Why You Should Support Bush's Immigration Proposal

Critics of President Bush's immigration reform proposal have been so quick to label it an amnesty plan in sheep's clothing that they have missed the subtle brilliance of his approach to a very complex problem. Let's look at some of the complex issues of illegal immigration and evaluate the President's proposal in relation to them.

Contrary to what many pundits seem concerned with, the main problem with illegal immigration in the United States is not its influence on the job market but its relationship to organized crime. In an article for the City-Journal's Winter 2004 edition entitled "The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave," Heather Mac Donald provides an in-depth and disturbing look at this relationship:

"95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in L.A., which total 1,200 to 1,500, target illegal aliens and up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens."

"A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico."

"The leadership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.'s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation."

As if that weren't bad enough, in an article carried by the Salt Lake Tribune on December 18th, David Kelly gives us a chilling view of a new development in Arizona crime:

"Moving with the cunning and cruelty of modern-day pirates, gangs of kidnappers are swooping down on Arizona highways, attacking smugglers transporting undocumented immigrants and stealing their human cargo. The kidnappers stash the immigrants in hundreds of drop houses scattered around the city, using violence and threats to extort money from their relatives."

"Now smugglers are fighting back, shooting it out with kidnappers on sidewalks and freeways in broad daylight. A gunbattle last month between kidnappers and smugglers on Interstate 10 at the height of rush hour left four dead. Four others were killed this month in the desert near Phoenix; authorities blamed the deaths on violence between the two groups."

"Kidnappers let smugglers take all the risks of getting immigrants into the country, then rob them once they get here. When they can't intercept smugglers on the road, they snatch migrants from houses where they are known to be hiding. The new wave of violence has made this the deadliest year in Phoenix history with 247 homicides, edging out the previous high of 245 in 2001. Police say 60 percent of the city's crime is related to smuggling and kidnapping."

As these articles demonstrate, a significant portion of crime in our big cities is perpetuated by illegal immigrants. But, as you can also see from David Kelly's article, the victims of these crimes are often also illegal immigrants. This creates a disastrous situation because victims of these and other crimes will not report them for fear of being deported. Vast numbers of illegal immigrants suffer severe abuse, extortion, and virtual slavery at the hands of organized crime and cannot report it for fear of deportation. So the crimes go unreported and the criminals unstopped.

To counteract this problem, many local city governments have adopted "sanctuary policies." These city policies prohibit employees of local government, including law enforcement officers, from inquiring after the immigration status of anyone. Often, even if a police officer knows that a particular individual has entered the country illegally (a misdemeanor) or has previously been deported and has returned illegally (a felony) he or she is forbidden by city statute from arresting that person. Police officers are even forbidden from reporting known illegal immigrants to the federal authorities.

While these policies are supposedly adopted to protect the illegal immigrants who are victims of crime and encourage them to report crimes without the fear of deportation, they have the secondary effect of protecting criminals who are illegal immigrants as well. Even if the police know of an individual with connections to organized crime and a past criminal record, and they know that he is in the country illegally, they are forbidden from using his illegal status to arrest him and deport him. In fact, a police officer can face disciplinary action for arresting someone based upon their immigration status or for reporting them to the INS. Many crimes that might have been prevented by deporting known illegal immigrants are left undeterred because the police cannot use their illegal status to deport them until they have already been booked for a different felony.

Such policies blatantly undermine federal immigration law. Heather Mac Donald explains in her City-Journal article:

"Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city's sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to "terrorize people." Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history."

After September 11th there was outrage over the failure of Federal agencies to prevent the tragedy. And yet the possible contribution of mayor Giuliani's New York City sanctuary policy to September 11th has not been discussed by the mainstream media. While it may be appropriate to inquire into the failures of the federal government in the September 11th attacks, shouldn't there be an equal amount of outrage and demand for investigation into the role of city sanctuary policies? And yet over two years later the majority of the population of the United States isn't even aware that such policies exist.

Despite federal law and September 11th, this outrageous situation is still very common. Sanctuary policies are in effect in at least eighteen cities, including New York, Chicago, San Diego, Los Angeles, Austin, Houston, Minneapolis, Baltimore, and Seattle and in two states, Alaska and Oregon.

Since 1998, the city of St. Paul Minnesota has had a police policy that prohibits officers from "independently undertaking to approach, interview, interrogate or arrest any suspected illegal alien" when the main issue is immigration status violation. And, amazingly, this very month, the St. Paul city council is considering adopting an additional measure known as the "INS/City Separation Ordinance."

Why have the sanctuary laws of our nation's largest cities been so ignored by the mainstream media? You would think that even if they were completely neglected in the aftermath of September 11th, they would at least be addressed in relation to President Bush's proposed changes to immigration. The relationship between illegal immigration, sanctuary policies, and organized crime should be a major issue. Yet the mainstream media is still largely silent on the matter. Instead, they spend hours of airtime, newsprint, and bandwidth discussing how Bush's proposal will affect jobs, and whether it will encourage more illegal immigration. I suspect the media's silence is largely due to political correctness. To discuss any relationship between illegal immigration and crime would be labeled "racist" by the media language police faster than you can say "Francisco Martinez."

There is another group that also deserves a portion of the blame pie. The readiness of U.S. businesses to break the law by employing undocumented workers for the sake of avoiding taxes and paying lower wages is deplorable. If U.S. businesses would uniformly refuse to hire illegal immigrants it would help discourage illegal immigration by taking away some of their motivation. The situation is exacerbated by current immigration policies. Because foreign workers can only work in the United States for a very limited duration, companies that hire foreigners and obey the law must hire new workers on a very frequent basis. That makes it more difficult for them to compete with companies that are willing to break the law and hire illegal immigrants and thereby avoid the extra expense of frequently hiring and training new employees, not to mention taxation, worker's compensation, insurance and minimum wages.

The greatest danger to our nation is, in part, the result of widespread lawbreaking by businesses and law nullification by city governments. Conservatives seem ready to condemn the illegal immigrants who come seeking work and often advocate the harshest punishments for them (i.e. shooting them at the border) while at the same time barely hand-slapping the lawbreaking businesses and ignoring city sanctuary policies designed to undermine federal immigration law. This hypocrisy contributes to the unfortunate impression that conservatives are racists.

Under these circumstances, it is simply impossible for the Federal Government to enforce immigration laws. Even if the cities and businesses were cooperating, there is no way the federal government could muster the manpower and the funds necessary to identify, capture, and deport the vast numbers of illegal immigrants and then keep them out.

The immigration system is clearly broken and casting the blame on the Federal government alone is a huge oversimplification and misdirection of energy. Critics of the failure of the U.S. to enforce its immigration laws should direct their ire toward local governments that are endangering our nation with their ill-conceived and illegal sanctuary law.

How does President Bush's proposal relate to this immigration headache?

Rather than develop a detailed, specific plan for immigration reform, Bush wisely proposed principles upon which reform must be based if it is to be successful:

1. "America must control its borders...America is acting on a basic belief: Our borders should be open to legal travel and honest trade; our borders should be shut and barred tight to criminals, to drug traders, drug traffickers and to criminals and to terrorists."

2. "New immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country. If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."

3. "We should not give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully or hope to do so."

4. "New laws should provide incentives for temporary foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired."

By focusing on principles rather than specific plans, Bush provides a much more realistic and flexible approach to reform. The principles remain constant while the specific implementation may change according to how well it adheres to those principles.

The first principle and primary concern is about controlling the borders. Currently, city and state sanctuary policies completely thwart any attempt to apply this principle. The cities justify their sanctuary laws as a necessary measure to allow illegal immigrants who are victims of crimes to report them without fear of deportation. By allowing undocumented workers to receive a legal, temporary worker status, Bush's proposal takes away that necessity and leaves city sanctuary policies without justification. Under Bush's plan anybody who has an honest employment would have temporary worker status. All remaining illegal immigrants, lacking honest employment, could be assumed to be criminals and police officers could demand immigration documentation from anyone and arrest and deport anyone based solely on their immigration status.

In his proposal, President Bush explained:

"Our homeland will be more secure when we can better account for those who enter our country."

"Instead of the current situation, in which millions of people are unknown, unknown to the law, law enforcement will face fewer problems with undocumented workers, and will be better able to focus on the true threats to our nation from criminals and terrorists."

"And when temporary workers can travel legally and freely, there will be more efficient management of our borders and more effective enforcement against those who pose a true threat to our country."

By eliminating the excuse for sanctuary policies, Bush's principle-based plan would then allow local law enforcement to freely cooperate with federal authorities to control our national borders. The Bush proposal makes it possible for federal immigration authorities to focus their limited resources on those who pose the greatest threat to our domestic security: organized criminals. Contrary to the characterization it has received, Bush's proposal allows for more strict enforcement of immigration law and greater control over our national borders by facilitating the repeal of city sanctuary laws.

