← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 19686 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2005-08-17
2005-08-17 01:13 | User Profile
The New York Times August 14, 2005 Two Steps Toward a Sensible Immigration Policy By DAVID BROOKS
San Antonio
What do you say to the working-class guy from the south side of San Antonio? He feels his wages are stagnating because he has to compete against illegal immigrants. He watches thousands of people streaming across the border, bankrupting his schools and health care system, while he plays by the rules.
He's no racist. Many of his favorite neighbors are kind, neat and hard-working Latinos. But his neighborhood now has homes with five cars rotting in the front yard and 12 single men living in one house. Now there are loud parties until 2 a.m. and gang graffiti on the walls. He read in the local paper last week that Anglos are now a minority in Texas and wonders if anybody is in charge of this social experiment.
What do you tell him about the immigration system?
Here's what you tell him: You're right. The system is out of control. But we can't just act like lunkheads and think we can solve this problem with brute force. Tough enforcement laws make us feel good but they don't do the job. [B]Since 1986, we've tripled the number of Border Patrol agents and increased the enforcement budget 10 times over, but we haven't made a dent in the number of illegals who make it here.[/B] We've got agents chasing busboys while who knows what kind of terrorists are trying to sneak into this country.
The problem is that we make it nearly impossible for the immigrants to come here legally. We issue about 5,000 visas for unskilled year-round labor annually, but the economy requires hundreds of thousands of new workers to clean hotel rooms and process food. We need these workers but we force them underground with our self-delusional immigration policies. As [B]Tamar Jacoby[/B] of the Manhattan Institute says, "It's very hard to enforce unrealistic rules."
[B]So it doesn't matter how many beer-swilling good old boys appoint themselves citizen border guards,[/B] we're not going to get this situation under control until we understand this paradox: The more we simply crack down, the more disorder we get. The only way to re-establish order is to open up legal, controllable channels through which labor can flow in an aboveground, orderly way. We can't build a wall to stop this flood; we need sluice gates to regulate the flow.
Smart people understand this, and there has been an important change in the immigration debate. Among practical people, it's no longer pro-immigrant folks against anti-immigrant folks. It's no longer law-and-order hawks versus amnesty doves. Practical people understand the only way to establish law and order is to create a temporary-worker program and step up enforcement to make sure people use it.
In the Senate there are two bills, which if combined would get us a long way toward a solution. The McCain-Kennedy bill has an effective temporary worker program. The Kyl-Cornyn bill has tough border security provisions. As Jacoby notes, the sponsors of both may come to realize the two bills are not rivals. They complement each other.
This reform won't satisfy people who want immigrants to disappear. But most Americans just want to know the system is under control, and this will do it.
That still leaves the transitional problem of what to do with the 11 million illegals who are already here. We can't build an aboveground immigration system if we've still got millions living in a criminal swamp below.
[U]We're not going to deport 11 million people, many of whom own homes and businesses.[/U] But normalizing their status is a question of balance. If we treat them too punitively, we'll just push them further underground. On the other hand, they broke the law, and they have to pay. McCain-Kennedy would lure them into the sunlight with the prospect of normalization, but would make them pay all back taxes and a $2,000 fine to become regularized, and they'd have to get in the back of the line. That's a start, but the penalties will probably have to be a bit tougher to be politically palatable.
So here's the bottom line for the guy in San Antonio: Everybody's expecting a big blowup on this issue, but we've got a great chance of enacting serious immigration reform. It won't solve all problems. There will still be wage pressures and late-night parties. But right now immigration chaos is spreading a subculture of criminality across America. What we can do is re-establish law and order, so immigrants can bring their energy to this country without destroying the social fabric while they're here.
E-mail: [email]dabrooks@nytimes.com[/email]
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks[/url] ==================== This column by Brooks is just one more reason for me to despise our arrogant and condescending so-called "elites", whether they are "Liberal and Democrat" or "Conservative and Republican". They don't give a damn what the rest of us want, they want their cheap labor period. We can all go and eat cake as far as they are concerned. Eff em.
2005-08-17 02:08 | User Profile
Tough enforcement laws make us feel good but they don't do the job. Since 1986, we've tripled the number of Border Patrol agents and increased the enforcement budget 10 times over, but we haven't made a dent in the number of illegals who make it here. This argument fails to take into account the question: What else has changed since 1986? Are there more incentives for illegals to try to sneak into the US now? Are more trying to come across the border? If the number of BP agents has tripled since 1986 but the number of invaders has increased by, say, a factor of five in that same time period, then it would be no surprise that more Mexicans would sneak by the BP.
Now, I don't know if there are more illegals trying to sneak in now than there used to be. But if that's the case, then Jew Brooks' argument dies. He doesn't address this.
Another possibility is that the invaders are simply finding newer and better ways of evading the Border Patrol. And I seem to remember someone providing evidence on an older thread that the Mexican Army is actually helping the invaders sneak by.
Yet another possibility is that the BP is being told to stand down by politicians who disagree with its purpose. The BP might be receiving funding and manpower from Congress, but they're still at the mercy of the president and his administration.
Oh yeah: When Jew Brooks says the BP budget has increased by a factor of ten since 1986, is he accounting for inflation? I wonder. Jews often use half-truths to make their case.
So it doesn't matter how many beer-swilling good old boys appoint themselves citizen border guards... This is sort of a snotty thing to say. You don't need a badge or "knighthood" to be concerned about your country and want to defend it. And most of the Minutemen I've seen on the TV were older folks, probably retired. They didn't look like yahoos to me.
...we're not going to get this situation under control until we understand this paradox: The more we simply crack down, the more disorder we get. Addressed above. This doesn't necessarily follow at all.
Smart people understand this... No, smart people see through deceptive neocon arguments.
2005-08-17 02:09 | User Profile
Our favoite neo-con. Wonder what he's up to.
[QUOTE]Smart people understand this, and there has been an important change in the immigration debate. Among practical people, it's no longer pro-immigrant folks against anti-immigrant folks. It's no longer law-and-order hawks versus amnesty doves. Practical people understand the only way to establish law and order is to create a temporary-worker program and step up enforcement to make sure people use it.
[B]In the Senate there are two bills, which if combined would get us a long way toward a solution.[/B] The McCain-Kennedy bill has an effective temporary worker program. The Kyl-Cornyn bill has tough border security provisions. As Jacoby notes, the sponsors of both may come to realize the two bills are not rivals. They complement each other.
This reform won't satisfy people who want immigrants to disappear. But most Americans just want to know the system is under control, and this will do it.[/QUOTE]Ah, that tells me. Big bad wolf is trying to dress up like grandmother. Just represents a "sensible, law and order solution" which of course "won't satisfy the extremists on both sides". Yeah right. "Grandma, what big eyes you have."
His tone is really awfully creepy. Of course, I don't read him very often.
2005-08-17 03:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE][B]So it doesn't matter how many beer-swilling good old boys appoint themselves citizen border guards[/B], we're not going to get this situation under control until we understand this paradox: The more we simply crack down, the more disorder we get. The only way to re-establish order is to open up legal, controllable channels through which labor can flow in an aboveground, orderly way. We can't build a wall to stop this flood; we need sluice gates to regulate the flow. [/QUOTE]
Massive load of crap from an idiot, and his characterization of the Minutemen as "Beer Swilling good old boys" belies his open borders bent and predudice against any Americans First policy.
His argument is crap, the invasion can be stopped and very simply. Enforce the laws against hiring illegals and mandate severe fines and long jail terms for the criminal employers who offer the invading hordes jobs.
Take away the free public benefits and the jobs and they not only will they quit coming, the ones that are already here MUST apply through legal channels or go home.
This Chamberlin wannabe says toss in the towel and give up, Mexamerica is here to stay. I say screw him and all the PC-give up the country cause its the path of least resistance types.
:censored:
2005-08-17 06:26 | User Profile
Sick marxist Neocon trash.
2005-08-17 14:37 | User Profile
Tough enforcement laws make us feel good but they don't do the job. Since 1986, we've tripled the number of Border Patrol agents and increased the enforcement budget 10 times over, but we haven't made a dent in the number of illegals who make it here. We've got agents chasing busboys while who knows what kind of terrorists are trying to sneak into this country.
Ya, and you probably think the 1965 immigration act was a good thing too, dont you ?!
Regardless of how many BP agents are there, the level of deterents has not increased. If anything it has decreased. Many who are caught are turned loose. What if as others here( ponce? ) have suggested that any/all illegals caught are detained and given some work to do, like picking up trash that their compadres leave behind and mending fences that the drug runners tear down. Combine this with the requirement that employers that use illegal labor face stiff fines and/or imprisonment, maybe the brown tide might subside.
2005-08-17 14:47 | User Profile
This is the absolute favorite tack of the Open Borders crowd. They talk about massive illegal immigration from Mexico as if it were a force of nature, an act of God that simply cannot be stopped, when in truth it is no such thing. It is the logical result of policies that were put in place by particular individuals to bring about this specific result.
2005-08-17 14:51 | User Profile
"Practical people understand the only way to establish law and order is to create a temporary-worker program and step up enforcement to make sure people use it."
Gnostic sick Marxist neocon trash.
What slime.
2005-08-17 14:54 | User Profile
Brooks is showing what a liar he is. I know that he has heard of "Operation Wetback". Time for "Operation Wetback Two".
2005-08-17 15:20 | User Profile
Saw her(?) on CSPAN once, and once was too much.
As Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute says, "It's very hard to enforce unrealistic rules."
[img]http://www.mastermediaspeakers.com/tamarjacoby/tamarjacoby.jpg[/img]
I guess the picture's worth a thousand words when it come to figuring out where this "unstoppable force of nature" line comes from.
By the way, I wonder if she feels the same about the wall Israel is busy building with US taxpayer dollars?
Something tells me no...
2005-08-17 15:22 | User Profile
I know this is cruel, but she looks like a camel with that nose. She looks even worse on tv.
2005-08-18 04:52 | User Profile
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Of course, if businesses employing illegals were targeted for retaliation and suitably warned of potential consequences beforehand, no arrests would be needed. Seeing one's business accidentally burn to the ground late one night would get the message across loud and clear.[/size][/font]
2005-08-18 16:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Of course, if businesses employing illegals were targeted ...[/QUOTE] Indeed. I particularly like the Minuteman programs which are starting up in many interior states. Their focus; locate, document, turn in to the Feds any business who is hiring illegals. They also plan public protests to insure the discriminating public knows about and boycotts any business who employs illegals.
Effective. Hit em in the wallet.