Internecine Grudge Match, Round 4 (or so)

Last week, in JK's latest installment of "border security is a political loser" he appears to remain convinced that campaigning on border control hurt the GOP candidates who did so. Or perhaps he's only suggesting that it didn't help them. Either way, it appears the same is also true for the new Democrat majority.

WaPo reports today in Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration:

But when it comes to immigration, things are never easy. In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.

Hat tip: Rush.

JK also applauded the "JG seven points" [7th comment] for immigration policy reform but added, "You think Tommy Tancredo would go for it? Wait let me answer that -- no way in hell!"

Well, here's the latest from "Tommy:"

Anti-immigration Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who was distraught after the election, believing a guest worker program was inevitable under the Democrats, now says he's changed his mind.

"It seemed to me that it was not going to be as easy for them as I had anticipated or feared," Tancredo said. "They're not putting it out there as their number one, out-of-the-box issue."

The more he thought about the issue, the more cloudy the future seemed.

"I don't know," he said. A temporary guest worker program "could certainly happen. I may be just skipping past the graveyard."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:06 PM | Comments (6)

But jk thinks:

1. I should not refer to an elected representative of the US Congress by first name, certainly not a diminutive. I apologize, Johnny, for calling Rep. Tancredo "Tommy." That was bad form and I will not repeat it.

2. It most definitely hurt the GOP as a whole to head into elections without a solution to the emergency they had concocted. This was underscored nicely on the Journal Editorial Report this weekend. (scroll to bottom) Some individual races were won in spite of candidates' embracing enforcement-only, but I've yet to read a convincing case of one who won because of it and there are many examples of candidates' losing with that as a chief or high priority.

3. That Rep. Tancredo has himself tossed in the towel on his signature issue after last week's drubbing indicates that he realizes what a loser issue it is. Saying the future is cloudy and that it might happen someday does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of the JGVII.

Posted by: jk at November 13, 2006 3:49 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Hey, sorry about the scare quotes around Tommy. I didn't mean to imply that it was disrespectful. I think Tommy is a fine name for him! Don't know what I was thinkin'.

Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2006 1:07 AM

But sugarchuck thinks:

As to point two, the crisis on the border was not concocted; it is real. The emergency is the failure to do anything about it. If JK is correct about a majority of people opposing a border fence and a muscular security presence and voting on their opposition,then so be it. The "folks" are wrong and all the situational populism in the world won't make them right. The southern border needs to be controlled, period. The rest of it, amnesty, worker programs, etc..., is another topic.

Posted by: sugarchuck at November 14, 2006 9:55 AM

But jk thinks:

Tommy is a very fine name. I try to always address every member of legitimately elected office by his or her title. The most difficult two for me are Vice President Gore and Rep. Tancredo. Al and Tommy just slip through.

We perhaps need to fly everybody out and hash this out over beers or cappuccinos. I don't feel my points are getting across and I feel frustration on your parts.

We all want law and order. We all want to know who is crossing the border. I think that addresses the emergency.

I think my blog brothers and the Tancredoites and the Bill O'Reilly brigades are wrong to seek enforcement only. It would require a level of militarization and aesthetics that would be unpalatable to most people.

I also believe that enforcement-only would damage the economy. I started with economic arguments. Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen" hold the day: these people contribute far more to our economy than they take out. Even with the illegal chaotic nature, the influx has made us wealthier.

Since I want to fix it and do not believe enforcement-only works, I champion "comprehensive" reform. I said a November ago that enforcement and increased immigration are complimentary, not exclusive. For this reason, I thought a compromise House-Enforcement/Senate-Guest Worker could be done in conference.

All hail the seven points! Science be praised!

Posted by: jk at November 14, 2006 10:17 AM

But johngalt thinks:

I haven't heard any blog brothers argue for enforcement ONLY. We ask for enforcement FIRST.

It can be argued that this amounts to enforcement only for the period until immigration reform passes but don't forget about the 12 million already here. They'll keep their jobs and any negative effect on the supply of labor will be gradual and discernable. This will apply the proper market pressure for the political solution you earnestly seek.

Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2006 3:53 PM

But jk thinks:

We're talking compromise, committee legislation. Congress cannot legally bind another Congress and intra-congressional staging requires more trust than 535 legislators can generate or sustain.

You have to bargain: "Tommy," says Senator McCain(he can use first names) "you approve guest workers and a path to citizenship, we'll add 200 miles to your fence." The whole thing gets sausaged up and placed on the President's desk for a signing. No first, no later.

As far as the current residents sustaining the labor pool, I seek a plan that will allow them to leave and come back legally.

Posted by: jk at November 14, 2006 4:30 PM

November 8, 2006

Pickin' at Scabs

I respectfully suggest that the populist wing of ThreeSources -- well, everybody not named "jk' -- takes the opportunity to do a little immigration soul-searching today.

First, I would direct you to the news pages (not those crazies on the Ed page) Hispanic Voters Shift Allegiance to Democrats

In fact, just months after House Republicans used a crackdown on illegal immigrants to energize their party's conservative base, Hispanic voters responded yesterday at the voting booth, shifting decisively toward Democrats.

Exit polls showed more than seven in 10 Hispanics voted Democratic in races for House seats. Meanwhile, some 27% voted Republican -- an 11-percentage-point drop from the prior midterm election in 2002.

This is a loser guys. Besides Hispanics, it offends the business community, free-marketeers, and damages religious vote. The same article points out that that GOP advantage among religious voters is reduced.

My uber-liberal niece is working for Catholic Charities in California. She's about as religious as JohnGalt but told me that she has found one thing to agree with the Church on: California Catholics have taken an anti-Tancredo position as a moral issue (of course, they're right).

Exhibit B is TCS Daily's Walls Are For Losers. Nathan Smith remembers the Ming Dynasty's Great Wall, The Maginot Line, the Berlin Wall, and points out:

Republicans had held the House of Representatives for twelve years. After the fence bill was signed, they lasted just twelve days before the voters gave them the boot. Of course immigration wasn't the only, or the main, issue; Iraq was. Nonetheless, the "walls are for losers" pattern has claimed another scalp. Meanwhile, even the Republican Senate, which, before the fence bill, hardly anyone thought was even in play, looks at present writing like it may have fallen to the Democrats.

Can we chase away the fastest growing minority group, the business community, an important swing constituency, and ideological fellow travelers? Yes. But can we replace them with Pat Buchanan/Lou Dobbs/Bill O'Reilly angry pitchfork warriors? I say that 's a bad trade.

UPDATE: Okay, I'll add something from those crazies on the WSJ Ed Page. Here's John Fund in Political Diary:

This summer, as polls showed GOP House incumbents increasingly in trouble, the talk in closed-door meetings of GOP members was that the party needed to use opposition to illegal immigration to deflect voter anger on other issues. "The issue is a magic carpet to victory for us," was the memorable way one anti-immigration member put it. Later that same month, the House GOP pushed through a bill that authorized the building of a massive border fence without adding a sensible guest-worker program to provide a legal means for needed workers to enter the country.

Well, the returns are in and the strategy was a clear failure. GOP candidates who ran almost exclusively on the immigration issue lost in districts that President Bush easily carried in 2004. The most surprising loser was Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, who wrote a book on immigration called "Whatever It Takes" and yet managed to lose a district Mr. Bush won with 54% of the vote two years ago. Another Arizona GOP candidate, former state legislator Randy Graf, did ride the immigration issue to a plurality win in the GOP primary only to lose badly in a Tucson district last night that Mr. Bush had won with 53%.

The biggest bellyflop on the immigration issue came in Indiana, where Rep. John Hostettler, the hardline chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, lost by a stunning 22 points in a district that gave John Kerry only 38% of its votes just two years ago. "Immigration has never been an issue that brings people to the polls in single-minded desire to vote on that one issue," says political analyst Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics. "Voters end up having other concerns, and anti-illegal immigration polling numbers are more often than not political fools' gold."

Posted by John Kranz at 12:37 PM | Comments (7)

But jk thinks:

I absolutely want a lawful and regulated border.

I don't think that enforcement-only will work without a level of spending, aesthetic disturbance, and human rights infringements with which few in our country would be comfortable. Thirty foot barbed wire fences and shoot-em-on-sight will not fly; much less extreme measures will not be effective.

What would be effective is to provide legal means and improve border security at the same time. Like an engineering problem, reduce the pressure and reinforce the barrier. I am open to any combination of guest-worker, path-to-citizenship, and increase in Visas that will accomplish this. I'll let the politicians decide.

We could have HAD SOMETHING JUST LIKE THIS THIS YEAR and celebrated it as a legislative win. That would have helped in Minnesota, where good people want to see other people treated well and in Arizona where people want to see laws enforced. Instead, the Tancredoites said "no deals, no compromise!" and the Republicans ran on one more unsolved problem.

We haven't looked too much at morality of immigration around here. Bastiat says just law must be avoidable and understandable. I don't think it is avoidable to watch your family starve in squalor when you can go 100 miles north, sneak under a fence, and make a living wage from somebody who wants to employ you. I think this "lawbreaking" is akin to stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family -- only you're buying it from somebody who wants to sell it!
I'm not trumpeting the status quo at all. I think we would have something more economic, more humane, and 1000 times safer if the Tancredoites had followed the lead of the President and created compromise comprehensive immigration reform in a Senate-House conference.

Posted by: jk at November 8, 2006 4:25 PM

But sugarchuck thinks:

Won't fly with who? OK, I am not suggesting any kind of shoot em on sight policy but if it takes a thirty foot fence with barbed wire, or some other combination of bricks, mortar and cyberfencing, then so be it. It's not just the guy looking for a loaf of bread I'm worried about, it's the guy coming in after him who is looking to cause us harm. The very meager efforts at border control now in place have cut illegal entry dramatically. We should follow up on this. When the fence is up and solid we can let those looking for better lives walk through the gate.

Posted by: sugarchuck at November 8, 2006 4:36 PM

But jk thinks:

Invoking terrorism prevention to prevent the crossing of Mexican workers is specious. We've apprehended much scarier people coming over the Canadian border, yet the good people of Minnesota still don't see a thirty foot barbed wire fence in International Falls as an election issue.

The half-measures you suggest that make it harder will increase the price, profit, and danger of a coyote-aided crossing for the bread customer. You can fly in from the EU, get a visa at the Saudi Embassy, or drive across from Canada.

Posted by: jk at November 8, 2006 4:52 PM

But sugarchuck thinks:

Again, I am not sure what it is, exactly, that you want. You say you want a lawful and regulated border, yet it must be porous enough to allow enough coyote activity to keep human trafficking safe and affordable and unguarded enough to allow those in dire economic circumstances to walk across in search of work. This doesn't sound lawful and regulated to me. This sounds like what we have now. Going back to Reagan we have had laws on immigration and policy galore and those laws have been breached some 12,000,000 times. This time we should enforce the laws we have, place a very muscular emphasis on border security and then create the policy to allow for legal immigration. I might add that if 12,000,000 illegal aliens had come through Minnesota from Canada I'd be all for putting a fence up there too.
I'd add that I am not invoking terrorism to prevent the crossing of Mexican workers. I am invoking terrorism to prevent the crossing of... terrorists. That we have other holes in the system is no reason not to close this one. As long as we can't control our border there is no hope of a guest worker program or any type of workable amnesty. People will enter illegally and wait for the next amnesty to roll around. I very much believe in the words on the statue of liberty. I want us to be the shining city on the hill. I just want those who come to obey the laws, use the front door and sign the guestbook.

Posted by: sugarchuck at November 8, 2006 7:56 PM

But jk thinks:

I want the same things as you, sc. I think the way to get there is to have a legal program of guest workers or heightened immigration that supplies enough workers to fill available jobs. By enough, I suspect I mean about as many as come today, just making them sign the guest book.

If you give somebody a legal, rational way to register and come legally, nobody will use coyotes at all. This will also give us the economic and moral reason to pursue strict enforcement. Institute a guest worker and you can build all the fences you want.

Without a legal way to come here and work, stricter enforcement will just make it costlier and less humane for those who will continue to cross to feed their families.

Then, the border is controlled, the economy keeps humming, and border authorities can pursue terrorists instead of agriculture workers.

Posted by: jk at November 8, 2006 9:20 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Go Sugarchuck! You've done a good job carrying the flag for we "populists" is it? But JK makes a rational case for whatever it is he's making a case for as well. (I say "whatever it is" because he's willing to "let the politicians decide." This reminds me of the famous scientific proof with reams of complicated mathematical equations followed by the phrase, "then a miracle occurs" immediately prior to the answer.)

No, JK, we are not "populists." For one thing, if our position is so popular then how can you claim it cost the GOP their jobs? The positions we've taken on individual immigration related topics are based upon principle, not populism. Immigrants should be subject to our nation's laws just as citizens are, and immigrants must not disenfranchise citizens by voting in our elections without first becoming citizens.

And then there are the entitlements. I think I can speak for all of us (the principled wing) in saying government enabled handouts to citizens are as wrong as those to immigrants, but the existence of the former makes it impossible to eliminate the latter - not operationally, but politically.

So the people who support mass immigration into our welfare state are those who are not harmed by the added burden: Democrat politicians and business interests already accustomed to a workforce partially supported by the state. The strange bedfellows we know so well.

I am on record supporting elimination of quotas for legal immigration, yet I opposed the Senate "compromise." I did so because of it's emphasis on a path to citizenship (i.e. enfranchisement) for ALL of them, it's seemingly endless list of new government expenditures, and the absence of truly innovative solutions to the entitlement question. I saw nothing in the compromise that would create a new paradigm for immigration and equal justice under law in this country.

What do I want? Any plan I conceive is hampered by the social welfare state in which we live, but here are some key points.

- Unlimited immigration for identifiable non-criminals.

- Social Security numbers and Green Cards issued at no cost at border crossing centers, linked to individuals biometrically.

- No limit on time of stay in country.

- Issuance of the same documents to illegals already here on demand, subject to the same identification and criminal requirements.

- Immediate deportation of undocumented aliens after a grace period following implementation of the new system. Say, 12-18 months.

- Immediate deportation of documented aliens upon conviction of a crime (or other sentence appropriate for the act) said crimes to include false identification or multiple identities, said deportation to be irrespective of minor children of the offender. (If the kid must be yanked out of school because mom screwed up then so be it. "Objective and avoidable" laws must also be inescapable.

- Minimum wage laws applied (or abolished) equally for citizen and non-citizen workers.

- Biometric voter ID cards required to vote. (This is a debate in itself and I reserve the right to flop around on it for a while.) The crux here is, "only citizens vote."

- An objective and lengthy "path to citizenship" for all documented immigrants willing to learn English, renounce all other citizenships, and swear allegiance to the flag and the constitution.

That ought to about do it.

Posted by: johngalt at November 9, 2006 1:37 PM

September 30, 2006

Apologies to Neil Diamond

An emailer shares a parody of Neil Diamond's 'Coming to America' that has been customized for, ahem, "extralegal" immigrants. It's called "Snuck into America." Enjoy.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:44 PM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

Mdmhvonpa is right. The comity and agreement on the oil peak (no) and noocyoolar power (yes) post was getting out of hand.

I think this parody supports my side of the immigration argument: good people coming here to work and add to our culture. Just that they "didn't fill out a form."

And here I thought Neil Diamond was somehow beyond parody. These Internets prove you wrong everyday.

Posted by: jk at October 2, 2006 1:34 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Yeah, I noticed that. It clearly highlights the best and brightest of the illegal immigrant "swarm."

Posted by: johngalt at October 3, 2006 2:38 PM

September 22, 2006

House's "Last Gasp Measures" on Immigration

The WSJ editorial page and a beloved blog brother are deriding the efforts of republicans in the House of Representatives to "do something about this immigration problem about which they've whipped everybody up." FNC's Major Garrett gave a detailed report on events in the legislative body during Thursday's 'Special Report with Brit Hume.'

