Friday, November 16, 2007
“just an attempt to, as they say on Wall Street, ‘put lipstick on that pig‘“
While waiting to see what, if any, public converstaion takes place on those border issues there’s another, somewhat related, conversation trying to take shape. In the Irish Times, campaigner Frank Sharry, executive director of the US National Immigration Forum, reckons it could take up to 10 years before US immigration reform “becomes viable to have it back at the table” - and not just because of contradictions between Ministers of State. From the Irish Times article [subs req]
Sharry believes that despite the tough measures contained in the Bill (undocumented migrants would have had to pay thousands of dollars in fines and would not have been eligible for permanent residence for eight years, for example), Republican opponents succeeded in portraying the proposal as an amnesty that would reward law-breakers. Democrats, themselves unsure about its feasibility, were half-hearted advocates. “So the combination meant the grand bargain that was negotiated in the backroom, when it went public, was something of an orphan.”
Frank Sharry is also sceptical of any proposed bilateral ‘special case’ agreement for Irish illegal immigrants, as suggested by Dermot Ahern previously.
While Sharry is supportive of the Government’s efforts to secure a bilateral agreement that would regularise the status of the undocumented Irish, he is not convinced it will succeed.
“I would be supportive of it, but I don’t see its viability, because people on the right will label it an amnesty and people on left will say, ‘how come these white immigrants are going to get status rather than many others?’”
Meanwhile inside the paper there’s an additional article [subs still], by Trina Vargo founder and president of the US-Ireland Alliance, who argues that “Irish-Americans trying to get a special deal only for Irish illegal migrants in the US are wrong.”
The US immigration system needs fixing, but it requires a comprehensive and united approach. The deportation of 12 million people is clearly not possible, and pragmatism favours efforts to create an earned path to citizenship for those in the US illegally. Sadly, that effort has been stalled.
But to support a special deal that would single out illegal Irish immigrants for preferential treatment would be morally wrong, could harm the US-Ireland relationship, damage the high regard in which Irish-Americans are held, and lead to a divisive debate in the US between the Hispanic community and the Irish-American community.
The Irish economy is strong, and a special deal is not justified on economic grounds. The majority of those attending the rallies for the illegal Irish immigrants are young people, people who came to the United States when jobs were plentiful at home.
These are not people who fled extreme economic hardship, political persecution, physical torture, or an undemocratic government. Jobs are so plentiful in Ireland that in recent years, Government officials have travelled to the US to urge the Irish to return home. It is to be celebrated that Ireland is now a country of wealth, prosperity and opportunity. Now one of the richest countries in the world, it is a not a place anyone has to leave.
Supporters of a special deal for the Irish say there is precedent, that this was done for Australia. What they neglect to point out is that those visas had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. They were about trade agreements and facilitating the movement of professionals to the US. They were temporary visas subject to stringent eligibility requirements. The visas were only available to those with specific professional skills and for specific jobs pursuant to trade agreements.
There is also talk of trying to mask a “special deal” by cloaking it in innocuous immigration provisions but this is just an attempt to, as they say on Wall Street, “put lipstick on that pig”.
Pete Baker @ 12:10 PM
Why should the Irish be treated differently? Irish law breakers who have remained in the USA illegally should face the same penalties as those from Mexico and other parts of the world who flout US law.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 01:13 PMHere beginneth the rant of a peon passing through JFK and EWR on a regular basis.
1. There is no way the Irish are going to get special treatment. Forget it.
2. The status of legitimate “aliens” is bad enough. The process of registration and certification of those is within the control of the Federal Government. Nobody seems capable of sorting that out. Paperwork and the routines are somewhere between a shambles and a nightmare: inevitably, it is always the applicant’s fault until proven to the contrary. So, meanwhile, it become almost de rigeur to employ an attorney to help. Ummm ... perhaps that’s the explanation.
