Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: We Still Aren't Safe

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    NOTHING!

    Scary...
    See No Evil
    Illegal aliens and the specter of another 9/11

    JOHN O'SULLIVAN


    Try this thought experiment:

    [i]It is December 2005. The immigration-reform bill that was supposed to incorporate the stricter provisions on illegal immigrants omitted from the 2004 intelligence-reform bill — including a provision forbidding states to issue them driver's licenses — was published a week ago. It contained no such provisions. But it did contain what the White House again denied was an "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

    This story was driven from the front page very quickly, however. Forty-eight hours later, four American airliners were shot down with missiles over Midwestern cities, and almost 700 passengers were killed. In one case three terrorists were apprehended fleeing the scene. FBI and police raids based on their interrogations led to no new arrests but uncovered documents hurriedly abandoned that indicated a nationwide terror network with plans to blow up dams and power stations. The cells were linked not by the Internet — which the terrorists apparently distrusted as capable of being infiltrated — but by a system of couriers using automobiles rather than risking airport checkpoints.

    In the following days, 14 such couriers were tracked down and arrested on the basis of information retrieved from their hideouts. All but two were illegal immigrants; all had legally-issued driver's licenses; and one had some of the components for a nuclear warhead in his car. Yesterday, impeachment proceedings against the president . . .[/i]

    The above scenario is, of course, implausible. Why would the terrorists avoid the airports when the civil-rights sections of the Justice and Transportation departments have made them and the airlines perfectly safe for terrorists? As Heather Mac Donald points out in a superb article in City Journal — "Homeland Security? Not Yet" — the U.S. government is not merely lax in enforcing sensible precautions against further hijackings; every granny who has been groped while young Middle Easterners flit unmolested through the screening knows that. What Mac Donald further establishes is that the executive is strongly proactive in preventing others, notably the airlines, from defending public safety as best they can. In particular, the Transportation department has launched several lawsuits against airlines because pilots had banned passengers they thought were security risks. It was more concerned that these exclusions might have been prompted in part by racial profiling than it was about the safety of passengers. Airlines are now paying fines and fees to instruct their staff in the dangers of profiling.

    It's not just the airlines. Earlier this year Asa Hutchinson, the Department of Homeland Security's man in charge of border security, shut down a border-patrol initiative to catch illegal aliens. Reason? It was catching too many illegal aliens.

    In northern Vermont, DHS border-patrol agents have to release people sneaking in from Canada illegally because they have no space to detain them and cannot deport them without a legal hearing. Last May, illegal aliens from Malaysia, Pakistan, Morocco, Uganda, and India were released without bond. They are now at large in the U.S.

    My own favorite: An al-Qaeda website noted in 2002 that only 5 percent of the people and goods crossing the U.S.-Mexican border are inspected. Added the thoughtful terrorist-website editor: "These are figures that really call for contemplation."

    Not in the U.S. government, they don't. As we know from the GOP's internal struggles over the intelligence bill, the refusal to think about them extends right up to the White House. The president himself was plainly determined to exclude the illegal-alien provisions from the bill. Nor will they be included in anything like their present form in some future legislation. The present delay is meant to be fatal. No White House engages in a bitter fight with its own congressional supporters merely in order to delay legal reforms for one year.

    The underlying reality is that the political elite is still more worried about the supposed bigotry of the American people than about national security. That seemed likely to change after 9/11; but as the real examples of official behavior above demonstrate, normal disservice was quickly resumed. Homeland security in these circumstances is a displacement activity, rather like kicking the dog because you cannot answer back to your boss. It consists of rituals that will not seriously prevent a new terrorist attack, such as airport procedures, while avoiding practical steps that would do so, such as border security with quick and easy deportation rules. And it sets both rituals and precautions in a straitjacket of anti-discrimination correctness. The intelligence bill itself is a perfect example of this.

