53 Comments

1. heather:

from what I gather, becoming a legal immigrant in the US is insanely difficult (as John Derbyshire, Mark Steyn and a friend of mine attest). Thus the fact that Canada is benefiting from people from Philippines, S Africa and Europe, because we have a more rational system I guess.

So. All these suggestions make a lot of sense to me, Roger… but the reality is, the US immigration bureaucracy is broken. And we all know (or should know) how difficult it is to fix a bureaucracy.

There is, by the way, an identity card that cannot be copied or counterfeited someone else may know more about it, it is however, a European product, which makes some American company or other testy…

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:13 am 2. brandon davis:

Hey Rog’

How ’bout we be “fair” to all the people already waiting to get in here, and who are waiting in line and have been waiting in line for years legally first?

So I’ll see your immoral pandering and raise you a moral and legal issue. No cards for me, please: I’ll stand pat with the hand I’ve got (oh yeah, puns vigorously intended).

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:23 am 3. Roger:

Heather, you are so right. When you have a system that makes it difficult for people as educated as Steyn and Derbyshire (and I’m sure your friend) to immigrate you have one dysfunctional bureaucracy on your hands. No wonder people feel they have to come here illegally.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:46 am 4. Michael J. Totten:

Agreed, Roger. It is a decent and realistic plan. I’m sure someone will find flaws with it (none come to mind off the top of my head, and this isn’t my issue), but I’d be interested in seeing their “flawless” plan. None exists.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:50 am 5. Eric Akawie:

I think the way to handle legal immigrants is to just kill the 7 year waiting period for anyone who was already on a legal path to citizenship. Allow them to take the test and oath right away (as long as they can take the test in English.)

We also need to improve our Visa system so we’re no longer one of the most unfriendly countries to visit.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:54 am 6. hangtownhoney:

Rodger-

The illegal immigration problem has just been solved by the annoitment of McCain for the Presidential Candidate of the Republican party.

There will be no fence, no enforcement over the present level and certainly few deportations of these law breakers.

In the meantime, California will continue the mass exodus of high/middle income families to move to more welcome states. The increase in health care, education and law enforcement continues to rise because of the nanny state we are incorporating for the illegals. This is contributing to the bankrupcy of our Golden State.
Those that remain will need to learn Spanish to obtain any care whatsoever in long term hospitals, to buy a pair shoes or even try to straighten our bank accounts. The general level of living will continue to lower because of the undermining of wages created by the immigration influx.

With the future government representatives that have been selected, the swarm will not be stopped. There will be no fence. There will be little enforcement. And certainly no deportations.

Don’t worry about illegal immigration, it is now on the way to being legal.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:54 am 7. brogarn:

I agree with all but the 2nd one. Having a national identification database is just begging for identity theft to reach all new levels. Do some research on dirty cops being bribed by criminals to get access to databases of that type. Never mind common hackers getting into the thing. All it will take is one laptop being stolen from some less than responsible government type with access to it and suddenly you’ve got an entire nation at risk of identity theft.

Call me paranoid all you like, but if you can’t fathom that kind of thing happening, then you’re not paranoid enough.

There are far better ways of making sure that employers can validate the legality of their employees without a national ID.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:03 pm 8. Oligonicella:

Um, who is this “we” you refer to as enabling the wink system? Not those in the midwest. I’ve watched as illegals have started (not already been) coming into small towns and displacing local workers. Workers who *want* those jobs, but can’t compete with those who don’t require ID, workman’s comp, SS or taxes paid. *And* who get exactly the same per hour, only in cash under the counter.

Don’t pawn off on the rest of us the bogus wink system you and yours set up for *your* convenience and cheapness. I personally don’t care if you experience angst over the issue you helped create.

Heather – It is not insanely difficult. There are many legal immigrants. There’s just a long line.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:03 pm 9. David Thomson:

Illegal immigration is now a crisis due to the welfare system. Milton Friedman rightfully pointed out that a nation couldn’t have both open borders and welfare benefits. Pajamas Media’s own Victor Davis Hanson has just coauthored an excellent work entitled The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s. I strongly recommend this book. The problem with the more recent illegal immigrants is that a very high number of these people are rapidly becoming members of a permanent underclass. Illegitimacy rates are skyrocketing, anti-intellectualism is rampant, far too many illegal immigrants are being sent too prison, and they often have little interest in becoming Americans.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:11 pm 10. Boojum:

Have a high tech national identification card. I know some libertarian types find this frightening, but explain to me how in the real world we will ever solve this problem without it…

Roger;

It’s not going to solve anything. There’s a fair percentage of employers who just don’t care whether their workers are legal and aren’t going to be bothered checking identity.

I’m all for making English the official language of the country. No more printing voting forms in 80 different languages at taxpayer expense.

