March 29, 2006

NO SOLACE FOR NATIVISTS:

Boehner hints a back down on 'amnesty' (Charles Hurt, March 29, 2006, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner refused yesterday to rule out compromising with the Senate to expand the House border security bill to include a guest-worker program or provisions that opponents call "amnesty." [...]

Conservatives were especially appalled to see so many Republicans -- Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas -- join panel Democrats to approve the proposal.

"It appears that the members of the committee who voted for this misguided legislation are more in tune with the thousands of protesters waving Mexican flags in the streets of Los Angeles than they are with the overwhelming majority of Americans who are demanding that America's borders and national security be protected," said Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union. [....]

The only solace for the conservatives has been the House, where many Republicans adamantly oppose any process that permits current illegals to apply for citizenship without first leaving the country. Also, they say Congress must prove to voters that they can enforce existing immigration laws and strengthen the borders before creating any guest-worker program that draws new immigrants.

Mr. Boehner and other House leaders said yesterday they still prefer their border-security-only bill.

Even if they could pass a security only bill, the President would just veto it without the reform provisions.

MORE:
Who are illegal immigrants? Most are young, bring families (Stephen Ohlemacher, 3/29/06, The Associated Press)

They are more likely than American citizens to hold jobs but less likely to have high-school diplomas. They tend to be younger, and many have children who were born in the U.S., making the kids citizens.

They are illegal immigrants, their numbers estimated at 12 million as the question of what to do about them reaches a boiling point on Capitol Hill.

Fewer than half fit the profile of young men sneaking across the border to find jobs and send money back home to their families. Today, most bring their families with them, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington.

"There's about 6.5 million adults who are in families, either couples or couples with children, and there's another 2 million children," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior research associate at the center. "The vast majority of this population is families."


Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2006 12:05 AM
Comments

Reason #44832 why no one respects conservatives: Some conservatives still think the likes of John Boehner only exist to do their political dirty work for them. Can't get their hands dirty with the rabble, you know.

Conservatives, have you not learned anything from the pro-lifers? Start organizing 100,000 of your own in street protests.

Otherwise, sit and sulk while, once again, anti-immigration sentiment gets proven to be a mile-wide, but an inch-deep.

Posted by: Brad S at March 29, 2006 8:27 AM

Hard to get conservatives to march for hate.

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 8:56 AM

If KO'ing amnesty/guest worker programs is such a priority for conservatives, which is debatable, surely they can find 100,000 trailer-trash white folks to march on (name your state capitol/city government plaza building here).

But again, NRO types don't want to sully their hands getting up close with the folks from the sticks. Never mind that areas in the sticks are the nation's fastest-growing counties.

Posted by: Brad S at March 29, 2006 9:23 AM

Think Bill Buckley mows his own lawn?

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 9:26 AM

Hard to get conservatives to march for hate.

Tony Blankley said in a column today:

Under such circumstances, advocates of guest-worker/amnesty bills will find it frustratingly hard to defend their arrogant plans by their preferred tactic of slandering those who disagree with them as racist, nativist and xenophobic.

Paul Krugman of the NY Times (hardly a right-wing xenophobe) said:

Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the [government] benefits they receive ? As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, 'We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.' " Mr. Krugman also observed — citing a leading Harvard study — "that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post (economics editor and ultra lib) says this:

"Gosh, they're all bad ideas ... We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking, many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate, many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished ... [It] is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico ... The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers ? Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits ... [Moreover], [i]t's a myth that the U.S. economy 'needs' more poor immigrants.

"The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force."

Blankley concludes:

When the slandered ones include not only The Washington Post and the New York Times, but about 70 percent of the public, it is not only bad manners, but bad politics. The public demand to protect our borders will triumph sooner or later. And, the more brazen the opposing politicians, the sooner will come the triumph.

So legislate on, you proud and foolish senators — and hasten your political demise.

