Posted on 01/17/2004 10:01:59 AM PST by Sabertooth
Debate rages, and will through 2004, about President Bush’s “not an Amnesty” Amnesty proposal to legalize the 8 to 12 million Illegal Aliens his Administration has said are currently here in our country.
Amnesty proponents and enablers uniformly offer only three solutions to the Illegal Alien problem.
1. Coexistence: Just maintain the status quo through inaction.
2. Amnesty: This is appeasement, and surrender.
3. Xenophobia: Build a police state.
That’s a pretty thin list, and as we’ll see, not an accurate one. Its exclusive presentation amounts to a fallacy of False Dilemma.
It should be noted that Amnesty is a nearly inevitable consequence of Coexistence. Not surprisingly, therefore, Amnesty proponents commonly raise the specter of Xenophobia so that they can paint dark insinuations and distract attention from the symbiosis of their appeasement with the failed policy of Coexistence. Calling other people Nazis is a neat way of cloaking one’s own kinship with Neville Chamberlain.
If we had accepted the same false dilemma in the War on Terror, we'd never have fought it. We'd be the same as Democrats, who’ve made a willingness to appease a party litmus test.
The War on Terror didn’t begin on September 11th, 2001, it began with the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and was conducted against us by Al Qaeda and our enemies all throughout the 1990s. President Clinton, however, opted not to take the fight to the enemy, and so the Clintonistas held throughout the 90s that terrorism was an intractable problem with which we'd just have to Coexist , and made their policies accordingly. Not surprisingly, when President Clinton had an opportunity to take Osama bin Laden into custody, he lacked the courage to do so. Clinton’s spine also failed him on three occasions where our Special Forces were in position to kill bin Laden. By the end of his Presidency, Clinton’s appeasement of terror was in full bloom; visits from uber-terrorist Yassir Arafat were a source of pride to him, and ultimately, he even granted pardons to Puerto Rican terrorists.
Pardons and clemencies, like Amnesties, absolve wrongdoers of further responsibility for past crimes. When a policy of Coexistence with wrongdoing is pursued long enough, absolution of wrongdoing will eventually become part of the negotiation to make the craven failure to confront it appear magnanimous.
On September 11th, 2001, the War on Terror changed. America didn't accept the false dilemma of Coexistence, Appeasement, or Xenophobia. Coexistence had failed, and with it went any thought of absolution for wrongdoing. Clintonian appeasement was over. Xenophobic notions of “kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” and “nuke Mecca” were also ruled out, because we’re Americans, and hold ourselves to higher standards of morality and ingenuity.
What then, of the fallacy presented in the false dilemma of the Coexistence / Amnesty / Xenophobia triad?
We rightfully threw it on the ash heap of History.
We took a fourth, Asymmetric approach to the Terrorists, and are now reaping the benefits. After wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly Libya is turning over their WMD programs without a shot being fired; Iran is on the bubble and contemplating the same thing; Syria and the PLA are increasingly isolated; and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are finally getting the message that coddling Al Qaeda is a losing proposition. Early on in the WoT, it was understood that victory is a policy which reaps a sweet harvest. While the investment in the initial successes was relatively high, they generated a momentum that is making inexpensive windfalls of subsequent victories.
Yet none of this could have happened if we’d followed the appeasement tendencies of the Democrats. In ten years, we’d have been looking at a Middle East full of North Koreas, which was the crown jewel of President Clinton’s failed policy of Coexistence and appeasement.
Naturally, being innate appeasers, the Democrats and Clinton also have pursued Coexistence and Amnesty in dealing with the problem of the millions of Illegal Aliens currently living in our country. Three times in the 1990s, Clinton signed legislation enabling Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code, thereby granting Amnesties to more than a million Illegals Aliens (twice with at GOP House and Senate). Appeasement failed, of course, as it must, and by the end of Clinton’s eight years, there were millions more Illegals than when he started.
Now we have a Republican Administration, as well as a GOP House and Senate. The Clintonian policies of Coexistence with and Amnesties for Illegal Aliens have clearly failed. So, President Bush has taken the initiative and offered an “Immigration Reform” proposal that would legalize not just a million Illegals, as Clinton did, but millions of them. Rather than turning from the failed Clinton policies, President Bush is embracing an even more radical version of them.
So now, pro-Amnesty Republicans and their enablers are offering the same solutions on Illegals as the Democrats did: Amnesty (even though they split hairs and pretend otherwise. They are attempting to frame the debate with the same false dilemma that the Democrats did with the War on Terror: Coexistence, Amnesty/appeasement, and Xenophobia.
Where is the fourth option, Asymmetry? It has worked so well in the WoT; why are we not exploring Asymmetric solutions to the Illegal Alien problem?
