Like many people I have been watching the "debate" about our handling of illegal immigrant families at the border. It is heartbreaking.
I have read a good deal about the goings on from both left and right. As I have mentioned before, one of the many differences between residing on the right and left is that we on the right are constantly exposed to the arguments of those on the left and forced to defend our own. Those on the left are not often exposed to arguments from the right which explains why they are often poor at discussing issues. Their knee-jerk moral superiority does not help.
I have noticed a disturbing trend on the right in this case. Too many of us are mischaracterizing the issue. The issue is not, as so many on the right assert, whether or not the Obama administration detained and/or deported illegal immigrant families or how minors were quartered.
The issue is whether, during their detention, after having been arrested at the border children were separated from their families.
Photos of detention centers taken during the Obama administration, particularly in 2014, are all over the place.. That was when huge numbers of unaccompanied minors were cynically sent by their parents to the border. Since most were unaccompanied the separation of families was not a big issue.
I really hate it when our side adopts the disgraceful debating tactics of left but we appear to be doing it here. It is a bad idea.
We must have the courage of our convictions. I am terribly sorry these kids are being separated from their parents. It is their parents, the cynical governments of Central America, and the morally bankrupt Mexican government, which are responsible.
These illegal immigrants must be stopped. One way of stopping them is to make things uncomfortable so that future illegal immigrants might be persuaded to do the right thing.
If you are really an asylum seeker fearing persecution in your country of origin go to the American Consulate or Embassy in the first country in which you are safe. Usually Mexico in this case, and file an asylum application. That is how the international asylum system is set up. It is entirely unnecessary to cross our border illegally. In fact, doing so suggests that you, like about 40% of your cohort, are not serious about making an asylum case. That is the percentage of "asylum seekers" from Mexico and Central America who, once admitted to the USA do not show up for immigration hearings.
If you are an economic migrant do not attempt to cross the border illegally. If you think you must, do not bring your children with you. Problem solved.
Showing posts with label Illegal immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal immigration. Show all posts
Monday, July 02, 2018
Saturday, May 20, 2017
The Wall
Much has been said and written about the need, or not, for a wall along our southern border.
Immigration reforms were undertaken in 1965 , 1986 and were attempted again in 2007 .
The political right was persuaded in 1986 to enact reforms, which included amnesty, in exchange for an employer based status verification regime and enhanced border security. There "... was the enforcement bit. The law aimed to secure the U.S.-Mexico border against illegal crossings with new surveillance technology and a bigger staff."
The status verification system was, to put it politely, a sham.
"Under the final law, all employers had to do to avoid sanctions was to make sure their workers had paperwork that "reasonably appears on its face to be genuine." If the documents were decent fakes, that wasn't the boss's problem. In fact, employers were actually penalized if they scrutinized a worker's nationality too aggressively."
In 1986 I was CEO of a manufacturing business in Houston, TX. We had as many as 100 factory floor employees at peak times of the year. Most were illegals. The system was such a farce that I don't even remember it being more than an occasional topic of conversation at management meetings. No one came looking for anything. We changed our hiring package to ensure we had proper "documentation" on new hires. We checked the files of existing employees to see whether additional information was required. If so, it was always readily provided.
I often read that the reason employers employ illegals is that they are willing to accept lesser pay and benefits. That may be true of some but I can safely say that it was certainly not the case for us. It was just how things had developed in the 20 years or so the company was in business before I was hired to run it. In fact, we never advertised for factory workers. When the need arose our factory managers just told their workers we needed more people and they showed up. Wages were standard for the area and every employee had company paid medical insurance.
As is obvious the increased presence and border surveillance never happened.
That brings us to 2007 when John McCain and friends announced that a new deal had been reached behind closed doors. What little we were told about the legislation made it clear that it was going to be amnesty first, enforcement second, again. McCain declared that it would be voted on and passed within 48 hours. The right erupted and the legislation was killed.
Those of us who were around in 1986 refused to go along with amnesty first and enforcement second. We had already seen that the enforcement never arrived and we were certain the same would be true this time.
We have focused on the wall as an essential element of enforcement ever since. Enduring the barrage of insults hurled our way over the last 10 years stoically.
Now it is 2017. We elected a President who promised to build the wall. There has been no significant progress made. Funds were dropped from the continuing resolution recently approved. He said it was too difficult to do now and we will get back to it in September, in the next budget.
A funny thing has happened on the way to the wall , illegal immigration has plummeted since President Trump's election.
"Illegal immigration across the southwest border is down more than 60 percent so far under President Trump, officials revealed Tuesday, even before the first new agent is hired or the first mile of his promised border wall is constructed."
Like many, I do not like the idea of a wall but considered it a necessity if the flood of illegals was to be stopped. It looks as though the mere enforcement of laws on the books already has had an enormous influence on illegals. Maybe we don't need a wall after all.
Wishful thinking, unfortunately. As much as I hate to think about it Trump will only be President for 8 years. His successor, Democrat or Republican can, and probably will, back off enforcement again. It will be much less likely that such a stand down will have much of an effect if the wall is in place. So, in my reluctant opinion, it must be built.
Immigration reforms were undertaken in 1965 , 1986 and were attempted again in 2007 .
The political right was persuaded in 1986 to enact reforms, which included amnesty, in exchange for an employer based status verification regime and enhanced border security. There "... was the enforcement bit. The law aimed to secure the U.S.-Mexico border against illegal crossings with new surveillance technology and a bigger staff."
The status verification system was, to put it politely, a sham.
"Under the final law, all employers had to do to avoid sanctions was to make sure their workers had paperwork that "reasonably appears on its face to be genuine." If the documents were decent fakes, that wasn't the boss's problem. In fact, employers were actually penalized if they scrutinized a worker's nationality too aggressively."
In 1986 I was CEO of a manufacturing business in Houston, TX. We had as many as 100 factory floor employees at peak times of the year. Most were illegals. The system was such a farce that I don't even remember it being more than an occasional topic of conversation at management meetings. No one came looking for anything. We changed our hiring package to ensure we had proper "documentation" on new hires. We checked the files of existing employees to see whether additional information was required. If so, it was always readily provided.
I often read that the reason employers employ illegals is that they are willing to accept lesser pay and benefits. That may be true of some but I can safely say that it was certainly not the case for us. It was just how things had developed in the 20 years or so the company was in business before I was hired to run it. In fact, we never advertised for factory workers. When the need arose our factory managers just told their workers we needed more people and they showed up. Wages were standard for the area and every employee had company paid medical insurance.
As is obvious the increased presence and border surveillance never happened.
That brings us to 2007 when John McCain and friends announced that a new deal had been reached behind closed doors. What little we were told about the legislation made it clear that it was going to be amnesty first, enforcement second, again. McCain declared that it would be voted on and passed within 48 hours. The right erupted and the legislation was killed.
Those of us who were around in 1986 refused to go along with amnesty first and enforcement second. We had already seen that the enforcement never arrived and we were certain the same would be true this time.
We have focused on the wall as an essential element of enforcement ever since. Enduring the barrage of insults hurled our way over the last 10 years stoically.
Now it is 2017. We elected a President who promised to build the wall. There has been no significant progress made. Funds were dropped from the continuing resolution recently approved. He said it was too difficult to do now and we will get back to it in September, in the next budget.
A funny thing has happened on the way to the wall , illegal immigration has plummeted since President Trump's election.
"Illegal immigration across the southwest border is down more than 60 percent so far under President Trump, officials revealed Tuesday, even before the first new agent is hired or the first mile of his promised border wall is constructed."
Like many, I do not like the idea of a wall but considered it a necessity if the flood of illegals was to be stopped. It looks as though the mere enforcement of laws on the books already has had an enormous influence on illegals. Maybe we don't need a wall after all.
Wishful thinking, unfortunately. As much as I hate to think about it Trump will only be President for 8 years. His successor, Democrat or Republican can, and probably will, back off enforcement again. It will be much less likely that such a stand down will have much of an effect if the wall is in place. So, in my reluctant opinion, it must be built.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Rush Limbaugh, a Small Fault
I am a big Rush fan and have been for years. I even bought some of his "Club Gitmo" T-Shirts. I don't subscribe to his newsletter or Rush 24/7. Both strike me as manifestations of greed. Maybe its just me.
Like so many others I am always amused when some dem starts talking about what a rotten, racist, homophobic, misogynist etc etc person Rush is. The amusement stems of course from the obvious fact that anyone who would make such comments has never listened to Rush.
Like most of the rest of us, he does have some faults. There are two in particular that have annoyed me over the years.
When we went into Bosnia Rush (and I) were demanding an "exit strategy". The fact that we didn't have one was an anathema. Any idiot knows you have to have one. On Iraq, no exit strategy required. To quote Rush, "Winning is the exit strategy". Why the double standard? Well, because we are human I guess. Doesn't make it right though.
Rush also talks a lot about leadership. About politicians and people who do what they think is right regardless of what the polls say. How many times did we nod in agreement as he scoffed at the Clintons whose every move was preceded by "wetting a finger and lifting it into the breeze"?
Now, however, on the issue of Driver's Licenses for illegals and immigration in general, the fact that 70% of the country oppose the licenses and the comprehensive approach to immigration reform is supposed to mean that politicians who oppose the will of the majority are out of touch elitists, not leaders. They may indeed be elitists but that doesn't mean they are not leaders. They are leaders who will live and die (figuratively) promoting the approaches to these issues they believe to be right.
What Rush really means is that, like most of us, someone with whom we agree is a leader and someone with whom we disagree is not. The majority does rule. It doesn't mean we are always right.
Like so many others I am always amused when some dem starts talking about what a rotten, racist, homophobic, misogynist etc etc person Rush is. The amusement stems of course from the obvious fact that anyone who would make such comments has never listened to Rush.
Like most of the rest of us, he does have some faults. There are two in particular that have annoyed me over the years.
When we went into Bosnia Rush (and I) were demanding an "exit strategy". The fact that we didn't have one was an anathema. Any idiot knows you have to have one. On Iraq, no exit strategy required. To quote Rush, "Winning is the exit strategy". Why the double standard? Well, because we are human I guess. Doesn't make it right though.
Rush also talks a lot about leadership. About politicians and people who do what they think is right regardless of what the polls say. How many times did we nod in agreement as he scoffed at the Clintons whose every move was preceded by "wetting a finger and lifting it into the breeze"?
Now, however, on the issue of Driver's Licenses for illegals and immigration in general, the fact that 70% of the country oppose the licenses and the comprehensive approach to immigration reform is supposed to mean that politicians who oppose the will of the majority are out of touch elitists, not leaders. They may indeed be elitists but that doesn't mean they are not leaders. They are leaders who will live and die (figuratively) promoting the approaches to these issues they believe to be right.
What Rush really means is that, like most of us, someone with whom we agree is a leader and someone with whom we disagree is not. The majority does rule. It doesn't mean we are always right.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
With Friends like these...
Way back when, in 2001, W came to Washington expressing his determination to bring about bipartisan co-operation there as he had in Austin, Texas. I don't think much of bipartisanship. In my experience it is usually shorthand for republicans abandoning their principles.
It wasn't long before W embraced Ted Kennedy and "No Child Left Behind" became the unfortunate law of the land. It wasn't long before Ted Kennedy was calling W a liar and making his usual bombastic, insulting remarks about W and everything he said or did. Declaring Abu Ghraib to have been re-opened under American sponsorship. What a sickening piece of garbage he is. It is astonishing that he is so shameless as to open his mouth on the subject of waterboarding. Mary JoKopechne was not available for comment.
A year or two later Hill and Bill were invited to the WH for the unveiling of their portraits. I listened to W's incredibly gracious speech. It wasn't long before Bill was travelling the world taking pot shots at W.
Fast forward to May 2007. The "Comprehensive Immigration Act" (or whatever that putrid piece of legislation was called) is cooked up in private among the Senators. McCain tells us it will be passed without debate in 48 hours because he's happy with it. Hill is a supporter. W is a supporter. The bill gets beaten to death by an informed public. McCain and W are both big losers with the republican base.
Fast forward to November 2007. The dem presidential candidates are having a "debate". Russert is moderating. He asks Hill about NY Governor Spitzer's licenses for illegals plan. She gives a typical Clinton answer but is eventually pushed to say whether she supports Spitzer's plan or not. What does she do? Blame the Bush administration for failing to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan thus forcing governors to try to do something.
W spent enormous political capital trying to push the Senate's legislation through. Its failure had nothing to do with the administration. Does Hill give W an ounce of credit for his effort? Of course not. These people have not a shred of loyalty or decency.
UPDATE 12/26/07. The Clintons are nothing if not consistent. A few days ago Bill proclaimed that the first thing Hill would do as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 on a world tour to repair the damage Bush 43 had done to our reputation.
Puts me in mind of a phrase credited to Benjamin Disraeli, speaking about William Gladstone:
"Nothing delights me more than the sight of an unsophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of his own natural verbosity".
Bill, in the instant info world of 2007, actually believes that he can pretend to have the co-operation of 41 in trashing 43! Amazing, but consistent. No fallout of course. 41 issued a statement supportive of 43 and no doubt will go back to calling Bill his "other"son. Just because the Bushes are too nice to hold a grudge.
Readers of the NYTimes probably didn't hear about 41's statement and are no doubt doubled over laughing at their dinner parties: "Even his own father thinks he's an idiot!"
It wasn't long before W embraced Ted Kennedy and "No Child Left Behind" became the unfortunate law of the land. It wasn't long before Ted Kennedy was calling W a liar and making his usual bombastic, insulting remarks about W and everything he said or did. Declaring Abu Ghraib to have been re-opened under American sponsorship. What a sickening piece of garbage he is. It is astonishing that he is so shameless as to open his mouth on the subject of waterboarding. Mary JoKopechne was not available for comment.
A year or two later Hill and Bill were invited to the WH for the unveiling of their portraits. I listened to W's incredibly gracious speech. It wasn't long before Bill was travelling the world taking pot shots at W.
Fast forward to May 2007. The "Comprehensive Immigration Act" (or whatever that putrid piece of legislation was called) is cooked up in private among the Senators. McCain tells us it will be passed without debate in 48 hours because he's happy with it. Hill is a supporter. W is a supporter. The bill gets beaten to death by an informed public. McCain and W are both big losers with the republican base.
Fast forward to November 2007. The dem presidential candidates are having a "debate". Russert is moderating. He asks Hill about NY Governor Spitzer's licenses for illegals plan. She gives a typical Clinton answer but is eventually pushed to say whether she supports Spitzer's plan or not. What does she do? Blame the Bush administration for failing to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan thus forcing governors to try to do something.
W spent enormous political capital trying to push the Senate's legislation through. Its failure had nothing to do with the administration. Does Hill give W an ounce of credit for his effort? Of course not. These people have not a shred of loyalty or decency.
UPDATE 12/26/07. The Clintons are nothing if not consistent. A few days ago Bill proclaimed that the first thing Hill would do as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 on a world tour to repair the damage Bush 43 had done to our reputation.
Puts me in mind of a phrase credited to Benjamin Disraeli, speaking about William Gladstone:
"Nothing delights me more than the sight of an unsophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of his own natural verbosity".
Bill, in the instant info world of 2007, actually believes that he can pretend to have the co-operation of 41 in trashing 43! Amazing, but consistent. No fallout of course. 41 issued a statement supportive of 43 and no doubt will go back to calling Bill his "other"son. Just because the Bushes are too nice to hold a grudge.
Readers of the NYTimes probably didn't hear about 41's statement and are no doubt doubled over laughing at their dinner parties: "Even his own father thinks he's an idiot!"
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
What would the Southwest look like?
There are stories out today regarding the abuse heaped on the USA contestant in the Miss Universe pageant that took place in Mexico City recently. In the ordinary course of things I wouldn't be much interested in news of this nature.
The immigration debate has managed to make me more sensitive to all US-Mexico stories so I took a look at this one.
Among the reasons for the abuse, and Mexican anti-Americanism generally, cited by a Mexican interviewed for the piece was that the Mexicans haven't forgotten 1848 and how the USA stole the Southwest and California from Mexico. I have read a fair amount about the Mexican - American conflict. I may be mistaken but I think that it was a young congressman, Abe Lincoln, who asked where, exactly, on the US side of the then border, the American blood that was the causus belli was spilled. No clear answer was forthcoming.
The argument can fairly be made that we did indeed extort the Southwest and California from Mexico.
If we hadn't, all it would mean is that in 2007 the incredibly vibrant and productive states of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California would look like the rest of modern day dysfunctional Mexico and millions more Mexicans would be fleeing to a smaller, but undoubtedly just as successful USA.
The immigration debate has managed to make me more sensitive to all US-Mexico stories so I took a look at this one.
Among the reasons for the abuse, and Mexican anti-Americanism generally, cited by a Mexican interviewed for the piece was that the Mexicans haven't forgotten 1848 and how the USA stole the Southwest and California from Mexico. I have read a fair amount about the Mexican - American conflict. I may be mistaken but I think that it was a young congressman, Abe Lincoln, who asked where, exactly, on the US side of the then border, the American blood that was the causus belli was spilled. No clear answer was forthcoming.
The argument can fairly be made that we did indeed extort the Southwest and California from Mexico.
If we hadn't, all it would mean is that in 2007 the incredibly vibrant and productive states of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California would look like the rest of modern day dysfunctional Mexico and millions more Mexicans would be fleeing to a smaller, but undoubtedly just as successful USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)