Friday, April 07, 2006
AJ posts about a new poll:

I think we can stick a fork in the idea of mass deportation of people in this country who are working, but simply lack the proper paperwork. Paperwork crimes do not carry punishments like being thrown out of your home, school, church and job and dumped unemployed and without housing in the street across our border. So this new poll is no real surprise:

By eight-to-one, Americans think it is unfair to grant rights to illegal immigrants while thousands of people wait each year to come to the United States legally. Fully 86 percent of Republicans think it is unfair, as do 77 percent of Democrats.

However, once illegal immigrants are across the border, Americans turn around a little. More than two-thirds (69 percent) favor allowing illegals who have jobs already to apply for legal, temporary-worker status, up from 62 percent last year (April 2005).

Yes, people are conflicted about this, but some people seem more interested in punishing people than they do in fixing the problem. Unemployment is down again, it is at 4.7%. Is it wise to deport millions of workers when we have a low unemployment rate? Is it right? People blame the amnesty of the 80's for the high rate of illegal immigration today, but if we had enforced our laws and secured our borders would we be dealing with this today, amnesty or no amnesty?


Skookumchuk said...

Here is another possible problem and if true, an illustration of why just throwing money at it is not the solution.

ex-democrat said...

terrye - so your main point is that we must "enforce[] our laws and secure[] our borders" or else we are just making the problem worse? no? why not? because that would make you an angry white male?
or because that would suggest those of us who think so are not knuckle-dragging racists but merely believers that houses built to last require proper (physical and metaphysical) foundations?

terrye said...


I am not sure what you saying.

I never said that I support illegal immigration. I never said I thought the border should be open.

What I find disturbing is that some people seem to think that people like me who find references to 'operation wetback' offensive or who feel that mass deportation is unrealistic are not serious about the problem.

In fact I was thinking about Tancredo and his threats to run on a third party ticket. When someone pointed out to him that the Democrats would likely win if he did that, his response was "So be it".

Well just exactly what kind of immigration bill does Tancredo think he will get out of the Democrats? It is political oppurtunism as far as I am concerned. It seemed to me we were seeing the whole Ross Perot ploy again, and that was why I mentioned angry white males.

If I offended you I am sorry.

Skookumchuk said...

Krauthammer makes a lot of sense to me. First a Wall -- Then Amnesty.

Krauthammer points out that it would take an enormous amount of national will to do both things quickly. The mechanics of the Wall are fairly straightforward. This is something that DOD and private contractors could do together, probably in less than three years. Again, assuming the national will to do it without legal obstructionism on behalf of the lesser toed gecko or by the Mechista lobby. The amnesty part is trickier, since as Krauthammer briefly states, we have also to encourage - mandate - assimilation in order for people to gain this amnesty. This has to be done over the opposition or indifference of the liberal elites. We know who could build the wall. Who can help them do the rest?

terrye said...


Yes, I agree. I think that a lot of people do not like the idea of amnesty, but alternatives may be more costly.

Making ellegal entry a felony means locking people up. That money would be better spent stopping the flow in. Obviously if there are fewer people here we don't have to worry about what to do about them.

Rick Ballard said...


There would have to be a waiver of EIR's and a bar against the courts getting involved in other ways as a first step. A revision to posse comitatus would have to be done in order to actually use troops - and I believe that it would have to be jiggered a bit to allow the use of any DoD assets. Unless we declared war on Mexico again.

It's not a teribly bad sausage, as sausage goes. We'll see if and how it is implemented.

It's definitely going to piss off (with good reason) those who have waited or are waiting to become citizens in a lawful manner. I've got to take a look at the number of queue jumpers who actually made it to citizenship when Reagan did this back in the '80's. I don't think it was very high and I don't think it will be very high this time either.

Skookumchuk said...

I thought that "lesser toed gecko" was a phrase that sounded vaguely plausible.

There actually is, however, a "Peninsula Leaf-toed Gecko".

Damn near same thing.

Skookumchuk said...


A revision to posse comitatus would have to be done in order to actually use troops - and I believe that it would have to be jiggered a bit to allow the use of any DoD assets.