Here are the highlights -

Republicans "steamrolled" three bills through the House:
Bill 1- Imposes a 20-year prison sentence for anyone constructing or financing the construction of a cross-border smuggling tunnel.
Bill 2- Allows for longer detention and swifter deportation of illegal alien felons or illegals who belong to criminal gangs.
Bill 3- Encourages local and state police to find and apprehend illegal immigrants.

"Democrats say the bills have little chance of becoming law."

Republicans Hastert and Boener presented a chart entitled, "House Republicans' Border Security Now September Agenda" which listed the following bullet points:
- More Border Fencing and Improved Surveillance Technology
- "Catch & Return," not "Catch & Release"
- Detention and Deportation of Alien Gang Members
- Expedited Removal of Alien Criminals
- Increase in Prosecution of Alien Smugglers
- Criminalization of Construction and Financing of Border Tunnels
- Detention of Dangerous Aliens Unable to be Deported
- Reaffirm Authority of State and Local Law Enforcement to Enforce Immigration Laws
- Funding for Secure Border Initiative
- Funding for More Border Patrol Agents

Personally, I fail to see how any of these individual measures are "bad politics, bad economics" or "bad imagery." Better yet, taken as a whole they give the appearance of a "comprehensive" approach.

While detractors share common cause with representatives John Conyers and Sheila Jackson Lee who decry the failure to pass "comprehensive immigration reform," the three house bills passed today with large bipartisan margins, as Democrats hasten to put themselves on the politically popular side of these obvious steps.

Bill 1- Passed unanimously. Bill 2- Passed with 100 democrat "yea" votes. Bill 3- Passed with 62 democrats piling on.

The three bills have no companions in the Senate, but House leadership hopes to roll them into the "must pass" Homeland Security spending bill scheduled for hill action next week.

This is shaping up to be quite a mighty "gasp."

And don't forget the 700-mile border fence the house already approved, which is also scheduled for a Senate vote next week.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:28 AM | Comments (3)

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

"Democrats say the bills have little chance of becoming law."

The Dems said that,.and YOU believed them???

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 22, 2006 9:53 AM

But jk thinks:

All of these measures would be good politics, good economics, and good imagery were they combined with some legislation which would give American business the labor it requires and provide a way for those honest laborers to cross and take those jobs. Then it would be a sign of a secure America that welcomes workers but not lawbreakers.

I'm proud to stand with Reps. Conyers and Lee but I suspect their motives are different than mine.

The old line is that a House majority can pass a ham sandwich. The key has always been, is, and will remain the flexibility of the House in conference. As they now seem to confuse intransigence with toughness, I am not confident.

Posted by: jk at September 22, 2006 10:14 AM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

jk,..America has plenty of labor out there. Its up to the Dems to get them off the welfare addiction and the so-called "urban leaders" to stop telling them welfare is better than working for "da man!"

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 22, 2006 12:24 PM

September 21, 2006

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Tear Down This Wall

Here we go again. The Wall Street Journal Ed Page wonders about the message and politics of the Congressional GOP's last gasp measure do something about this immigration problem about which they've whipped everybody up.

I hope they'll move it to the free site this weekend. It is a very thoughtful piece. It runs as the lead editorial today, The Great Wall of America, which opens with "It wasn't so long ago, during the Reagan era, that Republicans sought to tear down walls, not erect them."

Now that they've created this frenzy, they have to show how tough they are:

Here's one example of how tough they are. Steve King of Iowa suggested in front of the C-SPAN cameras that at the top of this new fence "we electrify this wire with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it." Then he added: "We do this with livestock all the time." Equating people with cattle: There's an inclusive political message for you.

Nor is a "sealed border" desirable, even if it could be achieved. More than nine of 10 of the three million net new jobs created from 2000-05 have been filled by immigrants, according to Census Bureau data. With many regions of the country now suffering from a shortage of workers, not even Pat Buchanan could argue with a straight face that immigrants are stealing jobs from Americans. The fence itself will probably have to be built by immigrants.

I'm the lone voice 'round these parts, but this is bad politics, bad economics, and as this article reminds, bad imagery.

Republicans cite polls indicating that Americans want a secure border, but the political appeal of walls and fences is exaggerated. Just last week Don Goldwater, the man who held a press conference at the border urging, "Mr. Bush, build this wall now," was defeated in a GOP primary for Governor of Arizona -- in the very border state where these policies were thought to be most popular. The Arizona Republican who won a Congressional primary on immigration in the Tucson district is expected to lose in November.

The only real way to reduce the flow of illegal Mexican immigration is to provide a legal, orderly process to match open American jobs with workers who want to fill them. Mr. Bush is for that, and so is the Senate, but House Republicans have concluded that they're better off building fences. When Ronald Reagan spoke of America being a "shining city on a hill," he wasn't thinking of one surrounded by electrified barbed-wire fences.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:55 AM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

Fair points, brother, but as Dennis Miller said on "More Heat, Less Light" tonight (Hannity and Colmes), "I don't have anything against Mexican people but for God's sakes, sign the guestbook on the way in."

And where has Sensenbrenner or any House republican ever said the wall should have no gates?

Posted by: johngalt at September 21, 2006 10:52 PM

But jk thinks:

Well said (you and Dennis). I just hope Committee allows the Senate to put gates in.

Posted by: jk at September 22, 2006 11:55 AM

September 14, 2006

Logan's Run, The Home Game

Sanctuary isn't just a myth in some cheesy seventies sci-fi flick.

It's the here and now.

While other cities in the county aggressively attempt to rid their communities of undocumented immigrants, local activists are planning to turn National City into a “sanctuary city.”

Such a classification means city funds will not be used to enforce federal immigration laws, which is already the case in National City.

Mayor Nick Inzunza declared in an interview on National Public Radio last week that he wants National City to be a sanctuary city, a designation being promoted through a grass-roots effort in other parts of California and the country.

I look forward to the day some town out there declares itself a sanctuary city from federal income taxes. There's a sanctuary I can get behind.

But seriously, are there any cases like this? I suppose medical marijuana is sort of like this... or Alaska's repeated attempts at legalization. But in regards to a border / security issue?

Would a city say it's airport is not going to do any X-Ray screening?

I'm down with the Tenth Amendment, but isn't this the wrong direction?

Tip to Allahpundit, who writes, Federalism, baby. It's not just for conservatives anymore.

Posted by AlexC at 12:59 AM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

I've spent some time in National City. They have a large enough filipino community to support a food court. Everybody was nice to me but rude to my wife, who didn't speak enough Tagalog for their high standards.

They've used the commerce clause in Raich v Gonzales to enforce national drug laws over state. I think that's overreaching. Grow some weed in Bakersfield and ship it to Tehachapi, where's the interstate commerce?

I don't see National City on nearly so firm ground. A closer parallel would be San Francisco (and Boulder I think) refusing to enforce the Patriot Act.

Nor did I see teenage heartthrob Ms. Jenny Agutter in National City...

Posted by: jk at September 14, 2006 10:16 AM

August 28, 2006

Internecine -- The Home Game

I had a spirited discussion with my brother-in-law yesterday. He and I agree on much, but not on immigration. I got a little cranky and thought I should share it with all of you.

We have argued the merits and the economics around here but the politics are now becoming clear. I'd like to ask my more restrictionist blog brothers if they have buyer’s remorse on their intransigence, which is a rhetorical device for me to suggest that they should.

Congress will come back from an August recess for a short session before heading home to campaign for the midterms. My nine months of optimism are coming to a close. The idea of a conference committee hammering out a bill of this size and divergence in a month -- two months before an election -- is preposterous. Ain't gonna happen. That, my brother-in-law and I can agree on.

A few months ago, Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard asked the House GOP members if they were going to follow [Rep.] Tom Tancredo over a cliff by insisting on an enforcement-only solution, against the wishes of business, free-traders,, minority groups, and high-ranking party politicians. The answer, many weeks later is a resounding "well, gee, I guess so...the water down at the bottom of those rocks looks pretty warm."

By refusing to compromise, the Tancredo wing of the party has prevented an immigration bill and helped make the party look feckless right before a six-year midterm which is historically difficult for the President's party. So my questions to the Tancredoites around here are:

• By preventing any bill, you have kept the status quo on immigration for at least another year, more likely many depending on the vicissitudes of elections and public opinion. Do you believe the status quo is better than a compromise security + guest worker + citizenship path that might have some elements you don't like? Are your interests better served with no bill?


• Failure and intransigence will clearly hurt the GOP in the November elections and contribute to the severe risk of losing at least the House. Do you believe you'll get a better bill out of a Democratic -- or at least less Republican -- House?


• Chances are slim, but perhaps not yet none. Seeing the real danger, would any of you get behind the Pence compromise (which includes much we both hate) just to get something done to give the GOP an achievement to run on and not wait for the Democratic 110th to write?

Rep Tancredo is one of 535 legislators. Let him influence a compromise but don't let him derail the train.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:47 AM | Comments (9)

But jk thinks:

Thanks for the candor. But I will not join you in choosing the status quo. The border is lawless and porous, we have no idea who or how many are coming across and for what purpose; honest people who just want to work must pay coyotes and risk their lives in crossing; it seems foolish to enumerate all the problems. Yet you and my friend Rep Tancredo will not compromise anything away to get additional security. I just don't see who is served.

We differ on election predictions and I hope you are right. My point, however, is that under no serious scenario will you have a 100th that is more devoted to border security than the 109th, so your intransigence will cost you two years of status quo lawless immigration or result in a worse bill.

Posted by: jk at August 29, 2006 4:32 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Ummm, that's the ROYAL you, right? If it was up to me you can bet there would have been a bill!

As for 2 more years of "lawless" immigration, by my estimation that's been going on in earnest for closer to 80 years.

Reagan compromised in '86 and it took 20 years for the issue to regain traction. I'd rather keep it on the front burner.

Posted by: johngalt at August 29, 2006 4:52 PM

But jk thinks:

I always consider you noble, yet never monarchic, jg.

My point was that the failure to compromise did not do any of the enforcement-only people any good. They could have achieved great gains in border security.

They all are presumably grownups who know legislation is about compromise and deal-making. That’s Madisonian Democracy. I want to teach Iraqi Imams and Mullahs that it's worth it to give up something to get something sometimes -- and I cannot even convince a Congressman of my party from my home state.

Posted by: jk at August 30, 2006 10:42 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Major Garrett reported on 'Special Report' last night that both houses are expected to put $270 million for additional border fencing into security bills before the end of the session. And we didn't even have to agree to give 12 million more dubious votes to the DNC!

Posted by: johngalt at August 31, 2006 10:59 AM

But jk thinks:

As a dues paying mmeber of the VRWC I saw it too. Two hundred seventy whole million, huh? Then the problem is fixed! Now all I need is a new gardener.

Posted by: jk at August 31, 2006 12:58 PM

But johngalt thinks:

That's right, because your old gardener Ernesto can now earn more per hour building fence by the mile near Tijuana! Skip and Buffy finally have the opportunity that's been denied them lo these many years by unfair competition from "those who will do the jobs Amer'cans won't."

If we're going to throw money at a problem then hiring illegals to do federal work is the most efficacious. I recently heard Senator Allard talking about the cost estimate for the Senate plan: $210Bn, if I remember correctly.

Posted by: johngalt at August 31, 2006 6:50 PM

August 7, 2006

Back to Internecine Strife

The serious situation in the Middle East has brought the freedom lovers of ThreeSources together. Allow me to fire a rhetorical Katyusha somewhere into the comity.

Virginia University professor Larry Sabato is a pretty serious guy in reading and interpreting polls. While he is not expressly partisan, he is obviously sympathetic to conservatives and Republicans.

Friday night on Larry Kudlow's show, Sabato said if the election were held today, Republicans would lose the house by a wide margin and would lose five Senate seats, keeping the Dick Cheney majority unless the Democrats found a lucky sixth. Rep. Harold Ford was on the same show. He's not one of the five, and he is a very impressive candidate whom the party will back to the hilt.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn was on as well. She is convinced the answer is border security. Her constituents in Tennessee are swamped (really?)

I like Rep Blackburn, but I have to go with the Wall Street Journal Ed page. Today they wonder if Rep. Pence and Sen. Hutchinson will be able to "talk the party down from the ledge."

GOP Representative Mike Pence of Indiana has been pushing an immigration compromise that he hopes will end the stand-off between the House, which has passed a bill focusing entirely on enforcement, and the Senate, whose bill combines more security with a guest-worker program.

This is compromise sausage, the editorial and I find much to dislike about it Yet Rep Ford presaged the campaigns to come, accusing his GOP colleague of "getting nothing done on Immigration, even though you control both houses of Congress and the White House.”

The Tancredo wing is still convinced that obstructionism is a winner.

These objections aside, we'd consider it progress if the House and Senate ever reached the point of discussing these details. And thanks to Representative Pence and Senator Hutchison, there's still a chance that might happen. First, however, they must convince their GOP colleagues that voters would prefer a solution to divisive rhetoric. That will be a tough sell, especially without the help of Democrats who are only too happy to use the stalemate as a campaign issue in November.

Meanwhile, Republican House leaders have announced that they'll spend the rest of the summer holding more immigration "hearings" like the one last month titled, "Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?" That sounds more like a Lou Dobbs ratings ploy than a GOP interested in compromise.

Sounds like "Speaker Pelosi" and "Majority Leader Reid" to me...

Posted by John Kranz at 11:33 AM | Comments (3)

But johngalt thinks:

No need to worry, JK. The Dems thought they had the '04 races all locked up even as late as just before the actual votes were counted. If D candidates get more votes we'll just place a call to the CEO of Diebold to dial in a few more R's. (snicker)

Seriously though, I doubt that the same security voters who've kept the Republicans in power since 9/11 will vote Democrat because Congress can't engineer yet another grand compromise. (Most voters know that the mechanics of legislation are stacked in favor of stalemate anyway.)

A genuine threat is voters deciding that the Democrat way is worth a try in the Terror War, but that's not bloody likely either.

I don't know what Sabato is thinking but I suspect he's influenced by the polls that show Dems stronger than usual on defense issues, but as I believe I said earlier... voters talk a good game until it's time to vote. Then they pull the "R" lever.

Posted by: johngalt at August 7, 2006 10:51 PM

But jk thinks:

Whistle past that graveyard, friend. Even Taranto is admitting that the once-thought-safe Senate is in Jeopardy:

"In this year's Senate races, things are looking up for the Democrats. Republicans failed to field serious candidates against several incumbents from red states (Florida, North Dakota, West Virginia). Most observers give the Dems a better than even chance of holding seats in Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey and Washington against serious challenges. Only in Minnesota does the GOP have an even chance of picking up a Democratic seat.

"Meanwhile, the Democrats have a reasonable shot at beating five GOP incumbents--in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island--and an open GOP seat in Tennessee isn't completely out of reach. If everything falls the Democrats' way, their current 45-seat minority will become a 51-seat majority."

Scary times. I expect the 1994 Democrats thought that in the privacy of the booth, people would certainly pull the D.

Posted by: jk at August 9, 2006 5:52 PM

But johngalt thinks:

You're taking Taranto out of context. He made that case as the best possible scenario for the Dems, as an argument for Harry Reid not acting immediately to marginalize (and burn bridges with) Lieberman.

And after witnessing the Lamont-Lieberman primary, do you really believe voters in MO, MT, OH, PA, RI and TN are going to punish Republicans for failing to "do something" on immigration? Hate to say this, but Lebanon has put illegal immigration back onto its usual back-burner position.

Posted by: johngalt at August 10, 2006 12:47 AM

July 25, 2006

Not Crazy About It, But I'd Sign

So, what does everybody think of the Pence-Hutchison compromise? If it will bridge ThreeSourcers, it might keep the GOP together for a couple more years.

