Tancredo is rather extreme on immigration, but he has a point. The government is doing nothing about illegal immigration - and indeed is pandering to the hispanic vote by pushing what amounts to an amnesty.

Do our laws really mean anything?

Posted by: Mark at August 30, 2004 02:39 PM

I’ve got some experience on the border. I’ve lived in both San Diego and Tucson.

Is the border out of control? Yes, but for a variety of reasons that won’t be easily resolved.

Here are two problems:

This one of the few places in the world where a “first world” country borders a “third world” country. The disparity is stark as anyone who has ventured into mexico will tell you. This makes the US a magnet and allows the crooked Mexican government to ignore the plight of it’s people.

Another problem is bleeding heart liberals. For years in california anybody who mentioned illegal immigrants was immediately branded a racist. This helped to bring about the downfall of Wilson and lead to a series of stupid ideas cuminating in the driver’s license fiasco that ushered out Davis.

I can tell you how stupid the liberals are about this: there was a suit against the US government because the forest service does not provide drinking water in the desert along the paths the illegals take. That’s mightly stupid.

As to “amnesty” I’m trying to understand both sides of the debate.

The illegals that are here are not likely to simply head back to Mexico of their own volition. some of them do infact have actual jobs and lives, so amnesty, in one sense simply aknowledges an ugly reality.

On the other hand, these people are not only breaking our immigration laws, many of them are breaking more mundane laws, like oh your basic garden variety crime laws. Further, many wind up as wards of the state.

So politically, can we really expect the government to round up illegals and bus them back? Probably not, but we can expect the government to do a much better job of preventing new illegal immigration.

It’s a complex issue and I’m glad Tancredo is speaking out.

Posted by: skip at August 30, 2004 03:11 PM

If Bush wanted to, he could reduce illegal immigration. Any need for Bush or Kerry style “reform” is a manufactured need.

Just two data points:
1. In the first five months of this year and in the whole U.S., just one company was fined for immigration violations.

2. Recent minor immigration sweeps in SoCal were stopped after Mexico and other complained. Despite thousands of emails and phone calls from citizens in support of the sweeps, what Mexico wants from our immigration policy seems to carry more weight. According to the head of the Border Patrol union “These mobile patrol arrests were actually having an impact in Mexico. Word was getting around that you weren’t necessarily OK once you got past the border.”

If Bush simply enforced the laws - and if states didn’t try to give incentives to illegal aliens - thousands if not hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens would simply deport themselves.

Kerry’s amnesty is a blanket amnesty, Bush’s let’s-all-pretend-and-not-call-it-an-amnesty might be even worse.

First of all, Bush would let them work in the U.S. for three years, then they’d need to renew or go home. If he won’t enforce the laws now, and if Ted Kennedy gets his hands on it, what makes anyone think we’re going to be able to make them go home? Especially since they’ll have U.S. citizen children in those three years, and after that we aren’t going to find the political will to deport those who won’t leave. The Kerry plan is horrible, and so is Bush’s.

Also, Bush’s plan does not just cover serf labor from Mexico.

As reported here: But in a speech last week at the Cato Institute, an administration official indicated the program could extend to highly skilled positions as well. Margaret Spellings, assistant to the president for domestic policy, said details of the program have yet to be worked out. But she said the program will be “non-sector specific” and mentioned nurses and teachers as possible workers covered by the program.

Here’s the administration official’s exact quote: “We do envision that this would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly”

Kerry could score huge points if he talked about Bush’s abysmal border security record and his desire to put American jobs on eBay.

Posted by: Lonewacko at August 30, 2004 04:06 PM

I was hopeful that Arnold was going to be the first politician to touch the third rail of illegal mexicans and live, but noooooo.

It’s frustrating to say the least. I work in health care and let me tell you the border is a nightmare for hospitals. These people get struck by cars, run up huge bills and disappear into the ether, just an amazing problem and again I think it’s one that need to be addressed head on.

I tried to understand the pandering by politicians but it just doesn’t make sense. The second generation Mexicans that I worked with were just as angry about the illegals as I was. And who could blame them, their parents played by the rules!

Posted by: skip at August 30, 2004 05:12 PM

It’s a complex issue and I’m glad Tancredo is speaking out.

I think Bush knows this too, but it’s not the best time to speak out. Look at the loony left demonstrators, they are already marching and yelling about immigration, even though Bush hasn’t said a word about it. There are alot of potential swing votes over the issue. I have no doubt that bush will get tough on the border AFTER the election, but I think he’d rather have that issue fall into Kerry’s court first when it comes up, and it will.
This way Bush will have an oppertunity to stomp another kerry waffle.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 30, 2004 10:10 PM

loony left demonstrators, they are already marching and yelling about immigration,

Could you provide links to examples of this?

I have no doubt that bush will get tough on the border AFTER the election

What exactly do you base that on?

Bush has made it abundantly clear, at least to my mind, that what he would do during a second term would be even worse. Some of the thoughts and phrases he and his representatives use are almost identical to those used by the AILA (the immigration lawyer’s lobby).

Posted by: Lonewacko at August 30, 2004 10:37 PM

For an example of what I mean, consider this 02/05/05 article:

Growing frustration over President Bush’s immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend’s Republican retreat in Philadelphia.
House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity of their constituents’ displeasure at some of Mr. Bush’s key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful behind closed doors.
“It was intense, but I was not surprised at the tone of questioning during Rove’s session,” said Rep. Tom Feeney, Florida Republican. “But then this was supposed to be a no-holds-barred discussion, and our constituents are upset.”
…Many House critics of the Bush immigration plan said privately that the proposal was created to win Mr. Bush a larger share of the Hispanic vote in November and to mollify Mexican President Vicente Fox. Mr. Fox has supported relaxed U.S. immigration laws as a means to alleviate economic problems in Mexico.
Mr. Duffy said the president delivered a passionate defense of his immigration plan, telling the Republican caucus that his policy is not a political ploy.
“He said he didn’t do it for politics [but] because that’s what he believes is good for the country,” Mr. Duffy said, adding that Mr. Bush drove his point home by saying, “I’m from Texas and I know this issue.”

According to a recent poll, 86% of Texans consider illegal immigration a very serious or somewhat serious problem. I’m sure Bush understands this issue, he’s just part of the 4% of Texans who don’t see illegal immigration as a problem. For an inflammatory take, see this.

Posted by: Lonewacko at August 31, 2004 03:12 AM