July 15, 2005


Senate shuns attempt to add agents (Stephen Dinan, July 15, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

The Senate voted yesterday against fulfilling its pledge from last year to hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents and fund 8,000 new detention beds for illegal aliens in fiscal 2006, as some potential presidential candidates weighed in on border security and illegal immigration.
The American taxpayer will never pay what it would cost to close the borders.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 15, 2005 7:52 AM

How about prosecuting the businesses that hire illegals? Can (local) government resist the temptation to start another agency and burden business (and employees) with more rules, while claiming to be protecting American jobs and reducing terrorism, but achieving nothing?

Posted by: Daran at July 15, 2005 8:27 AM

Rather than confine them, just tag them. Retinal scans and DNA matches with a data base of illegals can't be frauded up.

Posted by: bart at July 15, 2005 8:58 AM

or paid for

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 9:07 AM


No one is going to prosecute middle class white businessmen for hiring people to do jobs no one wants. The premise of the Reagan immigration reforms was that we would--we didn't.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 9:11 AM

Relatively inexpensive to have employer sanctions enforced via Govt. form (OMB NO. 1115-0136) labeled Employment Eligibility Verification which all employers are required to have dating back to the law sponsored by Senator Simpson. If enforced with periodic checks and fines for violation (WHICH IT PRESENTLY ISN'T) the demand for illegal immigrants would dry up. (true there would still gaps, but significant decline in present demand) Relatively easy to also improve the Resident Alien Card, itself.

Without the available jobs in US, business in the this country will bid up the wages paid to American workers AND wages will go down in Mexico. So you are correct there would be an expense to the total economy, but I differ with you that Americans won't pay the extra cost. Less strain on public services also will mitigate the added cost. BTW "legal" immigration from Mexico is in the hundreds of thousand I think.

My real desire is that we return to the law prior to 1965.

Posted by: h-man at July 15, 2005 9:24 AM


No one is going to enforce such regs.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 9:35 AM

"No one is going to enforce such regs"

Granted that bureaucrats left to their own desires don't give a sh*t about the country. Hopefully citizens will have a say on the subject, that will give them the proper attitude adjustment. And hopefully before we are swamped with Mariachi Bands

Posted by: h-man at July 15, 2005 9:58 AM

oj: prosecuting evil white corporations for not wanting to pay a living wage sounds like a proposal that would go down well in some parts of the USA. Needless to say, such legislation has already been implemented over here.

Posted by: Daran at July 15, 2005 10:09 AM


Yes, in cities.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 10:19 AM


Citizens have had their say--they want their beef cut cheap, their vegetables picked an d their lawns mowed.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 10:23 AM


If the alternative is Enya or the crap that wins the Eurovision song contest every year, we should hope and pray we get mariachi music.

In the interest of full disclosure, learning to play Spanish-style guitar, especially flamenco, is on my to-do list.

Posted by: bart at July 15, 2005 11:20 AM

OJ is wrong. The average American would easily pay to close the borders to illegal immigration. They would certainly place it at a much higher priority than some of the other projects we waste money on. The average politician does not however, and since both parties collude in keeping the border open, nothing can be done. Illegal immigration does not make a one issue voter, that much is true.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at July 15, 2005 11:31 AM

If the blogosphere is any indication, the next elections for US Senate will be anything but dull.

Current senators will have to justify their vote to scuttle meaningful border enforcement. Any senator thinking that he or she will be able to avoid accountability is looking for another job.

Posted by: John J. Coupal at July 15, 2005 12:42 PM


It isn't.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 1:29 PM

If trying to figure out whether the person you're talking with reflects the opinions of the man on the street, perform this simple test. Ask him the name of Joe Wilson's wife. If he says anything other than "Who's Joe Wilson," ignore his opinion.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 15, 2005 7:02 PM

Retroactively strip the citizenship for all people born in this county of foreign national parents. Twenty years sounds about right. Refuse admittance of illegal aliens to public schools, hospitals, and any service funded by the American taxpayer. Repeal any law that gives illegal aliens any right over and above the right of a common criminal.

Do that and the border will seal itself. Don't do it and a large portion of our country becomes a Latin American Third World hole exactly like the places they came from.

Posted by: NC3 at July 15, 2005 7:03 PM

Strip the citizenship of everyone who can't prove their family was indigenous--unless your blood traces back to the soil you just aren't pure enough.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2005 7:09 PM


None of my grandparents were born here, so I must assume you are including my folks in your pronunciamento as well. Considering my father has significant war injuries from WWII and Korea, as well as several decorations and field promotions, and my uncle nearly was killed in WWII, I think that is a tad ungrateful.

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 9:09 AM

Basically that's what you're plan leads to anyway. You're just trading one group of Indians that couldn't govern themselves for another.


Nope...twenty years not one hundred and twenty. But OK, fine ten years...or how 'bout just starting today we take away the incentive of women crossing the border in order to make more little "US citizens"?

Here's another great idea. Let's round up the Mexicans in this country, train them, give them a gun a backpack full of bullets and send them back over the border to free their country from the not-so-Catholic church and the hand full of families that run the government? How 'bout that? How'd that do?

Posted by: NC3 at July 16, 2005 11:02 AM


Other than the Brits, no one who's come here could govern themselves until they got here.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2005 12:11 PM

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

14th Amendment.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 16, 2005 3:44 PM

David, as you know the 14th Amendment was written by men on paper in Washington DC, not by the Lord on stone tablets on Mt. Sinai. The fact that its language says a certain thing today is hardly dispositive of the political argument that it occasionally needs changing.

This is one example. The American government of the 1860s could certainly not imagine a situation where one could be born an American citizen when one's mother hops into a pickup truck in Juarez and drives across the border to a charity ward of an El Paso hospital and gives birth to you, especially when the grant of citizenship entitles you to a panoply of social benefits inconceivable to the 19th century mind.

I can't think of another First World nation that gives automatic citizenship to people born there, or arguably on planes flying over its territory as ours does. France doesn't. Australia doesn't. Germany doesn't. And nobody in East Asia would even consider it in a million billion years.

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 4:37 PM

Hoo-hoo! Alberto Gonzales is no conservative but you want to shred the Constitution for your own purposes? It surpasses parody.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2005 4:43 PM

Bart: Go ahead and get it changed through the amendment process. If you can, more power to you -- but it ain't gonna happen.

I can never figure out why Americans think that it's a compelling argument for change to say "France, et al., do it differently." Talk about a self-defeating argument. As for the expense, my guess is that the earnings of immigrants and their descendents will remain greater than the cost of new immigration for a while yet. In fact, I'm betting that the gap will widen.

But, hey, I'm with you on the Constitution just being a piece of paper. Sing it, brother.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 16, 2005 4:56 PM


It's called 'learning from the experience of other people.' It's done all the time in the real world. It's why nobody makes the Edsel. The cost of illegal immigration to the states of the American West and Southwest is far in excess of the benefits. Just ask Arnold.


An amendment is hardly a shredding, especially when that amendment would be designed to change an obviously outmoded concept, truly rooted in the horse-and-buggy era.

Posted by: bart at July 16, 2005 5:11 PM

[T]he grant of citizenship entitles you to a panoply of social benefits inconceivable to the 19th century mind.

That is the problem, not citizenship per se.
If it didn't obligate the current citizens of the U.S. to pay various benefits, we ought to be more than happy to make American citizens out of anyone of good moral character who made it across the border.

I can't think of another First World nation that gives automatic citizenship to people born there...

Ireland does.

The cost of illegal immigration to the states of the American West and Southwest is far in excess of the benefits.

Although the nation as a whole benefits, the border states definitely pay far more than their fair share of the costs.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 16, 2005 7:47 PM

Bart: Exactly. We can learn from the experience of the French. We can not do what they do.

As for the Southern and Southwestern states, what exactly do you think would happen to their economies if you got rid of all the immigrants and descendents of immigrants? I think they'd go to zero.

As long as we're thinking up mottos for BrothersJudd t-shirts, I nominate "Anti-immigration: wrong for 400 years and counting."

Posted by: David Cohen at July 16, 2005 8:57 PM


Fair points. Ireland was a population exporter for most of the last two centuries. Immigration has been an issue only in the last decade and nativism there is quite strong.

I agree wholeheartedly that the presence of our panoply of social and welfare benefits is the problem not the immigrants themselves. However, it is inconceivable to me that we would ever get rid of those benefits due to the political upheaval that would cause.


Once again you demonstrate ignorance of the world after you leave your front porch. Arizona, Texas, Nevada and California all have essentially bankrupt social services administrations due to the influx of illegals. Living in the Northeast as you do, I guess their reality doesn't affect you so you are happy to reap the benefits of illegal immigration. And here I thought I was the uber-Randian around here.

N.B. It's not the fact of the immigration, the numbers or its ethnicity that bothers me. It's the disorganization, the criminality of the process and the wanton exploitation of people who want to come here and improve their lives that does.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 9:05 AM

Bart: Immigrants and their descendants have contributed more to the economies of the southwestern states than they have cost? True or false.

You are, though, absolutely correct about my lack of concern about the momentary budgetary woes of the southwest. They should give less or tax more. Nevada, I note, has no state income tax and is currently running a historically high budget surplus.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 17, 2005 10:27 AM


Yes, when you do it you approve when others do it you don't. That's not conservatism either.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 12:22 PM


The budgetary problems date at least three decades back, that is hardly 'momentary' except perhaps in some geological sense. They are also getting worse and not better.

Perhaps if the Southwestern states had a policy of rounding up illegals, giving them bus tickets to New England along with instructions about the social welfare benefits available in New England and how to apply for them, you and OJ might have a different opinion about the matter.


I don't claim to be a down-the-line conservative. I'm interested in what's good for me, what inures to my advantage, both short and long term.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 2:58 PM

Kind of like Alberto Gonzales.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 3:20 PM

I'm not trying to be on the Supreme Court, although I wouldn't turn down a chance at Tyrannical Despot for a while. Gonzales takes positions both contrary to my interest and contrary to what passes for common understanding of conservative judicial doctrine in the US today.

Gonzales supports the assault weapons ban and some forms of affirmative action. Whether that makes him a conservative, a liberal, a Unitarian, an Albigensian or a vegetarian I really don't care. He's wrong on those important matters and that makes him the wrong man for the Court at a time when we can finally change its balance for the better.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 4:10 PM

You differ on two minor points. On others he's more 'conservative" than you. The same will be true of whoever is eventually chosen.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 4:14 PM


There are about 5 or 6 issues on which I make a decision about whom to vote for. Both of those issues are on the list.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 4:49 PM

Yes, but his denying you a right of access to child porn puts him on the positive side of our ledger.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 4:54 PM


I don't expect a SCt appointee to agree with the more extreme aspects of my belief in personal liberty. As a matter of fact, you are probably more likely to watch 'child porn' on a given evening than I am. But, then I don't post the centerfold of American Sheepherder on my bulletin board.

But the questions of allowing people to own 'assault weapons' or opposing racial preference are incredibly significant and are areas where I utterly refuse to compromise one jot.

Posted by: bart at July 17, 2005 5:18 PM


Neither matters in reality--they affect almost no one--they're just good red meat issues for the rubes.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2005 9:02 PM

It's an investment in the future, Bart. We're doing it for the children.

By the way, I notice that you have no response to the fact that Nevada's budget, contrary to your implication, is in surplus. They seem to be dealing pretty well with their immigrants.

Massachusetts, in fact, has a large number of Spanish-speaking immigrants. As they are American citizens, they are free to move as they wish and our relatively generous welfare system draws them to us. We are the better for it, which is how I know that the country as a whole would be the better for massive Latin-American immigration.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 17, 2005 9:35 PM

Massachusetts is 6.8% Hispanic(2003 est.), well under the national average.

As far as Nevada is concerned, the issue is being felt in school and jailovercrowding, particularly in and around Clark County (Las Vegas.) Nevada state government perhaps is benefitting from the emigration from California and the Northeast but the other states are certainly in economic straits.

David, you may like paying higher taxes so welfare recipients can live well off of your largesse, Most Americans do not share that opinion.

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 5:04 AM


While racial preference doesn't affect househusbands padding around in bunny slippers, it does pretty much impact on anyone else trying to get ahead in America. Whether it is set-asides for government contracts, or admission to top-level universities, it has a pernicious impact on our society, exacerbating not ameliorating racial animosity. It is the most important matter with which Federal courts are concerned.

Anything stronger than a pea shooter can be classified as an 'assault weapon.' Some of us believe in being responsible for our own protection, as we understand that the police are too inept or uncaring to handle the matter, and that the Courts discriminate against middle class white taxpaying males, in favor of the flotsam and jetsam of humanity, the inner city detritus, the trailer park trash and the like.

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 5:09 AM


It only impacts Jews who are quotaed at the Ivies, which is why it made the neos into cons.

Posted by: oj at July 18, 2005 8:26 AM

Want less crowded prisons? Ban gambling.

Posted by: oj at July 18, 2005 8:29 AM


It's actually worse for Asians than for us. In a society where financial success is increasingly connected to admission to the right schools, it is a very serious matter. White Catholic and Orthodox ethnics have it almost as bad, Armenians have it as bad.

Legalizing drugs would practically empty the prisons. If gambling were 100% legal, much of the clout of organized crime would be gone. But then people would be enjoying themselves, and like Mencken's puritan, you live your life with the quaking fear that somewhere someone might actually be happy.

Posted by: bart at July 18, 2005 8:53 AM

Yes, but the asianj opposdition is limited to CA.

The bulk of the crime isn't associated with the legality of the underlying activities but acquiring the money to fund the habits. Legalization just makes that worse.

Posted by: oj at July 18, 2005 8:59 AM

Bart: True, but the percentage of the Mass population that is foreign born and the percentage that speaks a language other than English at home are both higher than the national average.

As for Nevada, you're missing the force of your own point. Nevada has decided on a particular balance between paying for services and taxation. I have no problem with that balance whatsoever. But having made that decision, they can't now complain about how their social services are "bankrupt," meaning, apparently, they have plenty of money to pay for them, but don't want to. (In fairness to Nevada, they don't seem to be complaining. You are, although you're as removed from it as I am.)

This is all, of course, besides the point. Anti-immigration is never about the money. The history of the United States makes clear that there is no better investment than in more human beings. Anti-immigration has two causes, one minor and the other major. The minor cause is irrational economic insecurity. The other is xenophobia.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 18, 2005 9:27 AM