Immigation Myths

John Hawkins has a great read today at Human Events on immigration myths.

Comments

[Ned Topps]

Hawkins said: we should crack down on the employers of illegal aliens with fines and even jail terms, so that they’ll quit hiring “undocumented workers”. Then, if the illegals can’t get jobs here, most of them will leave. After all, they came here to work. If there’s no work, there’s no reason for them to be here. That means we won’t need to round them up because most of them will self-deport.

-----

Good point. And if there are no jobs here for them to get, they won't make the attempt to come here either.

[Ryan]

DO you really think that that enforcement is goign to stop the under the table hiring? The day labourers? How many additional hirees would they have to have to enforce that law? Look guys, I am STILL with you in spirit, but there is NOT a simple solution such as "JUst punish the employers and they will all leave" Should it be done? Yes, but only as part of a larger strategy. Like it or not, we are not going to be able to purge ourselves of 12,000,000 illegals, many of whom have things here now that are even MORE important than their jobs - family.

[Ned Topps]

Ryan said: Should it be done? Yes, but only as part of a larger strategy.

--------

I agree. Bush is actually taking the right course with his comprehensive approach to this issue.

[PJ]

The law to punish employers of illegal aliens has been on the books for 20 years and the president has done NOTHING to enforce it. He has the presidential obligation to protect the USA from invasion, and he has done NOTHING about this either. With the willing complicity of our politicians, Mexico is annexing the USA, so Reid as Majority Leader? Pelosi as Speaker? Who the heck cares? This will soon no longer be the USA anyway, but the "diverse states of the Americas". And the terrorists can simply lie back under a date tree and not bother to exert themselves because we will - within a decade - be well on our way to being utterly destroyed as Reagan's "shining city on the hill" and to being another third-world country.
Although I have been a life-long Republican, depending on how my own senator and representative vote, I may very well be sitting out this as well as future elections.

[The Listkeeper]

There hasn't been a lot of focus on employers because Bush correctly redirected the focus of available resources into going after the hardcases like MS-13 members, various dangerous felons, and militant members of groups like La Reconquista. You have to deal with Worst First... and he's still gotten more done than his predecessors on the issue.

[DocNeaves]

No, the comprehensive label is just false language for amnesty. What is it about this that you guys don't get? Cheney said we've deported 6 million. Then how come 12 million is such an impossible number? You are only saying that because you WANT amnesty. I'm for legal immigration, but now, it's no longer people coming here wanting to be Americans. It's people coming here, eating my food, taking my money, sending it back to Mexico to support La Raza and Mecha and the takeover of MY COUNTRY!!! I will not fall for your rhetoric, and I will continue to shout to you and those like you, trying to make you see what they are doing. When immigrants came here, they assimilated. These guys don't, and don't want to, and are vocal about it. They want the southeastern US for their own!!! Can't you see that? They say it themselves!!! You don't have to believe me. Go read. And if you haven't read the La Raza website, if you have never seen what they advocate, you are hiding your head in the sand with the LaLaLa defense. We fried LOTT because he thought someone ELSE, not him, but because he thought someone else might have made a good president instead of whoever got elected, and I'm not so sure he wasn't right, but he had the right to say it. Yet, we let the MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES speak constantly in a racial setting, with racially charged words, and even continues to be a sitting (and proud of it) member of La Raza.

This is not about letting someone in to get a job. This is an invasion, I know it, the Mexicans know it, everyone seems to know it but you guys and Bush. Or maybe you do.

[Ned Topps]

PJ said: so Reid as Majority Leader? Pelosi as Speaker? Who the heck cares?

-----------

Come on PJ, sleep on this one. Please! Think about what you are saying. Reid has already proven that he will block anything that a Republican proposes. They are obstructionists. No more tax cuts, even higher spending, no more conservative judges.

And if conservatives sit out in 08...President Hillary.

Another piece of crap Clinton, for 8 years?

[Ned Topps]

"This is not about letting someone in to get a job."

