Comments on: Immigration Reform Fever Hits Bush, Congress And The Streets

By: steve sturm

steve sturm — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:11:27 +0000

Elrod: I’m not saying there weren’t pockets of immigrants in the past who weren’t interested in assimilating, I’m suggesting that if today’s groups were more interested in assimilating, there might not be as much of an outcry over immigration. For example, had students in LA not flown an upside down American flag under a Mexican flag, had they not carried banners proclaiming their belief that America stole California from Mexico, what would Michelle Malkin have had to write about?

PING:
TITLE: McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill Passes
BLOG NAME: Everything Between
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday passed immigration reform legislation proposed by Sens. McCain (R-Ariz.) and Kennedy (D-Mass). In an apparent victory for pro-immigration demonstrators, the bill would upend the H.R. 4437 Sensenbrenner anti-immi…

PING:
TITLE: Rise of the Immigrant
BLOG NAME: The Mechanical Eye
FROM THE LA Times: “Hundreds of thousands of people boisterously marched in downtown Los Angeles Saturday to protest federal legislation that would crack down on undocumented immigrants, penalize those who help them and build a security wall on the U.S….

PING:
TITLE: My views on immigration
BLOG NAME: The Glittering Eye
One of the biggest news stories of today seems to be the immigration bill making its way through the Senate:
A key Senate panel broke with the House’s get-tough approach to illegal immigration yesterday and sent to the floor a broad revision of t…

By: Elrod

Elrod — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:33:12 +0000

Steve,
What makes you think Latinos are less inclined to integrate into American culture than, say, the millions of Germans who came over in the 19th century and set up their own Germantowns so they wouldn’t have to speak English or mingle with the rest of the country. Did you know that many communities in eastern Missouri spoke only German as late as the mid-20th century? Self-separation is as old as America. Ever been to Chicago? There are ethnic neighborhoods because people from particular foreign countries felt comfortable around their own. Latinos are nothing new. And most know that if they ever went to get a job beyond cleaning toilets or bussing tables, they’re going to have to learn English.

By: Lucky

Lucky — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:28:47 +0000

Illegal means that it is prohibited by law, or prohibited by official rules.

Undocumented means that it is not supported by written evidence or not having the needed documents, as for permission to live or work in a foreign country, or a person not having proper documentation, especially for immigration.

If I decide I don’t want to follow the laws, will I be prosecuted? I don’t feel like driving the speed limit so I will just speed like a demon and instead of calling myself a speeder, I’ll just say that I’m a time traveler. I’m sure the cop won’t ticket me since I’m sure he understands that laws are made to be broken.

Why bother having laws on anything when no one has to abide by them anyway?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:38:29 +0000

MoQuestions, this is exactly the question I’m trying to raise all the time. The people who are getting passed over when the illegals jump to the front of the line are people like my wife and her family, who had to wait years longer than they should have had to in order to get out of a refugee camp that their help of Americans put them in because illegals were jumping in front of them. The question of allowing someone who is illegally here to stay seems outrageous when you consider that they are illegally here taking the space of people who are trying to get here legally.

Steve, maybe that is true for some people but not for everyone. My wife is Asian and about half of my neighborhood is Latino. I greatly appreciate diversity, I think that’s what makes America great. That said, when you have people waiting decades to get into this country legally, it’s simply wrong that we look the other way as people illegally take their place and force them to wait even longer.

By: steve sturm

steve sturm — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:04:50 +0000

Joe: nice post, but I think you – along with pretty much everybody else who focus on the skirmishing and the tactics being employed by the warring factions – are missing the big picture.

The battle over immigration (illegal and legal, for that matter) is not over the impact it has on wages or whether it poses a national security threat or what will happen if there aren’t enough cashiers at fast food restaurants or whether immigration would result in more votes for Democrats. The battle is between those who are upset that the immigrants aren’t like ‘us’ and those who don’t care or who like that.

Were immigrants today – at least the ones the debate is focusing on – more interested in assimilating themselves into American society and culture, were they waving more American flags than Mexican flags at the protest rallies, then I think there would no debate at all.

Like the characters in Harry Potter who dare not speak the name Voldemort, there are a whole lot of people who aren’t comfortable acknowledging that they’re not happy with the influx of people who, unlike those who came to this country generations ago, just don’t seem to want to assimilate themselves into America. Since they’re not comfortable acknowledging this, they dredge up other issues, such as those I mentioned above, and none of which are really on point or important…

You agree?

By: MoQuestions

MoQuestions — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:32:21 +0000

Opportunity Cost – I would like to hear more in the media about the people who got passed over when the illegals jumped to the front of the line. Who is being left out?

By: Fitzov

Fitzov — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:49:41 +0000

I’m not sure how one would go about calculating the probability of apprehension. You’d have to know how many illegals were crossing, which, according to the apprehension rate alone, has declined. The probability must be based on the fact that either more money or time is spent looking for illegals. I’m not concerned with how much time is spent, only pleased with the fact that less are apprehended. I think that indicates that less are attempting to cross. Of course, if you are pro-immigration you’re going to try to argue that it indicates that border patrol doesn’t work because less are being caught. I haven’t seen the statistics yet to back that claim up.

By: LaurenceB

LaurenceB — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:37:54 +0000

Fitzov,

I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying, but as best I can determine it appears to me that you may be misinterpreting “probability of apprehension” (the likliehood of an illegal crosser being apprehended) with “apprehension rate”, (presumably, the number of illegals apprehended). By way of explanation, when the study shows that the “probabibity of apprehension” has dropped significantly it means that more illegals are crossing successfully. This is borne out by the widely reported fact that the number of illegal immigrants has now balooned to 11 million. There is no evidence at all that less are attempting to cross, in fact the mere presence of such a large illegal population practically dictates that the opposite is true.

By: Fitzov

Fitzov — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:13:28 +0000

No, you’re making the same mistake that many others are making. It’s not that “many more illegals are crossing”, but that more legal immigrants entered the country and the apprehension rate of illegals decreased indicating less were attempting to cross the border.

By: LaurenceB

LaurenceB — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:50:09 +0000

Fitzov,

You lost me. We both agree that the relative stats show that much, much more money is being spent on border control. We also agree that many, many more illegals are successfully crossing. So, how does that show that the “increased border funding does what it is supposed to do”? I’m not seeing it.

By: Fitzov

Fitzov — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:28:35 +0000

I looked at that site you linked. First, I always look at the source–a pro-immigration site. Ok, not really a problem in and of itself, just something to keep in mind when considering the facts presented. Even on that site, I found a couple of interesting statistics:

Between 1986 and 2002 the number of Border Patrol officers tripled and the number of hours they spent patrolling the border grew by a factor of around eight.

The probability of apprehension along the U.S.-Mexico border fell from about 33 percent during the 1970s and early 1980s, to 20-30 percent in 1993 and 1994, to an all-time low of 5 percent in 2002.

From 1980 to 1992, the cost of hiring a coyote (smuggler) averaged around $400 per crossing, but rose to $1,200 in 1999 before leveling off.

These stats tell me that increased border funding does what it is supposed to do. Of course, that site doesn’t spin it like that. Instead, it focuses on the fact that we are spending more money. Also, the sites other stats suggest that more Mexicans are being granted permanent residence than ever before. In fact, if you look at the INS stats on visas granted, nationals from Mexico and Canada received the most. So claims that there is no legal means of entering the country (which was made on Newshour last night by a pro-clemency advocate), that border patrol doesn’t work, or that we need to allow more immigrants in, don’t appear to hold much weight.

By: LaurenceB

LaurenceB — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:49:13 +0000

Fitzov,

I googled the budget numbers and found them
here.

As you can see Figure 1 shows an increase in border patrol spending of about 1000% between 1986 and 2002.

If you scroll down to Figure 3 you’ll see that the probability of apprehension is actually down significantly – perhaps that is the statistic you heard on Nightline. In any case, it proves my point nicely: “Tougher” border measures have not worked in the past, and I see no reason to believe that they will work in the future.

Parenthetically:

If you think about it a bit, it’s kind of obvious why this would be the case. For example, estimates are that between 40% and 60% of illegals don’t actually cross the Mexican border – they just overstay visas. That being the case, a big, nasty, wall won’t do much.

Oh, and according to this government estimate:
here
about 10% of illegals are from Canada, Haiti, Poland, or the Phillipines. Hmmm… Nope, a big, nasty wall won’t help there either.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out the elephant in the room: We all know what happens when a family of illegals is apprehended at the border and returned to Mexico. They try again. And again. Until they succeed. It doesn’t take a genius to see that.

So – like I say – if you think about it a bit, it’s pretty obvious why more strict border enforcement is not The Answer.

Joe, Sorry about the length of the comment. I guess I should get my own blog.

By: Charles Jordan

Charles Jordan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:52:29 +0000

I spent some time in ElPaso. I stayed on while vistiting a buddy at Ft Bliss back in the summer of 95. I Left in 96.

the drug situation there is unbelievable. my buddy, retired army, behind on the child support got caught up. Thought he’d make some easy money by carrying across the border for a guy he met through this young girl who said she loved him. He’s in jail now. I tried to warn him; he thought it was love.

I don’t know how you lived in ElPaso. a person has to LIVE in El Paso to appreciate the size of the problem. I even went to Jaurez. Its just a short walk from downtown El Paso. It was worse than any US slum I’ve ever seen. Drugs and prostitutes everywhere. They are a desperately poor people. it’s understandable they do anything to get out of that situation.

