What Would Reagan Do? Bruce on Immigration

Yes, it did. But so did the 86 bill. So did the fence bill last year. And these enforcement provisions were ignored, while the amnesty portions were put into place. So what has to accompany these things is an amendment that says all other aspects of immigration are on hold for 1 year, 18 months, whatever length of time you want to give. If benchmarks of enforcement are not met in the given length of time, then the regularization, and other provisions become null and the bill goes back to the drawing board.

As to Hispanic citizens, you know, I went to graduation last night at my high school, and talked to one of my students grandparents who was an illegal in the early 70's given amnesty in 1986. HE said that most Mexicans (his word since he was from Mexico) want a secure border and tamper proof IDs so they can go visit family easily and not have fear when they return. He also said the reason the border isn't secure is because of the Mexican government. He didn't elaborate, and it wasn't really the place to press him, but I thought his answer was interesting.

Sanity and Steve, you say those that want proof of enforcement are just making this issue the albatross that leads to our party downfall.

So are you saying then that we pass a bill for the sake of passage? If you pass a bill that has provisions you then don't enforce, you have accomplished the same thing as if the Democrats pass a bill that gives unhindered amnesty and continues the open border.

"On something like the fence: it may be necessary, but it also brings with it some unintended consequences because of the message it sends to hundreds of millions of people south of the border, most of whom don't want to emigrate to the U.S."

One message it sends is that we have laws in this country, and that we will enforce them. The message we are sending with current policy is that our laws are a joke, that even we don't take very seriously. We invite illegals by our minimal enforcement and lack of consequences. How does it send a bad message to block illegal crossing, especially if we accompany that with a streamlined format for legal workers and immigrants to come in?

Part of the problem that drives illegal immigration, a big part, is the corruption of the Mexican and many other Latin American governments. One question we need to ask ourselves is why does a nation of 109 million hard working wonderful people have a per capita income of 4,000 per year? Does our aid to Mexico without strings attached exasperate this problem? Does the Mexican economy relying on the immigrants sending money home add to the problem? I certainly think so. So what do we do, topple the Calderon government and engage in nation building? Obviously not, but we certainly need to change the nature of our relationships in Latin America.

This ought to be one of the first priorities of a Republican President early in 2009, to meet with and demand change from neighbors.

Dear Guy, thanks for your contribution. I don't go in much for the Reagan nostalgia. However, he did know how to win elections and gather public support. My main objection to Tancredo (whom I despise as a nativist) and to Hunter (whom I generally like a lot) is that they would do nothing to bring a united vision to the country. Thus, we would meander along in the current hate mode, which doesn't work real well and leads to endless gridlock, which will get pinned mostly on the Republicans. Reagan was operating mainly with Democratic opponents (although in a kinder time) and he got things done. What I said is either true or it's not true. There's abundant evidence that it is true, thus you have an obligation to support what I say -- and that's true whether you like it or not. A country where "everybody has his opinion" no matter if it has substance or not, is completely ungovernable. I will go to your site and express my views. Thanks for expressing yours.

Wil, from everything you've said about yourself and your own efforts to support your family: if you were a Mexican with no job or prospects and your children were ill and had no prospects of their own, what would you do?

If your answer is -- as it must be -- that you would cross the border, then I wish you would join me and Sanity, as you should. It's not an issue of holding onto an indefensible ideology. It's an issue of not upholding one standard for others that you would never observe yourself. That is the argument that put me on McCain's and Bush's side on this one.

The collective stomach does not exist in the U.S. to enforce the laws. Part of the reason for that is the presence of many millions of legal (and illegal) Hispanics in the states most affected. If you doubt that, stay around for a few years. The situation will get much worse, fence or no fence.

There are some laws that are bad, and they should be repealed and, as Martin Luther King pointed out, should be disobeyed, such as the ones he disobeyed and that you and I, in similar circumstances, would have disobeyed. The law should be sacred, but when it's the "Rosa Parks" law or the "O. J. Simpson law," it is a joke. You know that, and I know that.

Do not make "the law" a fetish. The ACLU, which has nothing else to hang its hat on, does that with "the law," although they usually misread it comically. Thus, the notion that "Congress shall make NO law" inhibiting the "free exercise of religion" supposedly says that kids can't pray at graduation or on the front steps of City Hall -- thereby interfering with their free exercise of religion. So, the ACLU loves the law -- but only as it exists in their own heads, not as written.

The law is a social consensus, not something passed on at Mt. Sinai. We once had a law in the U.S. saying that Black people counted as 3/5 of a person, although they had none of the rights of a person. That was an evil law.

Your argument for the fence is too similar to East Germany's for the Berlin Wall.

Obviously, we need some sort of political settlement with countries south of the border. If they aren't going to help us with security of our borders, it isn't going to happen.

Wil, and your solution is? Yes, it's to have rigorous enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. Notice where the round-ups of immigrants are taking place: Massachusetts and Wisconsin. They won't ever take place in California or even good old right-wing Texas. They would lead to violence.

I believe the laws should be enforced against the real criminals (two million?). There is not the stomach to deport 12 million people. That is the assumption from which we should have started.

As I said previously, this is all a moot point now. Things will go on as they have before. Not much will change, except perhaps for the worse.

Our choice was between an imperfect bill and no bill, and as a country, we chose no bill.

Politics is sometimes imperfect, and sometimes it's just downright awful. A man in the Pittsburgh area who long ago killed a child recently got 18 months in jail. Why? Because that was what the prosecutors could get. They couldn't get any more, so they took a plea to involuntary manslaughter even though they believed the guy committed murder.

It's not that politics is a dirty word. It's that people disagree strongly and that sometimes you get half a loaf and sometimes you just get one piece of bread.

We are not responsible for the horrible conditions south of the border, but neither are the people trying to escape. I would be one of them and so would you I suspect.

Steve wrote: "The Democrats are moving quickly to haul in the big (and growing) Hispanic vote for generations to come, and I fear you're playing right into their hands. Within a few years, the "base" will have gone on to other things, but the Hispanic memory on this issue is going to be a very long one. It will begin hurting us as early as the 2008 election.
When we start losing people like Linda Chavez, a true heroine of conservatism, it necessitates some serious re-thinking of what's going on. If we lose Linda, who exactly will we still have? Anybody?"

1.I just want to briefly expand upon the point Steve made. If the GOP establishes an image in the public mind (whether justified or not) as the anti-immigrant, isolationist party of white male xenophobes, not only will we drive Hispanics away for generations, but other groups will follow them.

In the 20th century we saw this phenomenon occur. For example, Italian immigrants could see that their Irish counterparts were welcomed by Democrats but shunned by many Republicans. Guess what lesson the Italian immigrants drew from that observation? Similarly, Jews saw that Italian immigrants were welcomed by Democrats but shunned by many Republicans. Guess what lesson the Jewish immigrants drew from that observation? And on it went.

If the GOP drives away Hispanics today (and the MSM will be only too happy to define the GOP in the most negative terms possible), Asians, Indians and others will learn from that example and do likewise. The issue, then, is far broader that "merely" losing the Hispanic vote.

2. Now that the immigration bill has been killed, one has to wonder whether the opponents of the bill--who are currently exchanging exuberant "high-fives"-- will soon rue the day they helped kill it.

We are now left with two possibilities. The first is that immigration will become the proverbial "third rail" of American politics and the current broken system will continue on year after year. All of the issues which have so riled immigration reform opponents will only get...worse.

The other possibility is that the Democrats take the White House in '08 and--together with Reid and Pelosi--pass into law a new immigration bill which is far worse in every respect than the one which just failed. In that case as in the other alternative, all of the issues which have so riled immigration reform opponents will only get...worse.

The ONLY thing that opponents of the bill have achieved is to virtually guaranty that all of the problems about which they puroport to care so deeply will become far, far worse. Frankly, it is hard to see just what they think they have accomplished and what it is that they are celebrating.

3. I have raised President Reagan's philosophy not because I desire to promote any kind of mythology about him or to deify him in any way. While I am a life-long Reagan fan (even backing him in the '76 primaries against President Ford) I harbor no illusions that he was perfect. In fact, some decisions of his administration still make me hopping mad!

I raised Reagan and his views on immigration--as so clearly set forth in the conclusion to his farewell address--because: 1. Reagan was THE most effective Republican at building successful and enduring coalitions in modern times; and 2. Reagan was by far the most conservative president in modern times. In this context, I find the attacks on McCain and others as "not true conservatives" to be specious--at best.

Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon

Those of you who are golf fans (I am) may be noticing the U. S. Open that will be held this coming week at Oakmont Country Club outside Pittsburgh. How many Jewish members does Oakmont have? How many Black members? How many Hispanic members. I doubt the combined number is more than three, and it may be zero. Okay, for many years (up until the last decade or so), Oakmont also discriminated against Italians! It does not allow women to have full memberships (or didn't as of a year or two ago). The Pittsburgh area has many, many of all the above. Now, I'm sure the good people of Oakmont don't like illegal aliens (except the ones who wash the dishes and clean the johns) much, but they oppose the illegals on "legal" grounds. Actually, I think they don't like them anymore than they like the people they didn't let in before. Exactly what people did Oakmont allow in? WASPs. By the way, this club gets lots of assistance from the government (police and fire protection, zoning preferences, good tax deals, and on and on). Members USED to be able to deduct costs from income tax (actually, many of them got the deductions through companies they owned or worked for). This kind of situation is common at many "private" clubs (most of whom now have a token Black or even two so they can hold tournaments without losing TV sponsors). How does all this relate to the immigration issue? Pretty directly. I think the number of Black golfers at Okamont this week will be more than ONE, perhaps as many as two (but I may be high on two number).