We can effectively solve much of the Illegal Alien problem, without Amnesty, if we apply a similar, Asymmetric approach to that of the War on Terror. Obviously, it's not necessary or moral to conduct a war against Illegals, but by applying systematic pressure to all of the factors that encourage the Illegals to violate our laws and sovereignty, we can win early victories that generate and sustain a momentum whereby the problem starts to solve itself.
The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative.
There are plenty of steps we can take to do this.
Eighteen Illegal Alien solutions that are better than any Amnesty
Not only is encouragement of Illegal Alien self-deportation humane and cost effective, there has already been considerable success in this regard with Pakistani Illegals.
25% of Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deported Themselves since 2001 -
Facts against the Bush Amnesty
If we project that modest 25% self-deportation rate of the Pakistani Illegals onto the the 8 to 12 million Illegals that DHS Secretary Tom Ridge concedes are here, we’re talking about 2 to 3 million fewer Illegals in a short period of time. However, the Pakistani Illegals self-deported in response to a set of incentives that was far from comprehensive. A much higher rate of self-deportation of Illegals is certainly feasible, if we simply roll up our sleeves and get on with it.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson recently said:
We never would have had this conversation [about Illegal Aliens] in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.
Paradise Lost? (Victor Davis Hanson comments on Bush's immigration proposal)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (FR link) - January 10, 2004
Bill Steigerwald with Victor Davis Hanson
As with the War on Terror, so too with the Illegal Aliens; it’s now time to throw the false dilemma of Coexistence, Amnesty, or Xenophobia on the ash heap of History. Amnesty failed under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and will fail under President Bush if it’s attempted.
Rewards for lawbreaking beget more lawbreaking.
Diligent enforcement of our immigration laws succeeded in the 1950s, and would again; but we would be better served by a more humane, Asymmetric approach today, whereby relatively few deportations would result in a great many self-deportations of Illegal Aliens.
Very good offering, thank you for assembling and posting your article. It reflects thought and effort, and I appreciate it.
I noticed this statement in your comment accompanying your article:
I believe power tends to corrupt, and that it deludes long before it corrupts.
With apologies to Lord Acton and you, I've come to be of the persuasion that rather than corrupting, power tends to attract those who have some corruption within them, some deep personality flaw that drives them to seek power over other people, or to try to solve their problems or other people's problems by seeking power.
Power isn't solutions. The difference is not lost on people who are truly innovative and creative, like Henry Ford, Nicolai Tesla, Thomas Edison, and many of our Nobel laureates, or on people whose vocation or avocation is observing the dominance-driven personalities who cluster around power-giving institutions like Harvard, Yale, the Congress, and the great rulemaking executive agencies -- and journalism, with its power to bend opinion and the People itself to the journalists' collective will.
The first function of Republic, then, it seems to me, is to filter out to the greatest extent possible the kind of people who are drawn to power for its own sake, on the theory that such people will tend to be barren of real ideas but determined only to impose themselves, to no helpful effect, on society at large.
A point worth remembering whenever Bushbots begin touting the benefits of a looney space mission to Mars upon the US economy.
IBM Data Give Rare Look at Sensitive 'Offshoring' Plans Mon Jan 19,12:53 AM ET
In a rare look at the numbers and verbal nuances a big U.S. company chews over when moving jobs abroad, internal documents from International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) show that it expects to save $168 million annually starting in 2006 by shifting several thousand high-paying programming jobs overseas, Monday's Wall Street Journal reported.
Among other things, the documents indicate that for internal IBM accounting purposes, a programmer in China with three to five years experience would cost about $12.50 an hour, including salary and benefits. A person familiar with IBM's internal billing rates says that's less than one-fourth of the $56-an-hour cost of a comparable U.S. employee, which also includes salary and benefits.
According to the documents, which also provide managers with detailed advice on how to talk about the moves and their effect, IBM plans to shift the jobs from various U.S. locations to China, India and Brazil, where wages for skilled programmers are substantially lower.
At IBM headquarters in Armonk, N.Y., a spokesman said that the company expects to shift 3,000 U.S. jobs overseas this year. He declined to comment on plans for next year. He said IBM expects to add 15,000 jobs world-wide this year, with a net total of 5,000 of them in the U.S. That would increase IBM's world-wide employment to 330,000, the highest level since 1991.
IBM hasn't announced the plan to shift workers overseas -- elements of which were reported in The Wall Street Journal last month -- either internally or externally. It isn't clear if the documents are final versions; most carry dates of late November and December 2003. The spokesman declined to comment on the documents seen by the Journal.
Like other high-tech companies, IBM is moving knowledge work to cheap-labor sites outside the U.S. This "offshoring" process has raised fears that even high-skill jobs that were supposed to represent the U.S.'s future are being lost to countries that have already taken over low-skill factory work.
Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter William M. Bulkeley contributed to this report.
M.I., do you have the source link for that please?
I'm going to put it on my website this week, until them, post #46 is the only place you'll find it.
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.