Speaking for myself, I'd pretty anxious for compromise and am willing to not get everything I want. Most any compromise would be an improvement over the status quo.

The WaPo reports that "White House officials, including presidential adviser Karl Rove, have been told of the framework but not the details. A Republican close to the White House said President Bush 'won't be crazy about it, but I think he would sign it.'"

The best thing about it is a chance to get conference committees talking again. I'm not calling for more talk in the MidEast, but I think the Senate and the House might do better by talking.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:51 AM | Comments (1)

But johngalt thinks:

I suppose this could be a step in the right direction. I endorse the measures to delay citizenship for 17 years but then to allow applications without leaving the country. The biggest flaw I see is the requirement that applications for the new visa be made from outside the US. Unless this legislation includes mandatory exportation of illegals I doubt that a sizeable number of them will leave the country just to "get legal." This is something that can be addressed later though.

Maybe it is an improvement on the status quo after all. It's definitely better than the Senate plan. Citizenship for a fee was a horrendous idea.

Posted by: johngalt at July 26, 2006 1:57 AM

July 12, 2006

Sweet Land of Liberty - Please Take a Number

Here's a cartoon for JK. The Allen Forkum analysis that accompanies it on the coxandforkum.com site is also excellent. He cites the same WSJ editorial that JK did two days ago, and singles out the arbitrary legal immigrant quota as largely responsible for the ongoing crisis. Forkum also challenges the WSJ assertion that "the conservative silent majority is pro-immigration" by referencing a blog poll of right leaning bloggers who favored the House bill to the Senate's 44 to 6. I can't see the connection between "conservative silent majority" and bloggers, but the result is strikingly similar to the tone on right leaning talk radio.

Personally I suspect that many conservatives would temper their opposition if given the conditions on legal immigrants that I offered in my comments yesterday:

1) That they learn English, some basic US history, and show personal initiative to assimilate themselves into "The American Way." [...] 2) Reverse America's drift toward democracy, i.e. "mob rule" and the "tyranny of the majority." America is a "Republic madam, if you can keep it."

Forkum speculates that many of these right leaning bloggers are primarily concerned with American security in a post-9/11 world, but I suspect a general fear of negative unintended consequences of more and more immigration, legal and otherwise. Conservatives rightly distrust the government to prevent these consequences, given the track record of the last 20 or more years. The most threatening of these consequences is the one addressed by my condition number 2: As things stand today, there is a genuine risk that one day a majority of Americans will vote to make Spanish our official language, not to mention scores of other initiatives that would effectively make the US more like Mexico than the land of liberty we grew up in.

The opposition is not, therefore, to immigration per se, but to the threat of statism that illegal immigrants are a visible component of. The less visible elements include John Dewey's postmodern educational system, the widespread acceptance of altruism as a moral code, and the mythical belief that America is governed by democracy. All of these elements are promoted to varying degrees by one or both of the two dominant political parties, so they have become mainstream beliefs. (Worse yet, one party promotes ALL of them, all by itself!)

Unless Americans defend the ideas that American exceptionalism is real, that every man is entitled to his own property, and that the Constitution limits the powers of the government to infringe the rights of individuals, the forces of statism will destroy the beloved institutions that empower those ideas. The Americans who make up the so-called "conservative silent majority" understand this threat, though perhaps not its causes or champions. The simple fact that they're willing to fight against it in whatever way they can is encouraging.

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:53 AM | Comments (8)

But johngalt thinks:

I'm talking about Joe six-pack, Fred the UPS guy and Billy Bob with a gun rack in his pickup truck. These aren't militia members, but they are representative of the conservative silent majority. They are the reason talk radio and conservative blogs survive and thrive.

I'm not sure that 52 bloggers are representative of their views any more than 33 conservative elites, but I do stand by my analysis of what gives them the jitters on immigration.

Incidentally, if the Senate bill did what you proposed in your prior comment it would not be such a non-starter in the House. The US Senate, as with the Colorado legislature, is not about to allow any meaningful voter reform.

Posted by: johngalt at July 12, 2006 11:22 AM

But dagny thinks:

Normally I'm all for the philosophy but in this case I find myself compelled to point out the practical. Hormonally deranged no doubt.

I refuse to send my beautiful and genius daughter to the Fort Lupton public schools where her education would be sadly neglected in favor of the majority hispanic speaking population. Nevertheless, I am required to PAY for the Fort Lupton public schools.

I get furious just thinking about it. This is what illegal immigration means to me and many others I expect.

Posted by: dagny at July 12, 2006 11:32 AM

But jk thinks:

I think the elites track closely to the shared philosophies you and I espouse.

The talk radio crowd joins us on patriotism and support for our troops and their mission. I thank them for that. (Hey, I'm the big tent guy.)

I know that the populists follow Bill O'Reilly into a price-gouging witch-hunt as soon as gas hits #3. They'll support limiting "outrageous" CEO pay. I think we need the principles of the elites.

Remember that I am not so much endorsing the Senate Bill as President Bush's idea of a compromise including the Senate's liberal immigration and the House's enhanced enforcement. Juntos podemos, President Bush said in his first inaugu4ration. Together we can.

Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 11:44 AM

But jk thinks:

Likely the blogging equivalent of getting between a bear and her cub, but I'm going to proceed...

Dagny, you cannot claim that you would be happy sending your beautiful, genius daughter to the Fort Lupton Public Schools were it not for immigrants. I know for a fact that you could find ten things wrong with it, and I wonder whether Spanish-speaking immigrants would grace the top five.

No ThreeSourcer I know sends a child to traditional public school. I refuse to believe that you would be the first except for immigrants.

Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 11:54 AM

But dagny thinks:

10 things?, I could probably find 50, up to and including errors in the textbooks. Just because there are other things wrong with the public schools does not mean that illegal immigration is not a large problem to address. But, that is not my main issue. I clearly phrased it badly. My main issue is that I am expected to PAY for the FLPS. Money that I could spend to educate my child as I see fit is spent to teach philosophical nonsense (not even in English) to illegal immigrants.

Additionally, part of my point was the feelings engendered by the debate which do not change even if I would not send my child there. Furthermore, I try not to vote based on feelings but I am a rare individual in that regard.

I do claim that there are probably a few remaining public schools that I would consider sending my child to. However, I don’t want to move to Highlands Ranch. There is no room for the horses.

Finally, no ThreeSourcer? Silence, Lattesipper, no support for our wonderful public school system?

Posted by: dagny at July 12, 2006 12:28 PM

But jk thinks:

I understand. And I sympathize. And I would fix it your way if I could. The pragmatist in me says that train left the station a long time ago, no sense worrying about the martini olives in the club car. At least a voucher would allow you to get some money back. I pay for the bi-lingual school across the field from me (Motto: educating tomorrow's Burger King workers today!) and I have no kids.

I think you are unfair to oppose liberalization and normalization of immigration (sounding like a good rap song) because you are frustrated with coerced public education. My point is that you'd be coerced either way, you might as well be wealthier.

I shouldn't speak for everybody but I know ThreeSourcers' kids' being in Catholic schools and public charter schools, and some others are too young. I could be wrong. My little Skylark was graduated from obedience training at the Humane Society. I received no public funds.

Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 2:47 PM

July 11, 2006

How Much Immigration Costs

It is all happening here in Colorado, as Governor Owens has called a special session to recraft a bill to pass the state supreme court. Brendan Minter of the Wall Street Journal examines the politics and economics of the debate. His short column is far more informative than the daily stories on local TV news (recent storms have forced me to watch). He discusses the GOP's hopes of retaking the state legislature and speculates that Owens might use the issue to re-ingratiate himself with the party faithful after he stood with the tax raisers in 2004.

What caught my eye and that of an emailer was this attempt to calculate the costs and benefits of illegal immigrants to the state:

The one good thing to come out of the political wrangling in Colorado is that voters have been treated to a state-wide debate over how much illegal aliens actually cost in government services. Estimates range from as high as $1 billion a year to as low as $31 million. The Denver-based Bell Policy Center issued the latter estimate after finding that illegal aliens receive about $225 million a year in non-mandated state services, but pay between $159 million and $194 million in property, sales and other taxes. The issue is too hot for anyone to point out that illegal immigrants working as day laborers cost the state what the working poor as a whole cost the state--a bit more than they pay in.

I have read a bucket of these studies now, and I flatly reject that an accurate accounting is possible.

Bastiat talks about the seen and the unseen. The scourge of my life is that my positions always seem to rely on the unseen. You can't possibly compare an economy without illegal immigrants to the one we have and compute any realistic numbers . There are too many variables. Here's my seen and unseen:

Seen. Immigrants cost money in public schools and emergency services.

Unseen. Immigrants fueled the housing boom (call it a bubble if you want, it has created trillions of dollars of wealth). Immigrants rent lower cost housing, providing income to those who with to move up. Immigrant labor reduces the cost of larger homes, facilitating the opportunity to purchase something larger. The trade generates income for financial services and brokers. Most importantly, the higher values allow people to refinance and use the income to start business or purchase consumer goods.

You cannot tell me that anybody has successfully and accurately tabulated how much wealth that has added to our economy. So I tell people, but I am swimming upstream.

My emailer suggests I am doomed because of cultural arguments as much as economic. Crime committed by a Spanish speaker plays into a narrative and reinforces a concern. The same crime committed by "Dirt Bag Dick and his motorcycle meth buddies on their way to a Klan meeting isn't going to have the same impact in Iowa or Minnesota or Green Bay as someone from somewhere else bringing that behavior in. It's not fair, but that is what you are really fighting when it comes to illegal immigration." (I get pretty good email. He had me until he tried to sell discount Cialis...)

My optimism is predicated on the inefficacy of legislators -- they will have to compromise, and a compromise will be mostly good. More enforcement IS better; higher legal immigration IS better; a legal path to citizenship would be better.

I liked Brendan Minter's piece because of the caution to GOP candidates’ hopes of riding this train to stardom.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:00 PM | Comments (2)

But johngalt thinks:

Despite our repeated sparring on this issue, I'm really closer to your side than you may think. I say bully for higher LEGAL immigration, and more (I actually pine for 'effective') border enforcement.

I oppose entitlements for illegal immigrants but, of course, I oppose entitlements for ANYBODY. (In fact, I think liberals who shout for closing the border, like Peter Boyles, do so to help protect the golden entitlement goose for those already here.)

But my greatest concern is voter reform. As American government drifts more and more precariously toward a Democracy, the disastrous consequences of millions more poor voters raised in a collectivist society casting votes here is magnified.

I note with great sadness that the "compromise" measure from the Colorado legislature does nothing to address voter fraud.

I'm willing to accept a deliberate "legal path to citizenship" for virtually unlimited numbers of immigrants but I request a couple of conditions. 1) That they learn English, some basic US history, and show personal initiative to assimilate themselves into "The American Way." (That one's for you, Superman.) 2) Reverse America's drift toward democracy, i.e. "mob rule" and the "tyranny of the majority." America is a "Republic madam, if you can keep it."

Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2006 3:34 PM

But dagny thinks:

That is an excellent summary JG.

I would add this clarification: The biggest problem with the millions more voters is NOT that they are poor. It is that they are irrational. This often stems from being uneducated or worse, miseducated, and yes, often goes along with poverty.

Posted by: dagny at July 11, 2006 7:05 PM

July 10, 2006

Thirty Three and 1/3

Thirty three leaders of the modern conservative movement signed a statement endorsing Reagan's vision on immigration.

Jack Kemp (former congressman from New York);
George P. Shultz (distinguished fellow, Hoover Institution);
Jeanne Kirkpatrick (former ambassador to the U.N.);
Tamar Jacoby (senior fellow, Manhattan Institute);
Cesar V. Conda (senior fellow, FreedomWorks);
Ken Weinstein (CEO, Hudson Institute);
Grover Norquist (president, Americans for Tax Reform);
Jeff Bell (board of directors, American Conservative Union);
Larry Cirignano (president, Catholic Alliance);
Bill Kristol (editor, The Weekly Standard);
Arthur B. Laffer (chairman, Laffer Investments);
Linda Chavez (chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity);
Elaine Dezenski (former acting assistant secretary for policy development, Department of Homeland Security);
Lawrence Kudlow (economics editor, National Review Online);
John Podhoretz (columnist, the New York Post);
John McWhorter (senior fellow, Manhattan Institute);
Joseph Bottum (editor, First Things);
Max Boot (senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations);
Vin Weber (former congressman from Minnesota);
Richard Gilder (partner, Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co., LLC);
Ed Goeas (Republican strategist);
Martin Anderson (senior fellow, Hoover Institution);
J.C. Watts (former congressman from Oklahoma);
Ed Gillespie (former chairman, Republican National Committee);
C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. (former assistant secretary for border and transportation security policy, Department of Homeland Security);
Diana Furchtgott-Roth (senior fellow, Hudson Institute);
Robert de Posada (president, the Latino Coalition);
Clint Bolick (winner of 2006 Bradley Prize);
Steven Wagner (former director, human trafficking program, Department of Health and Human Services);
Steve Forbes (CEO, Forbes Inc.);
Gary Rosen (managing editor, Commentary);
Michael Petrucelli (former acting director, U.S. citizenship and immigration services, Department of Homeland Security);
And John C. Weicher (senior fellow, Hudson Institute).

I'm doing myself a favor calling myself one third, but I proudly add my name to their paper.

The WSJ Ed page carries their letter and a lead editorial detailing its support.

Our own view is that a philosophy of "free markets and free people" includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right. Far from selling their labor "cheap," they are traveling to the U.S. to sell it more dearly and improve their lives. Like millions of Americans before them, they and certainly their children climb the economic ladder as their skills and education increase.

Both of those links are free, check them out.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:02 PM

June 23, 2006

Speaker Tancredo

Don’t even joke about it! The WSJ Ed Page points out that "On immigration, Mr. Tancredo is now the real speaker of the House."

The lead editorial (free link) today points out that Tancredo Republicans' do-nothing strategy is not a winner. Looking at the vulnerable races, it is more likely to hurt than help. And that's just the 2006 politics.

Even if all of this somehow works this election year, the long term damage to the GOP could be considerable. Pete Wilson demonized illegal aliens to win re-election as California Governor in 1994, but at the price of alienating Latino voters for a decade. The smarter Republicans--President Bush, Karl Rove, Senator John McCain, Colorado Governor Bill Owens and Florida Governor Jeb Bush--understand that the GOP can't sustain its majority without a larger share of the Hispanic vote. Making Mr. Tancredo the spokesman on this issue is a surefire way to make Hispanics into permanent Democrats.

Every poll we've seen says that the public favors an immigration reform of the kind that President Bush does. That's because, whatever their concerns about border security, Americans are smart enough to know that immigrants will keep coming as long as they have the economic incentive to do so. They also don't want the social disruption favored by the deport-'em-all Tancredo Republicans.

On policy, the country could do worse than pass nothing this year on immigration. We've muddled through for years, and at 4.6% unemployment the U.S. economy is easily absorbing the illegal workforce. But having turned the immigration issue into a rallying cry, Republicans have put themselves at political risk if they do nothing. If the GOP finds itself in the minority next year, we trust its restrictionists will stand up and take a bow.

I disagree with the WSJ Ed Page that this is unprecedented. The Democrats thought obstructionism on judges was a winner. If you catch former leader Tom Daschle in a coffee shop in South Dakota, you can ask him how that worked out.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:24 AM

June 20, 2006

Immigration Consensus

Not at ThreeSources! But the WSJ Ed Page credits a consensus among economists. Here's the editorial. stolen posted in full:

Finally a consensus has been reached on immigration. No, not among politicians, who can't agree on a rational immigration reform. The agreement is among professional economists.

In an open letter to President Bush and Congress last week, more than 500 prominent economists, including five Nobel laureates, proclaim that "immigration has been a net gain for American citizens." The letter adds that "while a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to the economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, gains from immigration outweigh the losses." Alan Greenspan often made this same point about the benefits of immigration while he was Federal Reserve Chairman.