    The bill began as the child of the 9/11 commission's report. The report gives a very clear and interesting narrative of the events that led up to 9/11; a plausible but questionable analysis of its causes; and a reasonable but dubious set of policy prescriptions that do not always follow from either the narrative or the analysis. To oversimplify: It produces two kinds of nonsense — "virgin birth" proposals unrelated to the analysis, and powerful analysis resulting in no proposals.

    Thus, the report's main proposal is that the nation's intelligence services should be centralized under one mighty intelligence czar. It is not quite correct to say that this proposal stems from nowhere in the report. It is supposedly rooted in the finding that the different intelligence agencies failed to coordinate information from different sources so that they could see the overall pattern of a growing terrorist threat. But this failure often occurred within the same agency as well as between agencies. At the time, indeed, different agencies were actually forbidden to share much relevant information. And failure to share information was only one of many intelligence failures revealed in the report. So the proposal for an intelligence czar does not follow from a balanced reading of the report.

    Worse, common sense suggests that centralizing intelligence would be a positively bad idea. Imagine, for instance, a proposal to centralize American journalism under one editor. Yes, it would reduce duplication, save resources, and prevent the publication of much false and misleading information. But it would also ensure that much valuable information never saw the light of day. And if false information were published, it would be nearly impossible to get it corrected. Competition is a much better way of arriving at the truth because it has a built-in method of self-correction. So the report would have been on much firmer ground if it had suggested internal competition between intelligence bureaucracies in an atmosphere of greater transparency so that external criticism could analyze major discrepancies in any findings.

    Still more interesting (and alarming) is the vital 9/11 finding that led nowhere. The report defined America's enemy as "Islamist terrorism" but thereafter made no proposals whatsoever based upon that definition. Why? Almost any such proposal would have conflicted with the anti-discrimination mindset that hobbles all policy. There were, however, some proposals that were at least congruent with this finding — namely, those on illegal immigration. Such proposals were not merely in the report; they were there in bold. And they were also in the original House version of the intelligence bill.

    But as soon as these proposals became "controversial" (i.e., seemed to suggest that illegal immigration might be a threat to security), everything changed. Bush began a campaign to remove them. The media supported their removal on the confusing grounds that the bill must be passed without amendment. And the authors of the report — who until then had been rampaging around America demanding the report, the whole report, and nothing but the report — suddenly lobbied against their own proposals. Thus, the 9/11 commission chairman and vice-chairman, former governor Thomas Kean and former congressman Lee Hamilton respectively, wrote to the House and Senate negotiators: "We believe that this bill is not the right occasion for tackling controversial immigration and law enforcement issues that go well beyond the commission's recommendation."

    Let me translate: America will continue to treat homeland security as a displacement activity until the next time thousands of innocent people are murdered.

    And perhaps even after that.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    don't worry once we take over Iran then the world will be safe :blink:

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Let me translate: America will continue to treat homeland security as a displacement activity until the next time thousands of innocent people are murdered.

    And perhaps even after that. [/b][/quote]

    I really doubt the tragedy of 9-11 has done anything to change the minds of the political elites and the frothing at the mouth open borders crowd...Bush fighting his party to please the "Jane Harmon crowd" was despicable, to say the least, and a slap in the face of every law-abiding American and law abiding non-Americans that enter the U.S legally.

    The next attack will do ZERO to change U.S security--the borders will kicked more wide open...But it might lead to more invasions of soverign nations like Iran or Pakistan (did I mention no 9-11 hi-jackers were from Iraq or WMD's have been found?) :wacko:

    If you've read this political forum recently, you can see the "open borders" anarachist's have really pumped up the rhetoric...Any mention of restricting this out of control mess, will quickly mean the race-card gets injected into the dialouge full-throttle.... :lol:

    They are getting desperate, I suppose. Even Hillary Clinton and Walter Mondale are speaking out on the border mess...Sullivan, who wrote the article above, is outwardly gay. That will anger the "open borders anarachist", because gays rarely speak out on illegal aliens...