(Not to mention having to hear ‘Para espanol marque el uno, For English press two)

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:11 pm 11. JK Ribera:

The comment from the Midwest (Oligoncella) seems simplistic to me. The San Joaquin Valley of California is the largest agricultural valley in the world filled with illegal workers. Those products are being sold to supermarkets all over the Midwest (and the world) at lower prices because the fruit and vegetable pickers work for relatively wages. This is not a simple issue. Also her answer about the long line for immigration was limited. Without improving this siginificantly, we absolutely encourage illegal immigration, even without intending to.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:13 pm 12. jaimeshawn:

A Double Plus Yes – I think Congress is broken and unlikely to be able to implement any of your 5 steps, but I like them. I’m not sure why our political system doesn’t seem to work, when 98% of the people I know seem to be men and women of good will. Perhaps we need to select congress-critters by lottery.

I like all your solutions with very tiny modifications:

Build a Fence;
Actually, I’m more interested in a fence from a security perspective than an immigration perspective. I can’t understand how a group of Arab terrorists haven’t walked across the border when 5 million Mexicans manage it each year.

National ID Card;
We already have one: It’s called a _Passport_. As near as I know, there is no clause in the Constitution requiring the US federal government to issue passports to foreign nationals, so we would hardly be discriminating if we only issued them to US Citizens. If nearly every adult had one, we might as well use them as driver’s licenses too – and end the fiction that anything is really demonstrated by a state driving test.

Deport Criminals;
Deport them all to Iraq so they can do the jobs ‘Raqi’s won’t do. Many already work in the building trades, and from what I see on TV, ‘Raq needs people over there that can do concrete work.

Give Amnesty;
For the over-wheming majority of immigrants that are working jobs, not commiting crime, and not living off welfare, and are willing to learn English and Protect the USA from all Enemies Foreign or Domestic, Double Plus Yes!

Real Reform to immigration system;
Again a Double Plus Yes – BUT I think Congress is broken and unlikely to be able to implement any of your 5 steps.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:30 pm 13. bgates:

“You can’t punish people retroactively for a shell game they didn’t invent.” You shoulda been Jack Abramoff’s lawyer. Or Duke Cunningham’s. They worked in a ‘wink system’ for years, too.

“we need a constant infusion of labor for a whole variety of reasons” like what, Roger? What industry is in such dire need of low-cost unskilled labor? Screenwriting? Blogging? Political punditry? You need more busboys paying into social security so you can tip better at Kazu?

Which aspects of Mexico’s cultural, economic, and political successes are you most eager to replicate here in America?

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:31 pm 14. Eric Akawie:

The other thing I think is necessary is some kind of casual labor category that would allow the worker and employer to opt out of Social Security, unemployment insurance and witholding taxes, making unskilled labor more affordable and minimum wage more livable.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:31 pm 15. efuji:

Roger,…I pretty much agree with everything except blanket amnesty. Instead, just open the existing immigration process to many more legal residents who have a path to citizenship, but include the current illegal immigrants as eligible to apply along with all of the others who are and have been trying to emigrate legally. Do not discriminate against the ones who are here illegally already, but do not favor them either. Let them keep the advantage in English proficiency that their residence here has provided, but make them register for the ID Card. The order of processing should be in the order that they signed up for the Alien ID Card. Others who choose to not sign up for the Alien ID Card can continue to “live in the shadows”, but the laws applying to work and other factors will be tightened as time goes by. BTW,I favor a National ID Card for every US Citizen too with all of the usual Driver’s License stuff printed on the front as well as passport information.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:31 pm 16. Ernest T Bass:

Roger,
Why do you hire illegal aliens instead of legal citizens or green card holders?

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:34 pm 17. jrdroll:

“Moreover, the candidates currently recommending deporting ten million people (at whatever rate) are just full of it and pandering. It ain’t gonna happen. Consider the logistics alone. Ever been to the Tijuana border on a weekend?”

Which candidate exactly is calling for deporting 10 mil? These people came here voluntarily. If you make it difficult to exist here illegally they will self deport. Look at what recently enacted laws in AZ and OK have done to motivate illegals to leave those states on their own.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:41 pm 18. Nihimon:

I’m sure there’s some glaring flaw with this, but I haven’t seen it yet…

If you really want to stop businesses from hiring illegal aliens, create a reasonable fine ($10,000) and give the majority of it to the illegal worker as compensation for being “exploited”. This should make employers wary enough to simply stop hiring them. And if it doesn’t, it gives the workers an incentive to turn in their employers. If nothing else, I would think it would encourage the employers to treat the workers better.

National ID doesn’t scare me at all. I want liberty, not privacy. And I want people to be held accountable for their actions and not be able to hide in plain sight because the gov’t isn’t *allowed* to look at them.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:53 pm 19. Metalguy:

“Consider the logistics alone. Ever been to the Tijuana border on a weekend? Now multiply that mess by tens of thousands.”

There may be good reasons to not deport these people but practicalities isn’t one of them. The logistical problems in deporting 10 million people are way overblown. 800,000 people legally cross the USA/Mexico border **every day** for work and play – 300,000 cross at Tijuana alone. The claim that it would, “multiply that mess by tens of thousands” is hysterical nonsense.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:01 pm 20. Lem:

You had me up until the national id card.

The idea that I should be penalized for not having an ID (that only the government requires I have it) is and unconstitutional burden in my opinion.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If I dont have the forsaken ID (for whatever reason) the gov has just created a probable cause to put me in jail.

no thanks. we are not back in the USSR

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:07 pm 21. dclydew:

Well… it seems to me that illegal immigrants show up for jobs that pay money, because there are no jobs in Mexico and there are corrupt businesspeople and scam artists that are willing to put them to work in the US illegally. Then they bring their families, or start ones here and BAM! we have a mess.

It seems to me that we wouldn’t need a fence (except possibly as a security feature) if people on the other side of the fence had no reason to come here. That is, if you couldn’t get a job in the US without being legal… then illegals would probably not come here… and go home on their own. We don’t need to goosestep down to the south side and dump Hispanics into trains. We simply need to dry up the money supply that that is sustaining them.

Roger is right about one thing, the ‘wink’ system is the problem. The wink system for you nanny, the wink system for the gardener, the wink system for the landscaping hands, etc etc ad nausea. We have a problem because some people placed $$ over law and convenience over patriotism.

I would recommend a national ID for non-citizens and the existing SSN’s for citizens. Then the government needs to create a searchable database so the SSN or national ID can be verified. Then we impose HEAVY fines on employers once they no longer have the freedom to lie and say “I didn’t know that the 200 non-english speaking people that all live together in a shed on the far side of our property were illegal!!! I am Shocked and Appaled!!”

If $25,000 an infraction (per day) for the Clean Water Act is acceptable, then surely the same could be applied to illegal hiring practices.

Hell, I’d even be up for saying that those already here could register and get a 1 year legal work visa, just so they aren’t all homeless on the streets the day after the legislation goes in place… that would give them a fair amount of time to exit the Shell Game of their own accord.

Once we fix the social problem, I doubt we’ll need to resort to fences and mass deportations.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:09 pm 22. Roger:

“Roger,
Why do you hire illegal aliens instead of legal citizens or green card holders?”

Fair question, Ernest T Bass. In many cases I have hired green card holders and, of course, legal citizens. In some cases, I have not asked and in still other cases, as I wrote, I have helped people become citizens. I don’t want to encourage illegal immigration,it’s just that in my part of this country (SoCal) it is pervasive. In many areas, it becomes extremely inconvenient or difficult to find someone who is not illegal for certain kinds of work. (Or if you can, there’s a reason they’re not employed.) For example, I pay a service for my gardening, so I don’t hire the gardeners personally. I suspect, though don’t know, they are almost all illegals. A few of them speak English. Most don’t. The ones who don’t I address in Spanish. I don’t ask their citizenship. Call it some version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:14 pm 23. ajf:

3. Deport all criminal illegal immigrants.

All illegals are criminals by definition. The only moral thing to do with them is remove them, each and everyone, by whatever means necessary. And, I call bullshit on the vapid notion that it’s impossible to deport them all. Even if the logistics were difficult, which they aren’t, that would not be an excuse. The illegals don’t come here to live, or work for that matter, they come to steal. They know exactly what they are doing and they do it to profit, profit which they then smuggle back across the border.

As an immigrant (now a naturalized Citizen) I am personally insulted, as all true immigrants are, when these criminals are referred to as “immigrants.” When you defend them, as you do here, Roger, you are shitting all over the decent people who are waiting in third-world shit holes all around the world for their fair shot at emigrating. And, you obviously don’t think too much of Mexicans either, they are not all criminals and I’m sure there is at least one decent Mexican who is waiting for his fair turn.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:21 pm 24. BD:

“3. Deport all criminal illegal immigrants.

4. Give amnesty to the rest.”

#3 is almost tautological, Roger. Who exactly is “the rest,” when illegal immigration is a de facto and de jure violation of the law? They might not all be criminal, in the sense of having been convicted by a court, but they are all law breakers the moment they cross the border.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:21 pm 25. David:

Nice plan — in the world of fantasy. In the real world we are never going to build a fence. Bush isn’t doing anything, nor is Congress. And, a Democratic President will do even less.

So, the real question is whether to do steps 2, 3, and 4 in the absence of step 1.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:24 pm 26. dclydew:

In many areas, it becomes extremely inconvenient or difficult to find someone who is not illegal for certain kinds of work. (Or if you can, there’s a reason they’re not employed.)