Not if it is the Corps of Engineers. You could deploy them on any civil engineering project you wanted to, even on national borders (like the Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Seaway) without any fuss, or am I missing something?

Rick Ballard said...


My bad. I was referring to the use of drones - which have a combat function. I guess I'm very fuzzy on where the line is drawn. I'm not unclear about the use of troops for law enforcement purposes, though. That was clarified again during Katrina.

Skookumchuk said...

Customs has at least one Predator B right now.

Skookumchuk said...

The real question for the taxpayer, if not for the politicos who don't understand about money, is - which is cheaper, a fleet of drones, a command center, plus a few Stryker Brigades or their Customs and Border Protection equivalent out in the desert apprehending people, or just a wall?

Low initial capital costs with high operating costs or high initial capital costs with low operating costs? And it's the operating costs that get you every time.

Morgan said...

I'm in favor of a wall with a big hole in it through which people without serious criminal backgrounds, who aren't suspected terrorists, and who want to take advantage of the opportunities the US offers are legally processed at a very high rate that varies inversely with the current unemployment rate*.

As for amnesty, I think we should bite the bullet, make amnesty complete (work visa or naturalization, your choice), and forget about even collecting back taxes.

In sum: immigrants good, terrorists/criminals bad.

* That still makes me a xenophobic advocate of central planning at Cafe Hayek, of course.

terrye said...


Oh well a little xenophobia is not a bad thing.

Rick Ballard said...


I think that the contributors here shoud form a junta and run things for a while. I see no evidence that we couldn't do as well as the chuckleheads in DC and we'd be a damn sight more efficient at it.

I wouldn't want to be the leader at all. Maybe just a lower level position in revenue collection. Or something at the mint, maybe.

Seneca the Younger said...

Ex-dem, in the immortal words or Val Kilmer, I'll be your huckleberry: I do think we should open the borders and allow pretty much unrestricted immigration. I've got a number of reasons, but the 25 words or less version is that it worked really quite well for us for 150 years.

Luther McLeod said...


I see your point...but, we had a lot more land and a lot fewer folks for most of those 150 years. You would have to do a lot of convincing before I could buy into that.

Scary link Skookumchuk, though not unsurprising. Who will watch the watcher's? OTOH a wall would lessen the impact of such BS.

MeaninglessHotAir said...


I agree absolutely. The strongest argument in favor of a wall is that it will work regardless of the level of corruption of the border patrol.

There's no doubt in my mind that constantly flouting the law has a corrosive effect on the enforcers of the law and thence onto society and government as a whole.

Clinton lies to the court; Clinton gets away with it. Why should I have to stop at a red light?

Luther McLeod said...

Well MHA, what is the percentage of "bad" INS officers, somewhere around 2 tenths of a percent? Would we ever get better than that? I think not. But a wall would cut that percentage down even further. Perfection is almost always an ideal, not reality. But, I wonder about the timing :-) of this story, just more fuel to the fire of "why bother?"

Skookumchuk said...

Charles Johnson at LGF brings up an interesting point: An issue Krauthammer doesn’t raise in this article is that as soon as the wall starts to go up, the international loony left community will scream bloody murder. “Apartheid wall,” anyone?

Well, of course. Yet I wonder. With all that is happening to them today, perhaps the Euros would be less scornful than they would have been ten years ago. Not that it matters.

terrye said...

People seem to forget that if they call this a crime like any other and say it should be treated as such, they are ignoring the fact that what follows is 11 million people have a right to an attorney.

Alan said...

We should open the border to guest workers from Mexico. But all Mexican guest workers should be issued identification cards that must be presented to their future U.S. employer.

When unemployment is as low as it is now, it makes sense to expand the work force. Having said that, the guest workers should be recognized as solely that, guest workers...not as future welfare recipients. If they can't get a job they should go back home. Also the Constitution should be amended that citizenship can't begin with birth if both of the child's parents aren't citizen. Citizenship should be acquired through the immigration process.

If, in a free market capitalist system, we believe in the free flow of capital why not the free flow of labor?

terrye said...


Sonds seneible to me. I do think that some people should be given the right to citizenship eventually.