It is really difficult to take the president seriously on immigration when he talks as he did Tuesday in El Paso.
First, Americans have serious concerns about border security. If he thinks making cracks about “alligators” and “moats” is going to address them, then he needs lessons on appropriate humor.
Obama’s assurances are cold comfort when on the other side of the border there are criminal cartels (fueled by billions of dollars) willing to kidnap, rape, and murder to stay in business. Furthermore, we know that border security is woefully inadequate as is. Providing additional incentives to immigrate illegally — which is the ultimate effect of the DREAM Act — is no way to improve matters.
Advertisement
The DREAM Act, which fosters dreams of amnesty, will encourage more unlawful entry, just as it did in 1986 — the last time we tried amnesty. The president also neglected to mention the cost of these legalization measures. Does he really think taxpayers are eager to shell out tens of billions of dollars to legalize 11 million illegal aliens?
This is not a problem the president can solve with tired ideas that have been rejected by the Congress and the American people again and again. Another speech, or even SEAL Team Six, won’t make a difference. What is needed is a real commitment to border security, workplace and immigration enforcement, and temporary-worker programs that get employers the employees they need, when they need them, to help grow the economy.
— James Jay Carafano is director of the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.
James R. Edwards Jr.
The president’s El Paso speech boils down to this: claiming the Obama administration has delivered on a secure border and challenging Congress to pass “comprehensive immigration reform.”
There was little said here that George W. Bush couldn’t have said (or did say at one time or another). Obama invoked E pluribus unum and talked about the 11 million illegal aliens who “live in the shadows” (like in front of the local 7-Eleven).
One twist: “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e., amnesty) as a job-creation solution. In focusing on gains in competitiveness were we to hand green cards to every foreign student, the president left unaddressed the fact that legalizing 11 million illegal aliens, most of whom lack education and skills, would impose an immediate fiscal drain on the U.S. welfare state. And their eligibility to work lawfully here would flood the labor market, making struggling Americans face an even tougher job market, because the former illegals would undercut them on wages.
Obama claimed he has secured the border. Not so. The Government Accountability Office says we have operational control of only 129 miles of the 2,000-mile southern border. Apprehensions are down because of Washington’s orders not to take illegal crossers into custody.
The president’s “solution” is the same amnesty package that was beat back in 2006 and 2007: mass amnesty, the same ineffective “penalties” as in previous amnesties, and more legal immigration with chain migration left intact.
What can be done in this political environment? If Obama led with a phased-in requirement that businesses use the E-Verify employment-eligibility system, this would prove the most viable, acceptable means of demagnetizing the jobs magnet and disincentivizing illegal immigration.
A critical step in getting public buy-in for dealing with the illegal-alien population down the road would be to eliminate the chain-migration visas — the very reason for prolonged separation of spouses and of immigrant parents and minor children.
Ah, good old civility. President Obama refers to “the very Republicans” who support border enforcement — “Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat.” He tells us with a straight face that the “fence is now basically complete.” What to make of the El Paso speech? Try political, partisan, divisive, and dishonest. The substance? He proposes a rehash of old “comprehensive reform” proposals: Illegal immigrants should pay taxes, pay a fine, learn English, and then “get in line for legalization.” But other non-citizens have been in line for decades. What happens to them? He says “businesses have to be held accountable” but never endorses the employment-enforcement program that works: E-Verify.
So, just to get the ball rolling, here was my immediate thought on the speech: insultingly partisan.
I wish the President would start acting like the President, and not like a street-level Democrat operative in permanent campaign mode.
By swearing the oath of office, he became president of *all* Americans, not just his base. To "freeze, personalize and polarize" the concerns of a good half of the American people who want their borders secured is shamefully unpresidential, and unworthy of a leader. Period.
And if that was not puerile enough, the petulant grade-school level "humor" with which he ridiculed Americans' genuine concerns made me really dislike him intensely. Next to me, my wife was uttering phrases at the television that I'm too polite to repeat.
Listen up, Mr. Obama (I won't call you "President" this time--not until you start acting like one *consistently*). You can't keep treating half of America like a personal enemy.
As for amnesty... yawn. So, let's go through this dance one more time. You urge your side to pass legislation. The House gets tangled up in an ugly fight, with the usual suspects accusing the other side of racism. At the eleventh hour, the phones start ringing, and, cowered by an electorate that is naggingly well informed, enough Sens or Reps capitulate to stall the behemoth. Clap, clap, we tried, so, Amigos, don't forget us at the polls.
you guys are dumb.
let the immagrants come here as long as they pay taxes and speak english. we are all human. there is no need to treat people like aliens.
The POTUS is no mathematician. You cannot say that the border is more secure because you are catching more miscreants. You would have to know how many tried to actually cross the border. If you catch 5,000 one month and 10,000 the next month, it isn't valid to say we twice as secure. Perhaps only 10,000 tried to cross the first month and 100,000 tried to cross the next month, so you went from 50% caught to 10% caught. The same is true for seizures. The amount seized tells you nothing about the amount for which border-crossing was attempted.
The POTUS is either a liar or astonishingly uninformed about the security of the border. I keep suggesting he take his family on vacation to one of those national parks in AZ that he has effectively ceded to the narco-terrorists, yet the news reports do not indicate such a vacation is planned. This leads me to believe the first premise, that he is a liar. I look forward to voting against him in 2012.
Megan, "immagration" (to use your spelling), is a finite good. If you don't know what that means, look it up, then read the rest of my post.
If 3 Billion people wanted to relocate to the US, should we let them all in? No? Why not? Who gets to decide who gets to come in and who stays out? And on what basis?
Welcome to the "immagration" debate.
If your interest in this topic is more than bumpersticker-deep, there is a lot of interesting material you should read--pro and con. But please, don't embarrass yourself with another post like your last one.
Rimfrel, Obama is neither strictly a liar, nor uninformed.
He is a demagogue, which is worse than either of these options alone.
He is a purveyor of half truths nicely packaged for those for whom critical thinking is as foreign as Bushman click language (see "megan" below for a perfect example of his target audience).
Most politicians are demagogues to some extent, and that's to be expected. But the way this guy plays one group against the other like expendable fighting dogs is beyond Machiavellian--it is truly revolting. He has no conscience--or at least, not the kind of conscience that is the mark of a great leader.
Immigration/Customs states they caught >450,000 illegally entering in 2010. They estimate catching 1 out of 4 attempting to enter.
3 x 450,000 = 1,350,000.
So 1.3 million entered in 2010 (a down economic year in the US). Illegal immigration at this level has been occurring for over 20 years.
20 x 1.3 million equals 26 million. Where does this commonly used 11 million number come from?
Fine let’s assume only 11 million ‘illegals’ are suddenly made citizens. Despite the propaganda put forth by Luis Gutierrez and other open border zealot’s, the reality is that most of these new citizens would be instantly eligible for our ever expanding social aid programs. (funny – in the old days immigrants needed to prove they were economically viable, sane, and had no criminal record to be allowed entry).
Think of that, millions of new voters instantly on the government dole. And it is Democrats who do excel at boarding voters onto the American Beny Boat. So there you have it, a potential permanent democratic majority permanently expanding social spending programs.
Of course that iceberg would sink the Beny Boat faster than the Titanic; unfortunately it’s us shmucks who would be left drowning...
The problem with the politicization of this issue is that it masks the fact that there are three separate and distinct problems in need of solution.
The first is border security. The moat and crocodile allegory is spot on. What we need, not literally, of course, but we should create as close to an impenetrable border as we can reasonably achieve. One week after the SEAL's killed Osama, does he forget that it isn't just migrant workers that walk over the line?
The second issue is legal immigration. We should be encouraging people to migrate here who wish to work, pay taxes and add to the overall prosperity of the country. Skills, education and employability should be key criteria for legal entrance.
The last problem is how to deal with those here illegally. Here, conservatives need to be creative. We 'plea bargain' with lesser criminals all the time. If we give the current illegals a window of opportunity to register, pay a fine (from future earnings perhaps) and start paying taxes (no EITC etc.), I'd let them stay but with one proviso - this is not a path to citizenship and voting rights, it would be a conditional residency permit that would be revoked for failure to pay taxes, conviction of any serious misdemeanor (or higher crime). This would be much easier than mass deportation, add taxpayers and remove them from the underground economy, and call the bluff of all Progressives who are only looking to add more dependent Democrat voters to the populace.
HIGHLY impressed with all of these remarks; this is the best thing I've read in NR, or anywhere, in some time.
This is a huge area -- there is no contemporary political topic that, as far as we know, will more directly or fundamentally impact what this country will be like, and what we as a people will be, going forward.
One area to highlight is that, as Heather and VDH note, Obama sees no difference between the PhD and the day laborer. Unfortunately (well, not really unfortunately; it is entirely natural and normal), whether we're admitting one versus the other creates huge differences for our economy and society -- for the very way our living standards and lives in general will be in the future.
Often, the pro-illegal-immigration crowd, both on the left and right, makes its case with misleading mantras like, "Today's illegal immigrants are no different than the Germans and Irish of the 19th century." Now, excepting the facts that nearly 40% of Hispanic ESL students are 3rd (or greater) generation Americans according to Pew and that Mexican-American income and education levels are well below the US median across generations, even if illegal migrants from Central America were to buck what we've seen and suddenly grow affluent and highly educated in 10 years' time, they are not that today. Meanwhile, there are millions of educated, skilled people across the world waiting to get in today. Why suffer the opportunity cost of allowing in (or amnestying those currently in the country, which ends up with the same result as allowing them in, only made more permanent) the uneducated and economically immobile instead of the educated and highly mobile now, even if their differences were to magically disappear in a year's time? Why suffer that year of unnecessary strain on the economy and welfare state?
Obama and other pro-illegal-immigration activists (i.e., the mainstream media and most "moderate" politicians) do not understand that while immigration can be a force for much good (Sergey Brin), it can also be a negative thing (inland California towns with 20% unemployment and per capita income levels lower than those of Mexico).
Of course, there needs to be some reason why any polity should give privileges to people who have broken the law but not to those who abide by it. Are there reasons why anyone here illegally should be afforded a privilege (US citizenship) that millions of others around the world who actually play by our rules would love, but are not granted? Do they have some moral virtue that people waiting patiently for years in India, China or Congo don't have, and thus entitles them to an unequal right to immigrate and even gain citizenship (usually a step very much above and beyond simply legally getting into the country to work or study, but apparently not for the Obamnesty)? Are the recipients of an amnesty likely to be huge economic contributors? Do we think this amnesty will really be the "last time"?
None of those questions is being asked, much less answered. To do so would, somehow, apparently be "racist." But it is the height of folly to thrust forth major social policies that have huge fiscal and, one might say, civilizational consequences without allowing any debate, and with no clear benefit for a single US citizen.
Unless some compelling argument can be made as to how this benefits US citizens, the "path to citizenship"/amnesty should only be seen as a LAST RESORT. We need enforcement of the laws first and foremost. The fact that this doesn't even register in most politicians' talk on this issue (but is the No. 1 thing we plebeians want) is appalling. Let's actually start to enforce the law, and see where that leads us. We all know it will amount to attrition, which should be viewed as an unalloyed good, no? Once we've enforced the law for some time, it can only be expected that some rump of illegals will be left. They can return home and apply to return legally, just as any other would-be immigrant would, with the knowledge that, if they are a valuable employee, their employer will have some reason to sponsor them and bear responsibility, rather than foist it on the battered taxpayer. That is the only path to citizenship that politicians should talk about.
Johnny Reb; I agree with most of what you said. Megan's post indicates she has not put any thought whatsoever into this.
I get what you're saying about American Indians, but it's not really like they could have stopped European colonization. They weren't strong enough or unified enough.
We could stop most stop most illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration to more sensible levels if we simply had the will to do so. It is in our power.
The most important reason to secure the borders is to stem the tide of illegals meaning to do us harm. (terrorists. There, I said it). It's no secret that Mexican gangs are streaming over the porous border to do their dirty work. The bigger danger is the terrorist element bent on our destruction. If we keep our heads where the Sun don't shine, we will come to regret it.
CT Federalist, sorry, but I strongly disagree with your last proposition--plea bargaining with those who came here illegally.
I would make it absolutely impossible for the illegals here to find work, and give them a window of time to get out of the country with impunity or be deported and remain on file as an undesirable.
Then, if they want, they can come back through the main door. We may not get 100% of them to leave, but I am convinced that we must start making an example out of those who flout our Citizenship process.
Either that, or Citizenship means squat and the USA is just a ZIP Code open for a free-for-all... That is, until the days of the fat cows are over out of self-impoverishment.
Look. I have been through the process. I am a legal immigrant--one who stood in line for 10+ years, paid untold thousands of dollars in application fees, attorneys' costs (my file was lost not once but twice by INS), opportunity costs for not being allowed to work while I waited, etc.
And yet, when the day finally came to become a Citizen, I knew that was a great honor, and I forgot the hardships.
Why?
Simple. Because I knew THE COUNTRY HAD CHOSEN ME AS MUCH AS I HAD CHOSEN THE COUNTRY. I didn't gang-rape the law--I followed it and was eventually rewarded for doing that.
This is the reason why I am a no-amnesty absolutist. I find it morally disgusting that X% of immigrants would essentially self-select based on a) the opportunity of walking across a border (which someone on the other side of the world does not have) and b) the willingness to break our laws.
No, thanks.
I also want my country to look less like a third-world barrio and more like the melting pot it could be if we were a bit more selective on who we let in. Nothing to do with race--only with the myriad of factors that differentiate (say) Canada or Australia from Southern Arizona or an increasing chunk of California.
At least let's have that discussion and let's work towards a policy that we control. "Policy" and "control" being the operative words.
And please, no more sentimentalism, knee-jerk epithets flying, demagoguery and plain old irrationality on this topic. Citizenship is the greatest good (so far) that the USA possesses. Let's safeguard it, or this country--mark my words--will go to pot within our lifetimes.
They come because we hire them. No demand, no supply. All the vitriol is directed at the illegal border crossers while we hypocritically ignore our own part in the problem. We like cheap labor but don't want the extra expenses the migrants incur.
No, Boojum, it's not "vitriol" - it's more than justified frustration. Illegal border-crossers are part of the problem. Those who hire them are part of the problem. Government officials who apologize for either of the above are part of the problem.
As such, all are villains to some extent.
I happen to think that Government officials share the largest portion of the blame. They are the ones setting policy and looking the other way instead of solving problems. And they are the ones putting short-term expediency and special interest above the greater good of the American people.
So, don't call it "vitriol." Call it what it is: the frustration of an educated public towards a class that bears more than its share of responsibility for the problem we face.
Sorry to go pedantic on you, but prejudicial language on this topic is one of the major hurdles preventing us from even discussing rational solutions.
