Posted on 01/07/2004 2:45:15 AM PST by ovrtaxt
WND BOOKS
America's fate in hands
of illegal aliens?
New WND book shows immgration issue could determine future of U.S.
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
With the U.S. government poised to make sweeping changes to immigration laws critics say amount to de facto mass amnesty, WorldNetDaily's publishing division, WND Books, announces a powerful new book destined to supercharge the debate over illegal immigration.
 |
In "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border," veteran journalist Jon E. Dougherty documents the hard truth that both major political parties have missed – namely, that sustained high immigration levels from south of the border will continue to pose economic, labor, security and criminal threats to the United States, unless American and Mexican leaders find ways to limit it.
Taking readers right to the front lines of the "border wars," "Illegals" includes interviews with citizens living along the most traveled border corridors in the American Southwest, as well as Border Patrol agents and other immigration officials who are charged with guarding and protecting America's nearly 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico.
Dougherty also brings readers along on actual "missions" involving local citizens' groups who are trying desperately to stem the tide of the illegal incursions. And he takes readers into the lives of men and women who have been victimized by hordes of illegal immigrants who cross their property by the thousands every year.
While acknowledging that most immigrants come to America to work and others come because they truly want to become U.S. citizens, "Invasion" shows that an increasing number come "merely to clamor for opportunities and benefits not available to them in their home countries."
"Worse," writes Dougherty, "there is a growing faction in America assisting them – knowing all along these immigrants aren't interested in enriching American society, but rather to take what they can from it."
"There is also a change in mindset among elements of the political establishment and among the U.S. population, in terms of immigration," writes Dougherty. "In years past, gaining access to America so one could share in its promise was treated as a privilege, not a right to be granted automatically just because you could make it over the border. Today, however, the process of immigration – indeed, the requirement our immigrants assimilate into our society – has changed dramatically."
"Illegals" is especially timely now, coming on the heels of an announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge at a town hall-style meeting in Miami Dec. 10. Ridge said Americans need to "come to grips" with an estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal immigrants and "determine how you can legalize their presence."
Though President Bush said Ridge's comments were not akin to granting illegal immigrants amnesty – a policy Bush said he doesn't support because it rewards lawbreaking – immigration-reform advocates and opponents in Congress say such a plan, were it to be adopted, would in practice be nothing less.
"Illegals" provides a gripping and profoundly disturbing dose of truth – the kind most politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, can't seem to confront – about immigration in modern America. As politicians now attempt to deal with this crucial national issue, the book couldn't have come at a more important moment.
Indeed, writes Dougherty in "Illegals": "How the problem is solved – or not solved – ultimately may decide the fate of this nation."
Related book:
Argue the points all day and night long, but I've lived in California all my life (except for 3 years in Spain) and the above is ABSOLUTLEY part of the problem. I've watched whole communities turn into ghettos because of MASSIVE immigration and their refusal to assimilate. I've seen entire communites in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Ontario, and San Diego counties turn into barrios. This is okay? When is enough? Do we get to preserve our standard of living, and do we have the right to maintain it? How many can we take in yearly? 1,000,000? 5,000,000? 18,000,000? 35,000,000? I have NEVER gotten an answer to this question!
Have ANY of you heard of the "sinking boat" scenerio?
They should cut back on caffeine.
I fear AMerica is afraid of this issue and FR could even split or implode on this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053173/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052816/posts?page=82#82
It's nasty as ever. Mods will blow a gasket over this.
I agree, in fact I think they should just sit back and let a have at it section on illegal immigration, so we can all slug each other for a while away.
Missed? HORSE PUCKY!!!
They haven't 'missed' it, they're just putting vote-grabbing pandering ahead of the well-being of the majority of their constituency.
If they continue along the lines of abandoning us, we should abandon them - to whatever Party that emerges that places a higher value on US citizenship.
Not only that, but like white farmers in Zimbabwe, the American tax payer is discriminated and does not benefit from amnesties, but only continued prosecution by the INS for hiring illegals, while the foreigners get away with it. That means we lose the farms and they get the farms... remember the suit by illegals against WalMArt... and trial lawyers behind it all...
I think they are afraid of a civil war.
But that wouldn't be "compassionate".
If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would move to Mexico. If I wanted to live in a socialist country, I would move to Europe. I want America back!
The indentured worker has to sign a contract with the potential employer for a certain period of time to repay the employer for the investment that he made to bring him in. This was a common practice in the 1800's and would eliminate most of the inequities people complain about today. Any plan will have to include a provision that borders have to be strictly enforced with both parties being responsible for the integrity of the border.
Mexico should be held accountable for the increased expenditures that any illegals cause the states, cities, counties and Federal government spend to take care of Mexican citizens within the United States.
We have too many examples of businesses and individuals trying to reap the benefits of illegals, and at the same time, expecting the general public to pay the costs of those illegals. It is time that corporate welfare is subjected to the budget axe and asked to pick up its responsibilities.
I say, people are darned right to be as impassioned on this forum as they were 4 years ago (and I recall) during the unfolding Clinton Scandal and enusing Impeachment hearings. You couldn't restrain anyone on that!
BS...both parties seek to get votes from what is considered the future majority (if present trends continue) demographic of America: the Hispanic population. Other than a select few, they could give a damn about America, its citizens, or citizenship. Staying in power is their only goal...its pathetic, and its not going to change anytime soon. I could kick myself when I bought into the whole "change the tone in Washington" speel. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss. (besides his character and the handing of the WOT)
For California the consequences of unregulated immigration now consume well over 1/3 of the state's budget.
30% of the public education system expenses and 25% of the criminal justice system expenses, the public health care system expenses and the cost of public welfare.
The cost of providing public services to the consequences of unregulated immigration over the past 50 years is THE largest expense the state faces.
It is fair and accurate to say that the upcoming fiscal, political battle in California revolves around unregulated immigration although both major parties are unwilling to discuss the issue in that light.
It's the 400 pound gorilla that few are willing to address honestly
Once AGAIN, you asked "well what's your plan?" and here it is. Impotent? If the GOP can have a "free pills for granny" medicare boost, this plan doesn't sound too farfetched.
His proposal is brilliant except for one flaw.
The brilliance? The part that says anyone wanting to take part in this must get their employer to show no Americans wanted the job.
That will cause the cost of those involved significantly higher. Companies will be forced to show that they tried to find Americans for the job. They will have to be prepared to defend lawsuits from out of work Americans and the ever rabid trial lawyers if they want to rely on these workers. This cost will make it so that the jobs which the people are coming across the border to get won't be there, which removes the incentive for crossing the border, particularly if the benefits only go to those who have jobs and are paying taxes.
Further, for those who do manage to get their employer to vouch that no American wanted the job, so that they can get into the program, we now know who they are and where they are, two things we don't now know, all in exchange for involvement in a program which could be legislated away at any time. Some would be skeptical that it ever would be, but in an economic downturn, ending a guest worker program so Americans could get the jobs would be very politically doable.
And of all the illegals who are out there now, there are some who are harmless and those who are not. Those who sign up for this would more often than not be in the harmless side; they are the ones who really would rather not be hiding and don't mind us knowing they are here. This would make the pool of those who are here completely illegally smaller, which would lessen the burden on our security agencies.
As specified, the proposal is worlds, worlds, worlds better than I had feared based on the initial reports and the initial debate here.
So it is brilliant in that it would put a damper on further illegal immigration, pressure companies to not hire illegals, would get many illegals to tell us who and where they are. I am pretty sure that as this debate rolls on, almost all of the leftist leaning immigration groups are going to come out hot and heavy against these proposals. That should tell us something.
But it has a fatal flaw which means that we really should be opposing it anyway- namely that the courts would very likely find some reason to strike down that one very provision, stating that it is an impossible standard to meet (you know liberal judges). And if that one aspect of the plan is removed, then the whole thing is garbage.
Relying on a single beam of support in a very large structure when there are sledgehammer weilding Judges all over the place is a very bad idea.
You must be confused, friend. I never asked anyone what their plan was.
Also, this study:
Tired & Poor: Bankrupt Arguments for Mass, Unskilled Immigration
We at the Center for Immigration Studies estimate that the average Mexican immigrant will use $55,200 more in public services during his lifetime than he pays in taxes.
I disagree I think Sabertooth should be commended for putting together a pretty good list of proposals. Best of all, I like his proposal number 8:
8: Seize the assets of businesses knowingly hiring Illegals under the RICO Act, as they are ongoing criminal enterprises. Prosecute executives who knowingly hire Illegals.
Don't you think that something like that might be worth a shot?
But that was not your question. Your question was about using RICO statutes to bankrupt those businesses which knowingly hire productive workers who they know to be carrying fraudulent ID cards.
No, I don't agree with that, either. Again, the problem is when ideologues mistake a relative good with an absolute one. There is no justice in throwing thousands of citizens into unemployment because the corporate gardener or janitor was hired who shouldn't have been hired. That would constitute a grave injustice.
The whole point of "knowingly hire" really becomes moot unless all employers are required by some prohibitively-costly mandate to then hire detectives, and forgery experts, etc. It's not their job to vet people's legal status. They are there to provide goods and services which benefit people and society, not to do the work of the government. They have no authority or expertise to vet the status of anyone to a 100% degree of certainty. But if someone is knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants and flouting the law, and if it can be proven, then yes, prosecute them, but don't bankrupt their business. To advocate such is only demagoguery.
Anyone can formulate a doomed or impossible plan, but seriously, I will stick with time-tested and elected leaders on formulating a workable plan on this problem.
It appears that we agree on the wisdom of punishing employers who knowingly hiring undocument immigrants. As for an appropriate penalty, the usual standard is to design a penalty that is sufficiently costly to encourage compliance with the law.