Guy, I share your admiration for Rudy, and I think he wants to apply the elements of Reagan's philosophy that served the country so well. He knows he's not Reagan, but he's a man of great courage. He might not make the world's best next door neighbor, but my next door neighbor (Robert) is wonderful, but he'd make a lousy President. (I may understimate Robert.)

All the best to you. Return again, as I will to your site.

I get so many people who disagree with me that I sometimes assume everybody does! They don't.

As I said at another time, when I start agreeing with Cardinal Mahoney of L.A., hell truly has frozen over! And I do agree with him on this issue.

steve

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

CRIME STATISTICS 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

BIRTH STATISTICS 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens.

97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.

66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers

Rather than bombard us with statistics (as Mark Twain famously observed, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"), why not try something refreshing, like actually making a point.

Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon

I am saying what has been said for 3 decades to C/PLrs...you take what you can get...because like it or not, in a democracy/republic, the only way a minority can call the shots is if the majority allows them to or if the minority silences the majority. The majority is NOT into illegal immigration Wil...if they were, Tancredo would be in the top tier and Queen Hil and Edwards would be demanding the deportation of illegals--and you KNOW this.

The fact is that the absolutist don't want just a fence and a way to track illegals...listen carefully what is REALLY being demanded by the group you align yourself with...EVERYTIME Senator Kyl and Medved said to a caller..."it's in there." the caller would end up admitting that he/she wanted the 12 million deported period.

The first time this happened to Kyl, he gasped and asked the caller if he understood what that would do to our nation's argricultural economy...and that the cost and expense (at a time when they are desparately fighting to fund our troops) of deportation would be astronomical.

The caller admitted to not caring. The hate and bitterness was obvious.

Now the groups have been calling Kyl with promises to work together...and Kyl has said he would try again...but don't hold your breath...the other GOP don't believe the "base" anymore than you guys believe them.

They won't bring this up again--and by the extreme reaction of the IIAs, no fair minded person can blame them. The good part is that the next time the Right says jump...the GOP will take their marbles and go home...they are done "listening" to the base who don't seem to care about anyone else in America.

Ex-Tex, I agree with Bruce on this. You've made a good argument why we need immigration reform -- even though you think you're making the opposite point. I don't like anti-Mexican, racist rants, whether they come as "statistics" or whatever.

I am a racist xenophobe, I have just unsuccessfully been hiding it and pretending I am reasonable. It is very clear that I am incable of making my points understood, that there is no third option, either you are soft and weak, or you are racist or colluding with racists. I have better things to do. I am done.

I agree with Sanity. She, Sandra, Sheila, Bruce, and other center-right Republicans (including those one) are disgusted with the base. The AP-Ipsos poll today says 52% of the American people want a "path to citizenship" for illegals. After a drumbeat of propaganda about amnesty, 52% is pretty good. I believe with Sanity that Kyl, McCain, Chamblis, Isaackson, Lott and other solidly conservative Republicans should wash their hands of the issue. The Democrats will handle it in 2008.

As I pointed out in "Gee, what would you do if you were Mexican and your kids were very hungry?" question, the issue of illegality is not an authentic one. Ex-Tex presented a bunch of statistics (supposedly from the FBI?) that situations are bad in the illegal community. Trust me, Ex-Tex, they will get worse. Much worse.

I think the best thing for people who supported immigration reform is to provide the most assistance we can to the Hispanic community. I believe the best thing we can do with the INS is to have them retreat back in their holes. U assume they have raids planned for other states with very few immigrants. I'd suggest Montana and S. Dakota.

If President Bush is able somehow to issue an executive order ceasing the erecting of the Berlin Wall, he should do so. Perhaps Congress might de-fund the fence, which I would support.

He should try to come up with the most humane approach he can in the treatment of any visitors to our country.

I realize that without any sort of national I.D. program, it will be impossible to find the criminals among illegal aliens. Perhaps Ex-Tex and Pasadena Phil might take over that enterprise.

Trent Lott said that if the Senate couldn't deal with immigration, perhaps they "might as well go home." I agree, and I hope the good people on this issue will look into their hearts and see if they really have a function in government.

I don't intend to say anything more about immigration reform.

steve

John McCain is a man who has suffered greatly as a result of his allegiance to America. I believe he mention the issue of immigration, if at all, only in passing. It is not to his political benefit to raise the issue anymore. He should seek, as Rudy has, to broaden his appeal to moderates and center-left people. Frankly, the same is true of Fred Thompson, who is setting himself up to win the nomination but in such as way that it won't be worth much. I believe Giuliani should also back away on the issue for his own political good. Tancredo and Hunter are left without their issue and may just fade away by the middle of summer.

After the election, it may be possible to revisit the issue but I wouldn't recommend that anybody in his right mind do so.

Politics is compromise. People for whom compromise is a dirty word should try golf.

steve

steve