Skip to comments.Where Krauthammer Goes Wrong on Illegal Aliens
Posted on 05/05/2010 1:31:39 PM PDT by Welshman007
Introducing a proposal that would purport to solve America's growing immigration problem, columnist and political pundit Charles Krauthammer stated on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program last night that amnesty for illegal aliens is acceptable, but only after the borders are sufficiently secured.
Before considering where Krauthammer goes wrong it is important to affirm where he is right.
America's immigration program is in complete disarray. Nearly 100 years ago the U.S. established reasonable limits on the number of immigrants accepted into citizenship, based upon the ability of the country to successfully accommodate and assimilate newcomers into the culture.
For a number of years that plan worked.
Then, beginning in the late 1960s under LBJ and a Congress heavily dominated by liberal Democrats, the nation threw to the wind those reasonable limits. While the restrictions remain on the books, they were ignored, allowing millions of illegal aliens to cross the border without any attempt to address the lawlessness.
Thus, periodically, rather than addressing the problem of those who break the law by attempting to get in front of the line of those who wish to immigrate legally, Congress would simply grant blanket amnesty, thus rewarding and enabling illegal behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE MORONS!?
They no what’s coming, out and out cival war and total breakdown of society and want to stave it off as long as they can ...
He's not alone in having this problem.
It's closely allied with the problem some people have in understanding that HALF the American population is not black. In fact, it's barely more than 1 in 10 people (13%). Still, the believers in HALF talk, think and act as if it's really HALF. It's not possible to reason with them.
I wonder how the author defines “amnesty?”
Personally, I find Krauthammer to be an astute analyst.
The first problem is that guys like you always yell "AMNESTY" about any idea other than yours. I'm rather certain that Krauthammer didn't make a simplistic call for amnesty, and I'm quite certain that he didn't shout while doing so.
Krauthammer is one of those guys who would rather think before he speaks; and he's also one of those guys who know that shouting makes you look like an idiot.
You could maybe look to him as an example.
Maybe you should look inward?
I saw the interview and Krauthammer was very reasonable (in that he agreed with me.)
He said that we had to first control the borders with no preconditions. After that we can talk about what to do with those already here. There are illegals here that we will not be able (willing) to deport. People with citizen children, houses, jobs, savings, etc. Illegal children brought here as babies and residents here for 20 years or more. Etc.
Forget them for now and lets solve the problem of the open borders.
Pretty much as usual, I think: "doesn't agree with the author."
"Amnesty" is the border-bot equivalent of "RINO" -- an epithet of convenience rather than fixed definition.
Since the borders aren’t going to be effectively closed any time soon, does that mean he’s really not for amnesty?
Actually, to an extent, I understand the term, RINO. If “Republican” defines one as having conservative principles and a Republican politician fails to practice conservative principles, that politician is Republican in name only.
“Amnesty” needs to be a more concise term as understood by conservatives.
Let’s also solve the problem of LEGAL immigration. After years on student and employment visas (goodness only knows why...he appears to have been a temp who worked at the Elizabeth Arden offices in CT), the NYC bomber got citizenship by marrying a Pakistani woman who had already gotten American citizenship out of some kind of family reunification thing. In addition, he benefitted from the fact that in 2009, Obama made some kind of regulatory change that made country quotas equal and permitted a surge in Muslim immigration, which was his stated purpose at that time.
What I’m afraid of is that our immigration policy is going to be so skewed towards the Muslim Third World (Africa and SE Asia particularly) that we will end up like Britain.
The problem with that is the tendency to look south, at the people coming across, rather than at the Americans who are paying them to come here.
Seriously: illegals come here for the jobs, or the welfare, or both.
Deal with the demand side, both among employers and government agencies, and the illegal immigration problem will pretty much end itself for economic reasons.
Krauthammer made me so mad last night....
He forgot to mention how unfair to the AMERICAN people all of this is...
The problem with "RINO" is that it seems to have no meaning beyond "doesn't agree with me about X."
Nobody seems to be able to provide a working definition of a "True Republican," and indeed that's a general and significant problem -- one of the reasons why R's in general, and conservatives in particular, have gotten into such deep political trouble over the past 25 years or so.
That’s exactly what I was trying to convey the other day.
The term “amnesty” seems to mean more than one thing to certain Conservatives.
Some think it means ‘instant citizenship’....some think it means no fines or punishment for being here illegally.
Perhaps it's not really unfair, Freddd.
After all, the AMERICAN people are paying them to come here in the first place. The illegals wouldn't be flocking here otherwise.
Most people, including LBJ, did not see the future consequences of Kennedy's immigration bill, which was supposedly about "fairness" and "against racism." However, near the end of his life, Ted Kennedy said that he was PROUD of the consequences of his bill--turning the United States of America into a Third World country!!!!
He is a definitely a hawk and a very bright and articulate individual.
Krathammer is a Beltway insider and definitely an elitist. he is a neocon, rather than a conservative, and he isn't necessarily on our - the conservative - side on many issues.
This and he is rich enough that he thinks that it won’t harm him.
Any plan that allows criminal invaders to stay within the U.S. (like the ideas promoted by this writer) is amnesty, regardless of what its proponents call it.
Yeah, right. No need to go further with you.
So, clearly you support slapping would-be legal immigrants in the face by instead rewarding those who have openly declared their contempt for our laws and national sovereignty.
However, the Krauthammer plan begins to break apart at the point of what to do once the borders are secure. He proposes a 'path to citizenship' that amounts to amnesty, which once again rewards illegal behavior. This is grossly unfair to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who have honorably entered the country according to the law, and initiated the process of becoming naturalized citizens according to U.S. statutes. It is a slap in the face to the millions of Hispanics and Mexicans who have their citizenship legally, only to watch as the government winks at those who break the law and get ahead of others in the line.
That's where I break with Krauthammer too. Not just hispanics and Mexicans but many other foreigners have been waiting literally for decades trying to go through the legal process. They WANT to be Americans and they obviously WANT to do it legally. I want THOSE people to get a break.
Sending 12-20 million illegal aliens back to Mexico would not be feasible or practical. Many of them have family members that are legal citizens. The prudent course of action would be to fine them and send them to the back of the line, requiring them to pay their fees like everyone else, but waiting their turn behind the millions of others around the world who are waiting to get into the country legally.
That is not really different than Krauthammer's position. They get to stay here while they "wait." They fill the slots that the legally-minded immigrants would like. I disagree that sending illegal aliens home is not feasible or practical. AZ just sent 1/5th to 1/4 of their illegals packing in two weeks (if we are to believe the MSM) just by making a law that mirrors Federal law. Five simple things will practically and effectively send 90+% of illegal aliens packing.
Most of that is just enforcing the laws we have and spending the money already allocated for a border fence.
Yes he did.
Perhaps many that claim to be conservatives are not conservatives. CINO rhymes with RINO.
Wow. Your mind-reading skills really suck. What I really "clearly support" is evidence of thought, rather than mindless reaction. Your response simply reinforces my bias.
In this case, I do not agree with your assertion that a guy who's coming up here to get a job, is any more a "criminal invader" than your ancestors or mine were when they came here. For the vast majority of illegals, they're just looking for a better life.
That doesn't mean illegal immigration isn't a problem, because it is. It's just that your approach to it is not particularly helpful.
And for all your venom on the topic, it's quite evident that a lot of Americans don't just disagree with you, but are actually eager to encourage illegals to come north -- Americans are paying them good money to do so.
If you're really interested in dealing with illegal immigration, it's probably best to deal with what actually causes it: a straightforward set of economic incentives on both the demand (American) and supply (illegal immigrant) side.
I’ll define amnesty. We won’t build camps in the desert to inter illegals before kicking them back over the border. We’ll simply give them a few months to leave,then the gloves come off. That’s my definition of amnesty.
Do you intend to shoot them?
Actually you know what? Make an enterprise zone on the border. Part in Mexico,part here. If a business absolutely must have that sort of labor then they can build there. If there are too many that need jobs for that zone then screw them. They need to head back home one way or another. Of course extend no free stuff to those workers. The employers need to provide medical,no more running to hospitals on my dime. Build schools in that area too. Again,the business pay for them,not American tax dollars. I respectfully submit if you’re a business and that’s too much for you then you need to find another business not relying on illegal immigrants.
