me that this debate is little changed, barring three differences I’ll discuss later, from earlier debates about immigration. When the Irish first came to America in large numbers, the “natives” predicted the doom of the nation as these newcomers wouldn’t learn the language, wouldn’t assimilate, and would ruin the country. The folly of these arguments was revealed a few decades later when the Irish joined in in blasting the waves of immigrants from Italy, Poland, and other southern and eastern European countries. Now, we have white Americans from all national backgrounds making the same arguments.

The differences from these earlier waves of immigration are myriad, but I feel that 3 are the most important. The first is that these newcomers aren’t white. While this same argument was used against the Irish and other waves of immigrants, it hinged more on nationality than race. This is manifestly not the case here. Like it or not, the race card still exists and will be played by both sides.

The second point is that this wave of immigration dwarfs all those previous. Hispanics make up currently about 13% of the nations population. If one divides whites by national origin, only the Germans outnumber Hispanics. Italians, the next largest group, number only about 6% of the total population. Again, I doubt this would be as much of an issue but for the next point.

The huge majority of these newcomers arrived in America illegally. Unlike the immigrants from Europe, who had to come on a ship and were documented, most of the new immigrants come over our porous southern border and are not documented. When this is combined with the array of welfare programs that didn’t exist when earlier immigrants arrived, the problems of having a huge and undocumented population become clear.

As an aside, I wonder how much of this debate is also stirred by the fact that a common thread with all of the different groups of immigrants here is the fact that all of them have been Catholic. While Protestants outnumber Catholics in America, the Catholic Church is the largest single Christian denomination in America. I imagine this might inform some of the opposition to these new immigrants to America as it did in the past.

It seems to me that the solutions to this problem are complex and multi-layered. For the sake of our national security, we do need to close our southern border. Those illegals who are here should be documented and, if they pay a fine and have clean criminal records, should be given a chance to gain citizenship. Most are hard working and simply want to provide a better life for their families, the same way that our own forebears did. They shouldn’t be punished for the fact that we were too lazy to police our own border.

Another important solution comes from business. Outsourcing is a fact of the modern global economy, but I suggest some nationalism be put into it. Jobs that have been sent to China, a future enemy, should be going to Mexico and Central Americal. This would simultaneously weaken China, reduce our trade imbalance with them, develop the economies of nations that are friendly to us and no potential military threat, and reduce the desire for people to come to America from these regions by giving them a chance to be successful in their own countries.

The worry of Hispanics not assimilating in America is somewhat overrated, I believe. The same was said about other groups, most of whom are now joining in against Hispanics. However, as Hispanics increasingly spread from the traditional places of entry, California, Texas, Florida, etc, they will be forced to learn English and become a part of the nation while retaining what they value as a people. I do think, though, that having everything in Spanish as well as English is a mistake. This removes part of the incentive for learning English, though I’m open to debate on this point.

As a Republican, I think these new immigrants offer a great opportunity. As the second and third generation becomes more integrated and successful, the impetous to vote for Democrats based on handouts will fade, but the strict traditional Catholicism will probably bring more and more of them into the Republican camp, provided we don’t alienate them with needlessly harsh measures before this can take place.

In conclusion, I believe that if handled properly, the influx of Hispanics to America offers America a chance to bring in new people and perspectives that can only make us stronger. Especially considering the fact that we face an enemy in China with the potential to make the Soviet Union look like a Boy Scout troop, its vital that we take advantage of our situation to strengthen ourselves, our nieghbors to the south, and weaken our enemies at the same time.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 2, 2006 4:10 AM
Post a comment