Issues: Immigration, Hillary, Obama, Fred Thompson, and Bill Richardson.
Immigration:
The 26 May-01 June issue of The Economist says about the immigration reform pending in congress:
Deporting a population the size of Ohio is impossible, economically illiterate and morally wrong. The new bill would make the 12m legal, and offer them a path, albeit a tortuous and vindictive one… to full citizenship.
Meanwhile President Bush says:
“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said at a training center for customs protection agents and other federal agents here in southeastern Georgia. “That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens.”
This is an area where I strongly disagree with the president – offering illegals a path to citizenship, at least in current form, is indeed amnesty. Let’s not debate what the meaning of “is” is, as some others have tried. I also disagree with the editors of the Economist; it is not impossible or morally wrong (the opposite is true) to remove people from our country that are he illegally! It would indeed be economically difficult, but much more dangerous is the virtually unregulated illegal immigration that is now occurring. We need to take a longer term view of the problem.
In decades past the U.S. needed such immigration; no more. As for economics, we will adjust, and California, Texas, and Arizona stand to gain much needed relief in educational and social services. As someone who has family members who immigrated legally, I find the proposed amnesty all the more insulting.
Those here illegally should be removed from the country, where they can apply to come back like anyone else. If that disrupts their lives here it is very unfortunate and I may sound like a hard case, but they chose to come or stay here illegally, thus must take responsibility for their own actions – they do not have the right to be here.
Hillary:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision yesterday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity… “I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
Socialistic speech like that promises to mobilize just about every conservative in America. Those of us with an internal locus of control who prefer to take responsibility for our own actions, while recognizing the need for a basic societal safety net, will utterly reject the, “To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability,” sentiment Hillary is endorsing; if I wanted to live like a Frenchman, I’d move there.
Obama:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., released his plan for what he calls “universal” health care Tuesday, announcing, “As president, I will sign a universal health-care plan into law by the end of my first term in office.” Universal health care is something the majority of Americans — 56 percent — say they want, according to an ABC News poll.
It depends on the plan but I am very skeptical. Part of what he would do would be to remove the Bush tax breaks, which have actually added much more to the governments coffers than they took away, something congressional Democrats seem incapable of comprehending.
Polls. Sometimes you need to be wary of giving Americans what they say they want. Vietnam is the example; most Americans wanted the U.S. out, so Dems cut funding and forced the military out, resulting in a distrust of the Dems on defense that lasts to this day. If you ask, Americans will often tell you what they want, but are often unwilling to do what it takes to get whatever that may be, and I believe this is another case of that.
What would be a step in the right direction is reform in the medical insurance industry; competition is good, but why do we need literally thousands of plans and all the associated overhead?
Fred Thompson:
Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.
So far I find little to get excited about in the leading GOP candidates and would welcome Thompson, who strikes me as generally economically conservative and socially Libertarian. If he runs, and barring some unknown candidate on the horizon, I will probably back Fred Thompson.
Bill Richardson:
In case you missed it, Tim Russert essentially demolished Bill Richardson on Meet the Press last Sunday. I heard the rebroadcast on C-SPAN radio and couldn’t believe the hole Bill talked himself into. I think we have a new flip-flop icon; Bill is a fan of both the Yankees and the Red Sox!
Check out the transcript and this article at Slate.
I usually avoid US partisan political issues for many reasons, but I shall address the immigration issue. I have only one question. How do you propose to round up every illegal alien and send them back?
I tend to agree that illegal immigrants should be removed. My wife went through the process to immigrate legally, submitting all required paperwork, paying the necessary fees, and waiting the required time for naturalization. I guess I could have just snuck her across the Rio Grande and waited for an election year… Illegal immigration is…illegal, otherwise it would be called something like “alternative” or “fasttrack” immigration.
I also have friends trying to teach in Texas, where so many of the students can’t even speak English, and their parents get angry when their children are expected to study in English. This puts a burden on the entire education system, especially with this “no child left behind” policy, which essentially slows the class to the lowest common denominator (which is typically the kids that don’t speak English)…and they wonder why students are scoring poorly on the standardized tests. It’s ridiculous.
If these individuals want to work in the US and send money back to wherever, they can get a workers visa, work in the US legally, and send the money back. They shouldn’t sneak across with their families, get a job, get on welfare, then claim squatter’s rights.
Sending them all back is damn near impossible. You must read what Christopher Ruddy had to say on this topic.
I have not done a lot of research into how to remove illegals, but a few ideas come to mind.
Aside from the normal methods of deportation, and to begin enforcing the immigration laws already on the books, I suggest that the best way to achieve the desired effect is to create an atmosphere and the appropriate carrots/sticks to prompt illegal aliens to leave on their own accord:
I think such a combination – making it difficult to stay illegally, having penalties for staying but none for leaving, and offering a way back in – might help alleviate the problem.
I also think that those born in the U.S. of non-citizens or non-permanent residents should not be awarded U.S. citizenship, but that’s a different issue.
Note to nothesecret;
The link you provided does not go to any content related to this discussion.
When I hear the “it’s impossible to deport all of the illegal aliens” arguement, it makes me wonder what else is impossible that we should just give up on……
For instance, even though we’ve had murder laws on the books now for the entire the existence of our country, murder still continues to happen……we’re never gonna stop it, so why should we even bother trying to enforce it? It’s impossible to stop people from murdering one another, so what’s the use of trying?
Or how about this one, African famine. The U.N. & numerous other countries (especially the United States) have spent trillions, yes TRILLIONS, of dollars in aid, loans, grants & every other type of assistance imaginable & still these poor people starve……everyday. It is apparently hopeless & they must be doomed for death from the onset. Why struggle with destiny? Why spend any more on trying to save those who are apparently unable to be saved?
The answer to both of these rhetorical questions is, because it is the right thing to do to nimrod.
Specifically, we (America) have laws, they must be enforced or there is no use in enacting any laws. We are a nation of said laws……not enforcing them will lead to the breakdown of the societal fabric that has made this country be so prosperous. If you’re not for these laws, no problem, vote for politicians to have them removed.
Also, we (America) always help those who cannot help themselves because compassion is the right thing to do as well. We are always obligated to keep trying to help those less fortunate. That’s who we are, but to do so in a legal & responsible manner.
In conclusion, if you were to take this “it is impossible to do” arguement to it’s logical conclusion it is easy to see it is a hollow excuse for those who just want to give up on the issue. They have thrown their hands in the air & don’t want to bother with the fact our immigration policy is a mess. Exasperation isn’t a good solution for this issue, in fact it’s what got us here. If we can’t do anything about the 12 million illegals already here….then at what number is it feasible to take action at? 10 million? 5 million? Or maybe 1 million? Odds are those who advocate this arguement would always have a reason for not following through….no matter the number it would always be “impossible”.
I have family as well who followed the law, did the right thing & became a citizen. This person isn’t blood related but married into our family……I couldn’t be more proud of them & am so happy they are now a part of my family. I’m not anti-immigration but pro-law. Any law that offers even the slightest bit of amenesty makes a mockery out of all of the legal immigrants who sacrificed to do it the right way……I for one could never bring myself to support a bill that would cheapen that sacrifice.
Question: “How do you propose to round up every illegal alien and send them back?”
Answer: In Northern California (Oakland, to be specific), illegal aliens cluster in certain areas of the city on weekdays as they look for work. Many of these areas have metal street signs that say “Day Labor Hiring Zone”. The illegals’ presence at thse designated street corners in Oakland is so obvious, yet I have never seen any law enforcement there (local, state or federal).
Based on what I have observed, I believe it is possible to start the deportation process by rounding up the thousands of illegal aliens who show up at these “Day Labor Hiring Zones”. The next step is to begin enforcing laws that make it illegal for companies to hire these undocumented workers. And then round up the illegal aliens that work at these companies for eventual deportation. Finally, we should make it a rule that only US citizens or legal residents can send their children to public schools.
By implementing these first three steps, I think many illegal aliens will then move back home themselves. Without the ability to work in the US or send their children to our publically-funded schools, they will eventually move back home. I suspect that most of the deportations will be self-initiated by the illegal aliens themselves.
This is a difficult situation, needless to say.
A situation where pragmatism must be mixed with principal, if a constructive path is to be taken.
Imagine a Mexico where far-left, anti-American presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had won the presidential election. He lost by a half a percentage point. Had the immigration laws in the US been perceived as too anti-Mexican, they would have galvanized the political-left, putting Obrador in power. Hugo Chavez would salivate, as well as Russia and China. Imagine the potential threat of a far-left Mexican government in charge of a trillion dollar economy, a country with 108 million people, and plenty of oil revenues to purchase military equipment. It would be a dream come true for Russia’s coveted sweet revenge to have a dagger constantly pointing at Americas soft under-belly.
The immigration issue is the very thing that could determine the US’s relationship with Mexico and it’s people.
The far-left can’t wait to use the words, “ethnic cleansing, apartheid, imperialism, neo-colonialism, etc…” as the US even slightly attempts to repatriate illegals. Every human rights organization in the world would gladly forget about North Korean gulags, Chinese organ harvesting from prisoners, and every atrocity you can think of, if they had such a wonderful opportunity to cheap shot the US.
The only way the US would be able to repatriate all illegals is if there was some national state of emergency that justified a mass mobilization or extreme measure.
No politician is going to write off the Hispanic vote. Especially the left, which practically says, “come on over here, vote for us, and we’ll give you their money.” In fact, many would give the county, if it would get them elected. And they are.
Unless that national state of emergency happens, the best the USA can hope for is damage control. Make English the national language. That would be a practical start.
This is what I want to see next election:
Comfortable majority for the Dems in both houses of Congress.
Hillary as president.
Vice President - couldn’t care less.
Gore or Michael Moore for Sec Commerce
Gore or head of Green Peace Sec Interior
Rosie O’Donnel Sec of Defense
Ben Afleck (sp?) Sec of State
Alex Baldwin National Security Advisor
Head of Amnesty Int. Attorney General
And so on….
(burn baby burn….)
usinkorea,
Be careful what you wish for…
Kevin,
Somehow, I just don’t see Mexico as having much potential as a military threat to the U.S., although I hear there are plans for that sort of thing, and I see where that line of thought comes from.
Spot on about many on the Left inviting them in and giving away other’s money to pay for it.
USinKorea,
I’m with Jack on that one – there have to at least be some ashes left to rise up from.
The sad thing - I’m 75% serious….
I thought a Hillary vs Gingrich bloodletting might bleed us of our sickness, but now I think the only thing left is to crash and burn…