A related benefit of Bush's proposal is that without city sanctuary policies, law enforcement officers who apprehend illegal immigrants would be able to more easily identify businesses that break the law. Any organization or company that continued to employ undocumented immigrants rather than temporary workers would be suspected of involvement in organized crime or of supporting terrorism and could be investigated and dismantled.

The implementation of Bush's immigration proposal could eliminate a significant amount of crime in our large cities. It could be a significant blow to crime organizations, drug and weapons trafficking, and organizations that covertly support terror. It could help us control our borders to keep criminals and terrorists out.

Bush's proposal is not a scheme to appeal to Hispanic voters. It is a well informed, strategic move calculated to undermine the forces that are currently preventing our immigration laws from being enforced and endangering our nation. Bush's proposal is a brilliant move in a complex chess game. We should support him and encourage our representatives to support his proposal.

Illegal Immigration Ultimate Solution

Grant US Citizenship to all peoples of the world:

1 Would make unnecessary all the nonsense of immigration forms, border patrols, visas, passport controls and would permit the abolition of the INS and the US State Dept and save billions of dollars the US spends on our totally ineffective bureaucracies.

2. Would make the US a truly one world government since all peoples in the world would be eligible to vote in the US elections.

3. Would render all US constitutional protections (the few they do not already have) to all peoples of the world, at least, once they make it to our shores.

4. Since muslims are the most numerous peoples of the world, they could elect our leaders and we would be immune from fanatical attacks by muslims.

5. Would permit these same newly elected leaders to adopt Sharia Laws and abolish the same constitutional protections whereby they took power in the US.

6. The new leaders could then proceed to rid themselves of homosexuals, womans rights advocates, atheists, secularists, abortionists, and other Islamic undesirables by order of the local muslim clerics.

7. With the adoption of Sharia Laws, the institution of marriage would be reinstituted and bastardy prohibited since marriage is required in Islamic countries before the birth of offspring.

8. With adoption of Sharia, males would be free to have multiple wives and divorce rather easily. Wives chosen would be guaranteed to be virgins, and would work together with the other wives to make it heaven on earth for the male husband.

I am sure the leftists advocates of open borders and One Worldism will be thrilled with what they are about to accomplish. Conservatives might as will hurry the process.

But do not just rely on the argument that at least the Administration has a proposal, as a reason to accept that proposal.

I never claimed to "accept" it. I claimed it courageous of Bush to come forward with what I feel is a sweeping start toward coming to grips with a sweeping problem.

In disagreement with the central premises of the arguments in you link, it's difficult for me to see how that philosophical outlook is applicable to a systematic approach to a solution involving at least logarithmically increasing millions (which, incidentally I did not see therein either).

(We should thank God we're dealing with predominantly Judeo-Christians here, and not Muslims as in Europe, so that at least our basic morals and values have a common conrnerstone, and that these might ultimately be incorporated into our long term reigning in of this problem.)

I'd yet like W's formula hashed out in Congress a little, in the spirit of what even I might impress upon some members, if my approach here holds up...which I feel so far it's doing fairly well.

Best to You and Your, always.

Freedom and opportunity are broad words that have been misused by politicians for many generations. The early settlers, during those generations before the concept of an American was born out of what their descendants found they had in common, came here for a variety of reasons, probably the most common was to obtain land. (That pursuit is involved in the American concept of freedom and opportunity, I will grant you. But it is not the same thing as itself defining the American ethos.)

The common values, the descendants of those settlers--including those who abandoned land in Europe, either because they were driven out for religious reasons, or simply could not inherit because of the laws of inheritance, or whatever--the common values they developed, involved a level of individual responsibility and self-reliance, found in very few other places on this earth, at any time. The composite of this produced both the characteristics of our public documents and papers (such as the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, The Federalis Papers, etc..) and the attitudes which supported them and the values inherent therein. That composite also, set the stage for the extraordinary success that followed.

None of that is the slightest justification for allowing any wholesale new immigration, not consistent with the ethnic values of the creators of America, into an already rather crowded sub-continent. (Sure, there are great open spaces still. But neither the old settler families, the descendants of the immigrants who followed (such as this Ohioan), or any of those sneaking over the border, plan to locate new population centers on mountainsides, in the desert, or in various other places that have never been so used.)

The new arrivals--including the illegals--are swarming into already over-crowded areas, where they are negatively impacting the traditional American lifestyle.

I wish the Mexican people all the best. I would not support any future American design on any of their remaining land. Common sense would dictate friendship with our Southern neighbor. And common sense would also dictate Mexico for the Mexicans and America for the Americans.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

I am not quite sure what you mean by this paragraph. I understand that you disagree with some of my premises, but you do not argue that difference. Instead you throw out a mathematic concept, which has nothing to do with the ethnic realities, only the dynamic of the problem.

The fact that there is a veritable flood across the Southern border, only makes it more imperative that that flood be stopped. The idea that this is merely a peaceful invasion, does not make it less an invasion. And the fact that the invaders seek jobs, not conscious conquest, does not change either the immediate impact upon our society and its social institutions and customs, nor the long term influence that must surely follow.

Just in the mere tide, there is a clear and immediate problem. Gandhi basically discouraged the British very effectively, without firing a shot, by marshalling great mobs of people. It was a test of the will. And the British basically yielded because to have crushed the vast horde of Hindu followers of Gandhi in their own country, was seen as an act of cruelty, beyond what their (British culture) made acceptable.

But that was in the land, where the swarm were the natives. The swarm over our Southern border is in the land where we are the natives. And it is unconscionable not to stop this swarm. It is not courage to try to negotiate with it, it is a failure to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the peoples involved. Anyone familiar with Mexican culture, understands that it is not American culture, and Mexicans are not Americans. That is not a put down. The need to pretend that we are all alike is the put down for both Mexicans and Americans.

Both nations reflect their lines of descent; their inherited characteristics, reinforced by growing up in the cultures created by people with the same characteristics--the one area where there is a certain amount of environmental determination of cultural traits.

That statement combines a naivete that is staggering. In many ways the Christian Mexican peasant, is probably as far different culturally from our traditional society as is the Algerian Muslim in Paris--in some perhaps further, because the Algerian is predominantly Caucasian, whereas the Mexican mestizo is probably over half descended from the Aztecs or one of their conquered peoples. (And I do not want to sound cruel in pointing it out, but the Aztec leadership were basically slaughtered by the Spanish. These are their peasant class.)

The characteristics of a people are determined by their inherited traits--again admittedly reinforced by the society created by others with those traits. While religious affiliation can influence how people apply those traits, certainly, it is not a determinant of those traits. And the endless tales of corruption in local, State and Federal Governments in Mexico, surely provide some clue as to how significant is the Christian influence on the Mexican mestizo class. They are not steeped in the Christian ethic of George Washington, that "honesty is always the best policy."

Again, I wish the Mexican people well. I do not covet anything that is Mexican. The War in 1846 was over largely empty territory, and I believe that the rights and inheritance of the Mexican landowners, who were there, have been respected. If not, they should be compensated, but I believe they were and are respected; and that there is still consderable property held by families, which are now very much part of the America States, in which their families have dwelt for many generations.

Many of those families did indeed have values congenial to that of the "Anglo" settlers in the East. But that is not what is involved in this invasion by a lower class of persons, whose values are surely reflected in part in the corruption that almost every serious commentary on Mexico has acknowledged.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

"God does not recognize borders."

Neither did Marx.

A cute put down, but really a bit irreligious. In fact, by every indication, God both recognized borders and human ethnicity--certainly if one believes that the Bible has any insights on the subject. On the other hand, not only Marx, but Bin Laden--in our own time--has shown his total contempt for borders.

It is absurd that anyone would suggest that the Creator of life, would not respect the varieties he created; would not respect the characteristics of those varieties, including the penchant of many species--man included--to obtain dominion over land; to establish a property in land.

The tendency of some to invoke religion, to justify destroying their heritage is a very interesting phenomenon. Basically, they are trying to find a religious justification, in this age of secularization, to surrender the society, which the God fearing Founding Fathers built, and lovingly passed down to their posterity. But there can be no justification in Western theology for such an abomination. If the proponents of an undifferentiated humanity will not honor their own fathers and mothers, they need to at least respect the fact that others will still want to do so in the land of their birth.

They need to stop this distortion of religion. This land is not theirs to give away. It is the sacred patrimony of all rooted Americans, a people truly Blessed by the Creator.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

"on this thread, that is what is being given the light of day."

Yes, ridding the country of all the criminal activity caused by a high percentage of the members of that group is and should be a high priority.

"No matter how hard working many illegals may be they are criminals the moment they crossed our borders illegally. "

There are orders of magnitude difference in the level of technical criminality, between hard working folks that are essentially escaping for a better life and outright criminals. That difference is the essential feature the proposal focuses on. The focus is not on the one side, the criminal group.

" the enormous costs brought by illegals.:

The enormous costs were created primarily by rats that use them as a power base. The rats want to make them all citizens. The proposal addresses the matter.

"The average American has sacrificed a great deal for the rest of the world..."

Sure it has.

"...the income level is dropping due to illegals.

The income level is not dropping, because of illegals. They generally occupy sectors of the economy that don't exist w/o them.

"Americans are losing their jobs to non-Americans, even illegals.

This proposal has little to do with that. The proposal's main thrust is to rid the nation of the criminal element and wrench another bolt out of the rat machine. As far as Americans losing their jobs to non-Americans goes, Americans seem to be buying the foreign stuff and the economy isn't going down the tubes. Government intervention to protect American workers isn't called for here. Especially when the competition for labor is not here, but elsewhere, such as Red China.

"then there is the bilingual nonsense"

Yes, it is nonsense.

The costs of allowing illegals within our borders has been documented and it is enormous.
There is nothing in Bush's proposal that insures that after 3 years these guest workers will leave. Just as the government is not doing enough now to protect the borders, it will not do enough in 3 years.
And, just by Bush proposing this nationally, the Border Patrol agents have suddenly been dealing with 3 times the normal number of illegals pouring over the border.
Try living anywhere in the Southwestern U.S. and you will see how much bilingualism costs us. From voter pamphlets (oh yes, don't forget the voter fraud), to bilingual teachers, bilingual police, bilingual medical personnel, etc. And more, Americans are refused jobs because they are not bilingual. When an entire crew is spanish-speaking, they won't hire anyone else.
You do not have the facts on how wages at the low-end have been reduced by illegals working in canneries, hotels, janitorial services, car washes, fast food restaurants, etc.
Bush's proposal involves more than just illegals. His proposal states any foreigner from any country. This is a way around the 65,000 limit on H1bs. It means the labor pool is the whole world and 3rd world foreigners are willing to work for much less. Even as high-tech jobs are being lost to foreigners now, Bush proposing accelerating this. The accountants and paralegals are said to be next. The only sectors that have gained jobs are the low-end.
Bush's proposal will continue to gut the middle-class while continuing to hurt the low-wage earner.
Only a CEO would benefit. The word must get out that this is an attack on the average American.
My family's lived in Southern California for over 120 years. I've witnessed the destruction first-hand now for decades. I know Americans who could not get medical attention, but could have had they been illegals. Their doctors actually told them that to remove all uncertainty.

There is a very supportive network among the Hispanic community that helps every illegal from even before they cross the border. From housing, to medical, to jobs, to clothing, to welfare, to food stamps. They have all they need thanks to the American citizen, who is now suffering unduly and has already sacrificed (as you agree) for the 3rd world quite enough.

I strongly recommend Victor Davis Hanson's book "Mexifornia". Remember, as California goes, so goes the nation.
He stated on a national television program that he doesn't really care what color America becomes. But, he does care about our culture. And that we are headed toward Balkanization. In the early days, the number of illegals who crossed the border were comparatively few and could assimilate. Not anymore. We must reverse this, not accelerate it. BTW, our economy is not doing so well. We have a gigantic trade deficit with Communist China and a gigantic Budget deficit. Since Bush ~ 3 million jobs have been lost (mostly middle-class) and the shift of jobs has been from good wages to low wages. Coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

"The costs of allowing illegals within our borders has been documented and it is enormous."

Excluding the criminals now. I pointed out that the fundamental reason for the costs is not the presence of the people, it's the rat policies that are in effect and will be there until and if they are ever removed. Take the case where the doc claimed that if the patient was illegal they'd have the med care med care. A citizen has that same care if their condition and income are low enough. Bilingualism is also a rat invention. It's rat policy that is the problem.how much bilingualism costs us.

"any foreigner from any country"

Only certain countries were included in the proposal. H1s are a joke now, all the rules do is delay. The meaning and requirements of the rules are ignored.

"the middle-class...this is an attack on the average American."

Again the attack is from rats implementing rat policy. The middle class, the avg American has a great deal to do with creating and implementing that rat socialism. At each level of govm't local to fed the policies and rules have been put in place by Americans, not illegals. This proposal has the potential to diminish the rat base.

As I see it, focusing time and resources on an effective attack on all illegals is a big time losing proposition. It diverts energy from the real enemy, the rats, and gives them a big propaganda advantage. I see the proposal as an effective strategy to solve much of the problem from this source. As far as the numbers issued guest passes the unemployment rate is 6%. That means most of them should be deported. They will be if the implementation is done right.

As I see it America is already Balkanized. It's between the conservatives and the rats, Freedom and socialism. That's the real fight.

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.