Five Serious Truths About Illegal Immigration That GOP Candidates Have To Accept

The Journal by IJReview ^ | August 19, 2015 | Kurt Schlichter

[2ndDivisionVet]

Hey, GOP primary losers, you better get out there fast with a real immigration plan, because right now you are losing to Donald Trump and that makes you the epitome of loserdom. But unlike Trump, you should be serious about ending the illegal immigration nightmare. His supporters are. Hell, his opponents are, too. Yet some of you haven’t just flirted with amnesty – Rubio tried yet couldn’t score, but donor class puffball Jeb Bush has gotten to third base with amnesty and is trying to round home.

[867V309]

Well, all right then.

[867V309]

Oh, wait. The mezicans sure as heck CAN pay for it!

[DB]

That’s pretty much how I feel about the subject.

[DB]

If you base the wall on Mexico paying for it, it will never be built. It will be in the courts indefinitely and the lawyers will get rich litigating it but it won’t get the wall built.

[immadashell]

This is not just an American issue. Establishment candidates in many European counties got their clocks cleaned in recent elections because they didn’t want to enforce existing laws on immigration. Their problem is Muslims as opposed to our problem which is Mexicans (and other Central Americans coming through Mexico).

[higgmeister]

bump

[nathanbedford]

Donald Trump has been walking point on immigration, which is hilarious considering this guy’s stance went from “amnesty” to “throw them all out” to “amnesty for the terrific ones” to who-knows-what next week. But because the guy who decided to surf the zeitgeist is a joke doesn’t mean the issue isn’t real – and central to the Republican electorate.

However, it does not mean that just because Trump has been inconsistent on immigration as he has been on so many issues that he should not get credit for his recent position paper on immigration. But just because he has gone to that point position by virtue of his position paper, that does not mean it is without flaws.

I had tried to point some of these flaws out in this reply:

Trump seems to be more or less explicit with respect to his intentions about deporting aliens depending on several factors.

It is quite clear that illegals coming over the wall should be detained and deported. Of course, the southern border is only 60% of the problem with 40% of the illegals in America being visa jumpers. Here Trump is slightly less explicit. He wants punishment but he does not explicitly state that visa jumpers should be chased down and deported. Although, it is reasonable to infer that punishment must necessarily include deportation. Will he chase them down, punish them and deport them?

It is quite clear that aliens in our midst who commit crimes should be deported. That is an easy political step to take and the doing away with sanctuary cities is a necessary step toward that end. The provisions against gangs and criminals provides a certain amount of cover against the political opposition in favor of sanctuary cities which is not inconsiderable.

With upwards of 30 million or perhaps 40 million illegal aliens in America it is politically impossible to sell a program which envisions "kicking down doors" and forcibly deporting tens of millions of people. The left will instantly raise images of boxcars on their way to Auschwitz. So how do you get rid of all of these otherwise law-abiding illegals? Remember, Trump is explicitly undertaking only to deport criminals and wall jumpers. Romney said he but was clobbered for saying it: let them self deport. Self deportation is the only viable answer but it must be politically palatable.

There are only two reasons for illegals to stay in America, welfare benefits and/or employment. Obviously, to get them to self deport one must remove both of those props. To Trump's credit he wants to take away benefits from illegals but of course that runs into trouble with several Supreme Court decisions as well as Congress. I submit this is an obvious flaw in the position paper.

But Trump is not explicit with respect to ending employment. Is he guarding himself from attacks from the left? He mentions e-verify but ambiguously:

"Nationwide e-verify. This simple measure will protect jobs for unemployed Americans." (Emphasis supplied)

But what does this mean? E-verify as a system is spotty and its application in some states it has been rendered inoperative if not illegal, and not well enforced. Does "nationwide" mean that it will be applied to every state? To all private employers? Clearly, unless the incentive of employment is removed ICE will be hopelessly reduced to shoveling flies, overwhelmed by numbers, backlogged in the courts, ultimately swamped by birthright citizenship coupled with chain migration.

My point is is just the opposite of this article. I question whether conservatives should have faith that Trump will actually deport illegal aliens who are not criminals and who are not, coming over the wall? Will he deport visa jumpers? Will he chase them down? Will he make e-verify ubiquitous and impose sanctions on employers? Why has he not been explicit?

I also believe that we ought not to deceive ourselves respecting the state of the law of birthright citizenship as defined by the fourteenth amendment and the likelihood of changing that law without a constitutional amendment. I am fully aware of the arguments adduced by Mark Levine and others and find them to be unpersuasive for the reasons expressed here

[NTHockey]

Not if the money used is the foreign aid and other giveaways that Mexico currently gets. No court can force us to give foreign aid to a country. We are simply reallocating resources.

[DB]

Well that’s true.

But how about not giving foreign aid to countries like Mexico regardless of the wall?

[P.O.E.]

Just stop giving them free benefits, medical, etc., unless their home country remits the money for it.

a) they’ll stop flooding in
b) their home countries would have to think twice about pushing them here
c) it would save us untold billionsl

[BobL]

So are you suggesting that conservatives should simply “throw in the towel” on immigration, illegal or otherwise, and figure that Congress and the Courts won’t let us enforce our own laws anyway...so why try? Just let this country turn into another Argentina

Maybe I’m an optimist, but I believe that there are a lot more options open than what is being presented. For example, for visa jumpers, give them an amnesty period to leave the country - after that they are deported if found (and yes, they can be found), and never permitted to return here. Doing something like that might mean a lot of full outbound airplanes for people that want to visit the rest of the world, but most Americans will put up with it.

Lots more options open...we, the crazies, believe that Trump will at least try and if the courts slap him down, he’ll try again, and again. The others, with the possible exception of Cruz, will simply Immigration as a problem “too big to fail” and not lift a finger.

[neefer]

See, the minimum expectation for an aspiring American citizen is respect for our laws, which an illegal, by definition, does not have.

And by giving them ANY type of amnesty it is a huge slap in the face to legal immigrants who have spent a lot of time and money to abide by immigration laws. I have a friend from El Salvador who has maintained a green card for 20 years. She has to renew her drivers license every year. She pays taxes and doesn't work in cash. I don't even want to ask her how many thousands of dollars she has paid to law offices that process all the paperwork involved.

[9YearLurker]

No—the plan isn’t to send Mexico an invoice. The wall could be “paid” for much more simply by, for example, withholding aid.

[Steven Tyler]

Illegal Aliens, by definition, have allegiance to some other Foreign Power. Therefore, they are under the jurisdiction of some foreign power.
The 14th amendment does not apply

IF we need to accept your position, then that illegal alien mother and her baby have to go home, out of the USA 21 years later, when the baby is an adult, we can consider that adult as a dual citizen upon request

[central_va]

The only "illegals" we will accept are those under 25, female, no kids, and are above a 7 on the hotness scale.

[Redleg Duke]

Take all of the welfare and federal give-away money being spent on illegals and apply it to building the wall...and debt reduction.

[nathanbedford]

The 14th amendment does not apply

How does one respond to that assertion except by observing that it has applied and controlled for more than a century since the Supreme Court said it should.

[Lake Living]

There are lots of ways to deal with this issue - what’s missing is the will to do so.

[nathanbedford]

So are you suggesting that conservatives should simply “throw in the towel” on immigration, illegal or otherwise, and figure that Congress and the Courts won’t let us enforce our own laws anyway...so why try? Just let this country turn into another Argentina

Here is part of the reply to which you responded:

"I regard the fourteenth amendment creation of citizenship by birth to be a civil war remedy for Dred Scott but which by its wording and probable intent has wrought pernicious unintended consequences in the twentieth and twenty-first century. I approve of every attempt from legislation to constitutional amendment to change the doctrine but I do not deceive myself about the current state of the law or of the probable ruling of the Supreme Court considering the constitutionality of legislation restricting birth citizenship."

Let us understand what it is that we are supporting in Trump's immigration paper and what it is we are not supporting because it is not there:

1. No mass deportations.

2. No likelihood of eliminating social welfare.

3. No likelihood of ending birthright citizenship.

4. No assurance of ubiquitous enforcement of e verify with penalties.

I suspect most people believe that all three of these things will occur with Trump's election just as surely as the sun will rise. There is nothing wrong with holding Trump's feet to the fire. Make him be true on immigration, let him defend his position just as he insists others do. Above all, let's have his supporters understand what they are supporting and what they are not likely to get.