That puts it mildly, I suppose, since he has vowed today to “send all illegal aliens home.” [Does that include your gardening service?-ed. Shush.]
This seems, shall we say, er…, a bit impractical. Our Mike obviously hasn’t spent a lot of time in California lately. Trying to cross the border between San Diego and Tijuana on a normal weekend day takes about three hours. Add half of East Los Angeles into the mix and you might have to wait three months.
Actually, Huckabee is lying (for an obvious reason) and knows it. This ain’t gonna happen. Build a reliable fence, sure, but send everyone home? How exactly do you send ten million or more people back to Mexico? And would you like to have the media filming it every day, as they will? What do you think America would look like to the world, to ourselves, shunting poor families back to Guadalajara on buses?
We need a decent and fair immigration system, but we don’t need demagoguery. The good news is Huckabee’s not getting elected anyway.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
16 Comments
1. MikeD:You are quite correct Roger, Huckabee is a liar and an idiot. Thankfully, he is not electable. On the other hand you state; “How exactly do you send ten million or more people back to Mexico?”
It is certainly a large problem defying any easy resolution but the answer to your question, simply, is: one at a time. As someone remarked (I wish I could take credit but I cannot);
“Who says we can not send 12 million immigrants back across the border? Mexico was certainly capable of doing it.”
Jan 17, 2008 - 10:29 am 2. David Thomson:Sensible people realize that the roughly twelve million illegals already in the country—are staying forever. Our goal should be merely to stop the flow of more entering the country. The United States needs to select only those immigrants eager to assimilate into our culture and with the most to offer. Their race and ethnicity should not be a factor.
Jan 17, 2008 - 11:14 am 3. MikeD:I agree with you partially, David; we need a sensible approach to immigration divorced from point of origin and/or ethnicity. But there is nothing sensible about accepting the 12 million already here illegally as an irreversible fait acompli. If we stem the flow with a viable wall and enforce our existing laws a significant number of the 12 million will self-return to their homelands. It is already happening in the several states where renewed enforcement is occurring. Some illegals will clearly remain, I am sure, and that may or may not prove to be an ongoing problem. But, if the flood is stopped and there is some self-imposed remediation, then the authorities can concentrate on the criminal element and time will determine whether something more is required.
Jan 17, 2008 - 11:55 am 4. Michael J. Totten:Mike Huckabee makes even John Edwards look appealing by comparison.
Jan 17, 2008 - 12:28 pm 5. David Thomson:“But there is nothing sensible about accepting the 12 million already here illegally as an irreversible fait acompli.”
Only a relatively small percentage will ever return to the land of their birth. I have no interest in pointing guns at people and pushing them onto boxcars in the middle of the night. No, it is far wiser to focus on preventing more from coming into the country. This also the position of most Americans. They feel very uncomfortable about forcibly removing people earning a living and supporting their families. That train left the station a long ago.
Jan 17, 2008 - 1:19 pm 6. David Thomson:“But there is nothing sensible about accepting the 12 million already here illegally as an irreversible fait acompli.”
Only a relatively small percentage will ever return to the land of their birth. I have no interest in pointing guns at people and pushing them onto boxcars in the middle of the night. No, it is far wiser to focus on preventing more from coming into the country. This also the position of most Americans. They feel very uncomfortable about forcibly removing people earning a living and supporting their families. That train left the station a long time ago.
Jan 17, 2008 - 1:19 pm 7. jrdroll:“I have no interest in pointing guns at people and pushing them onto boxcars in the middle of the night.”
I haven’t heard of anyone suggesting this solution excerpt for the pro illegal immigration partisans.
Jan 17, 2008 - 3:03 pm 8. MikeD:Make life difficult for illegals to work in the US and they will go home how they came here: one at a time.
I don’t think anyone is talking about pointing guns and pushing people into boxcars in the middle of the night. That is a typically liberal false analogy and logical misdirection. Self-removal caused by a lack of incentive to stay (i.e. no job) has hardly been tried extensively but where it has recently been pursued it has been effective (fledgling Oklahoma and Arizona efforts come to mind). So I sense, David, that you are simply wrong, uninformed of events, or in denial. The train you say left the station long ago is really just the enforcement of existing law. And, while enforcement of existing law may not spur all 12 million to leave, it could have a significant impact on the number of prior illegal arrivals. Certainly it is preferable to your apparent willingness to surrender.
Jan 17, 2008 - 3:21 pm 9. markus:Let’s assume we have a viable employee verification system with huge penalties for hiring an illegal immigrant. And so they do go home. And we give Tancredo a blank check and put him in charge of building a wall. Wouldn’t such an outcome be just as hard or harder on small businesses and consumers as, oh, for instance, raising the minimum wage supposedly is, or making it easier for workers to join a union? If you think those are bad ideas, why do you also support forcing employers to find Americans willing to dig ditches, clean toilets, and pick lettice for a living?
Jan 17, 2008 - 6:23 pm 10. MikeD:I at first thought I might address the points raised by Markus above. Then I realized I would simply be wasting my time since reason in response to his weak and spurious points would have no impact regardless of the validity of anything I might say. He wants a pissing contest. I have made my point, he adds nothing to the discussion, and I have better things to do.
Jan 17, 2008 - 6:43 pm 11. TomTom:MikeD: I’m with you. But what do we do if Mexico refuses to let the illegals back in because they are “undocumented”? The Mexicans running the place are pricks, and by no means above such a stunt. “They might be Guatamalans or Nicaraguans!” Can’t you just hear it? We have got to come to grips with that.
It will prove difficult, but probably best, to encourage their piecemeal return by denying them jobs, healthcare, housing, education. But the Dems will roadblock any and all such legislation in DC.
I’ve posted this before somewhere, but please consider we would have 40 million more native US citizens without Roe v. Wade.
Jan 17, 2008 - 7:05 pm 12. David Thomson:I believe that only about one million of the country’s twelve million illegals will ever return home. Many have American born children and solid employment. No, let’s primarily focus our efforts on preventing more from entering the country. Assisting employers with identifying those eligible to work in the country is very important.
Race and ethnicity should have nothing to do with our immigration laws. We should merely pick the best candidates to reside in our country.
Jan 17, 2008 - 9:14 pm 13. markus:I didn’t raise any points, spurious or otherwise, Mike. I noted an apparent inconsistency and asked for a rational answer, which AS ALWAYS I am very open to. If you lack the ability to provide one, you can just be quiet, rather than insult me. Once more: if raising the minimum wage and making it easier for low-wage workers to organize is damaging to the economy, wouldn’t removing millions of low-wage workers from the economy through strict immigration enforcement be similarly damaging?
Jan 18, 2008 - 7:00 am 14. MikeD:Fair enough Markus. My response then, “is not necessarily”. Your argument implies that raising the minimum wage and making it easier for low-wage workers to organize, and removing illegal immigrants are: 1) linked, and 2) invariably injurious and that only damage can result from either action. I would argue that a “sensible” approach to immigration might very well provide labor where truly needed, might ultimately induce undereducated teenagers and our indigent to flip hamburgers and mow lawns, and would cause the “economy” to adjust in a variety of unanticipated ways without causing undue havoc to the cost structure. And when the social costs of servicing a majority of the unskilled and uneducated 12 million illegals is considered there may be a net offset. I worry anytime someone simply assumes doing nothing is unavoidable. Which then begins to address David’s additional point. Yes, some illegals have American born children and employment. So what? And assuming only 1 million can be induced to leave seems naive. I could posit 8 million leaving to support my own argument but there is no basis for either figure. David wants to do nothing so assumes a low number. That is not an argument, that is simply an excuse.
And with that, gentlemen, I must go to work.
Jan 18, 2008 - 8:01 am 15. Boojum:Too much discourse is focused on blaming the Mexicans. They wouldn’t be coming if we weren’t hiring. The problem is 90% our fault.
Jan 18, 2008 - 9:50 am 16. Gary Rosen:“if raising the minimum wage and making it easier for low-wage workers to organize is damaging to the economy, wouldn’t removing millions of low-wage workers from the economy through strict immigration enforcement be similarly damaging?”
The rule of law of course means nothing to markus in this spurious comparison, made after exactly zero references in the thread to unions or minimum-wage law. You were right about him the first time, MikeD.
“I don’t think anyone is talking about pointing guns and pushing people into boxcars in the middle of the night.”
Actually markus has quite an obsession with boxcars.
Jan 19, 2008 - 6:07 pm