    The tide is turning...and no is being fooled anymore--Anarachy wins; Americans lose (economically** and safety wise).



    **To the open border crowd: Senator John McCain of Arizona said earlier this year that more than 4 million illegals enter our nation every 12 months.... [b]Is it honestly your position that this country creates more than 10,000 jobs a day "that Americans will not do"?[/b] Your non-sense talking points are showing ..... :rolleyes:

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Dec 17 2004, 02:10 PM
    [b] (did I mention no 9-11 hi-jackers were from Iraq or WMD's have been found?) :wacko:

    [/b][/quote]
    Did I mention that all 19 received a visa from the US state department, and [b]DID NOT COME ACROSS THE MEXICAN BORDER[/b]?

    But if you actually think you're "war on terror" can be fought and won along the Mexcan border, enlighten yourself to the terrain; I drove an 18 wheeler out of El Paso on my way to Dallas Texas. I had to take HWY 10 to HWY20 and was on 10 for about 50 miles....

    For 50 miles I stared straight across the desert into Mexico. The border itself is like, a thousand miles.

    Dude, you are tripping on some serious drugs if you think you can patrol that entire area. I'm just talking along HWY 10. The thousand miles? You have a better shot of flying the Concord to Mars.

    You probably have a few weeks vacation. Go out there. Take a look at it.

    And if you still have time, and you're still not impressed, and still not feeling overwhelmed, take a trip up to Michigan. Spend a day watching the truck traffic to and from Windsor Candada.

    But you won't. You like living in a fantasy world where you get to criticise the president and call him [i]El Presidente[/i] and [i]Jorge[/i]. Make's you feel good as if you are actually concerned, and by golly you're gonna do something about it.

    But you aint' gonna do sht, are ya?

    Oh wait, no you're gonna call that 1-800 number. :lol:

    It's just not that simple, Riggo. Get it through your head.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh, one other thing, Riggo.

    If you ever do get out to El Paso Texas, and stand in front of that desert seperating [i]us[/i] from [i]them[/i], you might experience something that I did:

    The way I see it, anybody driven to such desperation as to walk across that no man's land, and could make it, I say God bless 'em, and good luck.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually, according to the head of B.P T.J Bonner, we wouldn't need any Border Patrol agents to deal with illegals "looking for work" if we enforced the law enacted from the 1986 Amnesty--you know, the amnesty that granted the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing immediate U.S Citizenship :wacko:

    Obviously, it would be easier to single out and chase potential terrorists, if we didn't have 70,000 illegals coming per week.

    That 86' amnesty was supposed to be a one shot deal, Tom. After that, we were supposed focus on fining those that employ illegals up to 10K per illegal...Those laws are still very much on the books, but aren't enforced enough, which should make you and Michael Moore happy ;)


    Here's an article Tom...If Mexico's elite helped their own, this wouldn't be an issue....Who's the real bad folks Tom, Americans or the 10% mostly European stock Mexican elites (ruling class) that drive their own countrymen to poverty and dispair? [url=http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html]http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mex...xicoisrich.html[/url]

    P.S: I wish you would show the same compassion for those 48% unemployed African Americans that live in New York you ridiculed last week....They have a right to a decent life too....or does that just apply to illegal aliens? :rolleyes:

    Do we just blow open the borders Tom and let 50,000 people a day into the U.S, instead of the usual 10,0000 to drive down wages and bankrupt states and cities to satiate your socialist fantasy?....10,000 newcomers per day good for the economy? pppfffffttt, are you joking!!!



    ****************

    Bty, if you're ever stuck in El-Paso driving your truck, just get a cell phone out and reach Jonny and Roy in LA B)


    [img]http://www.johnnysgreenpen.com/lunchbox.JPG[/img]


    [b]Also, bring these items with you at all times in South Texas[/b]: [img]http://www.johnnysgreenpen.com/survival_kit.JPG[/img]

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Dec 18 2004, 12:34 AM
    [b] Actually, according to the head of B.P T.J Bonner, we wouldn't need any Border Patrol agents to deal with illegals "looking for work" if we enforced the law enacted from the 1986 Amnesty-- [/b][/quote]
    Do we have the manpower and resources to enforce that law?

