Posted on 05/09/2005 5:54:15 PM PDT by 45Auto
President Bush may be heading for a catastrophic political crash over illegal aliens, and if he doesn't start paying attention to the problem, he could go down in history as another president whose stewardship ended in disaster. The ghosts of Presidents Johnson (both Andrew and Lyndon) and Nixon may soon haunt this White House.
Story Continues Below
More to the point, thousands or hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of Americans may die because the bipartisan chattering class "fiddles while Rome burns," to cite the old metaphor.
At his April 28 news conference, not a single reporter – not one – asked the president about the issue of protecting our borders, even though it is a major concern for millions of Americans, right up there with gas prices. This is a classic example of the great divide between the elites and the general public.
Two different planets are at work here. On the one hand, journalists, academia, entertainment, many Washington politicians and a good slice of the business community ignore the problem as if it doesn't even exist. Meanwhile, on the real-world planet, the citizen-driven Minutemen (many with law enforcement or military backgrounds) monitored the border to help the woefully understaffed Border Patrol to do the job that most of us think the government should be doing.
For their patriotic volunteer service, President Bush called them "vigilantes" and liberal TV commentator Juan Williams compared them to the Ku Klux Klan.
That latter slur, of course, gets back to the disingenuous effort to blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration. We're not talking about legal immigrants. As is often said, we're "a nation of immigrants." In fact, it is the legal immigrants who play by the rules and get the shaft when law-breakers cut in line and participate in what columnist/author Michelle Malkin calls an "invasion."
It's not as if we have not been warned. Mr. Bush's own secretary of state has sounded the alarm. Secretary Condoleezza Rice on March 10 warned that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are making every effort to get into the United States through Mexico and Canada. Similar warnings have recently come from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Hello? Anybody home? What does it take?
What's more, Secretary Rice visited Mexican President Vicente Fox and told him straight to his face that the Mexican border is a problem. Al-Qaida, she said, is trying "to get into this country and into other countries by any means they possibly can [the Mexican border included]. That's how they managed to do it [before 9/11] and they will do everything they can to cross the borders."
Propaganda has created widely repeated myths about the alleged advantages of illegal immigration. Here are some samples (space constraints prevent a full review).
Myth #1: Illegal immigration is "good for the economy."
Oh, really? I guess that's why West Coast author, columnist, NewsMax contributor and talk show host Kathleen Antrim told me that the porous Mexico-California border is "drowning our state's economy, to the tune of about $10.5 billion a year." Sixty-five emergency rooms in Southern California had to shut down, "hung out to dry on millions and millions of unpaid medical bills."
She adds that we should be caring for these people, but "we need to send the bill to Vicente Fox." (Antrim, by the way, was one of a group of talk show hosts and others who converged on Washington in late April to urge policy-makers to fix the broken immigration enforcement system.)
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates the entire nation's annual tab for illegal immigration at up to $70 billion. If that's good for the economy, God forbid we ever have to learn the hard way what's bad for it.
Myth #2: The old line that illegal aliens are needed because they're willing "to take the jobs that Americans don't want" is easily demolished.
First, Antrim says, "There are no jobs that Americans won't work for," adding, "There are jobs Americans won't do only when the wages are artificially suppressed." The idea that we need cheap labor from over the border is "an elitist attitude," she says. Further, "we are exploiting these people. A civilized society doesn't treat people this way. It makes me outraged when I hear these elitist statements, which I think border on racism."
Mark Krikorian, author and executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), adds that even if such treatment could be morally justified (which it can't), it is not at all good for the economy.
Speaking recently at a luncheon of Accuracy in Media (AIM) here in Washington, Krikorian said if employers hired Americans for those jobs, they would be paying more money, better benefits, better retirement plans.
Some of them would be able to cut their costs with machines that would take up much of the slack. More jobs, in turn, would go into the industries providing the mechanization. Funny thing about the free market: It may not always be neat and orderly, but in the end it pays for itself. In fact, such advances would have been implemented long ago but for the fact that cheap labor from Mexico is available, so why bother?
In Japan, where such cheap foreign labor is not readily available, according to Krikorian, "vending machines dispense everything from meat to panty-hose." U.S. employers, in many cases, are faced with the choice: "Mechanize or Mexicanize," he stated. "Employers [in this country] will regret going the low-tech route," he believes, because it will disadvantage us with our trading partners, resulting in failing businesses and, of course, the concurrent loss of jobs.
Myth #3 argues that we are an aging society, and we need the influx of illegals to pay into the Social Security system while we're lying around on the beach in our old age.
Krikorian has done the math on that, too. He says considering our (essentially flat) birthrate, even if we were to import 5 to 15 times as many illiterate illegal immigrants, it wouldn't beef up Social Security for anything more than perhaps "a couple of months."
Myth #4: Well, so what are we going to do? It's a Hobson's choice: Either try to deport 10 million people or get them out in the open through legalization.
Wrong again. Consistent enforcement of the immigration laws starting now could reduce the problem to a manageable nuisance within seven to eight years, according to CIS.
Myth #5: The asylum program can protect our security.
Not really. That assumes we have the bureaucratic capacity to do a background check on over 10 million people. There are hundreds of thousands of asylum applicants.
Even the slightest hint that our government is making more than a weak effort to enforce the immigration laws is worthy of the horse laugh.
As I write this, a rally is planned at a location about three or four miles from here in the Washington area. A coalition of pro-illegal alien groups (I refuse to call them "undocumented") is demanding that illegal aliens continue to be issued driver's licenses. About 5,000 immigrants, including some of questionable legal status, were expected to attend. One coalition leader claims that denying border crashers the "right" to gain driver's licenses "will make millions of people that live in our nation hide even more."
(Right. And I guess you can say that if we insist on enforcing those nasty laws against bank robbery, bank robbers will want to "hide even more." Give me a break.)
Michael Graham, a local radio talk show host (on Washington's WMAL) has spotlighted such "immigrant rights" rallies in the area and has challenged the authorities from law enforcement and immigration control to show up, make some arrests and (gasp!) actually enforce the law. As of this writing, he's had no takers.
In fact, Graham showed up at the rally at the taxpayer-subsidized high school and was told he could not enter because the event was "by invitation only." Despite his media ID, he was told he lacked "proper ID."
Talk about irony of ironies. A rally is held to uphold the right of law-breakers to enter this country without "proper ID" (i.e., a genuine passport), and an American citizen is barred from entering and in the process is roughed up by thugs who are later joined by the cops. The cops uphold the right of the thugs to prevent a citizen from entering a rally that advocates giving driver's licenses to people who do, in fact, lack "proper ID" to be here. I know that's crazy, but you have to live in the People's Republic of Montgomery County, Maryland (as I do) to understand it.
This is not trivial. Driver's licenses can lead to obtaining passes that will get you into some rather dicey security areas. That ID also makes it easier to open new bank accounts, which can facilitate money-laundering in support of terrorist activities. No one who has no right to be here in the first place has a "right" to a driver's license.
Now back to our original point. The lax security at our borders means we are playing Russian roulette with American lives. And President Bush should be worried about that. Here's why: Does anyone think that poor, illiterate Mexicans, escaping the economic consequences of the decades-old Marxism and corruption in their own country, are the only people crossing our borders without the authority of a legal passport?
At the Institute of World Politics' annual Pearl Harbor Day dinner last December 7, I asked the much-decorated hero General John Singlaub to address the argument made by some that virtually unfettered illegal immigration is a benefit to the economy.
"We have got to do something to defend ourselves against people who want to kill us," he responded. "The economy can go to hell as far as I'm concerned," the general declared, adding that if you're dead, a healthy economy can't do you much good.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado and a voice in the wilderness on the dangers of our lax immigration policy, cited the bottom line in a Fox News interview. Host Bill O'Reilly said to him, "And you know, if it comes down to the fact that a radiological device or a chemical or biological device is put in here by al-Qaida, and it's traced back to Monterrey, Mexico, or Mexico City, it will be impeachment.
TANCREDO: It should be.
O'REILLY: That's the belief.
TANCREDO: It should be, Bill. I absolutely agree with you. If something like that happens, I believe it is an impeachable offense. And believe me, I have no qualms about introducing such a measure. But who wants to win this thing?
O'REILLY: Nobody wants that to happen.
I asked Krikorian what he thought would happen if another 9/11 occurred and it could be traced back to lack of adequate border enforcement.
"I think he [the president] would be in real danger of being impeached" was his response, though he, too, didn't think anyone at this point would be interested in seeing that happen. Many of us who like this president wish he would focus on this problem.
But alas, the Social Security Administration is getting paperwork from workplaces all over the country for new employees with numbers that don't match anyone on record – which likely means they are fake – and "they [the authorities] do nothing about it."
If you think Vicente Fox is an arrogant, tough cookie to deal with, wait until he steps down at the end of 2006. Mexico City Mayor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the current presidential font-runner, is of the "Yanks are oppressing us" strain of thought.
Krikorian fears President Bush doesn't even view Mexico as another country. He posits a time [perhaps decades hence] when the California governor will have to check with the Mexican consulate in Sacramento before signing legislation that has any impact on our relations with Mexico.
"Mexifornia" (or MexAmerica), here we come ... unless you let Congress and the White House know you're watching them. Most politicians think you don't care.
As I joke to my liberal friends who say "well, I won't move to canada like
I promised because we only have 4 more years of w"...the constitution says
one cannot be *elected* to office of the president more than twice, but
one can *serve* more then two times.
If the people who claim that W was not truly elected in 2000 can make
their case sufficiently in a court of law, then he could run in 2008:)
Personally though, I'd prefer someone who supports the rule of law.
Exactly. I am afraid that for a variety of reasons we have unfortunately allowed the issue to be focused from the perspecitves of legality and national security. This gives the elites an easy out: assure us that immigrants will be screened to weed out potential terrorists, cobble together some sort of pro-forma documentation and let the flood continue. Yes, national security is an issue. But simply providing a way to screen the millions of third world immigrants flowing into the country to ensure they present no national security concerns ignores their economic and cultural impact.
This is already Dubya's "legacy" -- he doesn't believe the United States of America is a sovereign nation.
Sorry for the confusion...Ill try to clear things up a bit...
I said that allowing illegal immigration to go unchecked will eventually result in establishing a socialist power base for the democrats / leftists.
Do you agree with that for starters?
I never mentioned Bush by name...nor did I assign motive or agenda to him. I dont know why Bush is inattentive to the illegal immigration issue. If you know...you can educate me and others....clear up my confusion as it were.
Sometimes people do the right things for the wrong reasons...or the wrong things for the right reasons. Sometimes people make misjudgements. Bush has misjudged the immigration issue. That doesnt mean Bush has a socialist agenda. But Big Labor, and other leftist groups...who favor unchecked immigration do have a socialist agenda. Bush's inattention to this issue enables those who have a socialist agenda.
Does that help?
"Oh, really? I guess that's why West Coast author, columnist, NewsMax contributor and talk show host Kathleen Antrim told me that the porous Mexico-California border is "drowning our state's economy, to the tune of about $10.5 billion a year." Sixty-five emergency rooms in Southern California had to shut down, "hung out to dry on millions and millions of unpaid medical bills." "
Wait until a few FReepers have to admit their mother or father to the emergency room for a stroke or a heart attack, and have the emergency room full of illegals with superficial cuts and head colds.....like what happened to me with my dad at St John's Hospital 4 years ago. I had to physically threaten an orderly to have him examined. I was almost arrested. I am no longer a Republican; at least not until they clean up their act big time. I will never vote for any other party either, I will just stay home, and hope we clean out the polluted vermin in our party.
