What's Right on Immigration?

Tech Central Station ^ | January 12, 2004 | Stephen M. Bainbridge

[quidnunc]

It's been a very long time since U.S. politicians addressed illegal immigration in anything approaching a comprehensive way. President Bush came into office planning to change that through negotiations with Mexico and new legislation. Those plans got derailed by 9-11, but last week the President put illegal immigration back on the policy front burner with a major policy address.

The reactions across the political spectrum were predictable but still disappointing. The extreme left dismissed President Bush's plan as an effort to revive the controversial post-World War II bracero program. The Democratic presidential candidates mostly supported the idea of immigration reform, while claiming they would do it better, fairer, or whatever. And, not surprisingly, many voices on the right condemned the plan as an amnesty that will encourage even more illegal immigration. The National Review Online's Corner blog, to cite a particularly prominent example, has been dominated by vehement attacks on Bush's plan, such as Rich Lowry's call for "conservatives [to] go to the mattresses on this one."

Granted, the devil is in the details, but the broad outline set out by President Bush deserves praise rather than censure. The plan is good for the economy. It will contribute to our national security. It will address pressing humanitarian problems posed by the current system.

-snip-

[international american]

I give it 10.............ROTFLMAO!!

[FSPress]

deport them either concurrently or sequentially - but have the stones to enforce the law.

[joesnuffy]

Illegal Alien Crime Wave

[FSPress]

Foxy likes it.

[Happy2BMe]

Thank you for that information > > Illegal alien crimes.

[livius]

. Instead, it is his critics on the right who are pursuing the utopian dream that we can deport and deter illegal immigrants.

Excellent article. People who are foaming at the mouth about this seem to have no reasonable plan of their own to offer. Furthermore, there's definitely a lot of plain old bigotry in much of what they say.

But leaving aside that unpleasant matter, one thing that nobody seems to discuss is the fact that massive illegal immigration and people-smuggling over the Mexican border is not going to stop until Mexico gets serious about stopping it.

Mexico, dysfunctional, corrupt socialist paradise that it is, depends heavily on the money sent back by these immigrants, and does not seriously want to stop illegal immigration. Regularizing the status of these people keeps the money flowing to Mexico (remember, it is not in our best interest to have a truly impoverished state next door to us), and will take away Mexico's biggest (if unspoken) reason for not cooperating. The border will only work if it is enforced on both sides, and this I think this is a step in the right direction.

[lonewacko_dot_com]

The author has a blog: http://www.professorbainbridge.com

However, he does NOT have comments enabled. (He does however, have trackbacks if you have your own blog...)

[bastantebueno55]

I read the Mark Steyn piece that talked about the need for a complete overhaul of the immigration bureaucracy, and I agreed with many of his points.

All you have to do is read the postings and see time and time again the hate language directed towards illegal immigrants. That's what I'm responding to, and that's what really turns my stomach.

I respect those with opposing views who present reasonable arguments and analysis, but many who are on the other side of this question argue solely on the basis of xenophobia--fear of the stranger, and they offer nothing but bilis and invective. And I haven't seen too many of these people offer any kind of thoughtful response to the rational arguments on my side of the issue.

We seem to be caught in the classic Crossfire scenario--neither side really listening to the other side, everybody just wanting to get in their soundbite.

[Mr. Mojo]

The plan .....will contribute to our national security.

I didn't hear the Prez address a tightening of border security.

[Beck_isright]

"A much larger percentage of those who do so have no interest what-so-ever in assimilating into American culture or adpoting allegiance to this country than those who do."

A very important point lost in this discussion, IMHO.

[Beck_isright]

Now that is funny. Add me to your ping list please!!!!

[putupon]

Welcome to the Kool Aid PING List

p

[My2Cents]

Harvard economist George Borjas (himself a Cuban immigrant) has concluded that mass immigration decreased the wages of college graduates, on avearge, 4.9% in 2000, the wages of college graduates with 11-15 years work experience by 5.9%, and the wages of Americans without high school diplomas by 8.9%

How so? You cite on economist, and give no details.

[My2Cents]

For what types of jobs? Minimum wage for working on a tomato harvester? I don't see any white Americans working those kind of jobs.

[My2Cents]

What's to stop any business from pricing Americans out of whatever job market they choose?

Well, I guess socialism would.

[My2Cents]

Plans for greater security at the border was one of the things Bush was talking to Vicente Fox about today.

[singsong]

Bump for later read.

[My2Cents]

It's not so much the immigrants, but the race-baiter/La Raza types who are the ones who don't want assimilation because they think we Anglos are sitting on their land to begin with -- we're the "illegal aliens."