Well, some of them are coming over here to get a better job for their family. I think what Hawkins proposes, to fine and even arrest businesses who hire these illegals, would be a good way to at least in part try to dry up the jobs available to illegals.

"This is an invasion, I know it, the Mexicans know it"

I also support putting up a fence.

[japh]

Doc: What can the president do about AN ELECTED MAYOR of Los Angeles? If I recall, the President lost the state of California.

The MAJORITY state delegation took the day off to support the illegal immigrant rally.

What do you want the president to do to these idiots? Annex the state of CA???

[japh]

"Yet, we let the MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES speak constantly in a racial setting, with racially charged words, and even continues to be a sitting (and proud of it) member of La Raza."

How can we dicate what the mayor of Los Angeles can say, anymore than we can dictate what Ted Kennedy can say at an illegal rally where he claimed they had the right to become citizens or something like that paraphrasing.

And these are the type of people that you want to be in power by sitting out.

[Ned Topps]

Japh, if anything the conduct of the Mayor of Los Angeles and the state delegation are representative of the way Democrats will act in congress if they ever get their power back. Schumer, Kennedy and the rest were all at illegal immigration rallys. I can only imagine what deranged polices they would try to implement to increase their voter base.

[Charles Akins]

We should have a third party movement to get us back to our conservative roots. Something like Regan Republicans. The Regan Republicans would select the same people as presidential electors as the people previously nominated by the national Republican Party. The votes for the RR electors would ultimately be combined with the regular GOP electors votes go to the Republican presidential candidate in the Electoral College. However, this would provide an out let for frustrated conservatives to show how strong we are and where we want the party to go and give us an option other than staying home.

[Ryan]

You have four possible results when confronted with a political issue:

1: Getting everything you want
2: Getting some things you want and not others
3: Getting nothing, status quo
4:Getting the reverse of what you want

These are in order of preference, one would think. But some proceed that if they can't get number one, they'll proceed straight to number four. If I can't get everythign I want, I'll work to make sure the reverse happens, HAH! THat'll show them!

"I can't get sole ownership of the house, so I'll burn it down to make sure noone owns it! Hah! THat'll show 'em and make 'em wish they'd given in!"

Its called cutting off your nose to spite your face. .

Or "Scorched - earth conservatism".

[Ned Topps]

Charles, a third party run from the right will defeat the purpose. It will elect Hillary. The Republican and the conservative will split the vote, and then we get 8 more years of the corrupt Clintons.

[Ned Topps]

Ryan, #2 makes the most sense. Unfortunatly Democrats are also elected officials. To get anything done they have to be involved in the process. They will get some of the stupid liberal proposals they want, to get most of what we want.

[Ryan]

Still, its a matter of give and take. DO you want to be in the position of giving liberals most of what they want in order to get SOME of what you want? If you(NOt you specifically, the generic 'you for the "I'm gonna ssit out" crowd) are putting yourself in that position.

[The Listkeeper]

Someone said Reagan gave them number 1... They apparently don't remember how hard Reagan fought for what he did get, and what sacrifices were made... Reagan got us lower taxes, higher revenues, and a stronger military... At the cost of much more social spending...

[Ned Topps]

"DO you want to be in the position of giving liberals most of what they want in order to get SOME of what you want?"

Nope, and I don't think we'll even get SOME of what we want under Democrat control, the way the liberal left acts today. We will get NOTHING of what we want under a Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid. The Dems will be emboldened because they will have seen that they won power by being obstructionists, and it will only get worse. When Jumpin' Jim Jeffords handed control to the Democrats, they blocked EVERYTHING.

[Ryan]

FOr a while I thought we were disagreeing, but now I'm not even sure we are. . .

[JannyMae]

Some blame for the lack of enforcement certainly lies with the feds, and thus, President Bush. What about all the state and local officials that refuse to enforce the laws? Don't they share some of the blame? This is not a problem that didn't exist prior to Bush taking office.

I'm not sure what's best to do about the problem, but the President's suggestions are a start. Screaming that it's not enough is not constructive. Making suggestions as to how it could be better is the way to go.