Pajamas Media

26 Comments

1. jeff:

I think a key concern of the anti-amnesty groups has been to emphasize that any “benchmarks” or “triggers” built into an enforcement bill will take several years to evaluate in practice.

If a path to citizenship is made available through legislation passed in 2009-2010, most people will feel (correctly) that we haven’t been given a chance to see if the enforcement side of the deal is really working. So McCain’s promise to pass a comprehensive bill during his first year in office is not encouraging, as Mark Krikorian has pointed out.

Jun 25, 2008 - 2:22 am 2. Smarty:

OH yes, the liberal Hispanic wants McCain to jump back on the amnesty express just to prove he is consistent. Well, he would be a fool to do so. He needs to listen to the people who actually want America to be successful and go for enforcement first. The leftists who want us to be flooded with mexicans are the same ones making excuses for Islamists and for thugs like Chavez. Those of you who support amnesty are either pasty white fools like McCain who are afraid to be called racist, or socialists out to weaken the fabric of America (Lenin and Stalin made the map, you leftists are following it). Even this article, trying to get McCain to swing wide back to amnesty is a soviet tactic.

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:28 am 3. David Thomson:

“What is that, if not “enforcement first” on the way to comprehensive reform?”

“Enforcement first” must be the first priority. We should do little else until the flow of illegal immigrants into this country ceases. Why should any Hispanic groups object to this reasonable demand? The more recent illegal immigrants are less educated, more likely to be arrested, and engage in promiscuous sex resulting in increased illegitimacy rates. Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a yuppie—and you can also take it for granted a hypocrite! He would almost certainly object if these illegal immigrants moved next door to him.

Jun 25, 2008 - 5:02 am 4. Ed Lilly:

“To a lot of people, that sounds like the discredited approach of enforcement only — which has a track record of only making the problem worse. Note the 1996 Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IRAIRA), an enforcement-only law which – for all its chest thumping – did little to curb illegal immigration.”

What a ridiculous argument. Kellogg-Briand anyone? You know, for all its chest thumping, it did little to prevent World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, wars in the Middle East, wars in Africa, wars in South America, etc.

It’s not simply passing a law that accomplishes anything. You have to enforce it. Enforce the existing immigration laws first and stop (or ideally reverse) the flow of illegal immigrants. Then take stock and see what the next step should be.

Jun 25, 2008 - 5:48 am 5. Jabba the Tutt:

Ruben Navarette is a joke. He wants to turn America in Mexico. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot in Ruben’s world.

That sums up everyone of his columns. I don’t bother to read him or get upset anymore. I’m just disappointed that PJ Media considers Ruben worth publishing, it’s a waste of pixels.

Jun 25, 2008 - 6:29 am 6. Valerie:

I think we need to talk about what was missing from the last “comprehensive immigration reform” proposal.

In the last round of serious discussions on this topic, it was established that a path to citizenship would not be made available to illegal immigrants. There is an opportunity to build on that principle.

Further, failing to deal with the illegal immigrants already here is not an option. One purpose of this legislation is to get an idea of who is already here, and this is necessary because some illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals in the ordinary sense of that phrase. We need to deal with all of them.

In my opinion, what is needed is an alternative working model for the prior legislation. It needs to be comprehensive: that is, it needs to deal with all kinds of immigrants, illegal and legal, as well as the reasons for their travel to the US: some merely want to work, some want to engage in criminal enterprises, including terrorist attacks. We need to find a mechanism for separating the groups, and the only way to do this is to provide the means to find them and keep track of them should the need arise.

The last legislation was defective because it avoided establishing a guest worker program designed to deal with the bulk of our current illegal immigrant population. A guest worker program could be initiated something like this:

1. All non-citizens residing in the US on a given day (I would specify a specific date in the past, to avoid encouraging a wave of illegal immigration), who have not previously registered with the US government, or who have overstayed their visas, are presumed to be here legally, and are required to provide notice of their residence, identity and citizenship within a short time frame. We can use the same mechanisms for this project as we do for voter registration. This is by no means an insurmountable problem.

2. All members of this group will be presumed to be guest workers with no path to U.S. citizenship, absent a showing of intent, and on a case-by-case basis. Illegal entry into this country will create an irrebutable presumption that the person does not intend to become a US citizen.

3. Persons with defects in their documentation (such as overstaying their visas), on a proper showing of intent (for example, a history of paying their taxes) may eventually be allowed citizenship.

4. Persons who commit a felony in this country, at minimum, create an irrebutable presumption that the person does not intend to become a US citizen. Those who plead guilty to a lesser included offense in a felony case also create an irrebutable presumption that the person does not intend to become a US citizen.

5. Children born in the US will be US citizens (required by the Constitution) but this fact does not affect the immigration status of their parents. In particular, minors whose parents are deported shall be deported with their parents. This would end the “anchor-baby” abuses.

6. I personally would sweeten the deal by adding, for those persons who have demonstrated a good-faith intent to follow the laws of this country (such as by paying all their taxes) a portable benefit similar to, but not linked to and not of the same amount as, Social Security. We do not owe this to anybody, but I would regard it as a pragmatic, convenient way of exporting Americans where they are most needed.

The United States has long operated as a safety valve for poor-quality economies of various countries, especially those to our south. As a result, we have been getting their most desperate, vigorous and determined people, who send money home. These funds are significant, and they go where they are needed, and to people who will use them well. This is trickle-down economics at its finest, and we should consider expanding on this avenue of influence.

People who come here to this country to work are already primed to learn our system, and they tend to soak up our ideas. If we make is easy for them to go home with a portable benefit, they will take our ideas and some added financial clout back with them. I think such a program, constructed with adequate safeguards against abuse, would be very helpful to encourage both political and economic reform in countries that need it very badly, and should be considered as part of our foreign aid.

Mexico, for example, still runs on bribes and has been resistant to decades of efforts at reform. The inefficiency introduced by a decision-making process that is based on bribes produces a wretched economy. If we make a point of exporting 50-year-old people with just a little bit of disposable income, that system will change.

Jun 25, 2008 - 7:44 am 7. Roark:

McCain is anything BUT “straight talk express”. He IS a flip flopper on immigration. It’s a classic example of ‘do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing’.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:24 am 8. TomJW:

“…small-minded conservatives..”

Rubin, go live in Mexico if you want to, don’t keep proposing to move it here.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:31 am 9. urbanleftbehind:

McCain needs to press for Mexican oil: free for our military and at deep discount to the US civilian consumer market as part of any amnesty.

Mexico to provide medical centers at its consulates that meet U.S. Standards, have English speaking personnel (and hire X percentage U.S. Citizens), and must be included as part of a free clinic/triage system that also treats all Americans. This would save the existing public hospitals.

and Dammit, charge an excise tax on those inane Hispanic international calling cards. I am amazed that these high-selling communications instuments are not taxed at the retail level. S(*&, youd probably raise a hell of a lot of money their.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:34 am 10. DrKrbyLuv:

You mentioned that “The McCain campaign is blasting away at Barack Obama for reversing his position on whether he would accept public financing of his presidential campaign.”

I think it is absolutely just that John McCain will be skewered with the sword that he crafted; McCain-Feingold. The ever corrupt and narcissistic McCain was paid by George Soros (through The Reform Institute) to deliver campaign finance and open border legislation. McCain sold out despite the fact that the bill violated free speech and hurt the GOP.

McCain purposely misleads voters because his “shamesty” is very unpopular with the American people. Look no further than to McCain staffer Juan Hernandez, a foreign agent forever lobbying for illegal alien rights and benefits in the US. Hernandez, btw, continues to serve on McCain’s laundering vehicle; The Reform Institute.

McCain is a lier and not fit to be the GOP candidate.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:43 am 11. J.E.Rendini:

I don’t like Reuben Navarette’s smug tone, as evidenced by his labeling open borders opponents as “small-minded conservatives” and “hardliners.” Conservatives are the backbone of the Republican party and no Republican can be elected president without us. It may be hard for Latin Americans to believe that there are Americans who have a deep committment to the rule of law and whose opposition to uncontrolled immigration is based on a principle other than prejudice against foreigners. But this is a failure of Latin American culture, not of ours. Calling names is not going to bring us any closer together.

As Valerie’s post implicitly points out, the problem with “comprehensive” proposals for immigration reform is that they are not comprehensive enough. As most of the illegals are Mexicans, truly comprehensive reform requires the participation of the Mexican government and people. Mexico has evidently failed to build a society and economy which can support its own people. What are these failures? How can they be remedied? How can Mexico create an economy which offers sufficient growth and opportunity for its own people to move out of poverty within Mexico? Failure to provide for your own people is a national shame. Or are Mexican elites content to dump their poverty over their northern border in open defiance of our laws while they enforce their own restrictive immigration laws?

Mexico has tremendous natural resources and an industrious and creative people. There is no good reason why the Mexican people should be any less prosperous than their American neighbors. But Mexico is also rife with political corruption and violence driven by an uncontrolled drug trade. A new vision for Mexico, not just throwing open America’s southern border, is necessary for comprehensive immigration reform.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:46 am 12. Dusty:

I’m hard pressed to think of a case where, even under an amnesty, a person who has acquired something illegally gets to keep it. You can claim that fines and payments of back taxes make up for acquiring their US citizenship illegally until you are blue in the face, Ruben, but it’s still at a minimum an amnesty.

And the comprehensive immigration reform McCain and you support, is a stab in the back of the many who follow the rules and wait in the ungodly long lines to come here legally. Ungodly long lines made in part by our pols looking the other way at the problem of illegal immigration of which McCain was, in part, complicit, twice.

You may be right about the 1996 Act, but it does appear that individual States know how to make laws that work. You are probably right about the chest-thumping, which only goes to show that the Feds never intended to either create an effective law or see that it was enforced. All that means is we need new legislators, not give up on stopping illegal immigration, because if we don’t put a stop to it, then it will just be a crisis in another 10 years, no matter how many part-time, full time, or permanent visas slots you choose as a maximum.

Build the fence. Deport those here illegally. Enforce the rule that you only get to be a citizen by applying legally, before getting here. Then this won’t be a problem again and we can get to having honest, above board, and truly democratic discussions about legal immigration and work visa numbers.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:47 am 13. cfbleachers:

I’m not sure that I have ever seen Ruben address some essential framework issues, but it would be nice if we could get some of those established before we begin to debate on the more subtle nuances.

1)We need to come to a conclusion whether or not we agree that sneaking into someone else’s country, adopting an assumed identity, and living a lifetime beneath the system’s checks and balances…is an unhealthy breeding ground for trouble in both directions.

If Ruben is not willing to concede on these points, there does not appear to be any structural foundation to proceed further.

12-15 million people sneaking into the country and living a sub rosa existence, is no longer merely a breeding ground for trouble…it is a Petri dish of unhealthy consequences. In both directions.

2. Let us assume that Ruben agrees, at least for the moment until he bravely returns to tell us otherwise…and why.

Then, we are left with four choices.

a)address the unhealthy consequences first and deal with exceptions and future border trespassers after we have implemented corrective measures to the existing 12-15 million folks who have snuck in and have hidden themselves within the society.

b)address the future border sneaking problem first, making it unpleasant and undesirable to attempt to become a member of our society by way of trespass, breaking and entering, identity theft and thereby not rewarding what amounts to a home invasion.

c)address both issues simultaneously with a carrot and a stick that rewards good behavior and honorable actions and punishes unwanted behavior and dishonorable actions.

d)Do nothing, but continue to talk about it quite a bit.

Alibi and excuse-makers wish to attach the phrases “tough talk” and “racism” to taking ANY adverse action against people who sneak into our society. Then, they wish to complain that there isn’t an “amnesty” for the 12-15 million people who are living an entire existence in circumvention of our laws designed to protect and preserve the nation.

I’m all for giving people a second chance. I’m all for diversity. I am absolutely in favor of not unfairly taking advantage of people. We simply first have to stop romanticizing the problem and quit making alibis and excuses for the behaviors that led to the problem in the first place. If we can’t deal with it honestly…we can’t address it honestly.

And we surely can’t deal with “enforcement” as a second wave…or afterthought. That suggestion would apparently give amnesty to anyone who is here…and THEN we try to close the door? That would INVITE a rush into the country….with claims of “being here already” by another 10 million…and we will have doubled the problem. Thanks, but no thanks.

Perhaps when there is no more romance attached to sneaking in here, when it is no longer a badge of honor among the communitiy members, when the alibis and excuses end…then perhaps we can begin to address the issue with real solutions

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:03 am 14. always right:

OK, that’s it.

This is the last article I’ll ever read from this author.

Call me small-minded or whatever to make you feel smug.

I don’t give a damn about your opinion.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:46 am 15. transcended:

Rubin,

I am truly appalled and amazed that you seem to think that breaking the laws of a sovereign country - not your own - is quite alright.

Tell me, is it just alright for the 12million law breakers South of the US border or should it be alright for instance if in addition to the 12million hispanics, there were 12million south east asians, 12million middle easterners, 12million subsaharans, 12million from eastern block, 12 million western european, and 12million from each and every pacific island and continent ALSO already here? 90% of whom cannot speak english and are without skills. What do you think it would do to this country, or ANY country? If you are saying the 12million HISPANICS should be the ONLY justifiable law breakers, then sir, YOU are a racist.

I do hope this makes a lot of sense to you as to why it is YOU who are being unfair to both Americans as well as the vast majority of human beings NOT of your ethnicity.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:48 am 16. David Thomson:

Never forget that the “Hispanic community” cited by the MSM is usually comprised of left-wing professionals—who live in solidly middle class neighborhoods. Real life illegal immigrants are merely an abstraction useful in guilt tripping white liberals. Ruben Navarrette Jr. and his ilk would freak out if the illegals moved next door to him. He would also be more then a little irritated if the illegals threatened his income. Navarrette most likely never sees or talks to an illegal immigrant once he leaves the newspaper office at the end of the day. He occasionally interviews one or two of them, and then proceeds to drive to his monthly La Raza meeting.

Ruben Navarrette attended Harvard University and quickly learned, just like “Barry” Obama, that guilt tripped whites prefer dealing with “authentic people of color.” His whole career has been built around this theme. He doesn’t want to be perceived as a “sell out.” May God bless him.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:21 pm 17. Wolf Pangloss:

I agree with some sort of comprehensive immigration reform. But I have some caveats.

1. Enforcement of existing law has to be proven to work first. That means a fence.

2. Aliens who crossed the border illegally will not be granted permanent residency from within the US. They can apply at the US consulates in Mexico. No problemo. On the other hand, those aliens who commit felonies in the US must be deported far into Mexico, not merely to the US border.

2a. Smugglers and “coyotes” must be aggressively chased to ground and prosecuted, with long jail terms for these modern-day slavers, rapists and murderers.

2b. Employers of aliens must be punished. Sanctuary cities must be denied all federal funds. Locales that enforce the law should be rewarded somehow, perhaps with a special, non-monetary honor.

3. Quotas for legal Mexican temporary and permanent immigration must be raised to at least double their current level. Not only highly educated but also highly motivated hard workers should be privileged in this. The US loves hard-working Mexican immigrants, even if the first generation speaks Spanish. No Mexican should be forced to wait more than one year for his or her request for immigration to the US to be granted or denied. This 10-20 year wait we have right now is unconscionable and the cause of most of our Mexico/America immigration problems.

4. Mexico must be forced to establish symmetrical legal immigration policies with the US. No more of this “do as I say, not as I do” from Mexico.

How’s that?

Jun 25, 2008 - 1:34 pm 18. Bob Thompson:

Mr. Navarette,

I cannot fathom why you say it is difficult to get McCain’s meaning. He has not changed his position on comprehensive immigration reform: he has made an adjustment to recognize the need for enforcement control over non-residents (also called illegal aliens). He has done this because he knows there are many conservative votes he would not get if he didn’t. He has never said he would not move to restart his comprehensive reform efforts once border control is in place. He probably will try for amnesty again, but will likely get very strong opposition again. (you call it not amnesty but most who objected to McCain’s plan think amnesty is any plan that automatically allows all illegals to stay here and continue whatever they have been doing and not to be considered any longer illegal.) BTW, I think if he is president, he will no longer worry about these issues and just go ahead and pursue what he wants.

Jun 25, 2008 - 3:34 pm 19. Ramp Rat:

Where ever McCain is is better than any Democrat. We can deal with all the illegal or aliens, but first we need to get control of the boarder. That is the only bottom line, unfortunately for the “political CLass” their bottom line is always dotted to their wallet and vote count.

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:59 pm 20. Olivia:

Are all Hispanics behind amnesty? I don’t know. The ones I saw protesting in the streets were illegals! What some of you pro-amnesty people don’t understand, is that some people crawled over broken glass just to get here legally? And it is positively unfair that those who run across the border are afforded the same rights. Would you let squatters become part of your family because they happened to take over your attic? Umm no. I don’t care if McCain flip flops as long as he flips in the right direction it’s not a flop to me.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:36 pm 21. Tolbert:

“He will have the opportunity to do so next month in San Diego when he addresses the annual meeting of the National Council of La Raza.”

Why is John McCain addressing a racist organization?

Would it be acceptable for him to appear before the NAAWP? (National Association for the Advancement of White People)

Where is the outrage against McCain’s pandering to the reconquistas?

Does anyone seriously think that John McCain is going to secure the border?

Sheesh, people are gullible!

Jun 26, 2008 - 5:31 am 22. urbanleftbehind:

Well s(&*, if the squatters producing income and my ARM just kicked in, I’d have to really think about it, so long as they didnt piss all over and bring mice. Better them then 95% percent of the traditional Section 8 market. If not, then sure I call ICE. As would 95% of legal hispanics if you trotted out universal health care and pulled out of Iraq in return. Illegal cousins would be out curbside next to the recyclables.

America is a condo complex, not a house. I don’t disagree with the squatter analogies, but recognize their are people who - sublet; rent; own a 2-bedroom, and some who own a penthouse and some rental units. Its the penthouse holders making us who live down by laundry room suffer all the external costs.

Jun 26, 2008 - 8:01 am 23. Kay:

“Ed Lilly:

“To a lot of people, that sounds like the discredited approach of enforcement only — which has a track record of only making the problem worse. Note the 1996 Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IRAIRA), an enforcement-only law which – for all its chest thumping – did little to curb illegal immigration.”

What a ridiculous argument. Kellogg-Briand anyone? You know, for all its chest thumping, it did little to prevent World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, wars in the Middle East, wars in Africa, wars in South America, etc.

It’s not simply passing a law that accomplishes anything. You have to enforce it. Enforce the existing immigration laws first and stop (or ideally reverse) the flow of illegal immigrants. Then take stock and see what the next step should be.”

I’m with Ed, until we actually enforce the laws we have in place now, there’s no way to structure any new plans. It’s the commander-in-chief’s job to secure our borders.

Jun 26, 2008 - 9:28 am 24. Angie:

This is so ridiculous it is laughable. Small minded? What about Mexico’s immigration laws? Perhaps we should try theirs.

McCain wants the support of the conservatives..then let him promise to enforce our laws that are in place now! Let him care about the middle class that is choking to death in this country! Does he or Congress care about America or do they care more about cheap labor whether it is illegal or not? Sounds more like Mexifornia? Perhaps we should rename our Country? After all, we dare not have our own language sanctioned. Oh well, I am just a gun toting clinging to religion bigot!

Jun 26, 2008 - 10:39 am 25. JAZ:

Dear Mr. Navarette:

The best deal available on immigration reform for the immigrant base failed last year, when Sen. Obambi and the democrats voted for five poison pills that killed the immigration reform package you advocate and Sen McCain championed.

Why don’t you write an article exposing Obambi’s fingerprints on the death of 2007 Immigration Reform Act. Sen MAc has been honest with you. The 2007 Immigration Bill will not pass. It is dead because opportunists like Obambi lacked the courage to stand by it. Second, it died because the American people do not trust their leaders to secure the borders first.

Now a piece of advice. I suggest you continue to support Sen Mac for his honesty and his word even with his revised immigration position. Otherwise, you like Sen Feingold will learn the hard way that Sen Obambi has no problem throwing decades of a colleagues reform work under the bus to suit his political fortunes.

The choices are stark Mr. Navarette. You can support a nominee who is black and speaks well, but you know has already shafted immigration reform and shows a propensity to dumping important policies to suit his political fortunes. Or you can stick with someone who has fought hard for you no matter what, but is honest enough to speak the realities required for compromise.

I don’t think Sen McCAin should have to say anymore to you. I think you should take the Obambi fairydust out of your eyes and do the right thing for the immigrants you champion.

Their best chance for reform lies only in McCain, however he can get it.

Respectfully,

Jun 29, 2008 - 7:23 pm 26. mccain flip flop:

[...] at Barack Obama for reversing his position on whether he would accept public financing of his …http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-mccain-flip-flopped-on-immigration/Think Progress ” McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe …McCain Flip-Flops, [...]

Jul 1, 2008 - 10:41 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: