Politics

NO Illegal Amnesty Without Border Security: Reject Any Rehash of Reagan’s Immigration Error

 

Two vultures are feasting on the American experiment, one from the extreme left, and one from the extreme right:

The news over the weekend may be the best yet: an agreement in principle between two old adversaries, business and labor, on a new visa program for lower-skilled workers in industries like hotels, restaurants and construction….

I am a pro free market conservative, but I believe that the business sector has been advocating for lax immigration standards so that they can benefit by cheap labor which brings down wages for the average American, who cannot compete against illegals who are comfortable with a much lower living standard. I know of laborers who say they earn ten times as much for the same labor in America as they do in Mexico.

According to negotiators, business won’t get the annual flood of 400,000 guest workers it wanted, but it will get four years of rising visa totals — going from 20,000 to 75,000. After that, visa levels would rise and fall with the unemployment rate and other factors, with a maximum of 200,000 a year.

So business gets more immigrants willing to do the hardest and least paying work, which helps their bottom line, and impoverishes native-born labor competitors (including other Hispanics).

Labor, meanwhile, gets significant worker protections, including the right for immigrants to change jobs and to seek green cards and citizenship if they wish. Labor’s objection to previous guest-worker programs was that they import workers who are shackled to employers and thus acutely vulnerable to exploitation — a recipe for abysmal wages and working conditions for everybody.

I doubt very much that unions actually care about low wages and working conditions – what’s important for them is the influx of new voters that will cement Democrats’ offices and ensure unions’ pillaging of the federal budget.

Here’s the pivotal detail that’s not reported in the New York Times’ opinion cited above:

This is absolutely unacceptable…. we should demand the border be completely shutdown before we come anywhere near considering “legalizing” illegal immigrants.

This was the promise Marco Rubio made, and if he abandons it, he can expect an enormous backlash against him, and against any plan.

While the media lauds this supposed compromise, Rubio has come out saying a deal has not been made.

What angers me the most about these schemes is that they don’t address at all the market forces that will draw millions more illegals if we legalize the ones who are already here:

…once you legalize the immigrants who are here, they immediately become just as onerous to hire as American citizens – much of the appeal of hiring them is lost. They jump up a rung on the employment ladder, compete with Americans, drive those wages down, and leave a gulf of unfilled jobs they previously occupied. What happens to those jobs?

Well, unless the source of illegal labor is absolutely shut off, the word will go out that there are tons of new jobs in Los Estados, and all you have to is make it across that border.

The only way to stop the failed policy we have is to get at the root problem – the porous border. The very fact that the left applauds all immigration plans that don’t address this problem belies their real intent – to guarantee more democratic votes from newly legalized immigrants, while business interests draw in more illegals to buttress their profits at native Americans’ expense.

This was exactly the problem at the heart of what has been reported as Reagan’s greatest regret – the Immigration compromise bill of 1986:

Internal enforcement was critical to Reagan. He knew that the real key to stopping illegal immigration was to cut off the job magnet at the employment place. He was also honest enough to call what he believed would only be a small amnesty by its real name—amnesty. He did not try to deceive the American people into thinking it was not really an amnesty, a deception much in vogue with many politicians today.

For the first six months after the amnesty there was a modest fall in illegal immigration, but within 12 months illegal immigration was breaking all previous records, rising to 800,000 per year. Friends and relatives of the newly legalized immigrants began to pour into the United States. They were followed by more illegal job seekers who saw continued opportunities for more amnesties. In fact, the 1986 amnesty resulted in six more amnesties from 1994 to 2000, awarding legal status to another 3.0 million illegal immigrants. By 1997, the number of illegal immigrants in the country was already back up to the 5.0 million in the U.S. before the 1986 amnesty. Amnesty has proved to be a slippery slope.

 If you want another example of the most intellectually dishonest justifications for a flawed immigration plan, look no further than Democrat Mark Udall from Colorado, who opines that giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship isn’t amnesty at all. Then, not 3 minutes later, he says that our current immigration policy is “de facto amnesty.” So if they have de facto amnesty, then why is there a rush to give them something that amounts to less than amnesty?

Meanwhile at the border, there is evidence that more illegals are pouring into America based on the mere suggestion that there might be amnesty granted to those who make it. Some have even asked for amnesty once apprehended.

Even more alarming, there’s also some evidence that the Mexican drug cartels are taking advantage of lax border security and planting associates in order to secure their drug distribution lines, bringing greater crime and a plague that destroys our communities.

How many more reasons do we need to shut down the border?!

This has nothing to do with not having enough compassion, it has nothing to do with being anti-immigration. Having lax border security is a real threat to Americans, and advocating anything less than complete border shut down is ridiculous and absurd.

[correction: in an earlier version of this post Mark Udall was mistakenly identified as a representative from Alaska, instead of representing Colorado. We regret this grievous insult to Alaskans, and erroneous compliment to Colorodans.]

  • “Anti-immigration” is just another Proglodyte code word meant to confuse the issue.
    Considering that my mother, my father and my stepmother all came here legally, I’d be the last person to be anti-immigration. What I am, however, is anti-invasion.
    Immigrants come here legally. Invaders sneak in. That’s the difference. And you’re dead right–amnesty before border security is a fool’s errand, to put it mildly.

  • banjojack

    You are, as usual, correct in your assessment. It is apparently bigoted in the extreme to be opposed to the flood of criminals who sneak across our borders along with the …well,,,,,criminals that sneak across our borders. Dress it up as nicely as you wish, if you come across the border illegally you are a criminal, regardless of your supposedly noble motives. In this day of NBC warfare,(Nuclear, chemical and bio), there is a real issue of National Security involved also, with these man-portable delivery devices. Taken together with the despicable hypocrisy of this administration, who can’t find the money to pay the Border Patrol, or keep aliens in jail, but always has plenty of funds to pay for hideously expensive spring breaks, ski trips and golf lessons,( or any other activity included under the heading of “Party Time in Obamaville,”) then Houston, we have a problem.

  • Willy_B_Willy

    I only wish Mark Udall was a senator from Alaska, unfortunately we’re stuck with this Socialist sodomite in the formerly free state of Colorado.

  • my immigration plan, which doesnt emphasize border security:

    1) First, eliminate access to free K-12 public school education for FUTURE illegal aliens. (obvious to any outsider)

    2) No more automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to 2 non-American parents. delete the “anchor baby” loophole.

    3) Once both are done, I would give legal residency and work permits for qualified
    “DREAMERS” who are not recent arrivals. NO LIMITS will be placed on the types of jobs they can apply for.

    4) Have a guest worker program with Mexico LIMITED to agriculture sector and those who want to work as nannies/maids.

    as for the drug cartels, sooper, i’d put the them in the STate dept’s list of FTOs.

  • Wigglesworth

    We need much more than just border security Señor Sooper. We need welfare reform. Once illegal aliens are legalized they will assimilate into the welfare state. This retards immigrants ambitions to advance their career because making more money would result in losing food stamps, subsidized housing and medicaid. We have the same problem with citizens too by the way. A new wave of illegal aliens will come and the cycle will start over.

  • Pingback: There Can Only Be One |()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com()

  • Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results 04.05.13 | askmarion()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results » Virginia Right!()

  • John_Frank

    Brewer, Palin lead Phoenix walk to ‘strike out’ child abuse
    http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/21972169/brewer-palin-lead-walk-to-end-child-abuse

    PHOENIX – Some familiar faces led a special walk to raise awareness Saturday in the valley.

    Governor Jan Brewer and former Governor Sarah Palin led the Strike Out Child Abuse Walk as it wound its way through downtown Phoenix Saturday afternoon.

    Before the event kicked off, people swarmed the former governor of Alaska for pictures and autographs.

    Palin says she and her family spend a lot of time in Arizona. She pushed her son Trig in a stroller for the walk.

    “We get to visit here quite often because our kids take different classes down here. They’ve chosen Arizona as the place to be and it’s not just because of the weather, which is heavenly,” said Palin.

    As for the political climate, we had to ask about the immigration issue. The gang of eight is expected to present a complex immigration plan next week.

    Will the American people support it?

    “If they first will make sure the borders are secure then I think American public will be open to hearing what bureaucratic regulatory solutions are, but first and foremost is securing the border,” said Palin.

    “We need more boots on the ground, more technology on the ground and
    certainly we need cooperations between the state of Arizona and state of Sonora,” said Brewer.

    [Side note: Sonora is the neighboring Mexican State to Arizona.]

    And the inevitable question about Palin’s political future: Are you going to run in 2016?

    “Don’t know what I’m going to do in 2016, but I’m going to walk today and I’m happy to get to do that,” said Palin.

    Palin was Senator John McCain’s vice presidential running mate in 2008. Since then, there has been a lot of speculation about whether she will run in 2016.

    Jill Monier, who did the story for FOX10 News, but did not present the story, got a scoop with her immigration question and the answer that Governor Palin gave.

    Presuming that:

    Schumer on MTP: ‘We’ve come to a basic agreement, which is that first people
    will be legalized…Then we will make sure the border is secure’

    — Byron York (@ByronYork) April 1, 2013

    holds true, then with her answer, Governor Palin has come out four square against that approach.

    P.S. Quite a few people were wanting Sarah Palin to speak on the immigration issue. She just did, doing so in Arizona, on the eve of Senator Rubio’s marathon round of interviews.

    P.P.S. People can watch the video of the story at the provided link. The posted report is an accurate transcript of the video report.

  • John_Frank

    Palin and Brewer talk immigration reform
    http://www.kpho.com/story/21972340/palin-and-brewer-talk-immigration-reform

    The video of the news report can be found at the link.

    A couple of quotes from the report:

    “There needs to be truth in this issue. The American public can’t keep being told that the border is as secure as ever or more secure than ever when that is not true,” said Palin.

    “The ranchers and law enforcement on the border, when they say the border is secure then I think we can move forward,” said Brewer.

    Bottom line: The reporter makes it clear. Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Jan Brewer are on the same page on the immigration issue. The people need to be told the truth. The border is not secure. The border must be secured first as determined by the ranchers and law enforcement on the border before moving forward with any proposals concerning the illegals presently in the country.

    Yes, that is correct, the CBS reporter used the word illegals.

    P.S. As to 2016, the CBS reporter states that Sarah Palin has not yet made up her mind.

  • Pingback: The Very First “Cuckservative” Tweets Show Exactly What It’s Really About()