Michelle Malkin and Marine Inspector.
Can you guess who is who?
Posted on 01/29/2003 2:41:52 PM PST by Marine Inspector
PHOENIX – Saturday night’s debate, sponsored by the Sonoran News and held at the Arizona Historical Society Museum, between Michelle Malkin and O. Ricardo Pimentel – both published authors and syndicated columnists – began with a common denominator ... America’s immigration system is broken. However, all agreement ended there.
Both Malkin and Pimentel are the American-born citizen children of immigrants. Malkin’s parents emigrated from the Philippines, while Pimentel’s parents came from Mexico.
How can they be so divided on an issue so close to both of them?
After hearing the one thing in their background that makes them different, one can only speculate that it is out of love and respect for their parents.
Pimentel spoke of how his parents came to this country in the 40s, but didn’t become “legal” until Pimentel was about eight years old. In other words, they arrived illegally.
Malkin’s parents immigrated to the United States legally.
Pimentel isn’t about to say that his parents did anything illegal. What he did say was that they came here to work and never collected Welfare or any other handouts. Pimentel doesn’t use the word “illegal” attached to the word “immigrant” and refrains from using the word “alien” at all.
“... undermining the meaning of citizenship”
Malkin opened the debate talking about how people, who shouldn’t have been, were issued visas to come here. Citing applications for visas that were filled out in a half-hazard manner, followed by sloppy background checks, she said, “People were snoozing in their offices.”
Malkin stressed how the combination of selective enforcement coupled with 1,000 miles of unguarded borders contributes to “undermining the meaning of citizenship.”
Not opposed to legal immigration, Malkin said, “Our deportation system is set up to fail.
“The odds are, there are no consequences for breaking the law. We should not send a message that it’s OK to break the law.”
She reminded everyone that Beltway Sniper John Lee Malvo, who terrorized innocent people in her home state of Maryland, passed through the border patrol, and was set free because he wasn’t considered a “flight risk.”
For Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enforcement agents to detain or formally deport anyone, they look for crimes that illegal aliens may have committed in this country. Illegal aliens are routinely set free without INS knowing whether or not they have committed any crimes in their own country.
Malkin stated there are approximately 300,000 people currently in this country who have been ordered deported, still roaming around. “With millions of people all over the world who want to come here, the American people have a sovereign right to know who the people are that come here,” Malkin said.
During Pimentel’s “cross examination” of Malkin, he asked where she would start.
Malkin answered, “We need to start with the 300,000 ordered deported instead of the catch and release program being used.”
Pimentel asked, “What if someone just “looks” like someone suspicious from another country, should police just stop them?”
Yes, yes,” Malkin answered emphatically.
With the upcoming disassembly of the INS, as we know it, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there will now be two separate departments, one to handle enforcement and one to handle services.
Malkin referred the audience to a website: deportaliens.com, which, among other things, explains the new DHS, and states, “Maybe the federal government could take Michelle Malkin’s advice and finally use the DHS to stop the daily invasion of terrorists, criminals and other foreign menaces.”
Pimentel said, “The deck is not stacked for the immigrant, it’s stacked for INS.”
He added, “I agree the immigration program is broken. It’s the method [of repairing] I have a problem with.”
Pimentel told Malkin, “You’ve done a pretty good job of telling us why we should be afraid. And, I agree.”
Again, he asked about the fix.
Malkin said there are so many who are allowed in under false pretext and abuse of our system ... overstaying student or work visas, the H1-B program, fraudulent marriages and more.
“Crack down on fraud,” she offered as part of the solution.
“The devil is in the details.”
Pimentel spoke about his books, which are both fiction, and said even though the books are not about immigration, the fictional characters give insight about the lives of immigrants.
“I know fully well there are bad people here, both legally and illegally,” Pimentel said, adding, “I accept as an article of faith that our broken immigration policy needs to be fixed. I have a problem with the approach.
“We need to have a border and immigration policy that can tell the difference between terrorists and dishwashers.”
Pimentel said people come here to do the jobs nobody here wants to do, stating, “They’re here because we need them here. If we stop them, we’ll be looking for a way to let them in.”
He felt the events of Sept. 11, 2001 were more about intelligence failure, stating they were also not our first terrorist attacks.