3. Is there any bureaucracy in the “free” world as officious and oppressive as the jobsworths of the Department of Homeland Security? All they are missing are the brain-cell count of a plant, and a pair of jack-boots, then they would be dangerous as well as obtuse and ill-mannered. Yet, this is the model (I gather) that David Davies and the Tories would have us follow.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 01:31 PMTrina Vargo is a former aide to Ted Kennedy, and I’ve no doubt she is a woman, a person, of singular energy, commitment, vision and drive. Sad then, that the biggest impact she will make in her life on Ireland and America will not be her tireless work on behalf of the Mitchel Scholars, but the damage she’s accomplished with this article.
The statistically overwhelming majority of legal immigration visas to the United States are based on familial relationships. If it were, say, the early nineteen sixties, and the only prospective immigrants able to claim the necessary familial relationships were from Ireland, Poland, Germany, and the UK, Trina Vargo would no doubt be one of the first to see and to say that such a system was flawed, that diversity and opportunity beyond the baseline factor of familial relationships were urgently needed, both in terms of fairness and multicultural diversity.
In the article Pete quotes from, Vargo states “I fear, however, that if the future of the US-Ireland relationship
rests on Irish immigration, the relationship will falter. Those who
care about the relationship should note and expand upon the business and cultural ties, academic and student exchanges, as well as legal immigration. The constant flow of citizens between our two countries is a positive thing that should be nurtured.” Stating that you are going to build on busines and cultural ties without building on and increasing LEGAL immigration is like stating you are going to encourage sexual relationships between partners without recourse to sex. It is that basic and intrinsic to any sort of genuine vitality.Any fool can see the United States clearly needs a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. If there is actual evidence that making provisions for a few thousand Irish illegals will actually take visas away from other illegal immigrants, Vargo needs to present it calmly, and in detail, not just make a shamelessly emotional statement like “No Mexicans Need Apply” without presenting objective collaborating evidence.
Here is a recent voices from within the Irish gov’t and parents of undocumented currently in America:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1112/qanda_av.html?2308347,null,230
I truly fear Vargo’s done in any hope of a deal in for Irish undocumented, without doing anything to materially help a single undocumented person in America of any ethnic origin whatsoever. No one worked harder for comprehensive immigration reform than the “small group” of individuals Vargo singles out in her Times piece, and it is hard to imagine she wouldn’t know that.
Her Mitchell Scholarships will continue to let talented, deserving American students the opportunity to observe a “post-conflict society” in Belfast, not to mention soaking up the charms and gifts of Galway. But Vargo will have even more of an impact on the illegal Irish landscaper in the suburbs of Chicago currently employing half a dozen or more illegal Mexican immigrants who will return to Monaghan because she’s now killed any chance of a special deal.
Congratulations, Trina, there goes another pig in lipstick from your shores.
The young married couple in Boston from Cullyhanna who’ve lived there fourteen years will take their children out of school and start again in a place their children have never seen. Congratulations, Trina, there go five more pigs in lipstick from your shores.
She wanted to make a difference in Ireland and in America, and by God she has.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 02:10 PMsusan: “I truly fear Vargo’s done in any hope of a deal in for Irish undocumented, without doing anything to materially help a single undocumented person in America of any ethnic origin whatsoever. No one worked harder for comprehensive immigration reform than the “small group” of individuals Vargo singles out in her Times piece, and it is hard to imagine she wouldn’t know that. “
First of all, what part of “illegal immigrant” don’t you understand, susan?
The only way to maintain a nation under law is to enforce those laws. Frankly, it would be more creditable to eliminate the special treatment of Cubans than creating a safe harbor for Irish illegal immigrants. Likewise, those locales such as San Francisco which hold themselves out as sanctuary cities should have their place at the Federal trough cut (or at least diminished).
I see no problem with lawful immigration and lawful immigrants, but this foolishness of rewarding illegal immigration—granting them licenses, in-state tuition, et al, is folly.
susan: “But Vargo will have even more of an impact on the illegal Irish landscaper in the suburbs of Chicago currently employing half a dozen or more illegal Mexican immigrants who will return to Monaghan because she’s now killed any chance of a special deal. “
On what basis should the illegal Irishman be granted special treatment? Irish illegal immigration was overwhelmingly economic in nature—why else would Phds be doing carpentry under the table in Boston? He should have the same treatment as his illegal Mexicans, unless there is some overwhelmingly critical aspect to his presence here that I am missing—the collapse of hurling in America doesn’t strike me as a major issue to the US, nor the loss of a landscaping firm operating in breach of US laws.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 03:14 PMOn what basis should the illegal Irishman be granted special treatment?
Wouldn’t be because they have a whitish hue?
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 04:23 PMjoeCanuck: “Wouldn’t be because they have a whitish hue? “
Not directly—Irish have only been “white” for barely a century and a half in the United States.
Indirectly… mayhap. The Irish-American has evolved a long way from the charicatures of Nast—societal menace or par with dreaded “yellow peril” of a slightly later era to tool of machine politics to gangsters to blue colllar public servant (policeman, fireman)to the bosses of machine politics and white collar public servant (politican, FBI agent) to just another part of society, albeit one that is held with a certain affection, particularly around mid-March.
I would also say that the qualities of the Irish illegal immigrant might play into it-- the few I knew in Boston were, as I said, highly educated folks doing blue-collar jobs. They already speak English, they don’t have militant fringe organizations advocating a “reconquista” of the Southwest and, either by dint of behavior or small numbers, don’t make nearly as many negative headlines as their Mexican and Latin American counterparts.
But, if you prefer, I will ask again and clarify…
On what rational and legally defensible basis should the Irish illegal immigrant receive preferential treatment?
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 04:45 PMPete
NINE backlinks this time!
You’ve been relatively restrained......
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 04:50 PMThe answer is quite simple, Dread,
NONE.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 04:56 PMjoeCanuck: “The answer is quite simple, Dread, NONE. “
And people call me a literalist… *sigh*
And if the answer is that bloody simple, Canuck, why is there a plethora of whiny, hand-wringing, pointy headed liberal lefty milk-sops trying to say otherwise, calling anyone who asks questions regarding their rush to legitimize illegal immigrants “racist” for embracing the rather plain notion that nations have borders?
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 06:04 PMSorry Dread.
Looks like you cannot get any response other than from me, who agrees with you.Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 06:16 PMDread
“I see no problem with lawful immigration and lawful immigrants, but this foolishness of rewarding illegal immigration—granting them licenses, in-state tuition, et al, is folly.”
On a purely theoretical level, this is fine. The problem is that you are not at year zero. You have so many illegal immigrants in the country that you couldn’t remove them, partly because you couldn’t hope to find even a significant percentage of them, and because the economic damage in some areas would be huge.
If you are serious about sorting it out—and that would mean getting seriously tough on the people that employ illegal immigrants which neither party seem to have the stomach for—then surely you have to recognise you have to do something with the people already there?
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 06:43 PMI agree, Kensei, that something desperately needs to be done to regularise huge numbers of those already there.
But I can’t agree that some nationals deserve to have preferential treatment.Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 06:53 PMjoeCanuck: “Looks like you cannot get any response other than from me, who agrees with you. “
Sorry—I popped a filling, so I’m a little cross at the moment… I should not be snappish at you.
kensei: “The problem is that you are not at year zero. You have so many illegal immigrants in the country that you couldn’t remove them, partly because you couldn’t hope to find even a significant percentage of them, and because the economic damage in some areas would be huge. “
In the main, I don’t have to remove them. By simply not accomodating them, most will leave on their own accord. This includes SSN matching programs for employers, the REAL ID program and enforcing existing regulations.
Likewise, any damage would be offset, insofar as the illegals damaged the economy in other ways. For example, meat-cutting, on the factory level, used to be a decent living—not great, but one a body could live on. Nowadays, it’s $7.00 an hour and meat plants are raided regularly by INS, with hundreds arrested at a time. The presence of these illegals is corrosive on the economy, robbing the working man by keeping wages artificially low, soaking up government benefits whilst avoiding most taxes, etc.
kensei: “If you are serious about sorting it out—and that would mean getting seriously tough on the people that employ illegal immigrants which neither party seem to have the stomach for—then surely you have to recognise you have to do something with the people already there? “
Yup. Show them the door and shoo them out of it. Simply make their existence uncomfortable and unprofitable and they will line up to leave. This includes taxing remitttances, enforcing other rules on the books and making it too expensive for municipalities to be sanctuary cities. Unlike the proverbial frog, if you turn up the heat, the illegals will simply jump out of the pot.
The United States tried that sort of amnesty in the Eighties. It is already known that amenesty merely encourages more illegal immigration.
Frankly, the US should simply take Mexico’s policies on illegal immigration on its southern border and apply them to the US-Mexican border.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 06:59 PMDread Cthulhu and Joe, you do not need to agree with me, but you do need to understand that very sadly I share Frank Sharry’s pessimism over the likelihood of the US Congress achieving the comprehensive immigration reform needed to better secure the US borders and to deal—not to pontificate, but to deal - with the millions of illegal aliens from around the world currently in the US.
I wish I didn’t agree with Sharry. But I do. I think the outlook is bleak, and I think the lack of comprehensive immigration reform will continue to have a negative impact on the struggling US economy, on the American healthcare and educational systems struggling to cope with such a large underground economy, and on otherwise law-abiding, long term illegal immigrants of WHATEVER national origin, WHATEVER race, WHATEVER religion seeking a path to citizenship.
And so, yes, with such a bleak outlook on the likelihood of comprehensive reform needed, I can’t oppose the efforts of pols and advocates seeking special provisions for their citizens abroad. No special deals are possible? Ever hear of Berman visas, Donnelly visas, Schumer visas, Kennedy visas? I don’t have Pete’s way with the hyperlinks (then again, who does?) but you can Google them.
Would I agree that those seeking asylum from political or religious persecution are a higher priority that Irish undocumented? Of course I bloody do. This talk of a “bilateral agreement” seems a long shot, but it also seems the only shot available to the people in Ireland and in the US who worked so hard for comprehensive reform and saw it all come to naught. What should they tell the people, the undocumented Irish in America, they vowed to help? Dread and Joe and Trina Vargo can all watch the undocumented pack and tell them they never should have come-- I’m sure that is patently obvious to them by now. But I don’t think America will be better off without them, I don’t think the immigrants will be better off, and I don’t think it will do one iota to assist the ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive, compassionate, enforceable immigration reform in the USA.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 07:03 PMExcellent points, kensei. Here is a link to an article maintaining that aout 8 million of America’s illegal immigrants are paying taxes, including Medicare, social security, etc.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 07:10 PMsusan: “I think the outlook is bleak, and I think the lack of comprehensive immigration reform will continue to have a negative impact on the struggling US economy, on the American healthcare and educational systems struggling to cope with such a large underground economy, and on otherwise law-abiding, long term illegal immigrants of WHATEVER national origin, WHATEVER race, WHATEVER religion seeking a path to citizenship. “
It is the presence of illegal immigrants that are the drag, susan. The distort the labor markets, robbing legal workers, cause localities to incur costs they would have otherwise incurred and, by their very nature, the term “law-abiding illegal immigrant” is a contradiction in terms.
susan: “And so, yes, with such a bleak outlook on the likelihood of comprehensive reform needed, I can’t oppose the efforts of pols and advocates seeking special provisions for their citizens abroad. No special deals are possible? Ever hear of Berman visas, Donnelly visas, Schumer visas, Kennedy visas? I don’t have Pete’s way with the hyperlinks (then again, who does?) but you can Google them. “
And they were wrong response then and would be wrong now.
susan: “This talk of a “bilateral agreement” seems a long shot, but it also seems the only shot available to the people in Ireland and in the US who worked so hard for comprehensive reform and saw it all come to naught.”
Odd, that you should call ignoring law-breaking “reform.” Amensty doesn’t work—it simply encourages more of the same.
susan: “Dread and Joe and Trina Vargo can all watch the undocumented pack and tell them they never should have come-- I’m sure that is patently obvious to them by now. But I don’t think America will be better off without them”
Your thought and a couple of euros will get you coffee at a Stabucks, susan, but you would still be wrong. Illegal immigrants are a drain on government coffers. As they are paid under the table, they deprive the state of tax dollars, as the state incurs costs due to their simple presence. This drain raises taxes on the law-abiding population, while forcing the labor-wage down. This stresses American workers and forces the government to take more money out of their pockets in taxes to make up for the free-loading illegal immigrants. How does *ANY* of this economic damage make America “better off,” I wonder.
susan: “ I don’t think it will do one iota to assist the ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive, compassionate, enforceable immigration reform in the USA. “
Two seperate issues that should have never been linked in the first place. One should not change one’s laws to accodate scofflaws. Reform of the legal immigration system should not benefit illegal immigrants.
Remove the gators, then worry about draining the swamp.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 07:17 PMDread,
I also think that in theory what you say makes sense but when it comes to the practicalities of the situation people find themselves in then sometimes you have to look for solutions rather than simply enjoying having a logically coherent position that is pretty much unassailable.Like JoeCanuck, I too believe there is no rational reason why they should have preferential treatment.
But like the 14 billion the EU gave us last year when others were more deserving, I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, even if it is wearing lipstick.
For me it is the Irish government’s job to represent the interests of all its citizens and that includes those living illegally in the US or homeless or in jail in Britain.If our state’s representatives won’t stand up for them no one will. And if the Irish government can put forward some solution that the Americans can sell to their representatives as some sort of quid pro quo then why not?
Just like the 14 billion from the EU, such a decision would mean nothing in the greater scheme of things if it is sold right. It wouldn’t even make a ripple.
Naturally if the Americans say no dice and tell the Irish to sling their hook for the reasons outlined in Pete’s post or whatever reasons they see fit, fair enough but at least we tried what little we could to help them.
Equally, illegal immigrants in Ireland, who too are economic for the most part, should use whatever is available to them to try and stay and seek out the assistance of any available allies.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 07:34 PMGeorge: “For me it is the Irish government’s job to represent the interests of all its citizens and that includes those living illegally in the US or homeless or in jail in Britain. “
I don’t necessarily disagree, George… but given the Republic’s stance on illegal immigration, their scarcely less hypocritical than Mexico on the topic.
George: “Naturally if the Americans say no dice and tell the Irish to sling their hook for the reasons outlined in Pete’s post or whatever reasons they see fit, fair enough but at least we tried what little we could to help them.”
I never said it was wrong to ask, George, I simply asked what rational basis there was that that ask should be granted, knowing full well the answer was “none whatsoever.” Right now, partly due to the elections, partly due to the fact that a porous border is a national security threat—the border that allows the iconic “hard working, law-abiding illegal immigrant” to cross undetected could also allow the drug-dealing Mexican, the (Usama)bomb-Laden Islamic fundalmentalist terrorist,etc. to cross. Not every swarth fellow crossing by night speaks Spanish or wants to mow Mitt Romney’s lawn.
George: “Equally, illegal immigrants in Ireland, who too are economic for the most part, should use whatever is available to them to try and stay and seek out the assistance of any available allies. “
Can’t blame a body for trying… but neither should the illegal immigrant expect not to be deported. One cannot break the law and then claim to be “law-abiding.”
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 07:45 PMSusan,
I don’t agree that they should just be shown the door.
Bush (no liberal) had a proposal that gave the illegals a chance to “regularize” their position.
I thought that was a good proposal but it fell when it came to Congress.
That proposal would have satisfied one of Dread’s concerns. It would have meant that they started paying taxes.
Where does the USA go now? I have no idea. I believe that a Democrat president will stand even less chance than Bush in bringing forward any proposal that will allow any existing illegal to become regular.Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:10 PM“In the main, I don’t have to remove them. By simply not accomodating them, most will leave on their own accord. This includes SSN matching programs for employers, the REAL ID program and enforcing existing regulations.”
There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. And we’d probably guess that figure is higher. You can wish hard, Dread but you aren’t going to get rid of them easily. That is twice the population of Ireland.
“Likewise, any damage would be offset, insofar as the illegals damaged the economy in other ways. For example, meat-cutting, on the factory level, used to be a decent living—not great, but one a body could live on. Nowadays, it’s $7.00 an hour and meat plants are raided regularly by INS, with hundreds arrested at a time. The presence of these illegals is corrosive on the economy, robbing the working man by keeping wages artificially low, soaking up government benefits whilst avoiding most taxes, etc.”
And if the price of meat double overnight then you have a bit of an inflation problem there, Dread. I also direct you to this article too, much of which remains true for illegal immigration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/11/on_the_buses.html
It isn’t a situation that developed overnight and it isn’t one that can fixed overnight, either.
“Yup. Show them the door and shoo them out of it. Simply make their existence uncomfortable and unprofitable and they will line up to leave. This includes taxing remitttances, enforcing other rules on the books and making it too expensive for municipalities to be sanctuary cities. Unlike the proverbial frog, if you turn up the heat, the illegals will simply jump out of the pot.”
Not if life back home is worse. Not if they have built a life in America. Not if there is loopholes they can exploit, fake ids and the prospect of buying time. You will not seriously tackle that 12+ million figure and it’s wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.
“The United States tried that sort of amnesty in the Eighties. It is already known that amenesty merely encourages more illegal immigration.”
I don’t think it makes a bit of difference what happened in the 80’s. The economics and current incentives are much more powerful. What you are suggests may curb the current rate of illegal immigration, though I’m not 100% convinced. But it won’t solve the problem you already have.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:16 PMjoeCanuck: “Bush (no liberal) had a proposal that gave the illegals a chance to “regularize” their position. “
Ah, yes… “Amnesty… the policy that dare notspeak its name.”
joeCanuck: “That proposal would have satisfied one of Dread’s concerns. It would have meant that they started paying taxes. “
It would exacerbated others, including causing a stampede of illegals seeking to cross the border in hope of benefitting from the amnesty.
joeCanuck: “I believe that a Democrat president will stand even less chance than Bush in bringing forward any proposal that will allow any existing illegal to become regular. “
Maybe, maybe not… betraying core constituencies is not exactly “new hat” to the Democrats, having alienated poor urban whites in the past with such issues as court-ordered busing, gun control, etc.
That said, New York State, no red-neck bastion of conservatism, was 70% against issuing illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. If it doesn’t play in New York, how well do you think it will play in less liberal locales?
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:21 PMDread,
As I already said, if you look at this rationally and logically your position is unassailable, but life isn’t logical or rational.As for what illegal immigrants should or should not expect, they are human beings like the rest of us so make their decisions accordingly. Sometimes their dreams and hopes and expectations are rational, sometimes not.
As for the you “cannot break the law and then claim to be “law-abiding” logic, I find it a bit glib and a nice phrase to justify ignoring their real-life situation.
I can honestly say I don’t think I know anybody who hasn’t broken the law at some stage but I would consider the company I keep to be law abiding.
Your standards are approaching those set out by the guy who came up with the idea of original sin.
It seems you favour leaving these particular souls outside the consecrated ground of legal right of residence simply becauses your doctrinal logic dictates it.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:22 PMAs an aside, I don’t mind people just calling me “Joe”; it saves typing.
