Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate OKs Border Fence, Mulls Citizenship
AP ^ | 20 minutes ago | DAVID ESPO,

Posted on 05/17/2006 12:32:49 PM PDT by BenLurkin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 last
To: DevSix
The notion that GWB is offering "amnesty" is simply a false premise. Unless we all get amnesty every time we go to court and pay a fine - If I get a ticket for jay-walking or disturbing the peace....I go to court pay a fine.....case closed.

LOTS of smart conservatives would beg to differ...

AMNESTY

The action of a government by which all persons or certain groups of persons who have committed a criminal offense—usually of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of the government (such as sedition or treason)—are granted immunity from prosecution. Amnesty allows the government of a nation or state to "forget" criminal acts, usually before prosecution has occurred. Amnesty has traditionally been used as a political tool of compromise and reunion following a war. An act of amnesty is generally granted to a group of people who have committed crimes against the state, such as treason, rebellion, or desertion from the military.






April 10, 2006, Issue “There is no solid evidence that we’ve locked the ice caps in to a melting trend.”

— JASON LEE STEORTS  June 5 Issue





Meet El Presidente
Bush on the border.

By An NRO Symposium

Editor's note: On Monday night, President George W. Bush delivered a primetime address on immigration. National Review Online gathered a group of experts to react to it. Read their analysis below.



George Borjas

President Bush has a huge disadvantage when talking about immigration reform: He is not credible. He spent more than half his time discussing border enforcement, a subject that has not interested him before. Perhaps at the next press conference someone will ask why he did not take the meager steps outlined last night soon after 9/11.




  


Meet El Presidente 05/16

DCI Intel 05/08

Say What to Hu? 04/19

How It's Looking 03/21

For The Birds or Sleeping With The Fishes? 03/14

Women The World Should Know 03/08

  


OÂ’Beirne: Capital Disconnect

Buckley: Just What Did You Mean?

Norman: The Fan Perplexed

Kudlow: Fence or No Fence, WhatÂ’s All the Fuss About?

Editors: Window on the Week - 5/19/06

Schulz: Tax Cuts = More Spending?

Goldberg: ItÂ’s Iraq, Stupid

Novak: Hate at the Movies

Chesler: Priorities Out of Order

Lopez: Lacrossing a Line



He added a new rationale for a guest-worker program. Not only does Bush buy into the idea that guest-workers do jobs that “Americans are not doing,” he also believes that guest-workers are needed because the increased border enforcement and the new-and-improved employer sanctions cannot stem the tide of illegal immigration. How’s that for declaring defeat before the battle begins? Notably, President Bush skipped the part about how “temporary” guest-workers typically become permanent immigrants.


Finally, the president returned to the amnesty proposal that has obsessed him since the summer of 2001. But the illegals being granted relief will have to “wait in line behind those who play by the rules.” As of last night, some Filipinos have been waiting since November 1, 1983. Somehow, I suspect that Bush’s amnesty does not include a 23-year queue. In short, an untrustworthy and depressing sales pitch.

 

—George Borjas is Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard.



Senator John Cornyn

You might have missed it, but tucked into the president’s speech Monday night was an important commitment to federal assistance for local law enforcement. Legislation that will help meet their needs was also included in the immigration bill that’s now pending before the Senate. But the president’s support for the program—if properly funded—will give a much-needed boost to the men and women now providing needed backup to federal agencies along the border.


This important assistance, sometimes referred to as the 287(g) program, allows state and local law-enforcement officials to enforce our nation's immigration laws.  However, in order to participate in this program, the officers must undergo specialized immigration training and acquire customized equipment before the Department of Homeland Security will certify them.  Sheriffs and other law-enforcement agencies are actively pursuing assistance in facilitating training and other support. And the enhanced arrest authority this program provides has empowered local agencies to combat the steady increase of crime and violence stemming from the presence of illegal immigrants already in their communities. But a number of local agencies, particularly smaller jurisdictions along the southern border, lack the resources to send their officers to receive training or to purchase the required equipment and cannot justify local tax increases to carry out what is fundamentally a federal responsibility.


Ultimately, the federal government must live up to its responsibility to secure the border, and the president's renewed commitment Monday to reach that goal is an important step. But as we increase border-patrol agents, immigration inspectors, and detention beds, we should do all we can to draw on the presence and experience of existing law enforcement across this country to ensure the safety of their communities and, ultimately, the protection of the homeland.

  Â— Senator John Cornyn is a Republican from Texas. 


 

James R. Edwards Jr.

The president confirmed why his job-approval rating on immigration, 29 percent, is lower than his overall approval rating, 31 percent.


Mr. Bush’s primetime televised speech Monday night amounted to more empty words. The speech betrayed that comprehensive immigration reform is really code for amnesty and virtually open borders. Like the Senate, he’s learned nothing from our amnesty experience. Call it what he might, Mr. Bush continued to dangle amnesty before the world. Little wonder why the borders aren’t secured! If the president were serious about controlling immigration, he could reinstate enforcement measures he stopped: Social Security no-match letters to employers, border-patrol interior stings, NSEERS alien registration, for example.


He could stop opposing the CLEAR Act behind closed doors and empower willing state and local law enforcement nationwide. He could stop banks from accepting matricula consular ID cards. He could prosecute several hundred more than the three cases against employers of illegal aliens brought in 2004.

 

Mr. Bush could send the Army, Marines, and Air Force to the border, instead of the National Guard for a support capacity. He could build a real border barrier from the Gulf to the Pacific. He could stop ratting out the Minutemen to the Mexican government.

 

Actions speak louder than words. We got plenty more words.


—James R. Edwards Jr. is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. 


 

James G. Gimpel

The president’s speech was not reassuring and it proves that the business lobby is still driving the bus on this issue over at the White House. The president’s insistence on a “comprehensive” approach was code for "let’s water down anything by way of serious enforcement." This speech was a broadside directed toward the House GOP, signaling that the White House favors the Senate’s permissive approach.

The speech revealed persistent misunderstandings about immigration and the U.S. economy, but views widely held by highly paid business lobbyists. Toward the end of the speech and after conjuring up a series of romantic immigration images, the president said, “Immigrants are just as they’ve always been.” But that’s not the problem. The problem is that the U.S. is not “what it has always been”—or what it was 100 years ago. Legions of additional low-skill workers cannot be easily absorbed in an economy that increasingly values skills and education. There are already many low-skill natives (and previous immigrants) who are struggling to advance. On this current worrisome policy trajectory, we stand to vastly multiply the number of strugglers, making advancement much more difficult than it was in 1906 when the economy did not require much by way of skills, literacy, and education.

Finally, among those backing the president’s approach, there is no serious reckoning for how the path to legalization will be implemented, and the assumption that there will be widespread willingness to take this path is yet unproven. In the end, it is the implementation of immigration laws that lacks all credibility, not the laws themselves.
 

 Â— James G. Gimpel is a professor of government at the University of Maryland.   

 

 

Victor Davis Hanson

The president's comprehensive proposals include something for everyone:

For the conservative base: tamper-resistant identity cards; the National Guard on the border; employer sanctions; and emphasis on assimilation.


Liberals applaud a sort of earned citizenship without forced deportations; and appreciate Kumbaya rhetoric.

Libertarians and employers get their guest-worker program.

Of course, for those very same reasons no group will be happy. Yet the president mapped out the middle ground that will probably form the parameters of all future debate.