    [b]Obviously, it would be easier to single out and chase potential terrorists, if we didn't have 70,000 illegals coming per week.[/b]

    Well... perhaps. But wouldn't it "be easier" to "single out" and "chase potential terrorists" by looking for them at their point of entry- our international airports? The list of "potential terrorists" is readily available at the State Department, who issue the bastards the visa's.

    [b]That 86' amnesty was supposed to be a one shot deal, Tom. After that, we were supposed focus on fining those that employ illegals up to 10K per illegal...Those laws are still very much on the books, but aren't enforced enough, which should make you and Michael Moore happy[/b]

    You gotta ask yourself why those laws aren't being enforced. My guess is, because they can't. They are at the same time understaffed, and what little manpower they have, is supervised by incompetent bosses. Lee Boy Malvo didn't come across the Mexican border, either.

    Here's a novel idea, let's make marijuana possession illegal. That'll make sure nobody ever, ever, ever, ever smokes it again.


    [b]Here's an article Tom...If Mexico's elite helped their own, this wouldn't be an issue....Who's the real bad folks Tom, Americans or the 10% mostly European stock Mexican elites (ruling class) that drive their own countrymen to poverty and dispair?[/b]

    Mexico is a corrupt, vile place. No doubt about that. What's the alternative? A Cuban style communist dictatorship? Imagine that, every migrant worker applying for and recieving political asylum.

    [b] I wish you would show the same compassion for those 48% unemployed African Americans that live in New York you ridiculed last week....They have a right to a decent life too....or does that just apply to illegal aliens? [/b]

    Compassion isn't going to wipe the felonies off their adult record, nor is it going to correct the ten or so years wasted in a New York City public school where they were not taught how to read and write. It's no coincidence that their is a 50% illiteracy rate as well, and it's not a coincidence that something like 60% of convicted felons currently incarcerated are illiterate and/or were born out of wedlock. Those are the two primary causes of poverty and unemployment:

    Illiteracy and Illigitimacy.

    Rounding up 500,000 illegals in NYC and deporting them isn't going change those statistics. And young men clocking dope aint gonna go bus tables at Denny's.

    My "compassion", or alleged lack there of notwithstanding.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b][b]Obviously, it would be easier to single out and chase potential terrorists, if we didn't have 70,000 illegals coming per week.[/b]

    Well... perhaps. But wouldn't it "be easier" to "single out" and "chase potential terrorists" by looking for them at their point of entry- our international airports? The list of "potential terrorists" is readily available at the State Department, who issue the bastards the visa's. [/b][/quote]

    Tom, for reasons I can't explain, there is a huge spike in OTM's (other than Mexicans) traversing the U.S/Mexican border...The capture of one 1 Iraqi in the summer, caused such a major stir in south Texas, that even open borders freak Henry Bonilla (congressman) pleaded to Bush for help...Who was that Iraqi, that caused Bonilla such angst and could there be 1,00's more like him?...


    [quote][b]You gotta ask yourself why those laws aren't being enforced. My guess is, because they can't. They are at the same time understaffed, and what little manpower they have, is supervised by incompetent bosses. Lee Boy Malvo didn't come across the Mexican border, either.[/b][/quote]

    No Tom, during the Reagan era, both employers and illegals were running scared. When Bush 1X came into power, the laws were mostly ignored. Clinton kicked the door open, along with a corrupt Doris Meisner (INS Commish) and Bush 2x has blown the door open--sending out very clear messages that he doesn't care for immigration laws....

    As a man you might listen to says (Michael Savage), all a U.S President has to do is say he will not tolerate amnesty and will enforce the laws put forth in 1986, and millions of employers will back off immediately...Suppose there are 50 major Lanscape contractors in a New Jersey County. All it would take, is for the INS to bust the one major one employing 10- 20 illegals and [b]every contractor in the region will get the picture[/b]--10-20 illegals, by law is a $100,000 to $200,000 fine MINIMUM!


    [quote][b]Mexico is a corrupt, vile place. No doubt about that. What's the alternative? A Cuban style communist dictatorship? Imagine that, every migrant worker applying for and recieving political asylum.[/b][/quote]

    Tom, once again, there are 6 billion people on the planet living in conditions equal to or worse than Mexico. In the link above, I've shown Mexico is a fairly wealthy nation, but most of it's people are controled and impoverished by a small group of European decendent elites....

    OK Tom, we have allowed something like 15 million illegals in from Mexico. At every turn you dub me racist for merely wanting our laws enforced. But how about the other 6 billion folks that may want to come here?...[b]Should we turn back 100 million illegals if they are "willing to work" in the U.S, but came from the following nations?[/b]: Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Russia, Morraco, Libiya, Pakistan, Afganistan, Sudan and France.

    [quote][b]Compassion isn't going to wipe the felonies off their adult record, nor is it going to correct the ten or so years wasted in a New York City public school where they were not taught how to read and write. It's no coincidence that their is a 50% illiteracy rate as well, and it's not a coincidence that something like 60% of convicted felons currently incarcerated are illiterate and/or were born out of wedlock. Those are the two primary causes of poverty and unemployment:

    Illiteracy and Illigitimacy.

    Rounding up 500,000 illegals in NYC and deporting them isn't going change those statistics. And young men clocking dope aint gonna go bus tables at Denny's.

    My "compassion", or alleged lack there of notwithstanding.[/b][/quote]

    Tom I'm not going to critize your answer in derogatory way, because you were polite enough to debate this time, without the personal attacks..Let me say this: I'm not suprised by your response and definitely don't agree.

    It seems to me, your blaming criminal records and low education for ills of most of these African Americans being unemployed....But are many of these illegals any better?

    We've already been over the angle of illegals in jails(particularly in California), but how about literacy? In LA, with the nations heaviest "illegal population", over 50% of adults are illiterate.**

    You slam Americans (mainly black Americans) for not "going to school", ect..but the vast majority of these illegals aren't exactly Harvard MBA's, you know B)


    [quote][b]** 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


    The Los Angeles Daily News recently lamented the tremendous increase in "functional illiteracy" among the working population of Los Angeles County. In reporting the results of a recent study, it said:


    In the Los Angeles region, 53 percent of workers ages 16 and older were deemed functionally illiterate, the study said ... It classified 3.8 million Los Angeles County residents as [b]"low-literate," meaning they could not write a note explaining a billing error, use a bus schedule or locate an intersection on a street map[/b]. [/b][/quote]

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [b]Tom, for reasons I can't explain, there is a huge spike in OTM's (other than Mexicans) traversing the U.S/Mexican border...The capture of one 1 Iraqi in the summer, caused such a major stir in south Texas, that even open borders freak Henry Bonilla (congressman) pleaded to Bush for help...Who was that Iraqi, that caused Bonilla such angst and could there be 1,00's more like him?...[/b]

    It is scary, and it is cause for alarm. But what to do about it? Pepper landmine's along the 1,500 mile border with Mexico?


    [b]No Tom, during the Reagan era, both employers and illegals were running scared. When Bush 1X came into power, the laws were mostly ignored. Clinton kicked the door open, along with a corrupt Doris Meisner (INS Commish) and Bush 2x has blown the door open--sending out very clear messages that he doesn't care for immigration laws....

