Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Amnesty is not the problem
"Would it not be more sensible and much safer for the country to first make our borders secure and then experiment with new guest worker programs," asks Representative Tancredo (R-Colorado). It sure would.
If G.W. really wants amnesty for illegals he should make it tenable by standing shoulder to shoulder with border security advocates like Representatives Tancredo and Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin). The President's present opposition to border security, and the lax attitude of top officials like Alberto Gonzales, threaten, as David Frum puts it, to "shatter the GOP." For what? For Mexifornia? Amnesty without border security is the agenda of racist Hispanic interest groups like MEChA that reject U.S. sovereignty over the southwestern United States. What kind of constituency is that?
Secure the borders Mr. Bush. Then we can start talking about amnesty.
Mark in Oregon
What will it take to seal our borders? Manpower. Equipment. Capital costs. On going costs? We have something like 5,000 miles (maybe more) of border with the world. East Coast. Gulf Coast. Mexico. Left Coast. Canada.
Can we afford it?
I discuss a more rational approach in LET'S CLOSE THE BORDERSIn Bush's first term to answer the close the border folks he added 200 border guards. i.e. a crumb to his critics. Politically he will not come out with the truth. In an open economy sealing the border is not possible.
One thing that might help is to stop encouraging smugglers i.e. end the drug war. What are the odds of that happening? We are subsidising people to figure out ways to evade border controls. Cute. Not smart.
Why do you want to close the borders? What is the purpose?
Is there a better way to accomplish that purpose.
You take the idea of "close the borders to human traffic" as a given. What is your purpose? What is the necessity? You don't like Mexicans?
The American character will be changed? The Euro imigrants of the 1900s heard the same tired littany. Sure the American character changed. For the better.
BTW the public school movement was a response to the character change question. Are you happy with tthe results?
Their sons and daughters are now for the most part home owning working Americans.
It will happen to the latest round of newbies too.
Securing the border against illegal immigration does not imply a restrictive stance on legal immigration. That should be obvious from my qualified support for fairly broad amnesty once the borders are sealed. As for cost, a completely effective barrier would probably cost no more to build per mile than an interstate highway. The Coast Guard already interdicts sea-borne smugglers, and that could be beefed up. The challenging part is to automate the detection of people smuggled in vehicles and containers, but sophisticated listening and sniffing devices may be up to the task. We have to learn how to do this anyway to be able to sniff out bombs.
On assimilation, the inconsistency is yours, not mine. You don't like the public school system (neither do I) which was justified as promoting the melting pot. How then can you be blase about assimilation? It is indeed a difficult hurdle. MEChA is a danger precisely because it rejects assimilation, and if you don't think this is a serious problem in California, come visit. The Mechistas are a very powerful political force in the southern part of the state. The problem is magnified many-fold with muslim immigrants, many of whom do not just resist assimilation, but are actively hostile to western values. This obviously calls for limiting Muslim immigration, and for screening the Muslims we do let in. Europe is doomed because it has rejected any such discrimination. They have openned their doors to their mortal enemy.
We have to have a rational immigration policy based on who we can productively take in. That means, first of all, that the system must be under our control.