What is striking about this immigration letter is that it is signed by economists from different fields of research, political affiliations and ideologies. It is possible that no other issue in the economic field, with the exception of the benefits of free trade, inspires such unanimity of professional opinion as immigration does.

Several years ago the Cato Institute surveyed the past presidents of the American Economic Association and the past chairmen of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Eighty percent agreed that immigration has had "a very favorable impact on the nation's economic growth," and 70% said that even illegal immigrant workers "have a positive economic impact." These experts agree that on balance immigrants don't displace native workers, depress wages or abuse welfare. If only these economic facts could break through an immigration debate that is dominated by emotion and political fear.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:00 AM

June 8, 2006

Viva La English

Krauthammer

One of the major reasons for America's great success as the world's first "universal nation," for its astonishing and unmatched capacity for assimilating immigrants, has been that an automatic part of acculturation was the acquisition of English. And yet during the great immigration debate now raging in Congress, the people's representatives cannot make up their minds whether the current dominance of English should be declared a national asset, worthy of enshrinement in law.

The Senate could not bring itself to declare English the country's "official language." The best it could do was pass an amendment to the immigration bill tepidly declaring English the "national language." Yet even that was too much for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who called that resolution "racist."

Less hyperbolic opponents point out that granting special official status to English is simply unnecessary: America has been accepting foreign-language-speaking immigrants forever--Brooklyn is so polyglot it is a veritable Babel--and yet we've done just fine. What's the great worry about Spanish?

Read it All

Posted by AlexC at 7:56 PM | Comments (3)

But jk thinks:

Si.

Posted by: jk at June 9, 2006 11:33 AM

But johngalt thinks:

¡Funcionario!

Posted by: johngalt at June 9, 2006 3:36 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Just remember: buy your cheesesteaks from Joe Vento at Geno's Steaks!

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 9, 2006 9:16 PM

June 4, 2006

On the Web

BBC

A US state is to enlist web users in its fight against illegal immigration by offering live surveillance footage of the Mexican border on the internet.
The plan will allow web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.

Texas Governor Rick Perry said the cameras would focus on "hot-spots and common routes" used to enter the US.

This is a clever idea, except for the one tragic downfall.

The toll-free call in number. How long before it's rendered useless by crank calls?

Posted by AlexC at 9:43 PM

Canada 2, Mexico 0

Not hockey. Not soccer. This would be the score for massive foiled terrorist attempts.

Alleged Canadian terror plot has worldwide links

Well before police tactical teams began their sweeps around Toronto on Friday, at least 18 related arrests had already taken place in Canada, the United States, Britain, Bosnia, Denmark, Sweden, and Bangladesh.

Why it is a national security emergency to close the southern border?

Posted by John Kranz at 12:55 PM | Comments (2)

But AlexC thinks:

Volume.

Posted by: AlexC at June 4, 2006 9:45 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Why? Because the police, the army, and every other element of the government across our southern border is completely corrupt. Despite widespread socialism, Canadians still have enough selfishness to investigate and interdict terrorist plots against themselves OR us.

Posted by: johngalt at June 7, 2006 3:37 PM

June 2, 2006

Our Southern Border

I agree with Harry Binswanger when he says:

The problem of "illegal" immigration can be solved at the stroke of a pen: legalize immigration. Screen all you want (though I want damn little), but remove the quotas. Phase them out over a 5- or 10-year period. Grant immediate, unconditional amnesty to all "illegal" immigrants.

Though we damn well need to screen, as the story below, from the Counterterrorism Blog, shows -- or take politicization and lies about Islamofascism out of the process, and let the CIA and FBI actually do their jobs. (And we don't need people coming over, bringing diseases with them, either.)

Thanks to IT expert and CT Blog regular reader Timothy Thompson, we learn the deportation case in Seattle against an African Muslim Imam is proving to be yet another indicator the US - Mexican border poses a very real threat to the Nation’s counter-terrorism efforts. Abrahim Sheikh Mohamed is the Imam of the Abu Bakr Mosque in Rainier Valley, Washington and was arrested by ICE agents in November for immigration removal (deportation) violations, allegedly stemming from his falsifying an application for asylum, per reports

.

Mohamed is now reported to have agreed to give up his fight against deportation. There appear to be issues, however, concerning his true citizenship...whether he is really Kenyan or Somali, and to where he may actually be deported. As previously noted here, and here, while deportation to Somalia is legally possible for the US Government, physically accomplishing such a task is problematic.

That issue aside, the deportation case against Mohamed, who is suspected by the Government of having ties to and supporting radical Islamists, identified that he originally entered the United States by being smuggled in from Mexico in 2000.

On June 15, 2005, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, a Lebanese citizen and illegal alien, was sentenced in Detroit to 54 months imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to provide material support to Hezbollah. The investigation leading to Kourani’s prosecution and conviction, that was conducted by ICE and the FBI, revealed that Kourani’s brother was the chief of security for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The investigation also revealed that Kourani sponsored Hezbollah fundraising meetings in his Dearborn, Michigan home.

The Kourani investigation identified that he, too, was smuggled into the United States from Mexico.

Posted by Cyrano at 8:29 PM

The Cooling Saucer

Nathan Smith, at TCS, suggests that the US Senate is playing its intended Constitutional role in the Immigration debate.

It is also a reminder of why the framers of the Constitution were wise to establish a Senate in the first place. Mark Steyn lampoons senators like John McCain and Arlen Specter as "presidents-for-life of the one-party state of Incumbistan." But that was the point of the Senate all along. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Paper No. 62:

"The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions... [A] body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration."

A recent example of an "intemperate and pernicious resolution" motivated by "violent passions" is the Sensenbrenner bill, HR 4437, passed last December, which would build a big wall along the southern border and declare illegal immigrants "felons." Because senators are fewer, with more scope to deliberate -- and because they are elected less frequently and so are less vulnerable to the voters' knee-jerk reactions -- they disdained HR 4437 and instead passed the far wiser and more ethical Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.

It's a very good piece that also congratulates the Democrats for choosing the right side of an important issue.

Millions of libertarian and compassionate conservative Americans have a new reason to take a look at the Democratic Party.

(Memo to Democratic websites and bloggers: Over the next few weeks, you will be getting visits from people who had previously written you off, but who were impressed by Senate Democrats on immigration reform. Try to be hospitable. Clean up your language. Also, since House Republicans have now moved into what immigration foe Mark Krikorian calls "loyal opposition" to the White House, Bush-supporters may be the swing voters in 2006. So you might want to tone down the Bush-hatred a bit.)

Since the health of democracy is served by party competition, the resurrection of the Democrats is another reason to cheer the passage of CIRA.

He has some negatives to offer as well, but I'm going to make you find those for yourself. jk is Merck; you're the tort bar. You know what to do.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:27 AM

May 26, 2006

VDH on Immigration

We're entering a brave new world according to Victor Davis Hansen.

Many Americans - perhaps out of understandable and well-meant empathy for the dispossessed who toil so hard for so little - support this present open system of non-borders. But I find nothing liberal about it.

Zealots may chant ÁSi, se puede! all they want. And the libertarian right may dress up the need for cheap labor as a desire to remain globally competitive. But neither can disguise a cynicism about illegal immigration, one that serves to prop up a venal Mexican government, undercut the wages of our own poor and create a new apartheid of millions of aliens in our shadows.

We have the entered a new world of immigration without precedent. This current crisis is unlike the great waves of 19th-century immigration that brought thousands of Irish, Eastern Europeans and Asians to the United States. Most immigrants in the past came legally. Few could return easily across an ocean to home. Arrivals from, say, Ireland or China could not embrace the myth that our borders had crossed them rather than vice versa.

Today, almost a third of all foreign-born persons in the United States are here illegally, making up 3 to 4 percent of the American population. It is estimated that the U.S. is home to 11 or 12 million illegal aliens, whose constantly refreshed numbers ensure there is always a perpetual class of unassimilated recent illegal arrivals. Indeed almost one-tenth of Mexico's population currently lives here illegally!

Posted by AlexC at 8:55 PM

The President's 'Balanced' Plan for Immigration Reform

Days after the Presidential Address to announce 6000 National Guard troops sent to "back up" the border patrol for 1 year, JK asked if I would call myself "supportive of the president's outline [of a "balanced plan" describing a "rational middle ground" on immigration.] My answer at the time was that it seemed more like the Reagan amnesty than a sustainable solution to an on-going problem. You see, I hadn't actually listened to the entirety of the 16 minute address... until last night.

One factoid I learned was the one about the National Guard. Irrespective of their assigned duties, they will be there for only a year before being "reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online." Then there was this stunner:

"Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across."

Memo to President Bush: We already have a temporary worker program. It's called the H1B Visa. But there aren't enough of them and they aren't temporary. And, if I'm not mistaken, the latest version of the Senate bill actually reduces the number of visas available. [Actually, this may have referred to a reduction from the prior proposal to treble them.]

Look, if "the reality is there are many people (...) who will do anything to come to America and work" and if you want to "reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across" then just give legal work visas to all of them. And for NED's sake, don't make seeking a job a felony, criminalize the failure to seek a job! (Not really, but you get my point.)

But this is the one that really pisses me off:

"Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration."

No, Mr. President, this is not amnesty. Amnesty is giving people a pass for breaking a law without repealing said law at the same time. What you've described is lunacy.

You say, "There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation." That is true, but this is also a false dichotomy. Since when has citizenship been required for permanent resident status? Just let legal immigrants live here and work here, and be subject to each and every one of our laws, but without the voter franchise.

In conclusion,

1) Secure the goram border, using armed guardsmen if necessary;
2) Revise H1B visas to include assignment of Social Security numbers, allow unlimited renewals, and make far more available each year;
3) Issue these new visas (with all your biometric whiz-bangery) to every illegal alien in the country. (And make damn sure no visa holders remain on the voter rolls.)
4) Eliminate citizenship as a birthright unless one or more parent is a citizen but other than this, make little if any change to the citizenship process.
and
5) Start drafting wholesale entitlement reforms now, in secret, to be put forth after the GOP holds congress in '06.

Any questions?

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:32 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Yeah, what are you smokin'?

Entitlement reform in the new GOP 110th Congress will be pretty difficult to pass after the President has failed on Social Security, failed on immigration, and Congress has a smaller Republican majority.

I asked if you could support the President and the answer, I suppose, is "no." You've crafted your own plan, weeks after the President. The armed guards are not palatable to most Americans and do not constitute good politics (cf. Pete Wilson, former Governor). The additional Visas are workable to me but will be fought by unions. The change in citizenship for native birth is not on the table anywhere.

Entitlement reform will be up to Speaker Pelosi. I know you read an article that says it's improbable, but few serious people this month are calling it impossible.

Posted by: jk at May 26, 2006 5:10 PM

May 23, 2006

The Politics of Immigration

I've been holding on to this since the weekend. It seems I cannot convince my blog brethren that the President's plan is right and true, that it provides both for enhanced security and to allow the free flow of labor required to make us all richer That it is decent to human beings who just wish to work. That it gives us far better visibility of who is here and what they're doing.

I guess I have failed, although two friends of mine are showing a glimmer of interest. I will tack into the wind, put my blog pragmatist hat on and link to Fred Barnes. In this week's Weekly Standard (and free on the website) he makes the political case for comprehensive immigration reform.

PRESIDENT BUSH AND REPUBLICANS are staring political disaster in the face on immigration. The problem isn't that they might enact a bill allowing illegal immigrants living in America to earn their way to citizenship, inviting foreign workers to come here, and beefing up security on the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. No, it would be a disaster for Republicans if they didn't pass such a bill.

Like me, he sees this as a big win for the GOP. He sees the risk in the dark underbelly of failure. If the President fails on Social Security (a good plan which a GOP controlled Congress could not pass) and then fails on this cornerstone of his first and second terms, the rest of the term will not be pretty.

There really is an immigration crisis. In fact, the very Republicans who want an immigration bill limited to enforcement are largely responsible for having brought to the attention of all Americans the fact that a crisis exists and must be dealt with urgently. For them to prevent a bill now would be political suicide. It would all but guarantee Democratic capture of the House on November 7. "We're in control," says Republican senator Mel Martinez of Florida. "We're in charge. And if we don't produce, it would be a terrible failure. It would be handing the other side a win." A big win.

Imagine the effect it would have on Bush's presidency. Bush is struggling as it is. It was bad enough when his lonely effort to reform Social Security last year flopped. Failure to deliver on immigration reform, the single biggest domestic issue of the decade, would mark the end of the Bush presidency as an effective political force. Bush would become the lamest of lame ducks. His final two years in the White House would be painful.

How about it guys. Take one for the team here. Support the President who gave us tax cuts and the thoroughly impressive Roberts court. Get behind and win one more for the malopropper!

Posted by John Kranz at 10:38 AM

May 22, 2006

Thought Experiment

Chicago Boyz

One day you notice that you've been going through multiple bags of cat food per day. Then you look outside and notice that there are entirely too many stray cats in the yard. You've successfully deduced that the stray cats coming in your yard from all over the neighborhood are eating all of the extra cat food you've been buying. Now how do you solve this problem? Do you:

a) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Round up as many stray cats as you can find and drop them off next door. Repeat as necessary.

b) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Build a large wall around your property to keep the stray cats out.

c) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Patrol the perimeter of your property with a gun to keep the stray cats out.

d) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Adopt the stray cats that are currently in your yard, but this is it! After this you aren't taking in any more, and that's final. Repeat as necessary.

e) Stop putting cat food in the yard. Feed your cats and only your cats in a place where the strays can't get access to the food.

Anyone?

Posted by AlexC at 10:08 PM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

If you're Rep Tancredo or Bill O'Reilly, I suppose you light bonfires in your backyard, set landmines, and leave several lawnmowers running on their side. I mean, who cares if you ruin your yard -- as long as you get that cat problem cleared up!

The analogy is tortured and tenuous. These people are human beings who contribute to our economy. If you want to set out less cat food (reduce government assistance) I am with you all the way. But let's not wire up the electric fence.

Posted by: jk at May 23, 2006 10:17 AM

But johngalt thinks:

Very well, then try this analogy instead:

"If your basement is flooding from a broken pipe, do you wait until you return from Home Depot with all the materials you need to fix it "permanently" before you turn off the supply valve?"

I contend the answer is the same whether or not the rising water also happens to be watering the petunias bordering your foundation.

Posted by: johngalt at May 24, 2006 3:37 PM

Bananas

Marc Steyn

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, in a quintessentially McCainiac contribution to the debate, angrily denied the Senate legislation was an "amnesty." "Call it a banana if you want to," he told his fellow world's greatest deliberators. "To call the process that we require under this legislation amnesty frankly distorts the debate and it's an unfair interpretation of it."

He has a point. Technically, an "amnesty" only involves pardoning a person for a crime rather than, as this moderate compromise legislation does, pardoning him for a crime and also giving him a cash bonus for committing it. In fact, having skimmed my Webster's, I can't seem to find a word that does cover what the Senate is proposing, it having never previously occurred to any other society in the course of human history. Whether or not, as Mr. McCain says, we should call it a singular banana, it's certainly plural bananas.

Posted by AlexC at 10:03 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Steyn is in good form as usual. And I can't not enjoy a little bashing of the U.S. Senate.

But everybody who's paying attention knows that this is now about a conference bill, not the Senate bill. I feel he ignores that for entertainment value

Posted by: jk at May 23, 2006 5:23 PM

For the Wall, Before He Was Against It

I'm so glad this f'ing guy wasn't President.

Sen. John Kerry joined most of his Democratic colleagues last week in voting to build a wall along 370 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.

But he now says that after the wall is built it should be taken down as soon as possible.

"I voted for it," Kerry acknowledged Friday while speaking to the New England Council breakfast.