That’s true of ALL of the illegals, isn’t it?

I don’t ask their citizenship. Call it some version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

But why?

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:31 pm 27. Lem:

Why dclydew?

Could it be because in the bizzaro world of PC asking has been made insulting and denigrating?

I dont know. I supose I sould let Roger answer..

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:43 pm 28. dclydew:

Lem,

Maybe so, but that’s why I asked… socially unacceptable seems like a justifiable (though not necessarily great) reason.

We have the same issues even here in Columbus OH. My employer hires a cleaning subcontractor and I have no doubt that many of them may be illegal, occasionally numbers of them get deported…one batch got found because they were swiping random things off of people’s desk and we accidentally caught them while testing some motion activated cameras LOL.

I’m not trying to fault Roger, rather I’m interested in why employers don’t demand legal status, or customers demand legal status for contracted workers.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:49 pm 29. MikeD:

“I don’t want to encourage illegal immigration,it’s just that in my part of this country (SoCal) it is pervasive.”

Sounds like “But everyone else is doing it, why shouldn’t I?”

Is that just the “Wink System” Roger or a rationalization and an excuse? I’m curious.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:57 pm 30. penny:

Amnesty, why? It’s not a bad thing to have a labor pool that is cheap, close in proximity and mobile. When the economy goes into a downturn, as it is now, it isn’t a bad thing for that labor pool to go home, which many do, rather than eat up welfare benefits.

Illegals don’t have to be made citizens. They certainly need to be accounted for by some reasonable processing system.

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:01 pm 31. Doug S.:

dclydew, I think you’re misunderstanding Roger’s last point. He means that if you can find a citizen or legal immigrant who is willing to take the sorts of menial jobs he’s talking about, there’s probably a good reason why that person hasn’t found more lucrative employment (i.e., addiction issues, criminal tendencies, or other character issues). Since we have something like a full employment economy these days, this is even more true now than it was 30 years ago, when I was growing up not more than 20 miles from where Roger lives. Illegal (as well as legal) immigration was a much discussed issue back then, and has been ever since in this corner of the country, so I understand what Roger is talking about here.

And somehow, the issue of illegal immigration’s effect on the cost of labor doesn’t get as much play as it should (and does, in one of the comments upthread about how we are all complicit, whether we know it or not). Restrict the supply of labor to agriculture and the price of food will go up; restrict the supply of labor to the low end of the service economy and all sorts of services will no longer be affordable to the middle class. It will probably affect travel, too (wages for low-end hotel staff, etc.). Labor is generally a business’ most significant cost. Raise it, and businesses will pass the increased cost along to the consumer.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t tighten immigration in the name of national security. That’s an aspect of the debate that’s relatively new in terms of how much attention it gets. But one thing that hasn’t changed is that many of the people who call loudly for tighter immigration controls and forcing all illegals to leave the country don’t seem to have thought it all the way through.

Actually, one of the few pundits who seems to be keeping this aspect in the front of his mind is Mickey Kaus, and he favors immigration reform as a way of raising wages. Which is a logical point of view, as long as one understands all of the consequences.

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:03 pm 32. Sheryl:

When you hire a service company, for example gardening, tree trimming, you do not necessarily have the same service people coming to your home each time. Usually, if it’s yard work, they come during the day when the homeowners are at work. So asking these individuals who you may never even see, if they are legal is not always possible. Furthermore, living in a border state where a large percentage of the population is Hispanic, it is offensive to ask everyone with an accent to provide proof of their legal status. Especially since it will be race based. At a hair salon, for example, should one demand to see the papers of the Latina shampooers? Then what about the British accented stylists? And the Vietnamese manicurists?

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:14 pm 33. Jamie Irons:

I grew up (partly) in Mexico; I speak Spanish reasonably well. Every day I take care of Spanish-speaking patients. I think (I may of course be wrong) I have some idea of why Mexicans come here.

The way to change the perverse system we have created is to change the incentives. Why don’t we see Americans crossing the Mexican border in droves? After all, much of Mexico is rather beautiful, the people are friendly, and the weather certainly beats Chicago’s.

Americans don’t flock to Mexico because few of us want to give up a prosperous existence, with a functioning civil society and the rule of law.

We need as a nation to work with those groups in Mexico that want to change their country so that it functions a bit more like ours.

If that is chauvinist, then so be it.

Jamie Irons

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:38 pm 34. Foobarista:

One of the numerous Dirty Little Secrets about illegal immigration is that it lets politicians, especially in states like California, pass laws that should kill employment, but don’t because employers, especially mom&pop employers, ignore them by hiring illegals. If California actually enforced all its “living wage” laws, its multitudinous workplace regulations, and general anti-hiring legal regimes, every low-level service business would collapse.

It is a fundamental corruption similar to that I saw while living in China: lots of very populist-sounding, but fake, laws that are so widely ignored that they may as well not exist – unless a bureaucrat or a politician needs a reason to go after a particular business.

The problem for me about illegal immigration is that are benefits for both the employer – and even for the employee – in hiring illegals and being illegal. The employee gets to be paid under the table, in cash, versus being subject to withholding, and the employer gets to avoid a 50% cost to payroll by being illegal.

FYI: “going after” these employers is hugely difficult; often the employers themselves are immigrants – sometimes even illegal ones – and there are tens of thousands of them in SoCal alone.

Dealing with illegal immigration requires immigration reform, tax reform, and labor market reform. Doing it piecemeal won’t work.

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:41 pm 35. Eilish:

Those who think all that illegal immigrants do is provide vanity labor for rich people are deluding themselves. I am an eighth generation native Californian. My people are from the San Joaquin Valley. Mexicans have been coming to work the fields for generations and people who think that is going to stop are kidding themselves. Understand, farmers are not exaggerating when they say food will rot in the fields. If we actually deport all the illegal immigrants fruits and vegetables would rot in the fields and food prices would skyrocket.

Roger is right: we need a fence for security, but the most important thing is to stop our entitlement and welfare systems. In the past, people came to work and then they went home. They are staying now because of the benefits the government gives. To stop this, we need a good national ID so the government can monitor who is here. If you don’t give the government to tools to do the job, don’t complain when it doesn’t get done.

Feb 1, 2008 - 3:03 pm 36. ajacksonian:

What swell timing with this article: done on the same day an IRA escapee forgot to renew papers and a warrant is still found out to be active for him from Interpol! Picked up in Brownsville, TX and now awaiting his deportation hearing because, although the extradition to get him was ended, the papers out for him were *not*.

The problem is not only from Mexico – it is from lax enforcement of shipping inspection that allows large numbers of individuals to be brought in to the US illegally from China, Vietnam and other Nations and then put to work in prostitution, ‘closed’ factories, and under constant threat of punishment or worse. There is also the human trafficking system from the Middle East using Mexico as an easy port of entry to the US, and many of those individuals don’t want to be found… not to speak of the Mexican drug gangs slowly devolving northern Mexico into a state of anarchy with their high death toll feuds. They haven’t been that easy to stop, find or deport, either. And some number of them have decided to make sure their gangs stay in the US using other contact systems to keep supplied in places like Nebraska, Kansas and Maine.

This ‘wink’ system is the President not enforcing the laws of the land. Further the Congress of 1986 promised, from the seat of power Upon the Hill to, yea and verily, *fix this*. I have checked the US Constitution and there is no ‘wink’ involved here: Congress gets to set the law and the President enforces it. There is no mention made of foreign nationals and companies in the US setting immigration policy in that document.

Of course, those loving treaties will also have to look at this one called NAFTA in which Mexico swore, up and down, that it would NOT export its unemployment problem northwards. Then, after signing that treaty, they started handing out maps to people heading north and having their police show them the best way to get over the border. Lots of lovely ‘winking’ going on there… for years.

When one Nation unilaterally and intentionally breaks its word on a treaty, that usually means they have no will nor want to *keep it*. Which means the US gets the big ‘patsy’ sign attacked to its back with a ‘kick here’ right under it. I don’t care how *nice* those coming here illegally are, they have destroyed the credibility of their home nation by demonstrating they don’t care about it or the US: they have put themselves before fixing their own problem which their government swore it would fix.

The US could use a fence, and a wall would be great, too. Then, instead of some lovely high tech, super-duper card which will be obsolete by Moore’s law in six months, why not just *enforce the laws on the books*? US companies are forbidden from hiring illegal aliens and starting up a lovely set of prosecutions, one per instance, should start to tie up a number of companies across the board until the point is put across that you do not do this thing.

Instead of an ‘amnesty’ how about a ‘three strikes and you are shut down’ law for corporate scofflaws? If you do these things those here for work will find they have no legal jobs and the *illegal ones* will be so unsavory as to make going home look good. A few States are finding out that this actually works and ’self-deportation’ by individuals and families actually works quite well.

As to the farms in California and elsewhere: dry up their federal payments, subsidies and water use re-imbursements. Currently we are paying lots of good money to farm in areas that are really not suited to the type of agriculture being practiced and those companies then turn around, to cut costs, by getting *illegals* in to do the work below market prices. When that happens you have uneconomical companies that are not encouraged to adapt and innovate. Other companies, however, are doing this and California also boasts the first Robofarm that is looking at a workforce of Zero as its starting goal. Robotics and self-guidance along with sophisticated sensors are already in testing and should be past the prototype stage in a few years… then you will find companies can invest in robotics to get precision watering, pesticide application and plant analysis and *lower the cost of farming* by using less water, fertilizer and pesticide.

That technology will help the entire *world* if we can get off of illegal labor, as it is adaptable, precise and will free help utilize lands for the types of crops that grow with the least impact and yet gets high productivity. But you can’t get from here to there without letting Mexico know it must keep to its word, enforcing our laws and getting these international scofflaws from around the globe out of the workforce. Then we can find out just how bad the gang, organized crime, and terrorist problem *is*. I am none too happy with Hezbollah operatives working the gray market goods trade out of LA or running meth from Mexican drug labs into the US and Canada. Bad enough they have figured out cigarette tax variation inside the US to make money on smuggling those from State to State.

Feb 1, 2008 - 3:38 pm 37. THERM:

Roger,

You almost have it right. But #4 is a non-starter.

Amnesty is not fair, makes a mockery of our laws, jeopardizes our security and undercuts your other fine points.

Assuming all the compassion in the world for these “wink” victims, the truth is they broke our laws to get here. They are not virgins.

As a consequence they should not benefit over those who wait on line to get in and follow the rules. Sending them back may not be feasible, but rewarding purely illegal behavior is no answer. It sounds like the kind of pablum I would expect from Hillary or Obama.

Instead these folks should be allowed to apply to stay, while in place, i.e. – register, go through all the hoops, learn English, etc. But they should be at the end of the line and have a longer period of consideration than those outside.

I think this is a fair trade for continuing to live and make a living here, and for receiving social benefits like healthcare and educationa while they were or are here illegaly.

Fair is fair and the people of this country are tired of being chumps.

Feb 1, 2008 - 3:52 pm 38. CharlesMartel:

We could solve the majority of the illegal immigration problem by simply enforcing the laws now on the books. Step up I9 compliance audits for employers and utilize the fraud statutes for presentation of false documentation. Most folks coming over the boarder illegally are seeking work. If job availability dries up, they will stop coming and most of the ones here will go home. The compliance enforcement should also be carried out on a flow down basis where if, for example, a screen writer is found to be knowingly hiring illegals, his client, the studio in this case, is also publicly penalized. The recent Wal-Mart case is a precedent for this where heavy fines were assessed for a subcontractor’s non-compliance.

I happen to know quite a bit about this subject having owned an employment service here in southern California for many years.

Feb 1, 2008 - 4:33 pm 39. Gary Imhoff:

Roger’s argument is the excuse of the pawnbroker who fences stolen goods. He doesn’t ask, and his customers don’t tell, either. The customers who bring in the goods they have stolen are decent and honest in their relationships with him, and he has no complaint about their behavior in his shop. Working with them is good for his business; if he didn’t traffic in stolen goods, he wouldn’t make nearly as much money, and it’s possible that his shop would go out of business. There’s no way that thievery could ever be eliminated — it’s too common and too difficult to combat — so there’s no reason for him not to deal with thieves and to fence the things they steal. If he didn’t, somebody else would. If the pawnbroker wants to believe he’s doing nothing wrong, even though he knows he’s breaking some minor, technical law against fencing, he has to rationalize that his customers aren’t really doing anything seriously wrong, either. After all, like illegal aliens, they’re just doing a little breaking and entering, a little trespassing, aren’t they?

Feb 1, 2008 - 10:16 pm 40. Oplyd Oleo:

The only difference between the State-issued driver’s licence ID system we’ve got now, and this theoretical “tamper-proof” national ID you’re so enamored of, is that, once the first few cards have been issued, it will take the hacker community about three more weeks to figure out how to tamper with the security features and anonymously publish the specs willy-nilly across the Internet.

Feb 2, 2008 - 1:22 am 41. MrPeach:

The most important part of this process is to invalidate the citizenship of so-called anchor babies. If an illegal has a kid here, that kid should also be illegal.

Feb 2, 2008 - 2:51 am 42. RWBlack:

If you give 10 to 12 million illegals amnesty, they will then be legal and demand the same rights as other citizens (i.e. wages and benefits). The result, employers such as Roger, who do not want to pay market wages and benefits will seek those who do not demand such, black market wages, no benefits. The result is a new influx of illegals to take the jobs amnestied-illegals will not take for the money. The cycle will continue as it did after Reagan granted amnesty in the 80s. Those who do not learn from history…

Feb 2, 2008 - 3:17 am 43. Michael Smith:

All of the arguments against “amnesty”, against what is called “rewarding purely illegal behavior”, presuppose that the law which has been violated is a valid and proper law. But I’ve heard no justification for the notion that the government has a right to enforce a limit on the number of people who can enter the country.

The purpose of government — as defined in our Declaration of Independence — is to “secure the rights” of the citizens. Government, then, can legitimately claim a right to exclude the entry of those who pose an identifiable, physical threat to our rights — such as individuals with a criminal record or individuals who are members of terrorist organizations or individuals with communicable diseases.

But this does not justify the imposition of a limit on the number of immigrants — nor does it justify government devoting so few resources to the limited screening it has a right to do that it takes years to get clearance to enter. We should devote sufficient resources that it only takes days to get a clearance — and a clearance, once granted, ought to be good for a number of years.

Of course, the welfare state complicates the situation. But here, conservatives are making a big mistake. They protest vehemently against immigrants getting welfare benefits, but in doing so they implicitly grant the premise that U.S. born individuals have a right to those benefits. But the mere fact that one happens to have been born within the borders of the U.S. does not confer on that individual a right to the earnings or property of others born within those borders. There can be no such thing as a right to someone else’s money. There can be no such thing as a right that can be exercised by some, but denied to others.

The only logical and consistent position is to argue in favor of open immigration — with the limited screening discussed above — and argue in opposition to ALL welfare benefits. Our nation was founded on the idea that ALL men are created equal and possess the same, individual rights. ALL men, not just those who happen to have been lucky enough to be born in the U.S. And if ALL men posses the same rights, then NO men can claim the right to any portion of another personís money or property. This is the position conservatives should take.

Feb 2, 2008 - 6:12 am 44. markus:

Overall, I agree with your guidelines. As to future immigration, it needs to be PLANNED and REGULATED, to reduce downward wage pressure and aboidf bringing in too many people from a single foreign country, which will make it harder for them to “melt in the pot.”

Michael Smith — You seem to see this country as more of an abstract idea, rather than a group of people with common heritage, along with others of differing heritage that wish to join in. CULTURE MATTERS! This country is not a political theory experiment in the ideal form of government for Everyman. It is a real country built by individuals, families and communities with common cultural, linguistic, religious, historical backgrounds. Along with outsiders and newcomers, welcomed into the melting pot with their unique flavors, the way a new spice is welcomed into a pot of stew.

America is not an IDEA. Is is, if you will, an extended family. And as with every other country and family in the world, it disciminates by conferring more benefits and rights to members than to non-members, and to deciding which non-members can join (naturalize) based on the narrow view that the newcomers will further the short- and long-term interests of the nation itself.

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:54 am 45. Oligonicella:

JK Ribera –

“The comment from the Midwest (Oligoncella) seems simplistic to me.”

Simplistic how? All I did was give my observations about what is happening. Observations — not conjecture.

“…all over the Midwest (and the world) at lower prices because the fruit and vegetable pickers work for relatively wages.”

Your point being that it’s OK because it makes money for the hirers of the illegals? Not impressive or convincing.

“Also her answer about the long line for immigration was limited.”

His. And limited how? We encourage illegal immigration by allowing it, al la Roger, not by our system, which is being used by many people as we write this. People more than willing to wait because it is the legal thing to do and they have the morals to abide.

The legal immigrants have the moral high ground — over both the illegals and the hirers of such.

Feb 2, 2008 - 8:13 am 46. Michael Smith:

Markus, I see nothing in your comments to justify the notion that the government should have the power to impose a limit on the number of immigrants that may come into the country.

You wrote: “This country is not a political theory experiment in the ideal form of government for Everyman.” And you wrote: “America is not an IDEA.” Is that your way of trying to prove that America was NOT founded on the notion that all men are created equal? If so, I think you’ve failed. You cannot simply wish the Declaration of Independence out of existence.

The only support you’ve offered for the notion that government should have the power to limit immigration is the claim that all other governments are doing the same. But even if that is true, it certainly doesn’t prove that it is proper. At one time, the majority of governments — the VAST majority of governments — consisted of a single ruler (and an associated clique) who possessed virtually unlimited power over rightless subjects. I assume you would agree that simply because every other government was doing it didn’t make this the proper way to govern.

America was indeed the first nation founded on the explicit acknowledgment that ALL men are created equal and ALL possess the same rights. The desire now to close our borders is a repudiation of that principle — and it is particularly sad to see it being repudiated by a political movement that claims to believe in freedom and limited government.

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:38 am 47. davis,br:

I was born in California. Life-time resident.

Nobody, but nobody EVER frickin’ mentions that illegal immigration was NOT a problem from the period of WWII through the end of the 1960’s. (It wasn’t a problem earlier than that either, btw.)

Why? It was the period of the long vilified by the proto-lefties of the period, and the PC-istas of the current period, Bracero Program. (Which was often justly vilified for it’s excesses during the Chavez period of the 1960’s, but the damn thing worked in the main, and should have been repaired, not ended.)
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program

It was started during the early 40’s (from earlier antecedants) because we needed the inexpensive farm labor that the Mexican government was willing to provide, to do the jobs the Mexican migrant laborers were eager to do. As legal, card-carrying temporary immigrants.

So …what happened? Well, a certain Democrat administration and Congress in 1964 decided to throw the bill out …because of the typical problems you have arise when greed causes individuals to cheat, basically. Some employers were systematically stiffing the workers.

The Dem’ admin’s solution? Throw the baby out with the bath water. (Rather than arrest or fine the few assholes who were gaming the system, and making it right with the victims.)

The eventual outcome? The 1965 TED KENNEDY Immigration bill, which threw open the borders. (Yeah *that* Ted Kennedy!)

And which led directly to the 1980’s (Reagan, sadly enough) amnesty, which – as we now SHOULD know solved absolutely nothing, and made matters even worse, by causing cheaters of the US Immigration laws to hope for a repeat – led to the current, even worse illigal immigration mess …and the purely idiotic, never-read-a-history book current proposals to try the same damn 1980’s non-solution thing again.

Which leads one to ponder the old saw about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the results to be different.

Roger’s moronical “solution” didn’t work when we did it before (the differing details don’t mean squat, people), and it won’t work this time. It solves nothing, because it fricking repeats the Grand Mistake of the previous “solution”.

Which mistake is, you ask? Simple.

We didn’t respect our own immigration laws, and made an “an exception for exceptional circumstance” to our laws.

We put people who broke the law in front of people who’d been legally working through the system, trying to legally immigrant for years in some cases …and we expected no one to figure out the implication of that. And even unschooled rural Mexican peasants aren’t that frickin’ stupid.

And now, insanely enough, we’re being asked to do the 1980’s amnesty again …only this time we’re asked to expect a different result.

Roger? – This is an idiotic proposal. Period.

But – as another old saw goes – if you don’t read history, you’re doomed to repeat it. And sometimes I wonder if people commenting on these problem would recognize a history book if it bit them in the butt.

Feb 2, 2008 - 11:22 am 48. heather:

now, if I were a candidate for president in the US of A, and I wanted to lock in the Hispanic vote, I would go for the drivers’ licenses for non-citizens: BUT I would say that if you aren’t a legal citizen, that would be noted on the license itself, and of course, on all the back up computer info.

Drivers’ licenses are – right now – defacto ID’s. Also, the Dept of Homeland Security should ‘encourage’ the states to adopt the kind of license that cannot be copied. Such materials exist. However, they are German made. There is a strong ‘laminate’ lobby in the US of A.

Feb 2, 2008 - 11:53 am 49. Stace:

Late to this thread, but I agree with most your post, Roger.

However, people should realize that there’s very little chance the solid wall that many people insist on will be built on the Texas border. The currently authorized segments of real and virtual fence will be built, but there won’t be a solid wall. A wall would have to be built well north of the river, and that would cede back too much territory to Mexico.

Feb 3, 2008 - 7:37 am 50. Oligonicella:

Mike –

You’re a pedant. All men are equal. However, all men are not citizens of a given country. Therefore, all men are not due the legal protections of said country. Just because you’re human and living in Uzbekistan, in no way gives you US coverage on a legal basis. It’s called being a resident.

We have decided for a number of reasons which you simply do not like, that we as a country want to limit the influx of immigrants. So laws and regulations were set in place to do this.

You simply don’t like the concept and my guess is, no matter the rationale proposed, you would reject it as not being an umbrella for the mythical ALL you refer to.

You actually believe ALL people on this planet have some unstated “right” to come here? Even those whose primary goal in life is the destruction of our society? If not them, then your ALL fails and we now simply seek the proper limits. If them as well, I have to question your rationality as being self-destructive and must inform you that I am in no way obligated to accompany you on that path, your assertions notwithstanding.

Feb 3, 2008 - 2:12 pm 51. miguelj:

You don’t go far enough. If we truly penalized employers (and I don’t mean the guy in the pickup truck who collects a gardener from in front of Home Depot–but the real *employers* – Tysons Foods et al), then we wouldn’t have to build a fence. We could even tear down the fence we’ve already built.
The overwhelming majority of these poor undocumenteds are only here to work. Of course, cut them off from the job market and the rest of us would have to pay a LOT more for quite a few basic goods and services.
I’d be willing to do it, even just to expose our hypocrisy on the subject.

Feb 3, 2008 - 6:07 pm 52. Bostonian:

Michael Smith: “But I’ve heard no justification for the notion that the government has a right to enforce a limit on the number of people who can enter the country.”

What you just said is that you believe that the citizens of a country have no right to write a law that that limits who enters their country.

I hope you do not claim to be any kind of democrat.

Feb 3, 2008 - 8:11 pm 53. kparker:

MrPeach,

Unfortunately, to eliminate the citizenship of “anchor babies” would require a constitutional amendment.

However, the Constitution does not mandate that we extend either citizenship or residency that that baby’s next-of-kin.

Mind you, I’m not necessarily advocating one or the other, just pointing out what’s hard vs what might as well be impossible.

Feb 5, 2008 - 1:24 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: