The Immigration Chip

 

Further to my recent post 'A Chance For A Better Life', the subject of immigration is still the hot button issue, threatening future presidency prospects for some, and getting both the left and the right in a state of a political and legislative gridlock. The ever brilliant Mark Steyn has the 'answer':

Here's my immigration "compromise": We need to regularize the situation of the 298 million non-undocumented residents of the United States. Right now, we get a lousy deal compared with the 15 million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented American community. I think the 298 million of us in the over-documented segment of the population should get the chance to be undocumented. You know when President Bush talks about all those undocumented people "living in the shadows"? Doesn't that sound kinda nice? Living in the shadows, no government agencies harassing you for taxes and numbers and paperwork.[...]

Given that the new immigration "compromise" bill retrospectively approves all the millions of people who've been through the super-efficient Luis Martinez-Flores immigration system but without doing anything to improve the sclerotic U.S. government immigration system, maybe it would be better just to subcontract the entire operation to Senor Martinez-Flores and his colleagues. It would certainly be cheaper. The extensive Undocumented American support network manages to run it out of the back of the car from a parking lot without a lot of air-conditioned offices full of lifetime employees on government pensions, and given that the net result is exactly the same people who'd be living here anyway, why not go with the lowball bid? Legal immigrants to the United States can only envy the swift efficient service Messrs. Hani Hanjour and Khalid Almihdhar received outside that 7-Eleven.[...]

With all due respect to the President, we surely cannot even begin talking about guest worker programs, until we secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. Whatever happened to The Minuteman Project, which was sabotaged by the MSM and snubbed with great disdain by the ACLU and Co. dubbed as a vigilante project.

And what exactly seems to be the problem with doing that, may I ask? I mean we do not even have a properly secured fence, for Goodness sake. Does the President's ranch in Texas not have a fence? Are we asking for the Berlin wall to be built again? To secure the border now, the newly proposed bill "calls for a virtual fence — as opposed to the literal barrier contained in House legislation — consisting of surveillance cameras, sensors and other monitoring equipment along the long, porous border with Mexico."  Well it is after all important now to get some fat cats involved with their 'Selling Ice To Eskimos' quotes on "virtual" security systems, so that we can have some more corruption as to who secures the contract. The main provisions of the proposed bill:

• Illegal immigrants who have been in the country for at least five years could receive legal status after meeting several conditions, including payment of a $2,000 fine and any back taxes, clearing a background check and learning English. After six more years, they could apply for citizenship without having to leave the United States.

• Illegal immigrants in the country for between two and five years could obtain a temporary work visa after reporting to a border point of entry. Aides referred to this as "touch base and return," since people covered would know in advance they would be readmitted to the United States.

• Officials said it could take as long as 13 to 14 years for some illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. It part, that stems from an annual limit of 450,000 on green cards, which confer legal permanent residency and are a precursor to citizenship status.

• Illegal immigrants in the United States for less than two years would be required to leave the country and apply for re-entry alongside anyone else seeking to emigrate.

Now let's see how the Mexicans deal with their own. (H/T Jack Lewis)

I simply do not understand why this Administration, seemingly concerned with national security, cannot secure it's most vulnerable border, first with a fence then with thousands more officials guarding it.  Then despite even its own representatives kicking and screaming all the way to the Senate, it cannot simply sort out the issue of the existing illegals, drastically cut the ability for aliens to resist deportation, make draconian new provisions to punish employers who hire illegals, and in general streamline the entire immigration system. Instead of which we get the "you can all stay" bill, with the "virtual" border being "virtually" manned by a few fast asleep Mexicans chomping on Burritos.

All developed countries have immigration issues, but few conduct the entire debate as disingenuously as America does: The president himself has contributed a whole barrelful of weaselly platitudes, beginning with his line that "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." True. They don't stop at the 49th parallel either. Or the Atlantic shore. Or the Pacific. So where do family values stop? At the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. If you're an American and you marry a Canadian or Belgian or Fijian, the U.S. government can take years to process what's supposed to be a non-discretionary immigration application, in the course of which your spouse will be dependent on various transitional-status forms like "advance parole" that leave her vulnerable to the whims of the many eccentric interpreters of U.S. immigration law at the nation's airports and land borders.

Here's another place where family values stops: The rubble of the World Trade Center. Deena Gilbey is a British subject whose late husband worked on the 84th floor: On the morning of Sept. 11, instead of fleeing, he returned to the building to help evacuate his co-workers. A few days later, Mrs. Gilbey receives a letter from the INS noting that as she's now widowed her immigration status has changed and she's obliged to leave the country along with her two children (both U.S. citizens). Think about that: Having legally admitted to the country the terrorists who killed her husband, the U.S. government's first act on having facilitated his murder is to add insult to grievous injury by serving his widow with a deportation order. Why should illegal Mexicans be the unique beneficiaries of a sentimental blather about "family values" to which U.S. immigration is otherwise notoriously antipathetic?[...]

Meanwhile, decent hard working businessmen are having less rights than the illegals, and musicians given odious hurdle jumping exercises worthy of the Olympics:

[...] U.S. immigration is cracking down on classical violinists. Don't ask me why. Presumably, Brahms' violin concerto falls into the ever dwindling category of jobs Americans will do. At any rate, the Halle Orchestra of Manchester, one of England's great orchestras, has just canceled its 2007 concerts at Lincoln Center. Why? Because all 80 musicians plus the 20 support staff are required -- under new "homeland security" regulations -- to be interviewed personally at the U.S. Embassy in London before each visa can be issued. They can't go en masse on the tour bus: They have to make individual appointments stretched out over several weeks. And they can't go to the local U.S. consulate in Manchester because -- and this detail is worth savoring five years after 9/11 -- the consulate's computers cannot handle the biometric data. The orchestra worked out that in train fares and accommodation it would cost about $80,000 to get the visas and decided it would rather cancel the tour. The good news is that Lincoln Center subscribers don't have to worry about the tuba player having plastic explosives packed down there. The bad news is, if a rogue tuba player ever breaks through the system, Homeland Security won't be able to e-mail his data back to the U.S. consulate in Manchester for a background check.

We're now expected to believe that this system will be able to stop hassling 68-year-old cello players long enough to process an extra 10 million-plus immigration applications, and that furthermore an agency that keeps no reliable records of legal entry into the United States will somehow be able to determine on the basis of utility bills whether this or that undocumented alien falls into amnesty-eligibility category.

Sure, believe that if you want to. It'll be good practice for swallowing the amnesty for the next 40 million circa 2025.

The Immigrant Rights Rally planned for this afternoon in Washington by the "Organizers of the National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice -- or La Marcha , as some volunteers are calling it -- said it could draw as many as 180,000 people to the Mall and hundreds of thousands more in nearly 100 cities nationwide."

Well looking at the photos from yesterday's rally in Dallas, at Michelle Malkin's, the toning down the radicalism message didn't quite get to some of the protesters. The Democrats have found fertile ground for recruiting. Minnesota rally great photos and story from Kevin @ EckerNet, and John Hawkins take on it here. The mob rules.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more on the Muslims for open borders in Detroit, and provides some valuable information:

*Foreign-born militant Islamic terrorists have used almost every conceivable means of entering the country. They have come as students, tourists, and business visitors. They have also been Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) and naturalized U.S. citizens. They have snuck across the border illegally, arrived as stowaways on ships, used false passports, and have been granted amnesty. Terrorists have even used America’s humanitarian tradition of welcoming those seeking asylum.
      
*At the time they committed their crimes, 16, or one-third, of the 48 terrorists in the study were on temporary visas (primarily tourist visas), another 17 were Lawful Permanent Residents or naturalized U.S. citizens, 12, or one-fourth, were illegal aliens, and three of the 48 had applications for asylum pending.
      
*Although the 9/11 hijackers entered on temporary visas, LPRs as well as naturalized U.S. citizens have played key roles in terrorism on U.S. soil. For example, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, ringleader of the plot to bomb New York City landmarks in 1993, is an LPR, and Ali Mohammed, who wrote al Qaeda’s terrorist handbook on how to operate in the West, is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

*Violations of immigration laws are very common among terrorists. Not only were 12 of the 48 terrorists illegal aliens when they committed their crimes, at least five others had lived in the country illegally at some point prior to taking part in terrorism. At least five others had committed significant violations of immigration laws prior to their taking part. For those that were illegal aliens, most entered legally on temporary visas and then overstayed. However, some snuck across the northern border, such as Abdel Hakim Tizegha, who was involved in the Millennium plot.

* The vast majority of terrorists in the study (41 of 48) were approved for visas by an American consulate overseas prior to entering the country. Of the seven who did not have visas, three snuck into the country and four arrived at a port of entry without a visa.
      
* At least two terrorists, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and Ali Mohammed, should have been denied visas because they were on the watch list of suspected terrorists.

APRIL 11TH UPDATE II: Michelle was live blogging, and has pictures from the rally in DC:

I had to leave before the English-language bloviations began. The Political Pit Bull has C-SPAN segments of illegal alien voter recruitment leader Teddy Kennedy...

and so was the talented Mary Katherine Ham @ Hugh Hewitt, ahem, live blogging not voter recruiting. Great pictures MK!

Comments

[Kristine]

There is a great article at www.saneworks.us.

[tankerboy]

Alexandra,

Believe it or not, I have no agenda in this thing other than to point out that the notion of a fence/wall, real or virtual, is unworkable. I can't even open Michelle Malkin's blog because my server won't do it for some reason. As far as things being "obvious" or "having had to search hard" I am not sure where you are going with this. You did write it - I didn't agree with it. I did not stoop to ad homien attacks by implying that you were "lazy", or prone to "misdirection" as you have done in regard to my position. I simply do not agree with the notion of a fence. I do think there is an illegal immigration problem in our country but we aren't going to solve it at the border. Let us focus on the issue at hand and not what you perceive as my personal attacks. I just don't agree with you.

[Alexandra]

Tanker,

Your comment

How many of the 9/11 hijackers snuck across the Southern Border? None you say? Don't try and sell the border fence as a "security issue".

plainly referred to Michelle Malkin's extensive quote on the subject of terrorists sneaking across the border. The "selling" dig according to your answer now, was clearly directed at me.

It is obvious that you did not originally refer to my one sarcastic sentence you just discovered having re-read the whole article, which is actually a dig at the Administration, but Michelle's long quote on "national security" vis-a-vis terrorists.

As for being touchy perhaps I just don't buy what YOU are selling as an afterthought, having had to search hard for the one sentence I wrote, which has the words "national security" even in it. And if you are indeed having a go at Michelle, why not just say so, instead of trying to find something to justify your mis-direction.

[tankerboy]

"I simply do not understand why this Administration, seemingly concerned with national security, cannot secure it's most vulnerable border, first with a fence then with thousands more officials guarding it."

Re-reading your entry this is what I found. Not clear to me if you wrote it or not but you did post it. That is my "problem" A bit touchy, aren't you?

[slowtrain]

Patrick...

I agree with both points; it is morally wrong for people who deliberately don’t pay taxes to deliberately take advantage of those who do. I have also made clear in my previous post that America cannot take in everyone that wishes to come to America, hence the need for deliberate, well-conceived and realistic solution, rather one borne out of panic or blind emotion. And I gave a few examples of countries where immigrants no longer have a compelling need to come to America. Remember, social crisis, political discontent and economic hardship are the main reason why people come to America. Yes, America cannot on her own change these situations all over the world, but America can provide the catalyst, so to speak, to bring them about, Japan, Taiwan, China and now India are models to follow.

The immigration situation is a real problem to America and it will not go away by unending cyclical stopgap measures and as long as people have a compelling need to come to America.

[Patrick]

Slow train...

I think you are indirectly agreeing with Alexandra...

Immigrants are great and if you read the earlier posts are what keep the fresh ideas and progress moving.

The loss of the tax base, yet demand for social services by those who don't pay taxes is just plain wrong. It is actually worse that the moving of jobs to where costs are lower. It makes people less equal. Equal access to services and protections, yet only some pay for them. How many immigrant visas are enough each year? We already give out +800K. Should we give out 12 million a year? America can definately absorb more than 800K immigrants per year, but what is the upper limit? Pay taxes, follow the law and you can actually fulfill the requirements of being a citizen. It is not rocket science.

[DANEgerus]

The (D)emocrats want...

Illegal aliens to provide the votes American's won't.

[slowtrain]

The 300+ million Americans living here don't want amnesty or more immigration from anywhere and can't for the life of them figure out what part of the word "illegal" eludes Washington.

RD, I did not make any case for amnesty or illegal immigration. All I did was point at facts everyone should bear in mind, whatever action is taken.

Do you have any idea how many American natives live in constant fear of losing their livlihoods to "people who do the work most Americans don't want"?

All you have to do is take a brief look at America’s history. Since 1790, the issue has been the same, citizens, who are by the way immigrants or children of immigrants complain about competition and threat from foreign workers or new immigrants, congress panics and goes into a tail spin, as it did in enacting the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Guess what, the Chinese don’t even have to come to America to still pose a “threat” to American workers; they just stay home in China (and now India and who knows where else) and still be a threat to American workers, because American corporations are taking the jobs directly to their backyards and America losses on both ends — no taxation of worker income, loss of taxes from corporate earnings and ancillary American businesses loss business and America losses more taxes that could come them.

For over 200 years the cycle of knee jerk reaction from Congress every time American workers cry wolf or cry in pain has gone on. All I am saying is that whatever action is taken need to purposeful, objective, constructive and with history in mind, in absence of which is a situation where “illegal immigrants” are directly or indirectly influencing legislation in America. In any situation, if you do not act and act correctly, someone else will act for you, one way or another.

In this age of globalization and its discontent, America cannot afford to be reactionary in its response to issues as important as this.

[Alexandra]

Tankerboy,

How many of the 9/11 hijackers snuck across the Southern Border? None you say? Don't try and sell the border fence as a "security issue".

It never pays to simply read the last few words of a post especially as it's a link to someone else's blog, and not read the entire post before you comment. Are you talking to Michelle Malkin and just simply too lazy to read what I have written or what is your problem?

[tankerboy]

How many of the 9/11 hijackers snuck across the Southern Border? None you say? Don't try and sell the border fence as a "security issue". It is easy enough to get into the US with a visa and merely overstay it.

We are never going to stop enough illegals at the border without a huge investment. We have to get a green card system in place, let it work for a couple years and then crack down on employers.

[Patrick]

Liquid,

Please don't read into my post as an American Indian view. I am only 1/8 Cherokee, with the majority Irish, English, and Scot (1st European hit the gound in the mid-1600s). I have been to reservations and PowWows, and studied some of the Cherokee history and legends, but I only think of myself as an American (mongrel that I am). I was referring to the waves of immigration (Native Americans across the Bering Land Bridge) that no one has claim to being "Native".

AVI, I agree wholeheartedly. We see the onset of paralysis through analysis. We will make no decision until we please everyone. We can always shorten that to just we will make no decision...

Lets roll up the sleeves and get to work. I have to tell you AVI, when you say we need to bite off a piece and chew it, I can't get this picture of my grandfather out of my mind, biting off a piece of plug tobacco and chewing it with that bitter face conveying, "I don't like what I am doing, but I am going to do it..." Thanks for the memory...

[liquid]

"Bite off a piece and chew it"

I love that AVI

We need to start chewing away at it thats for sure!
------------

Patrick I appreciate you pointing out the American Indian view...it's a valid point on the "all"

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Yes, the word "illegal" keeps coming back as important to lots of folks, doesn't it? All those discussions of practical/impractical, fair/unfair, expensive/inexpensive, good for us/bad for us are only vaguely interesting to me until that legal/illegal thing is mentioned. It may be a quixotic devotion to principle on my part, but I want to know where someone stands on that before I listen further.

So the wall will only solve one-third of the problem. That's fine. Do that. Let's take a worst-case scenario: we build an expensive wall, and it only solves 20% of our problem. That is JUST FINE with me. That's a start.

There is currently a guest worker program that serves 60,000 Mexicans a year. The employer has to pay to have them vetted by the State Dept, transported to and from, and offer the jobs to every American in the area first. So let's triple the size of that -- it's already in place. There's another 20% of the problem solved.

Yes, yes, it's a complex problem, there are dozens of factors, blah, blah, blah. If we could solve those two 20% of the problem, then everything else is a lot less complex, right? This sausage-making type of solution, where one piece of legislation is supposed to "address" everything at once is just nuts. Bite off a piece and chew it.

[patrick]

I am all for secure borders. We could alleviate many of the border states problems by building and reinforcing our borders. Long term, I would like an Israeli variant with enhanced presence in our ports. FOr those of you who might think I am anti-latino, I would like this on the Canadian side also (sorry about the wildlife migration routes). Not too many people worrying about the northern crossings. For everyone who discounts the effectiveness of tightening our borders, remember the truth of home security: you can't make your house burglar proof, but if it is harder to break into than your neighbor's, you will be left alone. Let me dust off another old saying: Good Fences make Good Neighbors. Now I don't mind feeding the neighbor's kids, but when all they want to do is come eat my food, jump on my trampoline, play on the x-box, and are rude on top of it...they have to go. You want to visit and play nice, I welcome you with open arms and maybe even some cookies. Just follow my rules. It shows we respect each other.

I am also for increasing the number of visas (1.5-2 million range) and streamlining the Visa program. I am not for general amnesty. Just because you broke one law, doesn't mean you will break another; however, you have already shown that you will break the laws.

I somewhat agree that we are all immigrants (even the Cherokee blood in my veins-how far back do we need to go). I take exception when people emphatically state that all Americans are immigrants. I feel the need to disagree on a technicality. Those members who formed this country (there was no single Native American nation, although many had their own habitual territories) are all original citizens of America. I apply this to all those living within the colonies when they signed the Articles of Confederation. I hold that as the start of the legal entity that became the United States of America (not the Declaration of Independence)because I think we didn't fit the bill of having a national identity or a legitimate government until that time. How can you be an immigrant to a country that did not exist yet? Do I think there is any difference between a naturalized citizen and a Son or Daughter of the American Revolution? Absolutely not. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

As many have said before, what part of illegal did you not understand.

[liquid]

Good questions Patrick.

I am watching the rally now on C-span, and its something. If you don't understand spanish you might be missing the best stuff. Well what can I say? Translator Rally.

I am for the wall myself. If we look at how much tax money goes into building new prisons, why can't we start building those prisons on the borders? We are already investing in concrete and wire! Why can't we merge the ideas of border security via concrete/wire/guards and new prisons together? Prison Row...I like that idea.

I don't mind illegals, we in America are immigrants ourselves and we as America need them for our future...I just think it should be done in a legal way. We could filter gangs and terrorist if we would secure borders with a wall and portal entrances and it would probably let up alot of space in places like LA County Jail and give security back to our border states.

[Patrick]

Let us suppose for a moment that the walls go up on both the southern and northern borders. We effectively change the local law enforcement mindset (arrest the illegals who come through airports or smuggled through sea ports) and actually stem the tide of illegal immigrants. What should be the mark on the wall for "legal immigrants".

Many claim the problem is that it is that the INS system is just too hard to get through legally. What number could we absorb every year? 1 million? 2 million? We have a population of "only" ~298.5 million. We currently grant about 800,000 visas a year. How many more should we allow? Digging down into the various types and quotas of each does show a complex system (less complex than our taxcode). But if our borders were secure, what then? Shouldn't we lift the bar on the number of legal opportunities to join our country (predicated upon a secure border that gives all types of other benefits)?

What should our yearly growth rate through immigration be? How should they fit into the social security program?

[gringman]

Hmmm, maybe I have to let up on Eurabia? France owes millions of socialists a living. True, but now it's become clear that the USA owes millions of illegals a country---a country of law, yet.

(Apropos, cartoon at gringoman: "El Citizen," featuring Mamacita Menendez at the border.

[rich]

Mark Steyn is wonderful! Canada's gift to thinking people, and the rest of us as well.

Krauthammer had it right. Build the fence first, then deal with the illegals -- gently.

But a fence will only take care of one third of illegal immigration.

The other two thirds of illegal immigrants enter legally for a temporary visit and overstay. How is that to be dealt with?

Has anyone seen a discussion of how the law should deal with the two thirds of illegal imigrants who enter this country legally. What are the proposals on that issue? Are they like the Senate's virtual fence, existing only in the mind of the credulous.

By the way, the virtual fence should result in some virtual senators, make that ex-senators.

[RD]

I guess it's "slowtrain" for a reason. Your long winded eloquence is the same lame rhetoric on both sides of the mess. The 300+ million Americans living here don't want amnesty or more immigration from anywhere and can't for the life of them figure out what part of the word "illegal" eludes Washington.

No sovereign nation in the world allows the mess we do, nor will they tolerate the dissent. If this is that democrat mantra about us always being better; we've failed. We've failed at controlling our own borders, we've failed at keeping this nation sovereign and worst of all it's failure of responsibility for ourselves.

Do you have any idea how many American natives live in constant fear of losing their livlihoods to "people who do the work most Americans don't want"? When you've got a group that doesn't play by the same rules (taxes, insurance, etc.)it's impossible to compete.

Rounding up illegals is more a matter of "won't do" than "can't do". It is not impossible...just hang around fields, construction sites, Walmart, Kmart and Target.

Oh, and one final question for the amnesty crowd. Who is going to pay for all these marvelous immigrants when they reach retirement age since they've never paid into the system? I'll wager they'll be taking the retirement most Americans don't want:)

[slowtrain]

The Dilemma of Immigration

“Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, says the famous proclamation on the Statue of Liberty. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for; well, ever since that proclamation, America has struggled with immigration as the world took America at her word and has been giving America her tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free. However, we must admit, not without the world’s best, brightest and hardworking coming along too. Perhaps, this is the reason for the ambivalent attitude towards immigration. Since the early seventeenth century, that attitude has been one of “to be or not to be”, as evident in immigration legislation from 1885 to present; ever seeming to discourage immigration, yet allowing it. The nation with the middle name — “a country of immigrants”, seem to treat immigration as one might treat blood transfusion—not wanting it, yet needing it and grudgingly accepting it.

Obviously, America cannot take in everyone who wishes to come to America, so what should America do? Abraham Lincoln said, “We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot.” This premonition would hold, if America fails to see the essence of the inexorable providential ideals that is her core. Benjamin Franklin spoke of these ideals when he said, “Tyranny is so generally established in the rest of the world that the prospect of an asylum in America for those who love liberty gives general joy, and our cause is esteemed the cause of all mankind…We are fighting for the dignity and happiness of human nature.”

America must realize that the cause of which Franklin spoke lies in the reality that America is more than a nation; that America is primarily an idea — founded on the virtue of freedom and individual prosperity. It is more realistic that America sees Franklin’s sentiments as a mandate to help establish freedom and free enterprise in places where hitherto there has been tyranny and corruption. In so doing, America the country, would essentially extend “the prospect of asylum”, America the idea, to those who love freedom and seek prosperity, in their homelands. It has already happened in India, Japan, and South Korea.

For those with the fortune of welcome to America the country, America must more than ever demand from them the virtues that made America great — complete integration, while retaining essential individuality. As Abraham Lincoln said, “I like to see a man proud of the place he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him.”

[igout]

1st Quarter. Mob:1 United States:0