I just started calling myself joecanuck to distinguish myself from another Joe who occasionally comments.Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:31 PMkensei: “There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. And we’d probably guess that figure is higher. You can wish hard, Dread but you aren’t going to get rid of them easily. That is twice the population of Ireland. “
If I make it too expensive for meat-packing plants and construction firms to hire, where will they work, kensei? Without jobs, why would they stay?
The point is that I don’t have to chase them. Likewise, I don’t have to get them all, just enough to get the problem down to a managable size.
kensei: “And if the price of meat double overnight then you have a bit of an inflation problem there, Dread.”
Having lived and buying meat when the meat-cutting trades were unionized and paying roughly than 50% more an hour to their cutters, I can safely say you’re full of beans, kensei.
kensei: “Not if life back home is worse. Not if they have built a life in America. Not if there is loopholes they can exploit, fake ids and the prospect of buying time. You will not seriously tackle that 12+ million figure and it’s wishful thinking to suggest otherwise. “
kensei, if you bothered to read my post, I’m talking about closing the loopholes, ID programs that are harder to fake and streamlining the processes. I am also talking about destroying the magnets that attract them in the first place.
The first thing you do to drain a tank is to turn off the tap. Eliminate the job attraction through a combination of REAL ID, SSN matching and penalties for employers and no one is going to hire them. No jobs, no reason to come. Likewise, this is just the low-hanging fruit. Texas mayors are suggesting a simple solution—let the Rio Grande run a little deeper and faster, making it a more credible barrier.
Likewise, the sanctuary cities can be readily de-fanged bureaucratically. Tie their federal aid dollars, starting with law-enforcement, but expanding outward from there, to their cooperation in dealing with the illegal immigration problem. No assistance = no assistance dollars.
And, no, it won’t be an overnight solution. But it can be done and without a great deal of hullabaloo. In most interviews, the illegals themselves have said they would be inclined to leave based on these bureaucratic measures.
kensei: “I don’t think it makes a bit of difference what happened in the 80’s. “
Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it…
kensei: “The economics and current incentives are much more powerful. What you are suggests may curb the current rate of illegal immigration, though I’m not 100% convinced. But it won’t solve the problem you already have. “
Not overnight, but once I’ve shut off the in-flow valve, I can start draining the tank.
Likewise, if I de-incentivize illegal status, with confiscatory fines, taxes on remittances, etc., I remove the benefit of remaining here.
Ideally, in a generation or two, the demographics in Mexico will have alleviated some of the problem as well—Mexicans cross into the states to work, not necessarily settle.
The core of the problem is that Mexico’s anti-poverty and anti-crime programs is to export their problems to the United States, right up to and including manuals for the best ways to cross the border.
If you take away the benefits, they will not come and will not stay. I’d be willing to support a constitutional amendment that would limit / eliminate citizenship by birth, save for those born to citizens, to eliminate the “anchor baby” phenomenon.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:45 PMThere’s a lot of beating-up going on here to no avail.
Let’s be pragmatic.
Those “illegals” who are in professional positions, with a certain amount of jiggery-pokery they and their company/organisation can legitimate their position. End of that story.
Then there are the casuals and blue-collar workers, who, quite frankly, are the main drug on the market. As has been pointed out, they are a major brake on wage-rates (so unpopular with unions, and so not going to get a boost from the Dems). If I were stuck in a dead-end job, where my hourly-rate had effectively been frozen for 30 years, I doubt that I could afford too many liberal and humanitarian principles.
In short, the issue is not recent Irish immigration: it is Latino and Black immigration into low-skill, low-pay, low-esteem and often-seasonal jobs.
My confident prediction is that the Immigration Service will continue to harass this group, from time to time, sufficiently for the whingers to sleep peacefully in their beds, and for forestalling the vigilante problem worsening. And that will be it.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:46 PM
