Jun 15 2006
Immigration Solution – Again
The readers here reflect both sides of the immigration debate (the liberal way of full amnesty through immediate citizenship is not supported here). I can see a coming together in the comments here as people finally give up on not budging and start working towards optimal (and yes comprehensive) solutions. The following is a response I wrote to reader Terrye who was noting that the problems we see today were made much worse by the mod in the House Bill to make illegal immigration an felony:
I agree with you on the poison pill that was making these acts felonies. Jay walking is illegal. Driving with a tail light out is illegal. There are felonies and misdemeanors, and guess which group has the vast majority of laws (i.e., crimes). You guessed it – misdemeanors. If the House hadn’t been so stupidly cocky and put that in (and then let the Dems keep it in) we would have solutions by now.
Now we have nothing. Absolutely nothing. And because of the hardened positioning on the far right (which I am glad and proud to see melting away here as readers find the common ground and mutual respect) we will not see anything this fall. But we could. A little optimizing across all the good points and (and removing some ridiculous ideas in the Senate Bill) would get us a good solution.
I wish Congress could debate like you folks here at Strata-Sphere. We would have:
(1) Tight security with barriers, sensors and patrols on the borders
(2) A guest worker program for those who have been here to come forward, register, get a background check and assimilate (english spoken here folks), and payment of back taxes
(3) Heavy penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers, as well as a federal service for employers to verify that workers are documented under the guest worker program
(4) time limits on working here
(5) Back of the line for citizenship for guest workers
(6) One strike and your out for real crimes, and don’t ever come back.
6 Steps to security, controlling our border, deporting true criminals who are not welcomed here, and minimizing the problem population we need to sift through for terror risks. But nothing will come as we stand today.
Migrastew, thanks very much for the very detailed analysis.
1. It’s not throwing up my hands and giving up FE, it’s thinking outside the box.
I’m not sure I share your pessimism that a fence couldn’t be more effective than nothing. but I’ll defer to your apparent knowledge of it. I can see where if you leave openings in the fence people are gonna go there instead of over, but I can’t see why a complete fence wouldn’t work. It appears that you are saying. they are gonna come, they can do it legally or illegally(I don’t see any difference if we don’t have a choice ) but in either case, we can’t stop them. If that is true, then why try. Just get rid of the border agents, save that money and people won’t have to live in desolate areas.
2.No, FE, this is not an exemption. It is a fundamental ideology written into the law.
Actually what you said about this is rather humorus if you know the history. I’ve been saying to AJ that for every single requirement to gain enty, there is an exemption or exception written into the law, That’s exactly what I was saying here, that the Law itself provides for the exemption based on the judgement or lack of it of someone. So I’m still laughing about that one.
You supported my argument 100%.
At one point, for example, you have to have a job to apply for a guest worker permit and you can’t get an exemption on that until you actually get into the US, but, you can get an exemption for that. In short, there are no firm fixed rules. everything is up to the judgement of someone.
I’m not gonna go on thru the rest of them because I have no disagreement with anything you say, In fact I strongly agree. It is the same argument I have been making. One reason you may not have clearly seen that is I was using a small amount of sarcasm with what I said because very few agree with my point of view.
See, I have been arguing that the Senate bill has no provision in it that can be enforced because EVERY SINGLE thing in it has provisions for exemptions, exceptions or to be adjudicated by someone to the point that it is all meaningless and about the only thing certain from it is that one hell of a lot more illegal people are gonna be coming, Katy bar the door.
Again thanks for the response.
Oh yeah, Migrastew, thanks for the link to your site. It looks like you really do understand the illegal immigrant problem, most of your viewpoints will get very little support from the regulars on this site. I’d say they’d put you in the Far Right category. I put you with the majority position myself.
FE:
I have just one question…if there are so many exceptions and exemptions to the laws, then why are there so many people ILLEGALLY entering the US every year? Inherently, an exception or an exemption to a standard would offer the affected person a “way around” that starndard, right? If our immigration laws are fraught with these, then why aren’t more folks taking advantage of them to secure LEGAL entry into the US? OK, that was three questions, not one.
I believe we do agree on the majority of this. I must, however, disagree that you understand the “border fence” situation.
You said, “I can see where if you leave openings in the fence people are gonna go there instead of over, but I can’t see why a complete fence wouldn’t work. It appears that you are saying. they are gonna come, they can do it legally or illegally(I don’t see any difference if we don’t have a choice ) but in either case, we can’t stop them. If that is true, then why try. Just get rid of the border agents, save that money and people won’t have to live in desolate areas.”
A “complete” fence won’t work simply because:
(a) the geography along the ENTIRE SW border is not such that a “complete” fence can even be built. In order to build fences, you must have access to the land for clearing operations, access to the land for building rights, the ability to overcome environmental issues, the ability to maintain CONTINUED access to every square inch of it for maintainence; all necessary to create a suitable environment for the type of fencing that is adequate. Sure, you can run barbed wire from San Diego to Brownsville, but that’s hardy a deterrent to crossing. The type of fencing that has shown great success in San Diego requires several hundreds of yards north of the actual border to be cleared and leveled so that it may be erected. The geography just isn’t conducive to this. Remember, the SW border is not just flat low desert terrain. It is mountainous and canyon-filled throughout much of its length. Fences and the properly prepared land to build in those areas just isn’t a feasible solution.
(b) Let’s say you did, for arguments sake, build the fence. History has shown that the real success of the fence comes when there are “real people” placed on it to back it up. Like I said in my previous post, any fence built would only become a “very expensive speed bump” if there weren’t people there to monitor it. Smugglers are constantly using arc welders, hack saws, metal-cutting torches, whatever, to cut holes or entire sections out of existing fencing. And remember, this is happening where we DO have agents posted. Imagine the “holes” that would appear in remote, unpopulated areas of the border. A giant piece of metal swiss cheese comes to mind that would require a bottomless pit of funding to maintain and repair.
Giving folks an alternative simply means the amount of fencing necessary can be reduced. It will take business (money) away from multi-million dollar smuggling rings and drive them out of business. It will mean less budgeted monies for cameras and infrastructure on the border and more for the administration of a legal program. That alternative is a guest worker program. Not an amnesty, but a genuine rethinking of how we address the “global” problem we have with our first world democracy sharing a land border with a third world oligarchy.
The one truth that histroy and statistics prove is that the aliens are coming, one way or the other. The force that drives them is both internal and external. Available domestic jobs is a magnet, but THE LACK OF FOREIGN OPPORTUNITY is the catalyst that sets it all in motion. In my years of interviewing thousands of illegal aliens, I have always asked this question. “Between the two, which is the predominant driving force that led to your decision to illegally enter the US: The knowledge of an available job in the US or the lack of one where you are from?” The answer has been unequivocally, “Sir, if I was able to get a job in my country, why in the world would I pay $1,500 to travel hundreds of miles, risking exposure to the land and the elements and enduring indeterminable seperation from my family and loved ones just to work?”
The logic is undeniably clear. Fences and “all things enforcement” can no longer be the end game in this discussion. They are integral and important key elements, yet only elements. America, and most importantly AMERICANS, need to start thinking of this issue by accepting the realities of the world around us and that other countries problems, especially Mexico’s, are OUR problems as well. An isolationist attitude will not work, especially when it has been proven to not prevent unfettered illegal immigration that has resulted in the dire straights we find ourselves now.
Roving Reporter
06/17 01:58 PM
I think Fred Barnes is a very good reporter. And he’s a logical guy – except when parroting the Bush position on illegal immigration. Here’s what Barnes writes, in part, in a Weekly Standard piece mostly about Karl Rove:
Immigration affects the Hispanic vote, a long-term obsession of Rove and Bush. In 2004, Bush lifted the Republican share of that vote to 44 percent, a record for a Republican presidential candidate. Left to their own devices, conservatives and congressional Republicans would enact an enforcement-only bill that might drive away Hispanics and deny Republicans a lasting majority in America. Rove and Bush are eager to prevent that by saving conservatives from themselves.
More here.
Now, let’s break this down. In 1986, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to almost three million illegal aliens, most of whom were Hispanic. Yet, Barnes reports that not until 2004 were Republicans able to secure a “record†44 percent of the Hispanic vote. You would have thought that if amnesty were the means by which the Republicans could expand their percentage of the Republican vote that George H. W. Bush would have received a record percentage of the Hispanic vote. After all, he was vice president at the time amnesty was granted, and his presidential election followed shortly after passage of the amnesty bill.
Moreover, as I’ve pointed out before, if Republicans continue to receive 44 percent of a growing Hispanic vote, the time will soon come when they will lose national elections by landslides. If they receive 49 percent of a growing Hispanic vote, their political future would be bleak.
If, as Barnes and the administration contend, that amnesty, or a “comprehensive immigration bill†is a political winner for Republicans, none of their arguments support it. Why they refuse to acknowledge this, but instead repeat these illogical claims, is beyond me.
Previous post by Mark R. Levin
Migrastew, we are only talking past each other.
You said;
“The one truth that histroy and statistics prove is that the aliens are coming, one way or the other. The force that drives them is both internal and external.”
And I merely said it this way:
“It appears that you are saying. they are gonna come, they can do it legally or illegally(I don’t see any difference if we don’t have a
choice ) but in either case, we can’t stop them.”
I don’t see any difference in meaning.
And you asked:
“I have just one question…
based on me saying:
“if there are so many exceptions and exemptions to the laws, then why are there so many people ILLEGALLY entering the US every year”
I had gotten that from where you said:
“2, But, a sneaky little provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act allows for ALL OF THESE so-called non-immigrants to adjust their status to that of an immigrant.
Because as you know and I illustrated with several examples, the entire law is filled with those same types of exemptions.
On the fence subject, you said:
“(a) the geography along the ENTIRE SW border is not such that a “complete†fence can even be built. In order to build fences, you must have access to the land for clearing operations, access to the land for building rights, the ability to overcome environmental issues, the ability to maintain CONTINUED access to every square inch of it for maintainence; all necessary to create a suitable environment for the type of fencing that is adequate.
Access to the land? Eminent Domain, the US government already owns all of it in the USA.
my question would be: You don’t think that an Interstate Highway can be built ANYWHERE in the United States. With two or three 50 ft fences on each side? There I would disagree with you. You ever heard of Web cams, one every 500 ft along the length of that interstate would IMMEDIATELY show any traffic on it. By the way, the only traffic would be illegal aliens and border patrol. I would personally volunteer to monitor from my home abut 500 miles worth of those cameras, just give me the border patrols phone number.
FE:
Yes, we do have the technology to build just about anything anywhere we want to. But, again, it’s not JUST the mere “building” of it that makes it (a) a success and (b) a wise “investment” in what it was built to achieve.
The camera issue also fits into this equation as well.
You can have fences, you can have cameras, you can have sensors, you can have UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles), etc., etc., etc. NONE of that matters unless you have REAL LIVE LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS to deter or catch what the fences have attempted to keep out, the cameras and UAV’s have seen or the sensors have sensed. This is the crux of my point. And for the Border Patrol to be able to apprehend or deter these people, you will need miles and miles of access roads, many through private property, and thousands of agents willing to live in the most remote places in our great nation in order to JUSTIFY the initial and continued millions of dollars required just to keep these infrastructural safeguards in place and operational.
This would be the reality of your plan FE:
You have been hired by the DHS as a part-time video watcher of a 5 mile section of the border near Ft. Stocton TX. It is your job for 4 hours a night to observe this area via a web-cam link the DHS has provided to you. They have “armed” you with a map of the area, a list of radio codes and a phone number to the station in Ft. Stocton (which by the way is 30 miles from the section of border you are observing.). On your first night on the job, you notice a group of 10 individuals jumping the fence at point Z, which is near the western-most edge of your prescribed area. Excitedly, you dial the Ft. Stockton station and vigilantly report what you have seen. You state you’ll keep an eye on them as long as you can, but that your field of view will only let you see the group for a few hundred yards before they’re out of sight. The watch commander at the Ft. Stockton station thanks you graciously for the call and for your volunteering of you time, but tells you that he only has a crew of 6 that night and that all of his agents are responding to the hundreds of other calls coming in from other citizen volunteers such as yourself. He says that your sighting has been verified and relayed to the field but that it will probably be two hours before anyone will be free to PHYSICALLY respond to the location of your last visual AND that it will take the agent at least an hour to get there because of the rough terrain and lack of accessible and drivable roads in the area. FE, this scenario will be repeated over and over again to the point of your inevitable frustration. You will eventually begin to ask yourself why you even bother to volunteer your time in the first place.
Now, why do I paint such a grim picture? Because this is how it happens RIGHT NOW, day after day, in every sector of the Border Patrol. Like I have stated, we are LUCKY to apprehend 30% of what actually crosses. And no fence, camera or sensor will matter. Why? Because a fence, camera and sensor, to the best of my knowledge, has NEVER APPREHENDED a alien!
So, the moral of this story is this: Is it WISE and PRUDENT to build, install or operate something JUST because we can?
The answer is no.
The question that must be asked is : Will it’s installation, erection or operation genuinely enhance our overall goal?
The answer: YES, but in SPECIFIC places.
The DHS and Border Patrol ARE building, installing and operating this “fence” you speak of, but in strategic places where the access and manpower exist to justify it.
The ENTIRE length of the border, because of this, is NOT JUSTIFIED. I hope you now can see that.
The Invasion Continues:
County’s cost for illegal immigrants’ care soars
Radack: Burden of federal policy ‘shouldn’t fall on the local taxpayer’
By BILL MURPHY
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
The Harris County Hospital District’s unreimbursed costs of caring for illegal immigrants approached $100 million last year, a 77 percent increase in three years.
“The costs are increasing because the population of undocumented immigrants is increasing and the cost of health care is rising,” said hospital district spokesman Bryan McLeod.
The unreimbursed costs rose from $55 million in 2002 to $97 million in 2005, the hospital district said in a report released Friday. Last year’s figure represented 13 percent of the district’s $760 million operating budget.
The district treats about 300,000 patients annually, but lacks enough funds and facilities to care for all of the county’s uninsured and underinsured residents, estimated to number between 800,000 and 1.2 million, McLeod said.
Commissioner Steve Radack, who requested the report on the district’s costs of treating undocumented immigrants, said county residents are shouldering a burden created by the federal government.
The federal government doesn’t prevent illegal immigration, but hardly reimburses local counties where the immigrants most frequently settle and use public health care facilities, he said.
“The federal government allows people to come here illegally,” Radack said. “Because of that the cost shouldn’t fall on the local taxpayer.”
The district treated more than 57,000 illegal immigrants last year, at a cost of $128 million. The federal and state governments reimbursed about $28 million, and the patients themselves paid about $3 million. Over the past 11 years, the district has paid about $607 million in unreimbursed costs for treating undocumented immigrants.
The district does not directly ask patients if they are in the country legally, but infers their status from other information gleaned during patient screenings, officials said.
Radack said it would be inhumane for the hospital district to stop providing treatment to illegal immigrants.
And untreated infectious illnesses among immigrants might spread to the broader population, he said.
“You would create a tremendous health crisis,” he said.
Under federal law, emergency rooms are required to treat anyone who shows up and needs immediate care.
Local emergency rooms often are backed up with patients, including many without health insurance who come to the emergency room as a last resort when they need nonemergency care.
Regional health care officials have been strategizing for years on how to move those not needing urgent care to other settings so emergency rooms can treat true emergencies.
McLeod said emergency rooms would become even more overburdened if the district stopped treating illegal immigrants in district clinics and hospitals, and they all started showing up at emergency rooms for nonemergency care.