The key here is to find a penalty that makes it so costly to hire illegal immigrants that rational employers will refrain from doing so. Obviously, penalties and enforcement should be ratcheted up in this area.
I have a feeling that Sabertooth and most others would agree to penalties that are less than the corporate death penalty so long as the penalties were made adequate to encourage compliance with the law. Again, I think that Sabertooth's proposals are worth some serious consideration.
Until you look a little deeper. High tech industries are an excellent example. The system already exists in that industry through the H1B visa game.
Employers have easily shown that Americans don't want the jobs. Americans don't want these high tech jobs because the wage has been artificially depressed by the employer below the level that the American worker can economically justify.
That same manipulation of an honestly constructed system will be applied to all other industries. If you want foreign workers, simply cut the wage in half and you can have all you want.
Who benefits? The foreign country. Who loses? The American worker who was forced to pay thousands for his technical education only to be denied employment because of an excess of cheap, equally well qualified, foreign labor.
When I worked in industry, environmental laws beginning to be written so that executives (company presidents, CEOs, etc.) could be prosecuted for violations, even if they had no actual personal knowledge of the crimes committed - I think in legal terms it would mean there was no "plausible deniability". The EPA assumed that if someone was in charge of a company, he "knew or should have known" about everything that happened there.
It created a bit more incentive for CEOs to take an interest in making sure things were done the correct way, especially after a couple of bigshots were prosecuted and convicted.
I see no reason that immigration laws couldn't be written and enforced in the same manner. I must say, when I was listening to the summary of the President's suggestions on the radio this afternoon I was a bit confused...if employers have to follow existing labor laws to hire illegals, is there still an incentive to do so under the proposed program? If minimum wage laws, etc, were followed, would Americans be willing to do the jobs?
That is not to suggest I am a big fan of H-1B visas. I think that if there is a 'shortage' of technically capable people, then wages should go up and more people will then train themselves and educate themselves to get those jobs which would expand the work pool and allow wages to come back down; I don't think the answer is to expand the work pool artificially by importing tons of foreigners. But it is a different issue.
So the question becomes, are wages be depressed in these jobs that illegals are currently working (which tend to be lower paying ones) by them being here by more than the amount of added cost there will be in ensuring that the p's and q's are taken care of in meeting the requirements of this law? I am skeptical.
Besides, I still think people are overstating how many current aliens would take 'advantage' of this system. Let's say I am an illegal immigrant. I took a job with some forged papers. I want to take advantage of this, so I don't have to worry about being caught. I go to my employer, and now my employer (who for me to become legal has to vouch for the fact that there was no American who wanted my job) has to decide if he is going to fire me for lying about things in the first place, and then may end up finding some American citizen to take my job, the very job I need to stay, in order to meet the criteria specified. I bet the percentage would be small.
But there is still my main concern, the concern I have which tells me this whole thing is a bad idea. The fact that judges could gut the good parts of any such plan, leaving only the garbage. It is too big of a risk.
It was my understanding that when the dot-com collapse occurred it was the H1-b visa folks who elected to take the huge hits in salary necessary to stay employed while those paying off staggering college education loans initially refused to take the hit thinking they could find more equitable salaries elsewhere.
In the end the American techies were simply unemployed but their Plan B (a humble return to the mother ship for a lot less pay) back door was shut by the H1-bs.
But even then there is a big difference because with the programming jobs there was a lot of room for downward salary pressure, and with these jobs there already has been this downward pressure (they have the jobs already!) and there can't be much (if any) more downward pressure on wages because the pay is already so low. Any savings from additional downward pressure would almost certainly be offset by the costs of trying to ensure compliance with the law here.
But it isn't here or there. We both agree it is a bad proposal. Let's just agree to agree it is for different reasons.
I'm talking about the system Bush proposes which matches willing domestic employers to willing foreign workers after determining that the domestic labor supply is exhausted. This system will apply to Lockheed Aerospace as well as McDonald's as far as I know.
No. America's fate will be in the hands of a people that have no allegiance to this country. A very scary thought.
In 50 or 100 years, when the call goes out to defend this country, and no one responds, what will happen then?
I think we can also both agree that if the system is as simple as presented today, the potential for wholesale abuse by employers, creating new job descriptions with much lower pay rates, will be very detrimental to a generation of highly trained, domestic technicians.
I'm in agreement again. Especially since the ideas presented in the speech have to go through three more processes before they are effectively implemented.
First the legislation, then the promulgation of the legislation into regulation at the department level and finally judicial review.
Few US citizens realize that during the promulgation process there may be substantial modification in original intent and letter that occurs depending on the administration and/or the simple whim of that cabinet member.
As an example several elements of Bush's proposal requires individuals to "apply" for things. That initial application may be a simple one page sheet that is processed in only 60 days or may become a complex, interactive process that literally takes forever to complete because of the needs and capabilities of the various departments involved in the process.
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.