Bush's failure to confront the issue of border control is the biggest failure of his Presidency. Conservatives in Congress need to stand up to him on this issue.
This is how it is going to happen. Our leaders will pretend to be shocked! shocked! when the courts spring the trap, after our leaders have laid the bait.
Fernando Ortiz was a ‘landscape engineer’ on Long Island who had demanded to be able to vote, on the basis that he had been paying state and federal taxes for ten years. Actually, he had been stopped from casting a ballot by a poll watcher who had suspected his citizenship status, and (illegally, as it turned out) demanded proof of his identity and legal qualification to vote. Ortiz had won a multi-million dollar settlement against the Republican Party of New York in the subsequent “racial profiling and ethnic intimidation” civil suit, but he did not stop there.
Instead, with massive support from the ACLU and various Hispanic “immigrants rights” foundations, he had pressed his demand to be allowed to vote all the way to the Supreme Court…and he won. The Supreme Court, in its famous 5-4 decision, ruled that negligence in securing America’s borders against illegal immigration on the part of the federal government, could not be held against “undocumented workers who played by the rules and paid their taxes,” once they were established in America—legally or not. The federal government had not taken reasonable efforts to secure the border, and had not pursued "undocumented workers" in the USA. Instead, it openly permitted them most of the benefits of citizenship, and it collected their taxes. "No taxation without representation!" was the cry heard all the way to the Supreme Court. The State of New York had then sleep-walked through an aimless and desultory case for denying the vote—and citizenship—to “undocumented workers.”
Following Ortiz v. New York, a stunned America woke up to discover that there were not only an amazing twenty-two million illegal aliens hiding in plain sight across the land, but that eight million of them immediately qualified to vote. In a nation split 50-50 down party and ideological lines, these eight million new voters were recognized to be the certain majority-makers in future elections, and both parties set record lows for cravenness in pandering to their “needs.” Chief among their “needs” were liberal new family reunification laws, and these instant citizens—illegal aliens only a year before—began bringing the remainders of their families to the USA. Legally.
See my last about how millions of illegals are going to be given the vote, and soon.
I never intended to get "crossways with you" just didn't understand. I do agree that the immigration problem helps the lefties. While you may not have mentioned Bush's name, the name of the thread does. I am very confused by GWB's inaction on the border. That is my main source of confusion. The real big problem now is that it is no longer just an immigration issue, but a matter of CRITICAL national security. Why is he fiddling around ?
It is important to get the masses worked up again to vote AGAINST the evil that the opponent represents. Too bad the politicians don't believe their own BS. Do a google of Hillary and Bush. See the happy little faces. Do these people look like they are afraid of each other? NO!??? That is because they are of the same class. Whether it matters or not which side wins office, I don't believe it does, and a growing number believe just like me.
Some Republican in the senate needs to utter the word "Impeachment".
I watched the author on C-Span back in the nineties. His premise was quite believable to me even back then. I never found his book, but always wanted to read it. You are right about the country ALREADY being changed drastically..
Medved today was speaking of how it is "cheeky for Americans to gripe about the latinos coming here, California belonged to them first". Although he softened that statement later, it stands as the mans true thoughts. This comment was in a conversation about the teaching of history about the Alamo, on Nickelodion.
and I up the moratorium to 20 years.... any seconds???
This author MIGHT be part of the white supremacy crowd. No accusation here, but the word came up up when I did an IXQUICK METASEARCH.
And we will be told that although they acknowledge the problem, there is "nothing" that can be done to rectify it. Each side will blame the other side, and the butt-covering will go on and on...while America sinks into third world status.
And that is why we must not settle for anything less than zero tolerance on the immigration issue. Our culture is superior to their and their influx is destroying ours. Unacceptable.
If you own a private jet and live in a walled compound, and can afford to travel in armored SUVs with armed bodyguards, third world nations can be even more fun than first world nations. You have an unlimited supply of slaves, and you can pick all the pretty slave girls you want.
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.