But in quotes picked up by the Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Democrat added: "If I were making the long-term decision, I’d announce, you know, hopefully it’s a temporary measure, and we can take it down as soon as we have enough people" to guard the border.

That doesn't even make any sense. ... and how positively wasteful it is. Build a wall, then tear it down. Do it, or don't do it. But don't waste our money with something that stupid.

Tip to Blonde Sagacity, who writes, "John Kerry Rules" for being "wonderful blog fodder."

Posted by AlexC at 12:21 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Damn, that's nuanced!

Posted by: jk at May 22, 2006 12:52 PM

Kruthammer vs. JK

The phone rang early today. It was my oft-mentioned relative who is pro-Bush but wants a far more enforcement oriented solution to immigration than the President. He pointed me toward Charles Krauthammer's column today. It speaks to his side, we both discussed our respect for the good Doctor.

I don't want to fisk Krauthammer -- he's not lying or wrong. There are just some issues I feel he does not pay sufficient attention to. He gets right to the point. Nobody accuses him of circumlocution:

I do not doubt the president's sincerity in wanting to humanize and regularize the lives of America's estimated 12 million illegal aliens. But good intentions are not enough. For decades, the well-traveled road from the Mexican border to the barrios of Los Angeles has been paved with such intentions. They begat the misguided immigration policy that created the crisis that necessitated the speech that purports to offer, finally, the "comprehensive" solution.

Hardly. The critical element -- border enforcement -- is farcical. President Bush promises to increase the number of border agents. That was promised in the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty legislation in 1986. The result was more than 11 million new illegal immigrants.

Time out! The security elements of the President's plan are not "farcical." The President has proposed physical barriers where needed (300-700+ miles, depending on who eats their Wheaties on conference day) and the use of technology to replace barriers in other locations. I know Krauthammer wants a TJ - Neuvo Laredo wall, but I think he is wrong to call anything less farcical.

The President also calls for more border patrol agents and suggests the National Guard during transition. As the WSJ pointed out, and Krauthammer admits, more boots is not the magic solution.

The President also offers mitigation for the supply-demand pressure. Biometric worker IDs and increased legal workers would both reduce the demand (and concomitant price) of illegal labor. The normalization of present workers would increase the legal labor pool as well.

Krauthammer's main thesis is very strong (mirabile non dictu). He asks why it is Conservative to support enforcement in that illegal workers compete for work with the poorest Americans, whom liberals claim to champion. He does not mention another point of contention: that illegal workers pose more threat to the environment than a middle-class American driving his 1.25 children around in a hybrid. His best point is likely American exceptionalism:

And is it just conservatives who think the United States ought not be gratuitously squandering one of its greatest assets -- its magnetic attraction to would-be immigrants around the world? There are tens of millions of people who want to leave their homes and come to America. We essentially have an NFL draft in which the United States has the first, oh, million or so draft picks. Rather than exercising those picks, i.e., choosing by whatever criteria we want -- such as education, enterprise, technical skills and creativity -- we admit the tiniest fraction of the best and brightest and permit millions of the unskilled to pour in instead.

Krauthammer makes a good point, but ignores the little exigency of geography. We have this long border with a much poorer country. Sure we have every right to militarize, barbed-wire, whatever. But Mexican citizens have grown used to finding employment here and our economy has grown used to the advantages they provide. If I believed that a million gardeners would be replaced by 500,000 doctors and 500,000 programmers, I'd be in.

Krauthammer, and many of his ilk, seem unwilling to compromise. Three hundred more miles of fence are about 210 miles too much for me, but I will support the compromise. Yet Krauthammer wants every inch of the border walled (boats?) and calls 1/3 farcical.

The President is not a legislator. The House can toughen enforcement and the Senate can broaden the welcome mat. Yet the President has proposed a balanced approach that I can support. And as you've noticed, I do not tire of asking others to support it.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:37 AM

May 15, 2006

The President's Speech

I had the President's speech on, but really can't say I was riveted.

But my friend Dr Rick @ the American Checkup paid attention.

Here's what he says...

Though I am an ardent supporter of President Bush I feel that he could have taken a more brazen position and challenged Congress to secure the borders immediatly with troops and fences. His approval would surely be catapulted into more popular opinion rather than the 29th percentile where he's recently found refuge. His base would have renewed faith in a President re-elected to pass his agenda which he has been less than stellar in furthering.

This was truly a missed opportunity in some regards and an employment of appropriate measures in others. The President surely didn't compromise his already lack luster appeal. But he didn't capitalize on a tremendous opportunity either.

Hugh Hewitt says...

President Bush did exactly what he had to do tonight: Hit the middle, agreeing to the fence, to a large increase in Border Patrol personnel and funding, tamper-proof identification, National Guard back-up of ICE for at least a year, the end of catch-and-release, blunt talk on the impossibility of mass deportation, an insistence on English, and a commitment to a guest worker program that will take pressure off enforcement by funneling large numbers of immigrant workers into the legal line.

In related news, CNN ran Bush's rehearsal "mistakenly."

Posted by AlexC at 9:26 PM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

I was riveted. I thought it was pitch perfect and that it will launch the GOP immigration win I have been looking for.

No, the enforcement-only folks are not pleased. Rep Tancredo was on Bill O'Reilly's show right after the speech. Of course he's not happy. (Though he made O'Reilly look sane and measured, everybody has a purpose in life).

Exigencies dictate that a lot of folks are not going to get exactly what they want. Compromise legislation is frequently weak and, well, compromised. The opportunity here for a good, comprehensive reform is very good.

I will gladly accept more stringent border security than I'd choose, I'd like to see some of the enforcement-only crowd accept victory-plus as well.

The President's enforcement plan is superb: National Guard troops to back up the Border Patrol while they recruit and train new staff; technology over militarization; employer enforcement without betting the whole program on it; tools to help employers comply; and guest worker program and citizenship path to allow enough workers to keep the economy going.

I give the President an A+. The grace note at the end of the young Marine and his respectful tone toward all immigrants was just right as well.

Posted by: jk at May 15, 2006 10:53 PM

April 30, 2006

Two Wrongs make a ???

Notwithstanding the leftist groups who've organized tomorrow's "immigrant strike" day, the temperature has cooled on the immigration debate since the April recess. But it will heat up again soon. In November JK predicted "an immigration win for the GOP" that included a compromise between senate and house immigration reform bills. In general terms, the senate measure is the "guest worker" program and the house brings the "border security" element. I don't doubt JK's prediction, but I do fear the result of a compromise between these two bad plans.

The senate plan to spend lots of money and create a new "citizenship scavenger hunt" program has been knocked around here quite a bit already. But what about the house's "hard line" approach? JK is critical of it as isolationist. I'm not sure though that he knows just how right he is. Robert Tracinski, one of the guys I "truck with" calls it "Americans against the American dream."

So why are so many Republicans coming out against the American dream?

Look through the rationalization that these Republicans are only against illegal immigration. These same politicians have spent decades erecting barriers against legal immigration, and they are still doing so today. That is why they have refused to link their crackdown on illegal immigration with any provision to allow existing immigrants to legalize their status, or to allow new workers to come to the US under a "guest worker" program. They are not for legal immigration; they are against all immigration, period.

Also look through the rationalization that the anti-immigrationists are concerned that foreigners come here to mooch off of the American welfare state. Why, then, are restrictions on immigration aimed precisely at those who seek to work?

I agree with Tracinski that the house has got it wrong. I hope that much of it, like the provision to make illegal immigration a felony that Dennis Hastert promises is already DOA, will be excised from the compromise bill but that's a heapin' helpin' of wishful thinking. I still hold that Charles Krauthammer had the right approach and we'd all better hope that any compromise looks a lot like his "wall first, questions later" solution.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:19 AM | Comments (1)

But jk thinks:

Twelve years of predications, and one is gonna come true, I ain't giving up.

I like Tracinski (know how to pronounce that?) and agree with his piece. He questions people's motives, however, and though many of them deserve questioning, you cannot look into a man's heart.

I know people who are not racists, leftists, or afraid of competition who question whether the huge influx of workers is good or bad. I spend my rant time, therefore, highlighting the economic benefits these workers provide to us.

Posted by: jk at April 30, 2006 4:11 PM

April 11, 2006

Day by Day

Posted by AlexC at 11:49 PM | Comments (1)

But LatteSipper thinks:

They're both right.

Posted by: LatteSipper at April 12, 2006 10:30 AM

April 10, 2006

Huh?

Can someone explain to me what, exactly, I'm looking at?

(Tip to Michelle Malkin)

Posted by AlexC at 2:50 PM | Comments (10)

But AlexC thinks:

JK, how about the distinct disadvantage?

Namely, if it were so great, people wouldn't be fleeing it.

At least before the the Civil War, our union was a voluntary one, so people could petition to join it (ala Texas)...

But could you imagine the enormous sh!tstorm that would erupt? Depending on how you gerrymandered the states/provinces you could give a bunch of seats to Dems or a bunch to the GOP. It would make the Missouri Compromise look like cupcake time.

Posted by: AlexC at April 10, 2006 8:32 PM

But jk thinks:

I can imagine, but we are encouraged to think big at ThreeSources.

I always contend that people are poor because of bad government. If we brought our far-less bad government, their economy would skyrocket. Folks aren't leaving because the Tequila is bad; they're searching for American opportunity.

It would be very tough to add all those likely Democrat districts, yup. That's why you need Canadian provinces and subdivision of Texas (for the Senate). Most of our oil comes from these places -- it'd be Nafta on Steroids!

Posted by: jk at April 10, 2006 8:52 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

But LatteSipper thinks:

51st state? Holy cow! Are we invading Mexico?
Posted by: LatteSipper at April 10, 2006 04:22 PM

Why not? Those people are obviously leaving for the US because life in Mexico sucks under the current regime.

I think its high time GWB took charge and set things right south of the border! Maybe then, those people will leave us alone!

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 10, 2006 9:11 PM

But jk thinks:

Before I'm accused of "going all Sam Houston" on our neighbors, I agree that it is a right and a privilege to be admitted into the Union and I want nobody who doesn't want to go and doesn't prove it by referenda.

Nobody pointed out that if we need more GOP districts, we can always offer statehood to Iraq...Silence? LatteSipper?

Posted by: jk at April 11, 2006 10:34 AM

But LatteSipper thinks:

(rising to the bait ...) After all we've done for Iraq, I don't think they'll be anxious to receive any more gifts from us. Perhaps Iran would be interested.

Posted by: LatteSipper at April 11, 2006 2:39 PM

But johngalt thinks:

If Mexico joins the union you can bet it will be voluntary, because you can also bet they'll get more out of the deal than the other 50 states will. I just hope the public restrooms in Mexico become more like ours instead of the other way around.

Posted by: johngalt at April 13, 2006 3:12 PM

April 7, 2006

Name for This?

None dare call it sedition.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that The City will not comply with any federal legislation that criminalizes efforts to help illegal immigrants.

The mayor also denounced a bipartisan congressional proposal that would beef up border security and allow as many as 12 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status.

Newsom, who has not been afraid to wade into controversial national issues such as gay marriage, appeared with a group of elected officials on the steps of City Hall to support immigrants, “documented as well as undocumented.”Newsom also signed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors, urging San Francisco law enforcement not to comply with criminal provisions of any new immigration bill.

“San Francisco stands foursquare in strong opposition to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, D.C.,” Newsom said. “If people think we were defiant on the gay marriage issue, they haven’t seen defiance.”

What are the state's rights / federalism issues involved in something like this? I have no idea where to even begin.

Posted by AlexC at 5:27 PM | Comments (6)

But jk thinks:

I bet his eyes were closed when he said it!

Posted by: jk at April 7, 2006 6:07 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Well,...maybe this is why that city Supervisor stated that the US doesn't need a military. If it were sedition, Bush would be within his rights to sic the Army on SF!

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 7, 2006 7:15 PM

But AlexC thinks:

JK, I'd like to know if he was smelling his own farts.

I'm thinking I'd like to rent of the planes you see at the beach pulling an advertisement.

I'd fly it over the Mexico-California border.
In spanish it would say, "The city of San Franscisco welcomes you! Kids stay free!"

Posted by: AlexC at April 7, 2006 9:26 PM

But LatteSipper thinks:

So when a mayor says his city's government won't abide by a some portion of pending legislation, that's sedition, huh? What is it when a president signs a bill into law and adds an addendum that he is not obliged to obey the requirements of the law?

Posted by: LatteSipper at April 9, 2006 12:43 AM

But jk thinks:

I'll concede that it is not sedition to abjure enforcement of a law that doesn't exist yet.

We have a very complicated power sharing arrangement between cities, states and federal government that is constantly tested and adjudicated. You'll find most of us siding against the Feds on Federalism grounds (Raich v Gonzales is second only to McConnell v FEC for worst SCOTUS decision of my lifetime).

But when the laws are settled, we expect both sides to honor them. Mobile, Alabama cannot outlaw abortions, Coeur d' Alene cannot allow chattel slavery. Cities like SF (and Boulder?) that refuse to recognize the Patriot Act or prosecute Federal laws are, well, um, seditious.

Posted by: jk at April 9, 2006 11:12 AM

But LatteSipper thinks:

Yet that appears not to apply to our beloved president. Bush signed the Patriot Act extension with much fanfare, then the Whitehouse quietly issued a signing statement in which Bush said he was not bound by elements of the law. Shouldn't he have vetoed the law if felt there were elements he couldn't abide by?

Posted by: LatteSipper at April 10, 2006 12:13 PM

Huge Breakthrou...SCREEEEE!

Yesterday's hastily called press conference to announce a "huge breakthrough" in the Senate immigration bill was supposed to presage a rubber-stamp vote last evening. But Republicans who thought the bill should be more than another "immigration bill to end all immigration bills" insisted upon amendments. Frivolous things like,

"One amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to certify that the border was secure before creating a guest worker program or granting legal status to illegal immigrants. Another would have the legalization program bar illegal immigrants who had deportation orders or had been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors."

This issue is way too important to rush into another band-aid compromise measure. The serious dialog in the comments to 'Immigration Politics' below have been illuminating, and promise more enlightenment if the conversation continues.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:59 PM

Wall First, Questions Later

Krauthammer

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put cameras. Put sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the last 50 years.

Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.

Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we can do that, everything becomes possible -- most especially, humanizing the situation of our 11 million existing illegals.

Posted by AlexC at 2:57 PM | Comments (6)

But johngalt thinks:

Except for his perpetuation of the "11 million" myth (some estimate 20 million or more) this is a great column. Krauthammer advocates for the same thing JK has for weeks now: "Radical legalization of those already here." Except, like me, he insists on concrete (pardon the pun) measures to end illigal immigration. But as neither JK nor I has done, Charles observes that resistance to the former will nearly vanish if the latter is effectively achieved first. He proposes a year or two interval between the two.

This is a compromise solution that works - both sides get the result they want. Presuming, of course, that Krauthammer's prediction on the part of security advocates holds and that legalization advocates really are willing to allow illegal immigration to be stopped.

Posted by: johngalt at April 7, 2006 3:22 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Further, kudos to Charles for elevating the idea of serious and deliberate border security from "Tancredo quackery" to mainstream (media, at least) legitimacy.

Posted by: johngalt at April 7, 2006 3:33 PM

But jk thinks:

Speaking of inside baseball, I watched an hour of the Senate floor debate this morning. Some speeches were very good (Sen. Craig, R-ID!) but it was about a cloture motion for the Martinez-Hagel amendment, Minority Leader Reid calling the Republican's obstructionist, I was agreeing with Sens. Feinstein and Kennedy, Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama will play the part of Tom Tancredo today...

I'm surprisingly calm. Things are happening according to plan. I will get what I want in the end and publish an indecent I told you so to my GOP Immigration Win piece.

The Senate will pass a bill that is very light on enforcement, but includes a guest-worker provision. The House passes a tough enforcement bill (I'll take a little more wall, but am not up for a Krauthammer/Israel wall if we can avoid it).

Conference will hammer out a "comprehensive" bill that will be a little tough for the Wall Street Journal and too lenient for Rep Tancredo, but we'll all move along.

Looking for that seed of disagreement, it occurs to me that I do not see illegal immigrants as the security threat that others on this page do. It concerns me that N million people are here illegally but that terrorist threats are more serious from domestic sources or other countries.

Posted by: jk at April 7, 2006 6:05 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Small security threat? Tell that to the wife of Boulder County motorcyclist Dale Englerth who was run over by an illegal who, instead of being prosecuted, was deported to Mexico by Boulder police because of a "scheduling snafu." Or the wife of Denver cop Donnie Young, who was shot in the back of the head by an illegal who worked at one of Denver mayor Hickenlooper's restaurants. These are individual examples meant to show the horror of the problem, not the magnitude.

How about the Mexican drug gang MS-13? 11,000 organized Mexican illegals conducting business with impunity in 33 US states. Or Mexican army patrols crossing miles into US territory and firing upon US border officers. One editorialist I read claims "a full 30% of illegals fill our prisons." I'm not sure of this stat, or what this is a percentage OF, but it's clearly troubling.

But the greatest threat from the current state of immigration policy is the near complete ignorance of our current laws. When some laws go unenforced, other laws are soon ignored. Particularly by those with little or nothing to lose and everything to gain. The current debate is not about changing the law, but about whether we'll try to enforce it or, through abandonment, effectively repeal it. I say we MUST enforce this law. We need to be brave if we want to be free.

Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2006 11:22 AM

But jk thinks:

Tragic examples of crime. When I say small security threat, I suggest a small threat of terrorism.

People want to tie the global war on terrorism onto their favorite projects, be it midnight basketball, multicultural education, whatever. I hear the protectionists and the close-the-border crowd using this and I think it is equally risible.

Illegal immigration, as you point out, has many of its own problems. But I reject the call to include it as national security.

Posted by: jk at April 8, 2006 12:57 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Don't close the border - control it. (This is my new broken record track.) New York congressman Pete King said yesterday that intelligence reports of terrorism activity at the southern border are troubling, and that waiting for a tragedy to occur before doing something about it is irresponsible. Seems to me you'll have a hard time convincing voters that idea is some kind of extremism.

Posted by: johngalt at April 10, 2006 3:07 PM

April 2, 2006

Immigration Politics

"The Republican Party is Split on Immigration" scream the headlines. We certainly have some disagreement around here. I don't see Democrats providing real leadership here, and I question that a united front is doing them much good.

I have had to face opposition to my views from Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson. A friend emailed this article with the Subject "Hanson." I thought it was the band. Of course, VDH has written a whole book about adverse effects of rampant illegal immigration and unassimilated Mexican people in has native California.

I have repeatedly made the case for a guest worker program, and said early that it could be packaged as a compromise with stricter security, resulting in a GOP win. I have faced the squeamish task of defending those who broke the law, those who refuse to assimilate, and even the ridiculous marchers who flaunted their ignorance and opposition to this country's ideals.

That's tough work for a law-and-order guy but I think that the economic advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, and that a guest worker program is a step toward a legal, controlled process that recognizes the exigencies of 11 million folks who are, well, here.

A very good point made by the other side was poll numbers showing overwhelming support for enforcement. As blog pragmatist, I have to look toward victory but feel that the support is "a mile wide and an inch thick," and that leadership could show people the benefits and overcome the demagoguery that has plagued this issue.

Bill Kristol seems to back me up in this week's Weekly Standard." In Y is for Yahoo, Kristol indulges in some name calling to a Representative from my state. But he also repeats the truth that the electorate has not been that kind to those who espouse policies that can be thought anti-immigrant.

The leaders of what he calls "THE HOUSE CAUCUS TO RETURN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO MINORITY STATUS--also known as the House Immigration Reform Caucus" all happen to be from safe seats. Statewide office holders have to be more moderate.

Dana Rohrabacher has represented a safe GOP seat in Orange County for almost two decades. He's chosen never to run statewide. In California, Republican governor Pete Wilson exploited the immigration issue to help get reelected in 1994, and the voters passed a Republican-backed anti-immigration measure, proposition 187. No Republican candidate except the idiosyncratic Arnold Schwarzenegger has won statewide since.

Virgil Goode has a safe GOP seat in Southside Virginia. He's never run statewide. Last fall, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore, tried to exploit illegal immigration by denouncing a local community that wanted to build a shelter that might accommodate some illegals. He lost, in a red state, a race he had been favored to win.

Anti-immigration yahoo Tom Tancredo carried the sixth district of Colorado comfortably in 2004 (though running slightly behind pro-immigration George W. Bush). But in Tancredo's state, the GOP did miserably in 2004, with Democrat Ken Salazar winning the Senate seat and Democrats gaining control of both houses of the legislature. Meanwhile, in the safe fifth district of Iowa, Steve King did run two points ahead of George W. Bush in 2004. King was able to outspend his challenger 10-1, while Bush faced a huge Kerry effort in that swing state.

Four GOP senators voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee for the comprehensive immigration bill these blustering House members believe is electoral suicide: Arlen Specter, elected and reelected in blue state Pennsylvania; Mike DeWine, elected and reelected in swing state Ohio; and Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, and Sam Brownback from Kansas--both very popular in their red states. John McCain, lead sponsor of a bill that resembles the Senate Judiciary Committee bill, has a pretty impressive electoral record in Arizona, a competitive state. George W. Bush, a pro-immigration Republican, has won two presidential elections--as did another pro-immigration Republican, Ronald Reagan.

Adding these examples to Pete Wilson's temporary gains but long term GOP minority in California, I do not see this as an election winner.

The American people are worried about immigration. In a Pew Survey released last week, 52 percent of Americans saw immigration as a burden, while 41 percent said it strengthened the country; 53 percent support sending illegals home, while 40 percent endorsed a path to citizenship. Given the hoopla about illegal immigration, this division is in fact surprisingly close. In any case, it means GOP senators and congressmen--and presidents--have plenty of room to show leadership and to resist demagoguery. Most Republican officeholders know that the political--and moral--cost of turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know Nothing party would be very great. It could easily dash Republican hopes of becoming a long-term governing party. How many Republicans will have the courage to stand up and prevent the yahoos from driving the party off a cliff?

UPDATE: An AP/Ipsos poll shows support for guest worker programs.

The survey found 62 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans favored temporary worker status.

"If I were in the White House, I would be pretty pleased about this," said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor who studies public opinion. "It does suggest pretty strongly that the president has the opportunity to drive public opinion on this."

Posted by John Kranz at 12:13 PM | Comments (5)

But johngalt thinks:

VDH's last two paragraphs say about everything I believe on this subject.

I'll be your huckleberry, JK: "How does a 'guest worker' program stop the future flow of illegal immigrants?"

It will do that, won't it? Isn't that a problem that needs to be solved? Do we agree on that?

Posted by: johngalt at April 3, 2006 3:11 PM

But jk thinks:

I agree with almost all of VDH's last two paragraphs. I said in an email the other day that a permanent underclass is a concern with a guest worker program. I think that the advantages outweigh this risk and I’m not sure Professor Hanson agrees.

Huck? The guest worker program does three things to reduce illegal immigration:

1) Given a safe and legal method, most legal workers would abjure the dangerous coyotes and illegal crossings;
2) Given access to legal guest workers, companies would hire these legal workers at a premium over illegals;
3) This would give the US a more solid economic and moral footing to toughen border security.

Posted by: jk at April 3, 2006 4:06 PM

But johngalt thinks:

First of all, "reduce" is a weasel word. One percent is a "reduction." I said "stop." By this I mean cut by 95% or more. Isn't that the goal? Efficacy?

To analyze the rest I tried to find the links to the Senate subcommittee bill I was reading over the weekend but couldn't put my mouse on it today. I wanted to look for definitive measures that would address each of your points. Failing that, for now, I'll wing it.

1) Wouldn't this be simpler and more effectively achieved by merely raising the quota on legal immigrations from Mexico?

2) If this were true then wouldn't companies be hiring legal citizen and resident alien workers now, also at a premium?

3) I disagree with this one at its root. Our moral footing is nonexistent as long as we refuse to officially acknowledge the premise I put forth in your first elevator talk. Beside that, what makes you think if border security isn't tightened now that it will be in the future? It's not just terrorists that need to be kept out, its anyone who's not willing to follow our laws. The first one they're faced with is, you don't get to come in without scrutiny, due process and intent to assimilate. Sorry, that's just the way it is (and the way it has to be.)

Posted by: johngalt at April 4, 2006 3:34 PM

But jk thinks:

By reduce I mean greater than 50%, likely towards 80-90. The efficacy will be determined by the other part of a "comprehensive" immigration package, which is increased enforcement. I know that Congress will provide heightened enforcement enough for me, I lobby for the part that is up in the air: the guest worker program.

1) Yes, a dramatic increase in H2-B visas would meet most of my needs, I consider that equivalent to a guest worker program. A large difference is what to do with 11 million people who are already here.

2) I assume that there is currently a premium for legal workers and know there is a huge premium for assimilated, English speaking workers. This would provide more workers that are cheap and legal, which is good for the economy.

3a) If we close the border tomorrow and send everybody home, jobs will go unfulfilled, that is the economic footing. When we supply sufficient legal workers, we can enforce the border without economic damage.

3b) As for moral footing (I propose jk's law: you and I will never agree on anything that has the word "moral" in it), I find it immoral to tell people who want the work that they cannot have it. Right now, we have this crazy anti-Bastiat way to look the other way when some come in. Give me your lucky and shifty enough not be caught masses... A legal method would be moral to those who came and give us every right to be tough on those who ignored these new legal means.

3c) I gave up on the Elevator Talk, it was shot down by shoulder guided missiles from a rogue philosopher junta. I'm back to rambling and dissembling...

Posted by: jk at April 4, 2006 6:31 PM

But johngalt thinks:

OK now, please forgive me if I wander a bit here but this is a complicated subject I'm learning more about every day.

You liken the guest worker program to an H2B visa given to some or all of the millions of illegal immigrants already here. That implies that, as with the H2B visa, these workers are here TEMPORARILY and are coming for a job with an expressly stated duration of 1 year or less.

But your explanations of points 2 and 3 above imply that the worker is already here and available to employers looking for help. But when an H2B visa expires the worker is REQUIRED (save for up to 2 years of extensions) to leave the country, ostensibly to return home. Will this be the case with "guest worker?"

Please don't be so despondent over our differences friend. We certainly agree it is immoral to "shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die." We also agree that individuals have a natural right to create and to take jobs without permission from the government. But there is also an important tool for self-preservation known as citizenship that must sometimes trump the rights of individual NON-citizens. That's what's at issue here after all.

Posted by: johngalt at April 6, 2006 3:00 PM

March 31, 2006

The Marches

Just a few pictures from this week's marches.

mexica-movement.org

Our signs helped to counter the American flags. Our people expressed their agreement with our message.

...

Racist Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R of California 4th district) of red-neck Orange County said that he didn't care how long people had been in "this country" illegally, if they were here illegally for 5 or 50 years that they should be deported. Fine! Europeans have been here illegally since 1492, START THE DEPORTATIONS NOW! First one to go should be this Nazi Rohrabacher!

Sensenbrenner, Schwarzenegger, Rohrabacher, funny how they all have Germanic names! .....No, it's not funny at all!

stolencontinent.org
aztlan.net

What does the immense success of "La Gran Marcha" mean to Mexicanos and other Latinos? It simply means that we now have the numbers, the political will and the organizational skills to direct our own destinies and not be subservient to the White and Jewish power structures. It means that we can now undertake bigger and more significant mass actions to achieve total political and economic liberation like that being proposed by Juan José Gutiérrez, President of Movimiento Latino USA. Juan José Gutiérrez is proposing that the coalition that organized "La Gran Marcha" meet in Arizona or Texas on April 8 to "organize a mass boycott (huelga) against the economy of the USA" to take place on May 1, May 5 or May 19.

(tip to NRO)

Victor Davis Hanson (read the whole thing)

If many thousands of illegal aliens marched in their zeal, many more millions of Americans of all different races and backgrounds watched--and seethed. They were struck by the Orwellian incongruities--Mexican flags, chants of "Mexico, Mexico," and the spectacle of illegal alien residents lecturing citizen hosts on what was permissible in their own country.

If the demonstrators thought that they were bringing attention to their legitimate grievances--the sheer impossibility of deporting 11 million residents across the border or the hypocrisy of Americans de facto profiting from "illegals" who cook their food, make their beds, and cut their lawns--they seemed oblivious to the embarrassing contradictions of their own symbolism and rhetoric. Most Americans I talked to in California summed up their reactions to the marches as something like, 'Why would anyone wave the flag of the country that they would never return to--and yet scream in anger at those with whom they wish to stay?' Depending on the particular questions asked, polls reveal that somewhere around 60-80% of the public is vehemently opposed to illegal immigration.

Posted by AlexC at 12:05 PM | Comments (2)

But jk thinks:

I think the poll numbers show a lack of leadership. The polls were against the Dubai ports sale as well.

The Wall Street Journal lead editorial today asks whether the GOP wants to be the party of Ronald Reagan or Tom Tancredo: ?do Republicans want to continue in the Reagan tradition of American optimism and faith in assimilation that sends a message of inclusiveness to all races? Or will they take another one of their historical detours into a cramped, exclusionary policy that tells millions of new immigrants, and especially Hispanics, that they belong somewhere else?"

The marches and the Mexican flags and the upside down flag are all counter-productive. That's not too far from Republicans being thrown in with Pat Robertson and David Duke. I recognized these problems in a blog entry on March 27: http://www.threesources.com/archives/002568.html

I don't defend these people or the quotes you post, but I'm not going to choose to be poorer to spite them.

I want to be the party of Reagan: optimistic, welcoming and seeking greater wealth. Rep Tancredo has my permission to ignore comparative advantage and to mow his own lawn.

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2006 2:15 PM

But AlexC thinks:

JK, you're missing the point. My argument is NOT "close the borders". Take immigrants. Welcome them. But assimilate them. Countless millions have done that. What were seeing lately is not assimilation, but special treatment, and even worse DEMANDS for special treatment.
http://www.ocobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/NEWS01/603310307/1007

You're right about the party of Reagan. But he wouldn't approve of those signs, and that behavior. America is a melting pot. Not a multiple course meal.

Posted by: AlexC at March 31, 2006 3:09 PM

March 30, 2006

Security & Immigration

With 11 million undocumented people in this country how many are anti-American? Would it be possible that perhaps as few as say, 19 are the really dangerous trouble makers?

... and it fully 3% of people on American soil are here without the consent of the nation, how long before a group hostile to our interests gets a few of their compatriots in?

The immigrants who come to work in this country for the opportunities, I really don't worry too much about. They understand and appreciate America for what it is. The land of boundless opportunity for those with sufficent motivation.

It's the ones that come for the opportunity to do damage that you can lose sleep over.

Posted by AlexC at 11:39 AM | Comments (5)

But jk thinks:

I worry about our nation's security as well, AlexC. But worrying about 19 people out of 300 million, I don't see why your concern is the Mexican border.

The Canadian border is more porous and has already been used by terrorists, the student visa program is out of hand. The Mexican border has not been a crossing for terrorists yet protectionists and xenophobes are ready to use national security as an excuse to shut it down.

If the concern is security, it seems we are in a lot more danger from Wahabist chaplains in US prisons and terror sympathizers already here.

Yet the call is clear: we must shut down the border -- for national security. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Posted by: jk at March 30, 2006 12:02 PM

But AlexC thinks:

JK, I never said Mexican border.

And I was thinking of the millenium bombers that were caught coming through the Canadian border in Washington State.

I'm talking borders in general, not individuals or countries.

The actual crossings. The lines cut through the woods, student visas, regular over-extended visa stays, etc.

... and how do you know the Mexican border hasn't been used for a terrorist or sympathizer crossing? Maybe they're already here, waiting.

It's disappointing that I'm immediately labelled a xenophobe. That's a cheap way to change the debate. It's not xenophobia.

Like I said, the ones that care about this country, I don't mind. It's the ones that don't, that I do mind.

Posted by: AlexC at March 30, 2006 12:20 PM

But jk thinks:

One step back. I had no intention of calling you a xenophobe. And, perhaps, my comments were not well directed at this post. Yet I see an alliance of a protectionist left with a xenophobic right that scares me greatly.

To come back to your post. I would not use the word immigrant to describe a terrorist. Immigrants come here to participate in the economy (and yes, might do it some harm) but the ones who come to destroy our way of life are called "terrorists" and are not a part of the immigration debate.

Posted by: jk at March 30, 2006 1:06 PM

But AlexC thinks:

How can you say they're not part of the debate?

Our defacto "open border" policy does not discriminate by ambition!

Posted by: AlexC at March 31, 2006 12:31 PM

But jk thinks:

We're software guys, let me try patterns:

1) I favor decriminalization of most drugs, and -- not to become Amsterdam or anything -- legalized prostitution.

2) I support the right of honest citizens to own firearms.

Both of these have severe consequences for abuse. Yet I would like to see my local police have the resources to find and prosecute those who drive drunk/high and commit crimes with firearms. Triple those penalties. Get tough.

Likewise, if we allowed the OVERWHELMING majority of those who just want to participate in our economy to come legally and orderly and traceably, we could devote far more resources to stopping, finding and removing terrorists.

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2006 6:03 PM

March 27, 2006

The Immigration Rallies

Mickey Kaus did great reporting on the pro-immigration rallies in L.A. He predicted an anti-immigrant backlash and caught the LA Times papering over the large numbers of Mexican flags in the parade. In the spirit of fairness, I provide a link to this coverage.

In Kaus's spirit of fairness, he provides a link to a Marc Cooper posting that disagrees. Much as I dig the Mickster, I have to go with Cooper on this one.

I'm struck by several aspects of this story. Primarily by the way neither party can properly get a hold of this issue. Demographics and global economics are simply racing ahead of any practical political response. The Republicans are deeply divided over the issue. Even as the half-million or so were marching in the streets Saturday, President Bush was on the radio more or less endorsing the protestors' two key demands: that a legal channel be created for the immigration already happening and that some legal acknowledgement be given to the 12 million "illegals" already living here. Viva Bush!

The Democrats are less divided and generally more inclined toward reform. But can you name even two prominent national Democrats who have taken up this cause in a serious way? (One is Ted Kennedy who along with John McCain has co-authored the most sensible reform proposal currently under consideration).

The other point is that I refuse to back away from my contention that compromise is possible. I think you can increase enforcement and provide a legal channel and make most of the people happy.

In the Kausian spirit of fairness, I will include another link. Arnold Kling, whom I respect greatly, seems to minimize the economic benefits of immigration (which I claim). Kling is not against me by any stretch, but he is not quite so sure about the economic benefits:

I believe that illegal immigrants bring relatively little economic benefit and cause relatively little economic harm. I believe that there are substitutes readily available for the work done by illegal immigrants. Legal residents could do some of the work. Other labor could be replaced by capital or by alternative production techniques. By the same token, because there are many substitutes available for unskilled labor, the salvation of American workers does not lie in immigration restrictions.

Kling says "The Battle of the Borders is a distraction. While he is on my side on immigration, outsourcing, and foreign ownership of US Assets, (for all three), he thinks other issues are more worthy of effort -- on both sides.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:49 PM | Comments (7)

But jk thinks:

And After we end all welfare and eliminate taxation, we can start on the really important things...

Posted by: jk at March 27, 2006 6:48 PM

But johngalt thinks:

Hey, if it was easy it would have been done by now!

My idealistic goals are an easy mark for flippancy but I have to correct you on one point. There was plenty of taxation prior to the 16th Amendment and there always will be. I'm merely asking to repeal the anti-Constitutional revision that allowed taxation "without regard to the enumeration of the several states" or, some animals get taxed more than others.

Posted by: johngalt at March 27, 2006 11:28 PM

But jk thinks:

It's a far cop, guv! I considered your taxation point after I posted, you are right.

The flippancy is not so much about the scope of your goals -- I dig that. I am flip because you are always willing to postpone immigration reform until you have eradicated welfare. The interrelation is clear, but you have effectively put yourself out of an important debate.

"I'll clean the garage as soon as I learn to teleport matter." Yes, that would help but some might see it as a cheap excuse to not clean the shed...

Posted by: jk at March 28, 2006 9:26 AM

But johngalt thinks:

You're probably right JK that I haven't had much to say on the matter of immigration reform directly. I have definitely been torn between competing principles on this one: Individual liberty on one hand and law and order on the other. There are solutions that will give us both, but I contend that none of what's on the table now does much good at improving either.

The most distasteful aspect of the situation is that our government's reckless disregard for the last number of decades has put us in a situation that almost insures that a pragmatist solution will be required. I can't bring myself to endorse such a thing, so I just focus on what really IS morally justifiable and leave the sausage making for others.

Posted by: johngalt at March 28, 2006 3:57 PM

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Donde estan sus tarjetas verdes??

;)

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 29, 2006 6:54 PM

But johngalt thinks:

¡Enviado a la oficina de senador Juan McCain con la caja de Toasties de dos postes remata en el intercambio para una visa de H5-A!

Posted by: johngalt at April 4, 2006 3:13 PM

March 17, 2006

Those jobs "Americans won't do"

I clearly represent the most pro-immigrant economic voice at ThreeSources, and immigration is one of the most contentious topics around here.

Perry Eidelbus (Der Eidelblogger) has a great post on When conservatives don't get it about illegal immigration. He takes some whacks at National Review's Rich Lowry (no complaint here!), but his argument could be thrown at any of the social conservatives.

Actually, and this is not being racist in the least, there are jobs Americans shouldn't do. As I wrote in my entry on price-setting and illegal immigration, Americans have incredibly high opportunity costs. Even without taxpayer-funded social safety nets, it's not worth our time to pick strawberries for $2 per hour, or do a lot of dangerous construction at low wages. Americans should be thankful that there are so many immigrants, legal and illegal, who can only do the most menial of jobs because they lack education and/or English proficiency.
[...]
If it's such a good thing to restrict jobs to "legal labor," because citizens and legal residents can get paid better wages, then why don't we just command higher wages in the first place? Why not push the minimum wage to $20 per hour, or $100, or $1 million? I'm sure Lowry is familiar with the fallacy of minimum wages, but the same principle applies when government prevents illegal immigrants from working. A section of the population is perfectly willing to work for less, but they can't because that's been made illegal. Meanwhile, the rest of us pay in the form of higher prices for those same goods and services.

Lowry might have had a point had some of his assertions been factual and from the real world. As McQ at QandO observed last December, after the crackdowns on illegal immigration, farmers in California and Arizona can't get enough legal labor, even offering $8.50 per hour! It's not necessarily that Americans are lazy; it's just that we place a much higher value on our non-work time. Our opportunity cost was not as high during the Great Depression, when it was so low that people would accept a dime an hour to pick cherries. American society has grown much wealthier since.

Great stuff (and his blog carries a picture of Monsieur Bastiat in the heading)! I would only add that this specialization and Comparative Advantage is simultaneously providing Americans with safer, less-exhaustive, higher-paid work.

I have relatives who, like Lowry and NR's John Derbyshire, say "why can't everybody mow their own lawn?" I reply that I don't want the person who's gonna cure Cancer, or build the next nanotech material out mowing the lawn.

Lowry says it's okay to be poorer, and pay more for things (Eidelbus wonders if Lowry will personally reimburse him). But it's not up to Lowry, or my family, or even -- morally -- the government. Folks want to work, folks want to hire, folks want to make things to sell, folks want to buy. Get the hell out of the way, gub'mint.

I respect Derbyshire and Lowry immensely. But they would eloquently inveigh against government intercession into so many areas, it is a shock when they think Nancy Pelosi and Duncan Hunter should be empowered with out wealth creation.

Hat-tip: The Everyday Economist

Posted by John Kranz at 6:06 PM | Comments (1)

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Tamar Jacoby has made some jaw-dropping comments on the state of illegal immigrants in the US.

http://www.tvnewssearch.com/coms2/docview_0293-447083_1

Jacoby's POV is that we need these illegals to do the "living wage" jobs that Americans seem unwilling to perform.

In my not-so humble opinion, why would anyone want to make a "living wage" pushing a broom and improving the quality of life in a particular area when our government's welfare system pays them more to sit around all day and watch Oprah, MTV and a series of judicial shenanigans?

We need to clean up our own problems first and dry up this employment gap!

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 19, 2006 12:38 PM

March 13, 2006

Immigration Concern

Carlos Mencia, in a special on The Comedy Channel, makes a good point about immigration that some of the "enforcement-first" crowd around here may have ignored.

"They're going to kick all the Mexicans out, then build a wall so they can't return," explains Mencia. "But who's going to build the wall?"

Posted by John Kranz at 5:04 PM | Comments (3)

But AlexC thinks:

We could sub it out. Halliburton!
I hear there's a company out there no longer in the ports business. Maybe they do fences?

Posted by: AlexC at March 13, 2006 5:12 PM

But johngalt thinks:

This whole "Americans won't do those jobs" thing really pisses me off. Make the kids buy their OWN video games and they'll start mowing lawns and shoveling snow again. Stop the entitlement pablum and just watch the lines at the job centers queue up.

Besides, we can always pay the illegals to build the wall on their way out. You think they're going to turn down the greenbacks?

Posted by: johngalt at March 14, 2006 4:01 PM

But jk thinks:

Umm. Joke, guys, joke.

Besides, Mencia beat you to it. He said "Have them build it, then suggest they check out the other side to make sure it is level -- then you can lock the gate while they’re out!"

Yet I must engage. It's not about whether or not the work will be done, it is about comparative advantage. We are richer when we provide that work to somebody else.

Posted by: jk at March 14, 2006 5:38 PM

December 26, 2005

Limones Verdes

I've been in San Antonio Texas since last friday celebrating Christmas, and came across this story in today's San Antonio Express-News.

San Antonio's leading Spanish-language radio station could be forced off the air or face fines over a quirky controversy juxtaposing immigrants and green limes.

A recurring segment started five years ago by KROM-Radio "Estéreo Latino" involves people calling in to report sightings of immigration agents in the city. The station's disc jockeys then alert listeners, particularly undocumented immigrants, to steer clear of the named locations.

No actual mention of federal agents is made — DJs speak of limones verdes, or "green limes," a euphemistic reference to Border Patrol agents, who traditionally don olive-green uniforms and drive green-lined SUVs.

That's actually a pretty clever bit.

As luck would have it, KROM is operating with an expired license because a Houston-based attorney is gumming up the process.

Stopping in San Antonio in 2000, Joe Ray Blalack read an article in the San Antonio Express-News about KROM's agent-spotting segment. Fuming over what he interpreted as the station's obstruction of the work of federal agents, Blalack wrote the FCC, demanding it deny the license renewal.

Since then, the FCC has received 38 additional citizen complaints against the station, all from outside Texas.

The FCC, which regulates the broadcast industry, declined to comment on the case. The station's renewal application is under review, and there is no timetable for a decision, spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher said.

It's nothing personal of course.

"It should serve as a stern warning. People can't engage in any activity against our national interest," said Blalack, 69, who also would like a law forcing Spanish-language TV stations to use English subtitles.

I would normally file this kind of activity under "sticking it to the man," but I'm agreeing with Mr. Blalack.

You wouldn't want to find yourself alerting criminals to pending busts by the boys in blue. Just because they're wearing government issue olive green doesn't make it any better... or legal.

Posted by AlexC at 8:31 PM

December 9, 2005

Internecine, Part XLIV

Pick a little fight on a Friday, shall I?

The Lead Editorial in the WSJ Ed Page today (free link) is a call for GOP politicians to reject the restrictionist elements in its party. Despite Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Rep. Tom Tancredo, the special election in California proved traditional GOP issues to fare better than immigration restrictionism by a wide margin.

Mr. Campbell, who ran on traditional conservative themes of lower federal spending, tax reform and national security, won the five-man contest in a walk with 45%. Mr. Gilchrist is a co-founder of the Minutemen citizens' border patrol promoted relentlessly by CNN's Lou Dobbs and his Fox running mate, Bill O'Reilly. Mr. Gilchrist made militarizing the Mexican border the centerpiece of his campaign, raising some $600,000 and getting extraordinary media attention. Yet he still came in third with 25%, trailing a Democrat who won 28% despite spending only one-fourth as much money.

This in a very conservative locale very near the border. The better political ploy would be the better economic ploy, a jk supported plan to combine enforcement improvement with a guest worker program.

A recent story in the Sacramento Bee led with this: "A growing labor shortage in California's agricultural industry has local farmers bracing for a tough--and expensive--winter harvest." Among the causes: "increased border enforcement that is reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the country," competition for workers from other industries, and "the lack of a guest-worker program to allow undocumented immigrants to work legally."

We get the same message from nearly every business executive who comes through our offices: Without immigrants, they couldn't possibly find enough willing workers to do the available work, no matter what the available wages. Yet Republicans seem intent not merely on increasing border patrols but also on further harassing law-abiding businesses that happen to hire illegals, as if anyone can tell the difference between real and fake immigration documents. Only Republicans would think it's smart politics to punish their supporters for hiring willing workers.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:50 PM | Comments (6)

But johngalt thinks:

I find it ironic that those who support closing the border are on the same side of the battle lines as big labor and its democrat supporters, for they know that more people on the bottom of the wealth redistribution pyramid means less for those who are already there. I don't think Dobbs and Gilchrist are trying to protect union interests, but the private property rights of those along the border whose homes and land are routinely overrun, looted and vandalized by illegals.

The ultimate moral solution is to close the border to unfettered immigration, allow virtually unlimited LEGAL immigration of anyone without a criminal record, and eliminate all the welfare programs that attract deadbeats - both immigrant and resident.

I could support a guest worker program if I thought it might ultimately lead to the situation I just described, but since I doubt it'll lead there I fear that "guest worker" would be just another regulatory band-aid with greater unintended consequences than the original problem. If it can be shown to disincentivize gold bricking then I might jump on board.

Posted by: johngalt at December 9, 2005 3:34 PM

But AlexC thinks:

Eliminate welfare programs? Johngalt have you lost your mind? There is no politician on earth who has the testicular fortitude to even broach that subject.

Sadly, I think the only way to end government programs is to let them atrophy from disuse.
Of course they won't totally go away. It's government. But shrinking it that way might be easier. It's certainly not happening the more direct way.

In a way, this is the Bush Social Security plan, which is now seemingly relegated to the dust-bin.
America's youth can save better than the government. They're not going to want the government SS in 30, 40 years. They'll have their own... and it'll be better.

The generation(s) that are currently suckling on the teet of the nanny state are immovable. We need to concentrate on those who aren't yet on welfare, but perhaps "aspire" to it. They can be educated in self-relance.

Otherwise, we'll just keep on going. It doesn't stop.

Posted by: AlexC at December 9, 2005 11:00 PM

But johngalt thinks:

I asked Dagny, "Who would you consider to be an 'anti-welfare' politician." She replied, "Are there any?" So your point is well taken, but that doesn't prevent legislative advances like the 1996 welfare reform act. I don't expect welfare to go away overnight, but I do argue for a gradual move toward LESS welfare instead of MORE. There's nothing that says all able bodied Americans won't support themselves if given a fair chance to do so, and disabled Americans will be supported VOLUNTARILY and PRIVATELY by the rest.

And without a European welfare state in that giant space between Mexico and Canada there will be much less attraction for warm weather deadbeats to make such a great effort to come here illegally.

And another thing - To my three point plan outlined earlier should also be added: Stop granting unearned citizenship to the illegal immigrant children born in the US, and to illegals who marry citizens. Citizenship must be earned (but MAY be earned by everyone).

Posted by: johngalt at December 10, 2005 11:38 AM

But jk thinks:

With all due respect, jg, you've done it again.

By making "elimination of welfare" a prerequisite for meaningful immigration reform, you have changed the debate (right here) and postponed any fixes to the serious problem of illegal immigration until hell freezes over.

You have to fix immigration in the context of our current welfare system. And I posit that a guest worker program, combined with tougher enforcement will do that.

Posted by: jk at December 11, 2005 10:22 AM

But jk thinks:

As blog pragmatist, I'll answer Dagney & Alex's question.

Where are the anti-welfare legislators? They all lost and their colleagues who held sympathetic views quickly found other things to talk about.

Johngalt is dead-on that a brave war exists around the margins. We can and should fight for fewer and less-intrusive entitlements, but there is no plurality for a serious reduction or elimination.

Posted by: jk at December 11, 2005 11:31 AM

But johngalt thinks:

In fairness JK, please note that I did make a pragmatic concession at the end of my first comment.

Now, let me borrow from this morning's WSJ lead editorial: "We realize that our views on this subject won't carry the day, at least not until the U.S. suffers a more serious attack. (...) We still wish the President would take his case to the public, and perhaps even request hearings next year on Capitol Hill, because Americans are more sophisticated about the reality of what it takes to break these terrorists than are most journalists."

There's that word again... REALITY.

Posted by: johngalt at December 13, 2005 3:10 PM

November 29, 2005

An Immigration Win for the G.O.P.

You read that right, I'm the only one calling it and I'll be collecting I-told-you-sos next November.

The Conventional Wisdom states that immigration is a portentous train wreck for the GOP. Tommy Tancredo will split off the populists, Bill O'Reilly will stir up the pot, and the WSJ Ed Page crowd will splinter and the Grand Ol' Party is to be rend in twain. Until last night, I believed it. We cover the whole spectrum here at ThreeSources and it seems unlikely to pull us all together.

Sure, there is hand-wringing today after the president’s speech yesterday. Pat Buchanan was unhappy last night (there goes the Palm-Beach-County Vote!), Michelle Malkin is displeased this morning, Glenn Reynolds has a list of P-oh'd bloggers.

The limb
The immigration debate will close successfully because the two sides' desires are not mutually exclusive. You can't raise and lower taxes, can't pull the troops home and send more -- but you can strengthen border security and institute a guest worker program. In fact the two are complimentary and I cannot see either working without the other.

The President sends the House troops in to craft a Tancredo-esque enforcement bill. The Senate opens debate on McCain-Kennedy (Love the bill, hate the name), and (I am borrowing from Fred Barnes here) the final compromise is crafted in committee.

The President, to my dismay, has shown that he will sign anything, so an immigration bill with security and legality will be passed. The Wall Street Journal folk and I will wish it went further to provide labor, and the isolationists will wish there were more emphasis on mines for the Rio Grande. But both sides will shrug their shoulders, be glad they got a Republican bill, and move on to the next election.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:38 PM | Comments (4)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Is it just me, or is all a reasonable compromise plan gets you these days is denigration from both sides?

Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 29, 2005 4:26 PM

But jk thinks:

Again, I think the compromise is possible here because the two desires are complimentary.

You'll not hear me talk so keenly about reasonable compromises on tax cuts or free trade. I think in this instance, legislators can craft a compromise, the Administration can declare victory, and government can move on to next thing it decides to ruin...

Posted by: jk at November 29, 2005 4:59 PM

But johngalt thinks:

But anything that approaches a policy success for the president (read that: anything that is popularly supported) will be - MUST be - torpedoed by congressional democrats. This "criminal" administration must not be allowed any semblance of accomplishment.

Posted by: johngalt at November 30, 2005 12:23 AM

But jk thinks:

True. But this will be tough. The GOP does control the House (if we get the Hammer's focus back), the Senate (kinda sorta) and the Executive.

It will be very hard for all Democrats to oppose a popular legislative compromise. Most will of course reflexively oppose, but in an election year, you'll be able to peel off some for border enforcement.

Posted by: jk at November 30, 2005 9:48 AM

November 9, 2005

4 Ways to Handle Immigration

Dick Morris, former political advisor to the Clintons, lists what the President needs to do to get serious on immigration.

• Back the fence.


• Establish a legal guest-worker program.


• Prosecute visa overstays.


• Regularize cash shipments home

Mr Morris ends...

Combating illegal immigration need not smack of racism. It is important to all American citizens — Latinos and Anglos — and is in the national interest. But it is also in our interest to allow immigrants to come and settle here legally.

Immigration is keeping America young and vital. If not for the annual flow of 3 million people — about half legal and half illegal — we would be much like the nations of Europe, losing population and watching their populations age. But we cannot afford the current chaotic flow of immigrants over a theoretical border. We need to enforce the law and make it fair.

Posted by AlexC at 12:00 PM | Comments (5)

But jk thinks:

I'm going to agree with AlexC on immigration, write this date down. And I'm going to agree with Morris.

My vision of "the fence" probably differs from both of these guys', but here’s mine: we legislatively empower the border patrol and INS as needed to construct barriers to illegal entry. I do not want a 3000 mile wall, but would accede to a virtual legislative wall that manages flow at popular crossing points.

The wall could also include technology to track, trace and alert without being a 12-foot concrete and barbed-wire structure.

This wall is a serious commitment to the crowd that demands more enforcement (not a show a legitimate effort). And that gives the President the bona fides to enact the guest worker and payment regularization options.

Enforcing Visa overstays is a no-brainer, that is not an economic or moral matter, it is pure law-enforcement and we have every right -- especially in present circumstance -- to prosecute it fully.

Posted by: jk at November 9, 2005 3:40 PM

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Hmmm, need to penalize companies who hire illegals as well. Knowingly hire. Make it not very worth-while to do so, you know?

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 10, 2005 11:03 AM

But jk thinks:

I hesitate to make corporate america an arm of law enforcement. Willful hiring of illegals is disturbing, but are you going to ask the foreman of a painting crew or assistant department manager at Target decide if an identification is forged or not?

The guest worker program would provide employers with credentialed guest workers and obviate the need for illegals at legitimate businesses.

Posted by: jk at November 10, 2005 11:43 AM

But AlexC thinks:

I think in some ways corporate America is already a branch of law enforcement. Particular the revenue collecting side.

Some people carry "tax-exempt" cards which exclude them from paying sales taxes.

I think that having checks on citizenship / visa status should be part of a company's due diligence when hiring.

You wouldn't hire someone a pilot without checking he's got a license right? (extreme example, i know).

Posted by: AlexC at November 10, 2005 4:35 PM

But jk thinks:

Great example. The question is who benefits (or Cui Bono? if I may be the blog pedant).

For Alex's High-Flyin Jet Charter(tm), you have cause to evaluate a pilot carefully. You have legal liability and are trusting him with expensive planes. You will perform checks for your benefit.

For jk's Temp-O-Rama(tm), I need a guy who can carry out drywall in a demolition project. I'll perform reasonable checks but I am not an arm of the INS. If Jean-Michel shows me a credible looking ID, I shouldn't have to spend a day and half checking him out for the government's benefit.

Posted by: jk at November 12, 2005 11:20 AM

July 26, 2005

1st Sign of the Apocalypse

From the Washington Post...

A new study by a liberal Washington think tank puts the cost of forcibly removing most of the nation's estimated 10 million illegal immigrants at $41 billion a year, a sum that exceeds the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

The study, "Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment," scheduled for release today by the Center for American Progress, is billed by its authors as the first-ever estimate of costs associated with arresting, detaining, prosecuting and removing immigrants who have entered the United States illegally or overstayed their visas. The total cost would be $206 billion to $230 billion over five years, depending on how many of the immigrants leave voluntarily, according to the study.

Whoa whoa whoa... liberal think tank?

I don't think I've ever seen a think tank labelled liberal. Conservative, right leaning, yes. Liberal? No.

Repent! The end is nigh!

Obviously the mass deportation option is not on the table, and I'm not sure it was ever seriously on the table.

[Rajeev K. Goyle, senior domestic policy analyst for the center] said that he conducted the study, in part, to respond to conservative officials who have advocated mass deportations, in some cases immediately. Earlier this year, former House speaker Newt Gingrich advocated sealing U.S. borders and deporting all illegal immigrants within 72 hours of arrest.

Will Adams, a spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), an outspoken advocate of stronger immigration laws, called the study an "an interesting intellectual exercise" by liberals that is "useless . . . because no one's talking about" employing mass deportation as a tactic.

"No one's talking about buying planes, trains and automobiles to get them out of the country," Adams said. "The vast number of illegal immigrants are coming for jobs. Congressman Tancredo wants to go after the employers."

I like Tancredo's idea, but he shot his credibility right in the ass with the nuking Mecca remark. If only there was someone else in Congress willing to carry the flag on this idea.

Gingrich's idea is also very practical, if we could get local law enforcement to check on immigration status.

Bust them, then ship 'em out. It's a start.

Posted by AlexC at 12:25 PM | Comments (3)

But johngalt thinks:

I offered up a simple and thorough plan for ending the illegal immigration problem in "JK Supports McCain-Kennedy" below (http://www.threesources.com/archives/001841.html) but Tom's idea is at least productive, if not the final solution.

As for his credibility, any smudge on it is not his own doing. If a good man like AlexC in Pennysylvania believes that Tancredo said, "nuke Mecca" or "nuke" anything else, that belief has been carefully and deliberately inculcated in his brain by the MSM. (Denver's KHOW radio Peter Boyles interviewed a Denver Post columnist this AM and challenged her similar characterization of Tom's remarks. He closed with, "The next time you write a column like this, for Christ's sake, get it right!" After a pregnant pause she said, "Thank you Peter, I've gotta go.")

Tancredo started his hypothetical answer by saying that instead of just deciding what we would do in the event of a NUCLEAR TERROR ATTACK ON THE U.S., we should WARN the world that such an event would precipitate some "ultimate" response. Such a response might be, for EXAMPLE, to "take out their holy sites."

I've got more to say on this but I think I'll continue to reserve it for a blog post that I've been planning since this story first broke.

Posted by: johngalt at July 27, 2005 2:18 PM

But jk thinks:

I'll wait for your post but choosing sides between media and Rep Tancredo is going to be difficult.

Nobody should be misrepresented, but I enjoyed seeing him get in a little trouble. He is trying to split the GOP in 2008 and I would like to squash his hopes as soon as possible.

Posted by: jk at July 28, 2005 11:54 AM

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Tom Tancredo wrote his own editorial in last week's Denver Post where he offered a similar explanation for his remarks as that johngalt states. My problem is more with the underlying attitude and strategy that brought forth the remarks. First, Tom made several comments regarding our war against Islam, and yes he did further clarify his meaning of Islamic extremists, but his plan to either deter the extremists themselves with a plan for retribution or force moderate Islam to act against them due to fear of retaliation against holy sites shows to me outdated 20th Century thinking. Are we still so naive as to expect a country, religion, or other target owning entity to stand up as the home or sponsor of the terrorist organization so that we may have classic method to strike back? Does Tom further feel that the concept of deterrent will be successful against extremists, or that such threats will provide the power to the people required to topple or change governments such that an Islamic uprising within the ranks will quell the terrorist menace? If he really expects his remarks not to be taken as throw away rhetoric then he needs to stand up with a real thought out plan. Otherwise I have to lump him in with Ward Churchill.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 28, 2005 3:53 PM

July 20, 2005

JK Supports McCain-Kennedy

Wait, did I really write that headline? Call the paramedics!

First, two of my favorite Senators have introduced a bill that is heavy on Enforcement.

After nearly 20 years and numerous enforcement escalations, the undocumented immigrant population continues to grow -- and restrictionist lawmakers continue to insist that throwing ever more money, men and material into border enforcement is the key to fixing the problem.

Yesterday, Senators John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) introduced legislation that would authorize $5 billion over five years "to acquire and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, camera poles, vehicles barriers, sensors" and other technologies. They'd also create a new 10,000-man army to raid businesses across America and make sure there are no illegal chambermaids working at Marriott. For this, we need Republicans?

The WSJ Ed Page and me -- mirabile freakin' dictu -- prefer a bill introduced by --ahem-- John McCain and Ted Kennedy.

A more promising reform was introduced in May by Senators John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.). Their approach is a welcome acknowledgment of certain realities -- namely, that enforcement-only policies have failed repeatedly and that wiser uses of limited government manpower and tax dollars are in order.

Based on the fact that the vast majority of migrants come here in search of work, Senators McCain and Kennedy aim to lower the level of illegal immigration by expanding our relatively few channels for legal entry to meet the demand. Giving economic immigrants legal ways to enter the U.S. will reduce business for human smugglers and counterfeiters. Moreover, it will allow our border authorities to concentrate their resources on chasing down real security threats instead of nannies and gardeners.

In short, the McCain-Kennedy bill would enhance homeland security without harming the immigrant labor market so essential to the country's economic well-being. But the measure's guest-worker initiative, which would allow undocumented migrants already here to work legally if they first pay sizable fines and undergo criminal background checks, has brought charges of "amnesty" from Republicans who call any "work and stay" provision a poison pill.

This "amnesty" charge may be potent as a political slogan, but it becomes far less persuasive when you examine its real-world implications. If paying a fine isn't good enough for illegals already here, what are the restrictionists proposing? Mass arrests, raids on job-creating businesses, or deportations? No illegal settled in a job or U.S. community is going to admit his status if he will then immediately be jailed or sent home to wait in line for years before he can get his old U.S. job back. Those who wave the "no amnesty" flag are actually encouraging a larger underground illegal population.

McCain-Kennedy. I'm going back to bed...

Posted by John Kranz at 10:49 AM | Comments (3)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Every once in a while a little pragmatism creeps into our ever more contentions political arena. Don't feel to bad JK, it is not a common occurrence so you should not have to hop on McCain or Kennedy's bandwagon again, hopefully saving your conservative head from a splitting headache. Now at the risk of exposing more of my liberal underpinnings I got stuck on one phrase in your post, "...the immigrant labor market so essential to the country's economic well-being." By this do you mean the use of legal immigrants paid legal wages and benefits or illegal immigrants with neither? I have to call into question the foundation of a business that cannot be profitable without illegal workers.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 20, 2005 1:00 PM

But jk thinks:

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I absolutely mean legal immigrants and legal wages. The thing that bothers me so much about the status quo is the illegality.

A single business that cannot prosper without illegal labor is likely flawed. By discussing "the immigrant labor market" in aggregate, the focus is shifted from a single business model to the economic issue of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage makes the whole country wealthier with the addition of lower cost workers.

Posted by: jk at July 20, 2005 2:39 PM

But johngalt thinks:

So, we're expected to believe that an illegal settled in a job or U.S. community is going to admit his status because he'll "only" be asked to pay "sizable fines?" Or, if the benefits of this "legalization for sale" plan are sufficient to encourage the vast majority of illegals to opt-in, in their own self-interest, it's still supposed to be "good enough" to satisfy the restrictionists? Consistency alert!!

If the McCain-Kennedy bill doesn't secure the border against illegal entry, it's just another brick in the bureaucratic morass we call immigration policy. No amount of made-to-order government programs are going to correct the system we have now, where many immigrants make such a great effort to get here illegally so that they can get stuff for free.

- Secure the borders.
- Stop the handouts.
- Institute "official English" nationally.
- Allow unlimited numbers of non-criminal individuals to immigrate at will.

Problem (domestic immigration) solved.

Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2005 2:45 PM