He questioned people’s motives for getting tough on immigration, drawing laughter from the crowd when he said, “I’ll say it before anyone does ... ‘Ricardo, what part of illegal do you not understand?’”
He went on to say, “Without immigrants, we would not have experienced the economic boom of the 90s,” which the audience responded to with groans and grumbling.
“Placing the National Guard at the border is throwing more money at a system that doesn’t work. We need a policy that is legal and safe,” Pimentel said.
With Pimentel advocating a “legal and safe” guest-worker program of some sort, it was Malkin’s turn to grill Pimentel.
He agreed that Americans should be waging a war on terror. But, he said we need an immigration policy to keep track of those who come to work in a legal and safe manner.
“The devil is in the details,” said Pimentel.
He briefly stumped Malkin when he asked rhetorically, “If someone with a grade-school education came in by duping the system, why wouldn’t we expect someone from Al Qaida to be able to?”
Pimentel staunchly believes in a policy that allows people to come here to work.
Malkin asked, “How do you distinguish between “good worker” illegal aliens and others? I assume you support the Matricula Consular (cards issued by the Mexican Consulate to illegal aliens for identification)?”
He did.
“It allows them to open a bank account,” he said.
Malkin responded back, “It encourages them to come here illegally, work here illegally, and stay here illegally,” bringing a large round of applause from the audience.
During a short break, the audience was allowed to fill out cards with questions to ask either or both Pimentel or Malkin.
Who better to sort out the devil in those details?
Congressman John Shadegg, who has been involved in trying to pass immigration reform bills over the years, masterfully moderated the debate. However, he needed help from his chief of staff to help sort through the hundreds of questions submitted during the break.
The first question: “If you allow illegal aliens into the United States, doesn’t that take jobs away from Americans?”
Pimentel answered, “Most undocumented immigrants are here doing jobs U.S. citizens don’t want to do. It’s a match made in heaven. They are not here ... not working ... they are here working.”
Responding to the same question, Malkin said, “I categorically reject that mantra that these people are here doing jobs no one else wants to do,” and cited several examples of legal immigrants who took low-level jobs that “no one else wants to do,” while they may have been working their way up to better positions, going to school, learning English and a variety of other reasons.
“Legal immigrants come and do jobs that ‘no one else wants to do.’ I would prefer that people come in the ‘front door,’” Malkin said.
The next question was about whether or not there should be a crackdown on employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens.
Malkin responded, “Should employer sanctions be enforced? Yes, yes, yes!
“We don’t need new laws. These laws have been in effect since 1986.”
Shadegg asked the next question, “Do you favor a guest worker program?”
“I favor a guest worker program with reasonable parameters,” Pimentel answered, adding, “The devil is in the details.”
He also stated that if one sector (farm workers) is allowed guest workers, the rest should be also.
“Do you favor issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens?”
Malkin answered, “No, I don’t. This is a trend that started before 9/11. Tennessee had to call in the National Guard to control DMV.”
Malkin expressed that she does not believe states should be offering privileges or rights to illegal aliens that encourages them to be here illegally.
Pimentel, again, was on the other side of the fence. He said, “I do favor issuing driver’ licenses. They’re here working. They need to drive to work. They’re here and we need them to be here.”
Shadegg prefaced the next question with Pimentel’s comments referring to the draw of employment as a reason to be here. He then said, “There is also the draw of free services,” asking, “Should we provide free services to anyone who shows up? Who should pay, if anyone ... should we bill their country?” Another question was asked later about providing free medical.
Pimentel said there is “a disconnect” between taxes, mostly federal, that these people pay and the money states receive to provide those services.
The audience audibly disagreed with Pimentel.
“No and yes,” answered Malkin. No, we should not provide free medical to illegal aliens. Yes, we should bill their country.
Malkin said she wrote about this situation in Arizona last year: Chronic care ... dialysis, chemotherapy and other treatments for illegal aliens, while elderly citizens are doing without. “This is intolerable,” she said. Another question came from a schoolteacher. “There are illegal aliens enrolled in our schools every day.
Why shouldn’t I be allowed to pick up the phone and call INS?”
Malkin responded, “I didn’t know she couldn’t.” Although, Malkin is aware that INS would most likely not do anything.
Pimentel had the opposite view: “I don’t think she should (call) ... we can’t afford not to educate them.”
Shadegg asked next, “Should we consider changing the ‘anchor baby’ law?” This is when a baby is born in the United States to illegal immigrants. Although the baby is automatically a citizen, when the baby turns 18, he/she can then petition to legally bring his/her family to this country, which in turn may petition to bring their family, beginning a chain of migration that seems never-ending.
While Malkin thought it warranted consideration, Pimentel did not.
Malkin elaborated, “Many come here just to produce anchor babies so they can petition to stay.
“This should be a country not just for people to come and work, it should be one where people give something back ... not just take, take, take.”
Because civil liberties are at the crux of many of the illegal alien issues, the next question asked, “What rights do they have under the law? What rights should they have?”
Malkin said they already have plenty of rights as she explained the extensive appeal process.
Pimentel believes: “It would open up the specter of racial profiling,” adding, “If we do this in the name of security, we do damage.”
Amnesty for Mexicans ... enforce the laws against everyone else
The next question asked about those who are already here illegally. Should we make them legal, grant them amnesty? Why or why not?
Pimentel said, “To grant ‘regularization’ would simply be grasping reality.” He provided loose parameters under which it might be done. If they can show they’ve been here for five years, working, not collecting welfare ...
They should be “regularized,” he said.
Malkin said the Amnesty Act of 1986 was to be a one-time thing. Now, when those who get into the country, illegally, they just wait until the next amnesty act comes along to become legal.
“Racial profiling?” Malkin asked Pimentel, “It’s OK for Mexicans but enforce the laws against everyone else.
How do you explain that?”
Pimentel responded, “You have to have a system that can determine the difference between a terrorist and a dishwasher.”
Should citizens have to provide proof of citizenship in order to vote?
Pimentel explained, “We already have a low voter turnout of only 15 to 20 percent and you want to throw more obstacles at them?”
Malkin responded to his comment with sarcasm, “What a civil rights violation, asking if you are an American citizen when you go to vote!”
Could there ever be a system that can differentiate between those who are productive and those who are not?
Malkin talked about the H1-B program that allows workers in certain professions to come here to work, due to a lack of Americans to fill those jobs has “spun out of control” and is completely unmonitored.
She laughed at the “random visa lottery” that allows anyone to come here, requiring no special skills. “What is that all about?
“It is a privilege to be here, not a right,” she added.
Pimentel said, “If we had a system that could match workers with jobs ... we both agree the program is broken. It’s the approach”
Malkin closed saying, “Native-born Americans don’t have to take an oath of citizenship as my parents did. Upholding that oath has no exceptions.
“New York City is a sanctuary for illegal aliens. It’s time we ended that. A nation without borders is not a nation.”
Pimentel said, “One solution is to let our fears rule us. Sept. 11 did change things. But, it shouldn’t change who we are or deny freedom for those who come here.
“Please don’t think because we disagree that I feel anyone is racist or because we disagree that I am not patriotic.
“Savants predicted, 100 years ago, immigrants would not be able to assimilate,” he said.
Pimentel pointed out how the original Irish and European immigrants have assimilated and it was now time for the new Americans, saying, “We should not assume assimilation is painless.”
Protesters to Malkin’s point of view and her book “Invasion” were busy making signs during the debate, to make their point afterward. They stood in the lobby holding signs that read:
“We are not Invaders,” “Stop Discrimination! No more Racism” and “Behind Your Words Terrorist is Hidden. You Are Comming [sic] to Devide [sic] Our Society. Stop Discrimination. Think Before Say [sic].” Police escorted Malkin out a front door of the hall for safety.
Additional officers were called in to escort Pimentel and his daughter out a side door after someone in the audience said that he planned to “kick Pimentel’s ass in the parking lot.”
Shadegg will have plenty to think about when he goes back to Washington.
For those who were unable to attend the sold-out debate, audio and videotapes of the event will be available soon through the Sonoran News. Malkin’s book “Invasion” is currently available for purchase at the Sonoran News.
There are photos at the link.
I have a photo of Michelle and I, we sat together for two hours, but my equipment to download it from the camera to the computer is at my other house. I hope to have it up soon.
Pimentel was way off the mark on allot of the issues, but he had the balls to show, which most people will not when Michelle is slated to debate them.
Michelle Malkin and Marine Inspector.
Can you guess who is who?
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.