By the way, charles isn’t my real name. My daughter made up this name. She says I tell to much. But its all true.

By: Fitzov

Fitzov — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:29:26 +0000

Lawrence, where are you getting your statistics from? Last night on the Newshour, I saw a statistic showing a decrease in immigrant apprehensions overall since the early nineties.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:12:02 +0000

I still haven’t seen all the numbers yet on what it costs the US in both benefits and costs to have illegals here.
yes, they do work hard in many jobs.
Yes, they use the county hospitals in large numbers, and cost the taxpayers enormous amounts of money.
Yes, they have done at least one illegal thing, crossing the border. Possibly two, many use a SSN that is not theirs, that would be Identity theft.
Yes employers get away w/ hiring illegals, profit from them, and don’t necessarily pass those savings to us.

So what answers do we get from all this? dunno.

For me, here in Texas, I’d like to see extremely stiffer border patrols. Considering we’ve got violent ex-members of the Mexican military shooting people (Nuevo Laredo/El Paso), and transporting drugs across the border. Our crime rates in the bigger cities are rising, and so are the gang rates. Much of it is, unfortunately hispanic. Petty theft, and violence are increasing in the suburbs as well. Our day labor centers have 50-100 men standing around all day, so the mem of there are jobs here for them does not ring true. Are there jobs for some, yes, for all, no. At some point we are going to hit a level of saturation. When do we say enough is enough?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:49:16 +0000

Elrod, I most definitely agree with you. Employers of illegal immigrants should also be dealt with through the legal process. Maybe not jail for a first offense but a stiff fine. My point was that we shouldn’t be giving lawbreakers essentially a free ride at the expense of those who are following the law. That applies to both the illegal immigrants and those who employ them.

Laurence, I agree with the first three points as a multi-faceted approach of dealing with the problem and would add more. However, I wanted to mention one thing about point 1, increasing quotas for legal immigration. One reason quotas are where they are is due to illegal immigration. If illegal immigration were reduced, quotas for legal immigration could be raised without causing a flood of immigrants.

I don’t favor any one option. I know this is a very complex issue requiring a very complex solution but here are some points that I think the solution should include:

1) Increase quotas for legal immigration, increasing them more as illegal immigration is reduced.
2) Fine and, upon repeat offenses, jail employers of illegal immigrants.
3) Deport illegal immigrants unless they can make a good case for refugee status.
4) Help other countries improve living conditions so people don’t feel the need to come here illegally.

We could try to build Fortress USA but that’s not going to work unless we don’t make it worthwhile for people to come here illegally. Going after them and their employers is a big part of doing that.

By: LaurenceB

LaurenceB — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:42:05 +0000

Nice post Joe, but I must take issue with your assertion that the federal government did not seriously improve border security after the Reagan amnesty bill. I don’t have the numbers handy, but if you were to look them up I’m certain you would find that over the last fifteen or twenty years, the amount of money and personnel allocated to border control has increased astronomically. Meanwhile, illegal immigration has also dramatically increased.

Which brings me to my point: To anyone paying attention, bigger walls, more agents, and more high-tech surveillance has already been shown to be an ineffective deterrent and a failed policy. In my opinion, there are really only four ways to make a significant dent in illegal immigration:

1. Increase the quotas for legal immigration.
2. Fine employers of illegals.
3. Improve living conditions in Mexico.
4. Drastic measures (e.g. shooting border crossers, or jailing them for extended periods)

Personally, I favor the first option.

By: Pyst

Pyst — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:01:26 +0000

Damn skippy Elrod! The employers of illegal aliens should be fined, and if they continue jailed for using illegal labour. The fines should be used to secure the borders, and repatriate said illegals so taxpayers don’t have to finance this.

20,000 fine per illegal alien should be a good start.

By: Elrod

Elrod — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:51:14 +0000

Yes, these illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals. But guess what? So are the millions of businesses – small and large – that hire them. It is illegal to hire workers without fully vetting their immigration status. If we are going to treat illegal immigrants like criminals, let’s also treat business owners like criminals too. Let’s throw hotel executives, and landscaping business owners and restaurant managers in jail for hiring illegal immigrants. Let’s throw upper middle class people who hire illegals as nannies or maids in jail too. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:13:12 +0000

Many people clamoring for a hard-line on illegal immigration paint migrants as criminals, etc. but when you met (or meet) a typical immigrant family they are similar in many ways to the migrants (such as my grandparents) who came to the United States at the turn of the country in their GOAL (providing for their family, a premium put on the family itself) but not their means (coming over without legal permission).

If they come over without legal permission, doesn't that make them criminals? In the meantime, people who are trying to come over with legal permission are left waiting in their homelands for much longer than they should have to because the illegals are taking their place. These "guest worker" programs are essentially rewarding the criminals while punishing the law abiding individuals. I still haven't heard any justification for doing what is so obviously wrong.