Lets see..no,i never said shoot. Arrest them. Make them serve time. Fine them too. If they can’t pay it confiscate their goods. Send them and their “citizen” children back over the border with them. Oh,after the border is secured and they try and sneak back in,those you can shoot.
Wow.... what a remarkably stupid, expensive, time-consuming, and ultimately unworkable idea.
Unless you want to get rid of due process, of course -- in which case you will have destroyed the country in order to save it.
You know whats more expensive genius? Paying for all the goodies year after bloody year. Billions upon billions go out each and every year. Deportation does not have to cost even one years worth of all the cost they bring to society. Its a one time expense versus a timeless burden. Say,you must have taken some of the same math classes Obama did since you see the matter as he does.
We also have to figure out who we want to invite here. I agree that we need to do retroactive processing for people who have been here and not caused any problems and have actually, through their falsified SS numbers, been contributing to Social Security for years but will never be able to collect. So I would say that’s ok.
But the problem is that nobody is thinking who we want here for our best interests. Do we want more Muslims? I think not. We could have more short-term legal Latin Americans (since they all want to go home anyway) and more people from England, Australia and Ireland, as well as from places like Spain, the Czech Republic, etc.
But I am afraid that while people here are obsessing on a group that could and will easily go back if we start enforcing our existing laws (but we should make more provision for that very necessary labor to come in on short-term visas), Obama is going to slip in his radical nation-changing program, which is to bring in millions of Muslims and make the US a Muslim country. All it takes is 15-20%, and the host country can no longer function (as we see in England, Belgium and several other Muslim-heavy European countries). Obama wants to promote this, and we have got to stop him from getting away with it.
NOBODY who is an illegal immigrant should be on any government program, or at any rate, not any longer than it takes to helicopter them back to their home countries.
However, economists have pointed out that the people who come here to work are actually paying their own way, because they arrive at working age, their education and health care expenses have already been paid by their own country, and they contribute to Social Security but never collect. This is why you see little haste in deporting them.
I think deportation should be immediate, the illegal immigrant’s country should have to pay for any benefits he received or otherwise have that taken out of their foreign aid, BUT that we have to work out a rational immigration policy based on OUR needs and not things like “compassionate family reunification,” “increasing the Muslim population,” etc.
I don’t disagree at all that a rational policy needs be implemented. The problem with the economists theory is they neglect all the relatives they bring over with them. I’d contend far fewer are paying their way than they assume. I also question the education notion. They may come over with a skill but that does not equate to an actual education.
Because every call for "reform" always involves shamnesty. That is why. No reform is needed at all. We have plenty of good immigration laws and all that is needed is simply enforcement of those laws.
Krauthammer is the most intelligent and articulate voice we have on our side.
And who appointed you as the litmus test spokesperson? He agrees with our positions as much or more than Rush Limbaugh does.
And it’s about time some of the us start to accept it.
There is no need to. Acceptance of destruction of the rule of law is suicidal. You’ll just have to mow your own lawn or actually pay someone what it’s worth.
AMEN!! That was the first time I was mad at him.
Conservative principles are quite straight-forward. Most people know them.
Ditto Puerto Rican Statehood. Why are 50+ pubbies in support of bringing a Third World nation of 4 million into the union?
“Krauthammer made me so mad last night....
He forgot to mention how unfair to the AMERICAN people all of this is...”
Charles Krauthammer has expressed the how unfair this is many times. Most of us who read his columns or listen to him understand this. Where have you been?
“Some think it means instant citizenship....some think it means no fines or punishment for being here illegally.”
Exactly....and such thinking often takes place sans factual information.
Do you think the minority of the Supreme Court had the better argument on Heller? Krauthammer does.
“Like most neocons, Krathammer is a social liberal.”
LOL!!!! Where are those Viking kitties when we need them?
And maybe you, dcp, should mention that you have described yourself as hopelessly liberal on illegals and have profited from them...in the interest of full disclosure of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.