The latest Gallup poll puts the number who oppose cutting a break for the illegals in the form of a "path to citizenship" or whatever the current fad name is for amnesty, is 80 percent. Ignore that number at your own peril, politicians.

Posted by: Michael at March 29, 2006 3:59 PM

Michael:

Yes, it's easy to get upper class white guys to write about it. You think any of them are going to march? Nevermind fire the illegals who work for them....

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 4:25 PM

OJ:

You say, "Yes, it's easy to get upper class white guys to write about it."

But the number I cited in the latest Gallup poll cannot possible be only upper class white guys, unless they make up 80 percent of the population. Your arguments to shore up support for clowns like McCain - who is way out of the mainstream on this - are becoming more and more sycophantic (and weak). Now you fall into the liberal trap of calling people who disagree with you "upper class white guys" which is truly code for racists. Oh, and I don't mow my lawn either - but neither does a Mexican. He's just an "upper class white guy" who mows lawns for a living. And I pay him $30 to do it for me in a yard in a normal-sized subdivision.

From my earlier comment:

The latest Gallup poll puts the number who oppose cutting a break for the illegals in the form of a "path to citizenship" or whatever the current fad name is for amnesty, is 80 percent.

Posted by: Michael at March 29, 2006 4:54 PM

Michael,

That "80% opposition" figure is about to be trumped by 500,000 street protestors. And what will you do other than cite articles making your point?

The "opposition" to illegal immigration will continue to be a "paper tiger" unless you start the street theater. And don't think a large majority of those 80% polled don't understand that, either.

Posted by: Brad S at March 29, 2006 5:16 PM

"The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9% of the labor force."

All this caterwauling about this piddling amount of the labor force? Or is there something else about this?

Posted by: Brad S at March 29, 2006 5:20 PM

Brad:

Think any of the nativists want their kids to do those jobs?

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 5:32 PM

Michael:

The 80% aren't marching either--they're employing illegals at cut rate.

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 5:34 PM

Brad S.:

That "80% opposition" figure is about to be trumped by 500,000 street protesters. And what will you do other than cite articles making your point?

I think you are being naive here. The 500,000 versus 80 percent of over 200 million is a pitiful minority. They can dance in the streets, disrespect the American flag, claim we "stole their land", and all that baloney, but most of them cannot vote. THEY are a paper tiger - no power to do anything but walk out of schools and wave Mexican flags.

I cited those articles to show some information that has been documented. You, on the other hand, make outrageous statements in the face of that evidence because you have nothing else left. That is another tactic I routinely observe and laugh at from liberals who ALWAYS lose arguments where facts are pertinent.

The "opposition" to illegal immigration will continue to be a "paper tiger"...

People like Specter and McCain and Kennedy may think pandering to this bunch of lawbreakers is smart, but 160 million or more Americans don't buy that. And those are the ones who will quietly go to the polls in 2006 and 2008 and fire these fools and replace them with people who ARE willing to enforce America's laws. And there are plenty of politicians who are willing to do just that. People like Kyl from AZ and Coburn from OK and Cornyn from TX and many others.

Or is there something else about this?

Yea, this simple little expectation by that 80 percent that people obey the laws of the land or suffer the consequences. There are many people who did obey the immigration laws, got in line, and waited their turns. They are normally the most opposed to the illegals who don't play by the rules that those legal immigrants did obey. I say enforce the laws that are already on the books.

oj:

The 80% aren't marching either--they're employing illegals at cut rate.

I'd say you're right in about 10 percent of those you mentioned. The rest aren't marching because they expect the laws to be enforced. And very few of them employ illegals. I am not rich but I am willing to pay extra if I can be assured that what I buy is due to legal labor. I have faith in the American capitalist system and don't believe we need to hire illegal aliens at nearly slave wages (who don't pay any taxes and have no benefits) in order to provide goods and services to the market. Not all industries employee these illegals. They mostly work in the farm community as migrant workers in the fields and are payed based on how much they produce. When farmers do take advantage of illegals (who are afraid to say anything), they are breaking many local, state, and federal laws and are managing to keep the price of their products artificially low. If these workers were all deported tomorrow, there would likely be a step jump in prices for most produce and other farm products. But legitimate workers would be hired, at reasonable wages and benefits. There is no legitimate rationale for continuing with illegal aliens and merely making them "legal" with some silly program like that suggested in the McCain=Kennedy bill will encourage even more illegals.

Posted by: Michael at March 29, 2006 8:19 PM

So Oj, how many illegals are you willing to let in, you know, by looking the other way?

Do you have a number?

Posted by: Perry at March 29, 2006 8:57 PM

Perry:

Zero. They should be legal.

Michael:

No one expects the immigration laws to be enforced. They're like speed limits.

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 8:58 PM

Do you not understand, Michael?! That 80% figure you quote is just that: a nameless, faceless figure. The 500K that are protesting are in front of your TV/computer screen right now.

Did you not learn anything at all from the '60s hippie protestors? Again, street theater is everything.

Posted by: Brad S at March 29, 2006 9:02 PM

No one expects the immigration laws to be enforced. They're like speed limits.

You just keep saying that.

Posted by: Michael at March 29, 2006 11:17 PM

And we just keep coming....

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 12:04 AM

Michael:

The current immigration laws aren't enforced.
If we don't catch illegals at the border, they're unlikely to be further harassed.

In fact, the number of illegals coming to America has increased since '01.
If we were serious about immigration and security, that wouldn't have happened.

Robert Samuelson is mistaken in his notion that the brown hordes won't be a great assistance to the retiring Boomers.
Retirees want a lot of personal help, and nursing home residents need a lot of personal help.

There will be 78 million retiring Boomers over the next twenty-five years, and RIGHT NOW there aren't enough nurses and nurse's aids to fully staff America's hospitals and nursing homes.
Since those 78 million retirees aren't going to be replaced by organic growth in the American labor pool, that's going to create a labor shortage, and higher wages.

If the kids being born now will be able to make big bucks in almost any field that they enter, straight out of high school or college, how many of them do you believe are going to settle for low-paying, low-prestige jobs wiping Granny's mouth and bottom ?

If the Boomers don't let Jose and Maria into the country, they're going to painfully regret it in the coming decades.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 30, 2006 12:23 AM

The current immigration laws aren't enforced...

Unfortunately, that is true. What the polls are saying (repeatedly) is that the vast majority of Americans insist that they be enforced. I am with them.

If we don't catch illegals at the border, they're unlikely to be further harassed.

The way to attack the problem is two-fold. Secure the border. I'm not talking about more INS or Border Patrol staff at entry points. I'm talking about fences, detectors, drones, anything to stop the illegals from crossing between the controlled points. It can be done - ask Israel.

The other, much simpler approach which is needed in conjunction with tight border control, is to severely punish any company or employer who hires illegal aliens. There is a gigantic off-the-books operation going on especially in the mega-farm industry where illegals are day-laborers, paid by what they pick, pay no taxes, nothing is withheld from their pay, and all transactions are in cash. That is what must be stopped. If these illegals cannot find work, and our welfare systems are closed to illegals, they will pack up and leave of their own volition in huge numbers. Rounding up the stragglers would be a mop-up operation by comparison.

...If we were serious about immigration and security, that wouldn't have happened.

We? Who do you mean by we? The politicians? If that's who you mean, I agree. But the legal citizens of this country are serious and want this to change. And now that it issue is taking center stage, expect them to start asserting their demands. 160,000.000 Americans say they want these borders controlled and illegals sent back to their home countries. And guess what? The numbers who support tough laws and enforcement go UP if you restrict the poll to legal immigrants who went by the rules to come to America. funny that.

Robert Samuelson is mistaken in his notion that the brown hordes won't be a great assistance to the retiring Boomers...

I am certainly no fan of that ultra-lib, but he IS right about this. They compete for scarce resources that Boomers will be needing soon. And they don't pay taxes - can't because they're here illegally - so the Boomers are supporting the illegals' welfare programs, school costs, and a multitude of other tax-funded handouts that routinely go to illegals like AFDC.

There will be 78 million retiring Boomers over the next twenty-five years, and RIGHT NOW there aren't enough nurses and nurse's aids to fully staff America's hospitals and nursing homes. Since those 78 million retirees aren't going to be replaced by organic growth in the American labor pool, that's going to create a labor shortage, and higher wages.

Rationalization. If there is a market for services, there will be people to address that market. "Solving" the problem by breaking US Immigration laws is no solution at all and will cost more that it is worth.

If the kids being born now will be able to make big bucks in almost any field that they enter, straight out of high school or college, how many of them do you believe are going to settle for low-paying, low-prestige jobs wiping Granny's mouth and bottom ?

My last few visits to old folks homes produced no visible Mexican "mouth-wipers." There were a lot of nurses - just no Mexicans. These illegals are picking cucumbers, grapes, corn, and tomatoes. They are illiterate, uneducated, unskilled, and most don't speak English. Not exactly the kind of people that get hired to work in medical facilities or nursing homes (except maybe for janitorial services.)

If the Boomers don't let Jose and Maria into the country, they're going to painfully regret it in the coming decades.

I say let them in - legally. Set realistic quotas, make illegal entry painful, and have at it. Just like we do with Polish immigrants - or Germans - or the French. The reason we have this problem with the Mexicans is twofold - the money they can make here, although at the bottom of our pay scales - is far more than they can make in Mexico. And secondly, we have thousands of miles of uncontrolled border where they cross with impunity. Employers hire them without worry of penalties and they disappear into society quickly surfacing only to pick up their free handouts at social services systems like welfare and emergency rooms where the hospitals refuse to turn them away. Bottom line, if you're an illegal, you need to go home. Try coming back via legal means. I will welcome you.

Posted by: Michael at March 30, 2006 10:43 AM

No onme is willing to pay what it would cost in monetary or moral terms. It's just a nice issue for the unbalanced to rant about.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:36 AM

Again, Michael, if the clamor for tighter illegal immigration restrictions is so great, set up the street theater. Show us this demand.

Or, again, is there something else that makes you insists on ephemeral polls and dubious op-ed columns written by dotty baby boomers? What is that something else, Michael?

Posted by: Brad S at March 30, 2006 11:46 AM

Again, Michael, if the clamor for tighter illegal immigration restrictions is so great...

It is real. The polls have been consistent on this issue for 30 years. People want illegals deported. They want the borders controlled. They are not like that bunch of hooligans who marched last weekend claiming they own America - we stole the land from them. These people live in homes and voice their opinions at the voting booth. The hub bub produced by these street urchins has brought this issue to the front burner. People will be contacting their reps via phone, telegram, email, and letter and the pols will eventually "get it." I think they already do and their posturing and pandering now is a prelude to backing down and saying "the people have spoken - don't blame me." If they do not back down, they will soon be looking for work. The people that will see to it will be at the voting booths - not in the streets having parties, drinking, disrespecting America and her flag. The dumbest thing these illegals have done was to wake up this sleeping giant - they will be sorry. But you will not likely see any of those opposed to the phony amnesty proposals in the streets. They're not that kind of people.

Posted by: Michael at March 30, 2006 9:36 PM

Michael:

Careful, with the phrase "The polls have been consistent on this issue for 30 years" you tip into self parody. It's a burning issue that no one actually cares about. Inded, as now, when politicians address it they hand out amnesties, like Reagan did.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 9:42 PM
« AS MODO'S FAMILY SHOULD WRITE HERS: | Main | CAP CRUSADER: »

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NO SOLACE FOR NATIVISTS::

» Frist Pushes Stringent Immigration Proposal from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
A Senate panel's overhaul of immigration and border-security laws has hit a speed bump on its way to [Read More]