 

But my own chief worry is that guest-workers will only perpetuate the problem by supplying a continual unassimilated, low-paid, and ultimately volatile underclass. And such a helot program (a cultural and social catastrophe in Europe) is, in fact, antithetical to many of the president's own proposals. Cheap labor will undermine the wages of the very illegal aliens that are granted residence while they apply for citizenship; it will continually provide the fuel for La Raza and Aztlan romance; and keep fresh the tired ethnic sloganeering and tribal activists who hate assimilation and would die on the vine without fresh victims of "exploitation"—while ensuring that Mexico gets its remittances and avoids reform by exporting its unwanted.

 

Second, there was nothing specific offered to match the rhetoric of assimilation. Why not introduce court-proof, English-only legislation that would return our federal documents to one language? Or at least proposals in our schools to emphasize the melting pot? Or new patriotic citizenship applications that emphasize English and knowledge and appreciation of American culture?

All in all, I think the speech was politically astute in its emphasis on "transition" and the evolving nature of his remedies, and, pace critics, will probably earn the president more supporters than detractors. 

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.


J. D. Hayworth
The president last night was unconvincing. The enforcement proposals sounded good, but I don’t think his heart was in it.

The president said the U.S. wouldn’t militarize the border when it’s already been militarized—by the drug smugglers, coyotes, and Mexican troops. He said temporary workers must return to their home country when their work visas expire, but doesn’t tell us what will happen when they don’t.


Under the president’s plan, the more flagrantly you’ve broken the law, the bigger your reward. And if anyone needs a lecture on civility it is Vicente Fox and company, not our fellow Americans.


There was one area of agreement. The president said his plan allowing illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship wasn’t amnesty. He’s right—it’s better than amnesty. Illegal aliens come to work, not to become Americans. The president would let them work and get citizenship as a bonus. They’d also be pardoned for crimes, like using a phony Social Security card, which would land any American in serious trouble.


I was especially disappointed that the president again pushed the canard that some want to round up all illegal aliens. There is not a single elected official in Washington proposing that. 


All in all, a missed opportunity. 
 Â— J. D. Hayworth is a congressman from Arizona. He is author of Whatever It Takes.

 

Dan Lungren

The president has finally got it right by emphasizing the enforcement of our immigration laws as foundational to the other aspects of comprehensive reform.  His call for 6,000 additional border-patrol positions, financial incentives for state and local cooperation with federal immigration officials,  the deployment of the national guard in a supportive capacity, and the use of advanced technology and barriers along our southern border, all act as a force multiplier with respect to our immigration enforcement capacity.


As the author of the provisions in the House immigration bill, which would end the catch-and-release program for "other than Mexicans," I commend the president for his recognition that we must end this practice and increase our detention capacity.

 

The president's recognition of the need for a verifiable form of identification is essential if we are to be successful in demagnetizing the attraction of unlawful employment.  At the same time a temporary-worker program can contribute to regulating the flow of illegal immigration and making the job of the border patrol more manageable.  However, it must in fact be temporary, and must not be conflated with a disguised amnesty. 

  Â— Dan Lungren is a Republican member of the House of Representatives from California.


 

Heather Mac Donald

Dangling strings of shiny trinkets, President Bush tried last night to make contact with the restive natives. Six thousand National Guard troops on the border! Infrared cameras! Biometric work cards! Those baubles will dazzle ‘em, the Bush speechwriters must have concluded, and they’ll never notice that we’ve changed nothing in the border-breaking status quo.

 

Creating a biometric card is meaningless if you don’t penalize employers who ignore it. No fortifications at the border can withstand the avalanche of people seeking to violate our laws so long as they know that once they get across the border, they’re home free in a 3,000-square-mile sanctuary zone. But Bush said nothing about worksite enforcement. If this administration wanted to end illegal immigration, it would exchange those 6,000 National Guard troops for 6000 immigration agents with the mandate to enforce the laws that Congress passed 20 years ago.

 

Nowhere was the White House’s contempt for the American people more manifest than in Bush’s double-talk on amnesty, however.

 

First he demonizes those who have argued for immigration-law enforcement and grotesquely distorts their position: “Some argue that the solution is to deport every illegal alien and that anything short of that is amnesty,” Bush alleged.

 

I know of no one who has called for deporting every illegal alien. Instead, thoughtful analysts like Mark Krikorian have laid out the attrition strategy: Engage in just a little bit of enforcement to create a huge deterrent effect. After DHS deported 1,500 illegal Pakistanis following 9/11, 15,000 more left on their own. 


And opponents of amnesty do not argue that anything short of mass deportations equals amnesty. They make a much simpler argument: Amnesty equals amnesty. Bush’s advisers apparently think that the public can be fooled into believing that if there are a few procedural requirements to gaining legal status, the end result—amnesty—simply disappears. Those procedural requirements are themselves a joke. As Mickey Kaus has explained, Bush’s “illegals-must-wait-at-the-end-of-the-line” line is a con: by remaining in the country and jumping into the citizenship line, rather than the visa line, illegals have catapulted way ahead of law-abiding intending immigrants waiting in their home countries for a visa.  But even if the procedural requirements for amnesty were grueling, the final result is the same: people who are in violation of the law are granted lawful status. 

 

The tens of millions of aliens contemplating an illegal trip across the border will grasp that truth immediately; the Bush team thinks that the American public will not be so quick to see through the bait-and-switch bromides. The next month will tell if that gamble is right. 

  Â— Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor at City Journal

           
John O'Sullivan

I listened to the speech with some nervousness because my Chicago Sun-Times column was a critique of it, written and sent to press about two hours before Mr. Bush began speaking. (No shameful Fleet Street tabloid deception here—I leveled with the readers.) But would I be shown up as a laughably out-of-touch hack who had forecast all kinds of arguments the president never said and whose criticisms were accordingly wide of the mark?

 

Within minutes—no, seconds—I knew I was safe. Every misleading point I had deconstructed, every shallow rhetorical device I had unraveled, every omission I had forecast—all were trotted out, present and incorrect. None of this suggests any great insight on my part. The speech was a tired and tiring repetition of all the president’s previous sayings on immigration. Like them it was designed to suggest that he would be tough on border security and illegal immigration when in fact the small print of his proposals amounts to the “open door” that he celebrated in his peroration.

 

Take the idea of sending the National Guard to the border. This idea seems to shrink hourly so as not to offend Vicente Fox. The guard will now apparently play a purely advisory role in defending the country. But why will stepped-up border enforcement be needed if anyone who can contrive a job offer from a “willing employer” can be admitted perfectly legally? Tough talk about border security is simply camouflage for Bush’s policy of halting illegal immigration by the simple device of making it legal. Prospectively legal in the case of his guest-worker program, retrospectively legal as regards his “not an amnesty” amnesty.

 

Nor is the National Guard idea anything new. If you type “Bush,” “border security,” and “new initiative” into Google, almost 15,000 entries pop up.


To judge from reactions to the speech, however, there are some conservatives willing to be fooled fifteen thousand times. Still, there is an interesting division within the reactions. Those who follow the immigration debate closely were almost uniformly derisive about the speech. They know the details behind the rhetoric: for instance, that the president’s assurance that illegals will have to go to the back of the line behind legal immigrants actually means that they will be given the right of U.S. residency right away. Those who tuned in to the debate only recently, presumably most Americans, take the misleading rhetoric seriously. That is why the initial reception to the speech is likely to be more approving than the final verdict of most Americans when they learn that it promises the arrival of at least 103 million more people in the next 20 years and additional costs to the U.S. taxpayer of $30 billion annually. At least—in both cases.

When a presidential adviser was asked how such proposals could pass, he replied that the White House would marginalize their opponents. Oddly enough, though these opponents are about 70 percent of the American people, Bush may temporarily succeed in marginalizing them, at least inside the Beltway. But the long-term effect will be to marginalize the Republican party. Look at the Democrats smiling behind their hands—they have just been given the kiss of life.   

— John O'Sullivan is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington and editor-at-large of National Review. He is currently writing a book on Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.


Matthew Spalding
President Bush was good last night, strong on border issues and powerful on the idea of assimilation. The problem is that, no matter how many times he denies it, he favors amnesty.

This is underscored by the striking similarities between this proposal and the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986, which was neither “automatic citizenship” nor mass deportation. It, too, required several conditions, including added fees, learning English, background checks, and signing up for military service. The difference was that Reagan and everyone at the time discussed it for what it was: amnesty.

But however well intentioned, and even reasonable, the IRCA amnesty approach was a complete failure. Massive document fraud expanded the numbers, enforcement became politically objectionable and illegal immigration flourished. We’ve been there and done that before.

Let’s secure the borders, strengthen enforcement, and begin designing a reasonable and limited temporary-worker program. Deeply embedded illegal aliens here now can appeal to the courts for “extreme hardship,” and several millions will be legalized over time because their U.S.-born children can gain them legalization. Amnesty is unfair, and isn’t necessary. And it’s not a good first step down the path to citizenship.

 Â— Matthew Spalding is the director of the Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation.




<!-- .style1 { font-size: 14px; color: #003366; } .style3 { color: #000000 } .style4 { font-size: 14px; color: #000000; } -->

* * *

NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! ItÂ’s easy: You can subscribe to National Review here, or NR / Digital here. Or, you order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!
<!-- .table-graybox { border: 1px #999999 solid; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 0px} -->

NRO Marketplace . . . save 20-30% today!
 

© National Review Online 2006-2007. All Rights Reserved.

Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us

This page loaded in 0.166500 seconds.




151 posted on 05/19/2006 10:21:59 PM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: DevSix

" Furthermore there are always maximum penalties and or penalties on the books that judges see fit to give a lesser degree of punishment (and that still isn't amnesty).
When one gets a speeding ticket and has to pay a hefty fine but is put on probation for 6 months without accruing *points*...is that amnesty? "

No, since that is the normal punishment for such a minor offense. And when one is deported for violating the immigration law, that is not amnesty, but the normal punishment. But if you let violent murderers off that light (fine and probabtion) in violation of sentencing guidelines, it would/should be called amnesty or pardon.

The punishment/cure for illegal immigration is deportation, so letting illegal immigrants become legal without deportation *is* amnesty. Anything other than deportation or jail is a form of amnesty, the punishment is forgone.

Moreover:
1) there is ZERO punishment in the 2006 amnesty provisions. It is voluntary. Nobobdy is forced to get an H2C visa and then get citizenship. No judge makes them do this, its an application they send it.
2) $2000 is far from hefty. It is smaller than the cost of going through a legal H1B visa, when you add up the fees and lawyer costs! Frankly, its little more than a processing fee.
3) This bill is structured exactly like the 1986 bill, which everybody calls amnesty - you are supposed to learn English, you have some residency reqt, you have some work reqt, and you cant be a criminal; oh, and pay some fine/fee. WE DID THIS IN 1986 AND IT WAS CALLED AMNESTY.
4) It's a phony talkping-point of the pro-amnesty side, including Bush, to talk of "automatic path to citizenship" as what amnesty means. Wrong.Even if it didnt have an automatic path to citizenship, it would be amnesty, since it is forgoing the punishment (deportation). Even if we didnt have the social security giveaway, and even if we didnt let them go straight into permanent residency status within 6 years, it would be amnesty.
5) But wait there is more! ... The Senate in a huge giveaway now granted credit for fraulent deposits of Soc Sec taxes to illegal immigrants, meaning this - they pay a small fine of $2000, and get access to - welfare benefits, social security, medicare, etc. $2000 is not a fine, its like a country club or Sams Club membership fee.

The Senate bill loads up a whole bunch of goodies to 'entice' people into legalized status, it goes beyond amnesty, to a huge giveaway/reward for illegals.

So dont call it amensty if you wish - call it Sham-nesty.


"Furthermore the notion that we are going to round up 11 million people and remove / deport them is simply silly."

Yes, it is quite silly of the pro-amnesty crowd to use this strawman, as if the only choices are mass deportation or turning all 11 million into citizens. Ted Kennedy used this phony argument on the Senate, and it was debunked brilliantly by Sen Sessions, will sharea in followup.





152 posted on 05/20/2006 6:48:44 AM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
LOTS of smart conservatives would beg to differ...

And plenty of other smart conservatives would beg to differ with what you posted as well - The notion that good people can't come to differing solutions (in degree) on how best to handle this 40 year in the making problem is just silly (and that is the position, those on your side are trying to take).

The reality is we have a terribly flawed temporary worker program, a border security problem along with both a legal and illegal immigrant problem. These are all 40 (20) year in the making complex problems.

GWB is using commonsense to propose a systematic and comprehensive program at addressing all these issues. All are in need of reform. Waiting and pushing off certain aspects of the currently flawed system makes little sense.

The notion that we can't do this...until this is done (from a segment of the right...is not only foolishness it is simply a new ploy at moving the goal posts).

It resembles the foolish DEMs when it comes to tax-cuts..."we must address the deficit first ...before we can even talk about tax-cuts"....that is complete economic foolishness......Just as is the notion we can't or shouldn't have a comprehensive reform bill passed with regard to legal and illegal immigration along with the currently terribly flawed temp worker program.

Regards,

153 posted on 05/20/2006 7:14:58 AM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: DevSix

You clearly have no memory of past attempts to "comprehensively" fix our immigration problem. Even Reagan was suckered into it. Mark my words, if we have a solution that "comprehensively" grants amnesty while promising to increase border security and enforcement, the ONLY part that will stick will be the amnesty.

And pray tell WHY if this problem is 40 years in the making the sudden need to get it all done in one fell swoop? If we secure the border the pressure to rush into this will immediatly begin to fall. As the inflow stops attrition will start to lower the numbers. That will make it harder for the illegals to "swim in the sea". Itwill lower their promise of growing political clout. It will lower the strain on all our social services. We can actually have a rational debate on who stays and who goes, and what kind of immigration policy we actually desire.


154 posted on 05/20/2006 11:10:50 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
You clearly have no memory of past attempts to "comprehensively" fix our immigration problem. Even Reagan was suckered into it. Mark my words, if we have a solution that "comprehensively" grants amnesty while promising to increase border security and enforcement, the ONLY part that will stick will be the amnesty.

You're wrong -

And pray tell WHY if this problem is 40 years in the making the sudden need to get it all done in one fell swoop?

1. Because it is clearly a problem and this President looks to address problems head on and full (not simply pass things on to the next admin). 2. Because a segment of the base has decided to foolishly hang on the cross of immigration martyrdom -

Lastly the need for reform regarding our currently flawed temporary worker program is terribly needed - A sizable portion of those currently here illegally did not come here from day one "illegally"...they were simply part of a terribly flawed workers program and never left!

Securing the border along with fixing the current temp worker program is needed. There is no reason to do one without the other.

Furthermore making a pragmatic decision on what best to do with those currently here is another decision that might as well get done now...not later.

Lastly if the GOP base foolishly puts the DEMs in control of Congress in Nov over this issue we are worse then the DEM base itself -

Our soldiers off fighting a war deserve better then for us to cut their legs out from underneath them in the middle of this war...by putting into office the anti-American, anti-military, anti-soldier, anti-success in the WOT democrats into office.

06 is not the time for this fight - There are plenty of times to step away from one's party over narrow political reasons...this is certainly not one of those times in our nations history.

155 posted on 05/20/2006 12:49:20 PM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: DevSix

Utter balderdash. The vast majority of the 20 million here illegally were illegal from day one.


156 posted on 05/21/2006 7:24:59 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson