Mar 14 2007

Follow Up To My Rudy Post

LOL! Seems those on the “hard right” are taking note of my comments that Rudy will remain ahead of all ‘pure conservatives for 2008 Presidential race (or someone like him). I admit the term “far right” is probably not an accurate term, but the fact is too many Reps are too inflexible to form a governing majority and I can only try and explain why their views are falling on deaf ears. They have dug in after their blistering loss in 2006, driven to repeat the mistake.

To all those who thnk Bush compromises too much I have one subject which he, and he alone, is holding strong on – embryonic stem cells. The cons in congress are the ones buckling on this and without Buh we would be harvesting humans for medical cures as we speak. So please, stop trying to sell the canard Bush is not conservative. Too many people equate Bush with the Hagel and McCain types, which is a simple way to avoid the facts.. Oh well, over the top hype is all some folks have to offer, and as I said in my previous posts, I am done with that shtick. I am a Reagan-Bush (W) Conservative. I am not a Republican and have no interest in becoming one. And without people like me to fight alongside the Reps, they have nothing.

Bush did more for the conservative cause than Reagan – get used to that fact. He got more Bills passed and his one compromise was tying federal dollars to proof the public education system was spending those dollars wisely. Wow, how terrible! Its like people who rant against the Gang of 14, the folks who turned the tied in our judicial make up – but just didn’t do it with the “in-your-face” approach of a filibuster breaker – they are mad over tactics chosen and ignore the result. Same thing with border issues when people put punishment over common sense. They are not for security, otherwise they could do the simple math and realize we have 2 million people in jail in this country and we do not have the resources or money to round up 12-20 million illegal workers. And why would we not spend any additional resources on fighting terrorists and winning Iraq? Whatever, the reality is – as I show below the fold – the immigration position of the hard right is a massive diversion.

Let me explain with simple, brutal math and using the needle in the haystack problem. The terrorists we need to protect against are not numerous. On 9-11 we were hit by 20 terrorists. Lets assume ten times that number and look at the problem of stopping 200 terrorists coming here to kill us. Now, as with 9-11, they can travel here pretending to be on vacation. The only possible use for the border access might be to move material, but you can do that as well legally and much more easily over the Canadian border. But forget all those real-life issues, let’s get to the math. We have 2 million people in our jails (less than 1% of our population). We have another 7 million or so in the criminal justice system (parole, etc) which brings our active serious crime population to around 9 million, and we are stretched thin making sure our streets are safe and our eyes are watching out for a new terrorist attack. If we have to double this burden by going after (in any manner) the illegal workers we will lose sight of our prime objective, terrorists. This is not theory – it is fact. We don’t have the resources to process all the illegal aliens. And to double our current capacity would take a decade or more. This is not TV folks, you don’t come back from a commercial break to magically find all these trained and motivated people ready to work for government pay.

Roughly 3-5% of our population (and any population in the Western countries) has a criminal history – which is darn good given human nature. So let’s assume the illegal population his 70% hard working, well intentioned people who don’t have their permit papers and the rest are the problem criminals we need to sift through to find terrorists. We know the crime rate for immigrants is higher than our national rate, which is why it appears they are rampant criminals (all of them, according to some). But 30% is way too high and I picked it to make a point.

If we need to focus on the problem population we first need to sift out those who are not a threat and are doing what many immigrants have done for centuries here, adding to our nation’s fabric in a positive way. The Guest worker program does this by allowing those confident they are good willed to step forward, pay their dues and continue to work here.

Assuming 10 million illegal workers of which 30% are criminals we need to deport then our problem goes from 10 million pieces of hay to 300 thousand pieces of hay. Those 200 hundred terrorists we need to find go from 2 in 100,000, which is the odds of finding them roughly, to 2 in 3,000. If I actually doubled the crime rate (as I am sure I did) and instead of being 6 times are national average likely to commit a serious crime immigrants are instead only 3 times as likely (which seems more likely), then those terrorist are now only 2 in 1500. 2 in 1500 hundred (or 1 in 750) is a reasonable problem to tackle.

The thing about math is you cannot argue it away and pretend it doesn’t exist. I want the criminal element of the immigrants out of here and we could pay their native countries the going rate to incarcerate them in country – saving us money and prison space we do not have. But if we are all about finding terrorists, the odds of 2 out 1500 are much better than the odds of 2 out of 10,000,000. So please, don’t try and convince me we will be protecting our country by trying to punish the illegal workers – all of them – no matter the nature of their crime.

I have done the math. And all I see are people pushing for something that would drain all of our resources that need to be watching for al Qaeda (and we will still need to double these resources from current levels and divert them onto this folly) to picking up maids and construction workers and their families. The whole idea is suicidally naive. In fact, it sounds just like a redployment of our security forces – which it is. It is just as crazy as Mad Murtha sending our troops to Okinawa. Instead, now people want to send our security forces to hunt down illegal workers. And people wonder why the hard right and far left are losing support??? Get real.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “Follow Up To My Rudy Post”

  1. crosspatch says:

    A”pure” conservative candidate would never win an election and neither would a pure “liberal”. The person that wins is the person who can draw from the other party. A Democrat that Republicans could vote for (Lieberman?) or a Republican than many Democrats could vote for (Rudy, Mitt).

  2. Buckaroo says:

    AJ I read your stuff daily, I like it but don’t get crazy on the illegal immigration thing. I’m very conservative, but I’m not stupid. I don’t want to try to track down 10-12 million people. All I want is a fence and a method to dry up the jobs that are being filled illegally by illegal immigrants. The fence keeps new illegals and dope smuggling out and elimination of the jobs here causes the illegals present here to go home. If jobs completely dried up for them they would be calling the ICE bus to pick them up for a free ride back home. Thanks for all that you do.

  3. stevevvs says:

    Bush did more for the conservative cause than Reagan – get used to that fact.
    1. Prescription Drugs for the Blue Hairs cost far more than projected.
    2. Social Security reform killed by the “Moderates”.
    3. Way more pork projects than under any previous congresses.
    4. Drilling in ANWAR and any resonable distances off our Coasts, killed by the “Moderates”.
    5. Higher Federal spending than by any previous administration in the last 40 years, if not more.
    6. Creation of the Homeland Security Dept. and Federalising of TSA, neither of which has proven an efficient, streamlined way of doing things.
    7. Signed McCain-Feingold, McCains “Torture” Legistlation, and expanded Government at every level.

    So please, stop trying to sell the canard Bush is not conservative.

    I want the criminal element of the immigrants out of here and we could pay their native countries the going rate to incarcerate them in country – saving us money and prison space we do not have.

    I like this idea!!!!! Therefore, it will never be implemented! Common Sense!

    We had an interesting case locally recently, let’s call it catch and release.

    No space for illegals
    McDevitt says county is working on it

    By Todd Huffman
    rhuffman@morganton.com
    Thursday, March 8, 2007

    Morganton – Eleven illegal immigrants who were stopped in Burke County, then sent on their way Wednesday may well be in New York by now.
    The circumstances behind their release won’t change for some time.
    Deputies on Thursday morning had the same situation on their hands, says Burke County Sheriff John T. McDevitt.
    “They had another vehicle with nine illegal immigrants stopped (Thursday) morning,” McDevitt says. “And again, we had to let them go.”
    Francisco Risso, director of the Western North Carolina Worker’s Center in Morganton, says local law enforcement should concentrate on local crime, and leave immigration to the proper authorities.
    “When dealing with immigration laws and issues, there are lots of gray areas,” Risso says. “It needs to be handled by someone who specializes in immigration.”
    Richard Rocha, a public affairs officer for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, says deputies in the Burke County Sheriff’s Office haven’t been properly trained to determine anyone’s immigration status.
    Only immigration agents or officers trained by the federal agency can make that determination, Rocha says.
    McDevitt says two Burke County deputies are in that training right now. Once they’re finished the county can apply for the same status as Mecklenburg County, which can ensure deportation hearings for illegal immigrants caught breaking the law.
    Before that can happen, a lot has to go on in the county.
    Jails must pass a federal inspection to house those prisoners, McDevitt says.
    “It’s a lengthy process, and we’re in it,” he says. “We’re doing all we can do right now.”
    Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s deputies were the first in the state to get the federal immigration training, says spokeswoman Julia Rush.
    “North Carolina is woefully inadequate in the number of immigration officers,” she says.
    Rush says illegal immigrants from 35 countries have been put into deportation hearings because of the Mecklenburg program. Only Immigration and Customs Enforcement can actually deport people, she says.
    McDevitt says the county needs a program such as Mecklenburg’s, but there’s a catch.
    “We would soon run into the same problems they’re having now,” he says. “We would be over capacity in a week.”
    The Mecklenburg County jail is the only jail in the state for Immigration and Customs Enforcement prisoners, McDevitt says.
    He says Mecklenburg Sheriff Jim Pendergraph told him Thursday morning that his jail is over capacity and can’t accept any more.
    Wednesday’s traffic stop near Causby Road on Interstate 40 caught the attention of the national media.
    U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry, a Republican who represents Burke County, appeared on Fox News’ “The Big Story with John Gibson” to talk about the incident.
    McHenry told the show’s host that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is undermanned in the individual states and overmanned in Washington, D.C.

    WHAT WASN’T IN THAT REPORT WAS THE DRIVER IN WEDNESDAYS “Catch” HAD BEEN TWICE DEPORTED. BUT, NO SPACE AT THE “INN’ , SO THE SHUFFLED OFF TO BUFFALO, N.Y.

  4. stevevvs says:

    I Love Motor Votor!

    Illegal aliens seen eroding vote
    By Sean Lengell
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    March 8, 2007

    Illegal aliens are eroding the integrity of U.S. elections, and will continue to do so without tighter voting laws, several members of Congress testified at a hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday.
    “There is a very real possibility that noncitizens have affected the outcomes of elections in the past, and will in the future,” said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, California Republican, before a House Judiciary Committee on voting irregularities and election deception.
    With more than 20 million foreign-born residents in the United States who are not U.S. citizens, including at least 12 million illegal aliens, the potential for noncitizen voting is a growing concern, Mr. Bilbray said.
    Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said illegal aliens in many states can easily acquire driver’s licenses, making it easy for them to register to vote, especially states with “motor-voter” laws.
    “With many states making driver’s licenses available to legal noncitizens and illegal aliens, it is probable voter rolls contain large numbers of noncitizens and illegal aliens,” Mr. King said.

    The insanity Continues!

  5. crosspatch says:

    Buckaroo, a fence appeals to many because it is something “concrete” that they can see and touch but it won’t address the problem. It would slow the INCREASE of illegal aliens coming in via Mexico by about 50%. That is because 50% of the illegals coming across enter with legitimate paperwork at legitimate crossing points and simply do not go home. Installing a fence would main disrupt the criminal movement of people, drugs, and other illicit crossings for a short time. It would spur an burst of tunnelling activity and after a while, the rates of crossings would creep back up to where they were. This leaves us with a great expense for installing, maintaining, and patrolling a fence line without any real benefit or change in the number of aliens here.

    In fact, a fence might cause an INCREASE in the number of aliens that stay year-round. If it is too difficult to go home in winter and come back in spring, they will just stay here.

    I would also argue that the majority of border crossings are in areas that are already fenced and the crossings are by day workers who cross into places like El Paso from Juarez to work as cleaners, babysitters, and gardeners and then go home at night.

    A fence would be expensive, wouldn’t reduce the number of people here, would only address a portion of the increase and might eventually result in more staying on this side. What we need is a mechanism for seasonal and day workers to cross back and forth legally so they can provide an economic benefit to both sides of the border. A worker crossing into the US to work as a janitor or a roofer or a stockman or babysitter and then spending their pay back home increases the standard of living on the other side of the border. The end result would be more jobs in Mexico, less reason for migration, and a closing of the economic gap between the two countries. That makes for more customers for US goods and more Mexican goods produced for US consumers. In other words, it benefits both people.

    Imagine if nobody from New Jersey could enter New York. It would devastate the economy of Northern New Jersey. Those New Jersey workers benefit the economy of both sides of the state line. Our economy is global and what happens on one side of a political boundary impacts what happens on the other side.

    The real issue as I see it is that we have too many people here not paying their taxes. Rather than getting rid of the people, we need to make it easier for them to bring their earnings “above board”. If all the “under the table” labor in this country were brought above board, we would have lower taxes on the rest of us, a better balanced budget, a more solvent social security, and a more prosperous economy.

    Our current immigration policy is a holdover from when the Baby Boomers were entering the economy in droves. We had high unemployment as we attempted to expand the economy to accommodate all those workers and passed strict immigration rules to make it more difficult for immigrants to take jobs here. We are soon to face the opposite problem as the boomers retire in droves. It we do not find a way to increase the labor force via immigration, we are going to be left with a shrinking workforce while the percentage of the population going on Social Security is increasing. This means less government revenue while government payouts are increasing. It also means a severe labor shortage. The generation in the pipeline to replace the boomers is smaller than the baby boomer generation. We are going to NEED those immigrants and we are going to need them legally and legitimately.

  6. AJStrata says:

    Stevevvs,

    If you want to take away affordable prescription drugs from the elderly I am glad to stand apart from you. If you cannot understand the drugs are reducing overall medicare costs by avoiding hospital visits then fine – be a clueless minority. If you think you are convincing me I am wrong, hate to fill you in – you made my day and now I confident I am right.

  7. AJStrata says:

    Buckaroo,

    The Fence is included so don’t stop the broader, needed reforms. And if you are against anything else then welcome to the vast right wing minority…..

    Count me out.

  8. Aitch748 says:

    I agree that any solution to the illegal-immigrant-flood problem is going to have to require setting priorities — that is, you’re going to have to accept that some minor crimes will go unpunished. The problem has gone too far. There is no hope of finding eleven million plus people and bringing them all to justice for the crime of simply being here without a proper passport, or even for having fraudulent Social Security numbers. Yes, the system can make a dent, but there are only so many people in the system, and therefore only so much work can be done.

    This whole “amnesty” thing, now that I think about it, is a symptom of a problem that is simply too big for the current system to handle (at least without employing the kind of draconian measures that most people who aren’t Vox Day say they don’t want, such as actually physically deporting people who have committed no crime more serious than speeding, and committing their children to the care of the state if not actually deporting them also). You can rail against Bush for not walling off the border, but how quickly do you think we can erect an 1800-mile wall, and how many immigrants will slip around the wall before it is finished?

    In addition, if there are 11 million illegals here, and (I’m just making the numbers up, but I’m making a point) 5 million are working adults, and each business that employs illegals employs an average of 50, well, that’s 100,000 businesses we have to crack down on, if we want to go the route of punishing the employers of illegal immigrants. Of course, punishing businesses that are otherwise law-abiding also carries consequences. You may insist that these consequences should not matter because the law must be upheld, but if so, you should acknowledge the costs and say outright, “Nevertheless, the cost must be paid.” And know that not every citizen will be happy when the bill arrives.

    We have to accept compromises here and there, or nothing will be done. To the extent that illegal immigration did the Republicans in last November: I don’t think it was their stance on illegal immigration that did them in so much as their refusal to work with people who thought differently. If they had said, “Yes we think that all these people need to leave, yes we know some people think differently, but if we all do indeed acknowledge that there is a problem, let’s find our common ground and then do what we can,” then maybe we wouldn’t even be having this argument.

  9. MerlinOS2 says:

    CP

    That almost sounds like a commercial for the Fair Tax my man.

  10. AJStrata says:

    Aitch,

    You are right, and the math here is brutal. The population of illegal workers is 6 times our current total prison population. 6 times! And if I am right and 85% of these people are simply working without proper paperwork then we will be spending 5 times what we are now on chasing down people who are no threat. It is the 200 terrorists we need to find and I have no problem jettisoning the 15% of illegals who are violent criminals. I am for one strike and you are out.

    But the math is inescapable. Even to deal with the 15% that we need to wade through means over 1.5 million – almost equal to our current prison population. That is why I am for paying their native countries to incarcerate them. It will be cheaper and they won’t be here to cause trouble. There is no better answer. None, not without losing track of the terrorists.

  11. stevevvs says:

    If you want to take away affordable prescription drugs from the elderly I am glad to stand apart from you. If you cannot understand the drugs are reducing overall medicare costs by avoiding hospital visits then fine – be a clueless minority. If you think you are convincing me I am wrong, hate to fill you in – you made my day and now I confident I am right.

    Glad your feeling confident.
    What you either want to ommit, or don’t know is this. A lot of U.S. Companies had great drug plans for their retiries. I say Had, as now many have dropped their plans BECAUSE of this plan. And many aren’t please about this, including my step father!
    So, while it helped many who had no coverage, it hurt many who had excellent plans they wanted to stay in that have now gone away.
    But to think it is my responsibility to provide anyone with this plan, thru my tax burden is ludicrise! How about these people paying my house payment? We are so far away from our Constitutional Republic Roots, we truely have morfed into a Socialist Democracy.

    And this program by a “Conservative” President will just keep going up and up in costs in the years ahead. Like all “Entitlements”.

    Got to go, enjoy your day.

  12. stevevvs says:

    Crosspatch,
    Your joking about the fence, right? Wink Wink

  13. stevevvs says:

    Aj,
    I replied to your pills post, but it did not go up.

  14. AJStrata says:

    Stevevvs,

    My dad, a WWII veteran, did not have the drug coverage. Nuff said. Just like stealing candy from a baby, eh?

  15. AJStrata says:

    BTW Stevevvs,

    I cannot help but point out that my taxes have not gone up one iota due to the new plan and the Federal budget deficit is shrinking every month since it was enacted. Next time you scream fire, maybe you should make sure there is one first. Results, not rhetoric.

  16. Buckaroo says:

    AITCH748

    The laws are on the books, we don’t get the luxury of picking and choosing which laws we want to enforce. Yes, it makes more sense to tackle the businesses; make a few examples and most, I say most, will eventually come around. Disruptions to your business, civil fines, bad publicity have a way of sharpening your perspective. You talked about the economic effect as being so terrible. Just want to point out that after a bust at that meat packing plant, the illegals were gone and Americans were lined up at the doors for jobs. I’d rather citizens were working than drawing off the dole. Another point, I am aware that the illegals are >30% of the construction trades. These are good jobs. They are also jobs that will be staying right here in the U.S. and not going to Mexico, China, India and Indonesia like our manufacturing jobs are now doing. Save some jobs for us. I’m not against immigration. I think that it is smart to pick the plum individuals from the whole world to come here. We need smart people to initiate the next better idea, which in turn creates whole new revenue producing avenues.

  17. Buckaroo says:

    AJ

    I’m an incrementalist. A little now, a little bit later.

  18. DubiousD says:

    Interesting that anybody who doesn’t like Bush is suddenly lumped into the “Hard Right” category. It’s a convenient way of avoiding actually dealing with somebody’s arguments.

    What is “hard right” about standing firm on the 16 words?

    What is “hard right” in not allowing the media to spin what you said or didn’t say about Plamegate?

    What is “hard right” about insisting Rumsfield should have been let go years ago?

    What is “hard right” about standing tough on Katrina and not letting the media characterize the White House as fiddling while New Orleans… um… well, you get the metaphor.

    What is “hard right” about expecting Bush to actually be informed about DPW in the first place, then expecting Bush to sit down and explain to the media why DPW was defensible?

    AJ mentions Bush standing firm on fed funding for embryonic stem cell research. Well, Bully for Bushie. But has Bush ever explained to the media, to the public, to anybody why ESC research is a bad deal? (No, not religious convictions, let’s leave that completely aside.) The real reason why ESC research is a no-go is because every test so far involving ESCs has resulted in animals developing tumors. Therefore, no ESC cures are even remotely on the horizon because if ESCs aren’t safe for animals they’re unlikely to be safe for humans.

    By contrast, ASCs (adult stem cells) have shown much more promise. There are many FDA approved ASC treatments. There are none for ESCs. Yet Bush never articulates these points. As usual. So here’s the irony… by not making the case for ASCs vs. ESCs, Bush is actually feeding into the public perception that Bush is caving to the Religious Right by promoting bad science. “We could have a cure for XYZ if Bush would only fund ESC research – damn Religious Right Wingers!”

    And lastly, let’s take a look at the current attorney general controversy… will Bush come forward and make the obvious point that the internal e-mails reported by the LA Times were quoted out of context and the attorneys were largely fired on merit (see Patterico) or that the Clintons fired EVERY attorney in the Justice Department when he came to power (see Macmind)? Heck, if I recall, the Clintons once fired a White House computer geek because he had the audacity to help former First Lady Barbara Bush set up her interent connection. Think Bush will mention that? Will the word “Travelgate” slip from his lips? He won’t go the mat to defend his own record nor will he attack his fiercest critics. So what good is he as a spokesman for his own administration?

    In sum, Bush’s main problem is that he runs the White House like a corporation. Delegate authority, let the ad-men handle the PR. You don’t see the CEO of Coca-Cola going on TV once a week saying “Drink Coca-Cola!” Outside of Iacocca (ugh) you don’t see many car-builders constantly putting themselves on TV saying, “Drive Honda! Drive Izuzu! GO YUGO!” But the Oval Office is not a corporation. A president has to be a leader. He needs to get out there and sell sell SELL 24/7. Nobody cares if you’re a good little worker ant. Why should it matter anyway if you’re not out there pitching hard? Bush steadfastly refuses to do that. Most of the wounds he’s suffered during his presidency have been self-inflicted, and it’s stunning that many of his staunchest defenders still can’t come to terms with that fact.

  19. AJStrata says:

    Yeah, Hard Right.

    The kind who sit home on elections and let Dems win to prove a point. Yeah, hard right – those who side with Dems to tear down our President for working with Arabs. Oh yeah, Hard Right.

    Includes ANYONE who used the term RINO and meant it as an insult. Tell me true D – ever use the term?

  20. AJStrata says:

    Buckaroo,

    What are you waiting for – terrorists to get through?