    As a man you might listen to says (Michael Savage), all a U.S President has to do is say he will not tolerate amnesty and will enforce the laws put forth in 1986, and millions of employers will back off immediately...Suppose there are 50 major Lanscape contractors in a New Jersey County. All it would take, is for the INS to bust the one major one employing 10- 20 illegals and every contractor in the region will get the picture--10-20 illegals, by law is a $100,000 to $200,000 fine MINIMUM![/b]

    The same philosophy applies to the war on drugs. We go after a major dealer, give hime a life sentence, and the other one's will get the message and go into another line of work. Right? These major corporations have teams of lawyers that tie this stuff up in litigation for years. Even if they have to pay the fines, it's still cost effective. George Carlin said that if you really want to stop drug trafficing, you execute the lawyers and bankers who launder the drug money. But lawyers run this country, so the law doesn't apply to them.




    [b]Tom, once again, there are 6 billion people on the planet living in conditions equal to or worse than Mexico. In the link above, I've shown Mexico is a fairly wealthy nation, but most of it's people are controled and impoverished by a small group of European decendent elites....

    OK Tom, we have allowed something like 15 million illegals in from Mexico. At every turn you dub me racist for merely wanting our laws enforced. But how about the other 6 billion folks that may want to come here?...Should we turn back 100 million illegals if they are "willing to work" in the U.S, but came from the following nations?: Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Russia, Morraco, Libiya, Pakistan, Afganistan, Sudan and France.[/b]

    It's a convenient arrangement for Mexico, that's for sure. Look, I never stated I am for unlimited immigration or amnesty. My main point of contention with you, is that the USA does need workers. The system is a mess, but it is what it is. It needs to be fixed, but their are so many levels of beauracracy and politics, and various degrees of corruption that those in positions of power and authority have elected to maintain the status quo, either for self aggrandizement or sheer laziness.


    [b]Tom I'm not going to critize your answer in derogatory way, because you were polite enough to debate this time, without the personal attacks..Let me say this: I'm not suprised by your response and definitely don't agree.

    It seems to me, your blaming criminal records and low education for ills of most of these African Americans being unemployed....But are many of these illegals any better?[/b]

    That's a good point, but you need to look a variable in this: The cradle to grave culture of government reliance that is inculcated in many black people, specifically in the ghetto and the projects, where illiteracy, illigitimacy, and chronic unemployment is critical.

    For the people "working the system", they have had it drummed into their heads that they simply can't compete, because America is a racist country. But Riggo, this is only half the story. There is another "Black America" that is educated and succesful. I forgot where I read it, so I don't have a link, but did you know that 22% of government jobs are held by Blacks? Civil Service jobs, not just the military. These are good jobs, my friends. Some pay well. They have to, 'cause alot of these positions are in Washington DC, where the cost of living is as high as the tri state area.

    I would recommend to you that you read up on Booker T. Washington and WEB DuBois, and the great schism in Black America that took place specifally in the 60's when the Civil Rights movement was radicallized by communists.

    [b]We've already been over the angle of illegals in jails(particularly in California), but how about literacy? In LA, with the nations heaviest "illegal population", over 50% of adults are illiterate.**

    You slam Americans (mainly black Americans) for not "going to school", ect..but the vast majority of these illegals aren't exactly Harvard MBA's, you know
    [/b]

    I agree, statistically, Mexicans culturally don't place much value on higher education. But illiteracy isn't going to prevent you from bussing tables. The unfortunate reality is that for chronically unemployed Blacks, bussing tables is undignified. They won't take that job. Domestic house keeper? That's the crap they were forced to do before Civil Rights. You see, things just aren't that simple. There are deep psychic scars moving and shaping the way things are.

    Mexicans have no hangups about cutting grass, or picking lettuce. For some people in America, there's a stigma attached to that kind of work. And if nobody else will do it, 3 million Mexicans will.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    When National Review posts 2 articles against Bush on this issue in a matter of weeks, hopefully someone in the White House wakes up. Frankly, when President Bush said last week that illegals (a word he would never use) take jobs that "no American would take", I wanted to projectile vomit. These jobs got done. I've delivered newspapers, washed dishes, bused tables, peeled potatoes and asked if "you want fries with that?". It wasn't humiliating-it was a first job or 3. And friends I had did construction, yard work and many other menial tasks. No one starts out at the top and those low level jobs teach you things you'll never learn in school. Besides knocking out the lowest level of wages, does anyone consider the fact that teens not taking those jobs is worse for society as a whole?



    GOP, You Are Warned
    Immigration could cause a Republican crackup

    DAVID FRUM


    No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration. There's no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party's leaders. Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP.

    President Bush won reelection because he won 10 million more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000. Who were these people? According to Ruy Teixeira a shrewd Democratic analyst of voting trends Bush scored his largest proportional gains among white voters who didn't complete college, especially women. These voters rallied to the president for two principal reasons: because they respected him as a man who lived by their treasured values of work, family, honesty, and faith; and because they trusted him to keep the country safe.

    Yet Bush is already signaling that he intends to revive the amnesty/guestworker immigration plan he introduced a year ago and hastily dropped after it ignited a firestorm of opposition. This plan dangerously divides the Republican party and affronts crucial segments of the Republican vote.

    The plan is not usually described as an "amnesty" because it does not immediately legalize illegal workers in this country. Instead, it offers illegals a three-year temporary work permit. But this temporary permit would be indefinitely renewable and would allow illegals a route to permanent residency, so it is reasonably predictable that almost all of those illegals who obtain the permit will end up settling permanently in the United States. The plan also recreates the guestworker program of the 1950s allowing employers who cannot find labor at the wages they wish to pay to advertise for workers outside the country. Those workers would likewise begin with a theoretically temporary status; but they too would probably end up settling permanently.

    This is a remarkably relaxed approach to a serious border-security and labor-market problem. Employers who use illegal labor have systematically distorted the American labor market by reducing wages and evading taxes in violation of the rules that others follow. The president's plans ratify this gaming of the system and encourage more of it. It invites entry by an ever-expanding number of low-skilled workers, threatening the livelihoods of low-skilled Americans the very same ones who turned out for the president in November.

    National Review has historically favored greater restrictions on legal as well as illegal immigration. But you don't have to travel all the way down the NR highway to be troubled by the prospect of huge increases in immigration, with the greatest increases likely to occur among the least skilled.

    The president's permissive approach has emboldened senators and mayors (such as New York's Michael Bloomberg) to oppose almost all enforcement actions against illegals. In September 2003, for example, Bloomberg signed an executive order forbidding New York police to share information on immigration offenses with the Immigration Service, except when the illegal broke some other law or was suspected of terrorist activity. And only last month, a House-Senate conference stripped from the intelligence-overhaul bill almost all the border-security measures recommended by the 9/11 commission.

    The president's coalition is already fracturing from the tension between his approach to immigration and that favored by voters across the country. Sixty-seven House Republicans almost one-third of the caucus voted against the final version of the intelligence overhaul. And I can testify firsthand to the unpopularity of the amnesty/guestworker idea: I was on the conservative talk-radio circuit promoting a book when the president's plan was first proposed last January. Everywhere I went, the phones lit up with calls from outraged listeners who wanted to talk about little else. Every host I asked agreed: They had not seen such a sudden, spontaneous, and unanimous explosion of wrath from their callers in years.

    Five years ago, Candidate George W. Bush founded his approach to immigration issues on a powerful and important insight: The illegal-immigration problem cannot be solved by the United States alone. Two-thirds of the estimated 9 million illegals in the U.S. are from Mexico. Mexico is also the largest source of legal immigration to the United States. What caused this vast migration? Between 1940 and 1970, the population of Mexico more than doubled, from 20 million to 54 million. In those years, there was almost no migration to the United States from Mexico at all. Since 1970, however, some 65 million more Mexicans have been born and about 20 million of them have migrated northward, with most of that migration occurring after 1980.

    Obviously, the 30 years from 1940 to 1970 are different in many ways from the 30 years after 1970s. But here's one factor that surely contributed to the Mexican exodus: In the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, the Mexican economy grew at an average rate of almost 7 percent a year. Thanks to the oil boom, the Mexican economy continued to grow rapidly through the troubled 1970s. But since 1980, Mexico has averaged barely 2 percent growth. The average Mexican was actually poorer in 1998 than he had been in 1981. You'd move too if that happened to you.

    Recognizing the connection between Mexican prosperity and American border security, the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations all worked hard to promote Mexican growth. The Reagan and Clinton administrations bailed out Mexican banks in 1982 and 1995; the first Bush administration negotiated, and Clinton passed, NAFTA. George W. Bush came to office in 2001 envisioning another round of market opening with the newly elected government of his friend Vicente Fox, this time focusing on Mexico's protected, obsolete, economically wasteful, and environmentally backward energy industry.

    Bush's hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The Fox government has actually done less to restore Mexican growth than the PRI governments of the 1990s. And so Bush has been pushed away from his grand vision and has instead accepted Fox's demand that the two countries concentrate on one issue: raising the status of Mexican illegals in the United States. But this won't work. Just as the U.S. cannot solve the problem by unilateral policing, so it also cannot solve it through unilateral concession. Bush had it right the first time.

    Some of the president's approach to immigration remains right and wise. He is right to show a welcoming face to Hispanics legally resident in the United States. He is right to try to smooth the way to citizenship for legal permanent residents. He is right more controversially to give all who have contributed to Social Security, whatever their legal status, access to benefits from the Social Security account.

    But he is wrong, terribly wrong, to subordinate border security to his desire for an amnesty deal and still more wrong to make amnesty the centerpiece of his immigration strategy.

    Right now, of course, the president does not have to worry much about political competition on the immigration issue. But Republicans shouldn't count on their opponents' ignoring such an opportunity election after election. "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Hillary Clinton told a New York radio station in November. And later: "People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work." Okay, so maybe Hillary will never pick up many votes in Red State America. But there are Democratic politicians who could.

    Republicans need a new and better approach one that holds their constituency together and puts security first.

    First, Republicans should develop and practice a new way of speaking about immigration, one that makes clear that enforcement of the immigration laws is not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican: It is anti-bad employer. Illegal immigration is like any other illegal business practice: a way for unscrupulous people to exploit others to gain an advantage over their law-abiding competitors.

    Second, Republicans can no longer deny the truth underscored by the 9/11 commission: Immigration policy is part of homeland-security policy. Non-enforcement of the immigration laws is non-protection of Americans against those who would do them harm.

    Third, Republicans have to begin taking enforcement seriously. It's ridiculous and demoralizing to toss aside cabinet nominees like Linda Chavez over alleged immigration violations while winking at massive law-breaking by private industry or to regard immigration violations as so trivial that they can be used as a face-saving excuse for the dismissal of a nominee damaged by other allegations.

    Fourth, skills shortages in the high-technology and health-care industries are genuine problems that have to be addressed but they should not be used as an excuse to void immigration enforcement. Republicans can say yes to using immigration law to attract global talent, while saying no to companies that systematically violate immigration law to gain an advantage over their more scrupulous rivals.

    Fifth, Mexico should not be allowed to sever the migration issue from trade and investment issues. Mexican political stability is a vital national-security issue of the United States and just for that reason, Americans should not allow Mexican governments to use migration as a way to shirk the work of economic and social reform.

    Finally and most important Republicans need to recognize that they have a political vulnerability and must take action to protect themselves. An election victory as big as 2004 can look inevitable in retrospect. But it wasn't, not at all. The Democrats could have won and could still win in 2006 and 2008 by taking better advantage of Republican mistakes and making fewer of their own. And no mistake offers them a greater opportunity than the one-sidedness of the Bush immigration policy. The GOP is a party dedicated to national security, conservative social values, and free-market economics. The president's policy on immigration risks making it look instead like an employers' lobby group. That's the weak point at which the edge of the wedge could enter and some smart Democratic politician is sharpening it right now.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us