Two Cheers for Amnesty

Over at The American Spectator, Lawrence Henry has a thoughtful piece on Bush's recent plan to legalize illegal immigrants. A snippet:

Initial reaction, however, shows that as many legal Spanish-speaking immigrants will hate this proposal as love it. As a vote-getter, it's a wash -- probably worse, when you consider the outrage on the President's right.

No, I think this is a pressing administrative issue that President Bush simply will not ignore. Further, it will set the stage for handling another even more exigent administrative issue that is one of George W. Bush's most cherished dreams: reforming Social Security.

He did it on purpose.

He did it now, when he didn't have to.

Think.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[mudflap]

The pressing administrative issue is that were fucking broke. The cost of executing this has to be enormous. Add to that the cost of a reborn space program and I seriously cannot comprehend Bush is thinking.

I have a tendency to cut Bush more slack than some of the regulars here. But between this, and talk of lunar landings, I'm done with this idiot.

Mudflap

[mudflap]

oops, comprehend what bush is thinking

[Lonewacko]

Lawrence Henry suggests we think. OK. Here's my first thought: after establishing a strawman, he deftly manages to knock it down.

Even if some people are suggesting "deport them all," most people realize that's not possible.

The very fact that it's not possible indicates that a) we have a serious problem, and b) we can't let what happened in the past happen again. If we can't control who's inside our country, then we have to make sure that we don't encourage even more people to come here illegally.

The way to do that is not to militarily "deport them all," the way to do that is to make it very difficult to be an illegal alien. That will discourage more from coming. Offering any kind of amnesty will only encourage more to come.

Furthermore, moving the current millions of illegal aliens up a notch in pay grade will lead to some employers hiring another crop of illegal aliens to replace those who were moved up in the world.

Any sort of amnesty will just beget another amnesty down the line.

We need to reform our entire immigration policy and also make it clear that Vicente Fox doesn't dictate our policy in such matters. Does Bush have the cojones to tell Fox to fix his own mess rather than shoving it off on us?

The solution to the immigration mess is reform that's consistent with American values and laws:

- no amnesties ever
- no driver's licenses for illegals. Only (real) emergency services will be provided to illegal aliens.
- no DREAM Act. Why should illegal aliens pay less college tuition than U.S. citizens? That makes no sense
- stronger border enforcement, using drones and modern sensors and more officers
- interior enforcement like there used to be, complete with frequent raids at businesses known to employ illegals.
- encouraging labor-intensive industries to modernize. If there had been no illegal aliens, the fruit industry would be largely automated by now. That would be progress, using serf labor isn't.
- no more kowtowing to Mexican officials. If they want to take revenge by harboring al Qaeda or sending us even more drugs, we can take whatever steps necessary to make sure they get the message that's not a good thing.

Vicente Fox wants to eliminate the border between the U.S. and Canada and Mexico. Does reason support him in his efforts? If so, perhaps you're living in the wrong country.

[Lonewacko]

Here's a proposal from liberal blogger PG:

but this form of white-collar crime [hiring illegals] should include criminal penalties. Those found responsible for knowingly or negligently engaging in violations of employment law (including hiring of illegal immigrants and any traffic in forged documents) should serve time in prison. The employer who has to factor possible prison time into her calculations of whether to permit undocumented workers to be hired is less likely to do so... If prison is such a bloody good deterrent, we ought to use it more often to make people who are really freaked out at the thought of it behave properly. Jill from Human Resources is going to take the Big House more seriously than Leon from the Corner Crackhouse.

[yelowd]

Wacko-
You make some solid points such as tuition costs. On the other hand what's the big deal about an immigrant coming here to work? By legalizing them, that seems to me to be a much more expedient route to cultural assimilation. If someone is living in a black market, underground with no access to bank accounts, difficulty renting/buying, and 0 legitimacy, how can they expected to embrace america in any way other than being able to do manual labor wherever they like and make more money than anywhere south of the border? Currently, even if they saved their money and wanted to stay put, it's terribly difficult unless you want to be single and live in a trailor on some American's property where your "rent" is doing manual labor 1-2 days a week on their property.

Legalizing them creates a sense of legitimacy, provides legal protections that they didn't always have (for fear of being deported), increases our tax base and uncovers a huge chunk of the American economy, etc. True, there are things that need to be changed - welfare, english in schools, etc.

ps- calling yourself "wacko", psychologically weakens your argument.

[Justin Slotman]

Could Lawrence be a little less cryptic? For those of us who can't, you know, Think.

[Lonewacko]

"what's the big deal about an immigrant coming here to work?"

They cost low-wage earner U.S. citizens $200 billion per year. That's a big deal.

"underground with no access to bank accounts, difficulty renting/buying, and 0 legitimacy"

Actually, given the current situation illegals do have legitimacy of a sort. They can't be denied public services, they can open bank accounts using Matricula Consular cards issued by our friends in the Mexican oligarchy, and they often have other forms of fake ID. And, if former MEChA member Gil Cedillo has his way, they can get a driver's license.

Like I said before, any form of "regularization" (as our pal Vicente likes to say) will no longer make them near-serf labor. Those industries that like near-serf labor will just turn around and bring in real near-serf labor, i.e., more illegals.

[s.m. koppelman]

Silly conservatives, this legislation isn't a sop to liberals; lots of liberals hate it. It's a big sloppy kiss on the lips of agribusiness, the construction trades, the hospitality industry and others that regularly hire cheap illegal immigrant labor. While helping Fox a bit by better ensuring the physical safety and workplace conditions faced by bottom-rung Mexican immigrants in the US, the big domestic effect is that it legalizes a great big downward pull on domestic wages (and labor costs), and does it in such a way that unions still can't make inroads with them. By making them guest workers tied to an employer, with a limited term of residency and the threat of easy deportation, it contributes to the multi-pronged rollback of labor's past century of gains that's now underway.

If blue-collar conservatives want to know if the GOP gives a damn about them, they'd do well to look at this measure carefully.

[Swamp Justice]

I believe that US immigration policy needs to be reformed and relaxed, but all of the "illegals" working here now are BY DEFINITION criminals. I would rather support immigration of non-criminals.

I also agree that current penalties for illegal workers are backwards. The workers face huge penalties (i.e. deportation), but the employer (such as Walmart) face at most a lax $2000 fine.

[Madog]

This whole distiction between US citizen and illegal immigrant and who gets the jobs is silly. The job should go to who ever is willing to do it at the best combination of price and quality. US citizens don't deserve any special favors because their parents happened to have sex in one part of the world as opposed to another. This initiative combined with the space program rumors have seriously raised my opinion of Bush.

[mak_nas]

i really think that we need the help. demographic trends aren't what they are in japan and europe here, but that's largely because it's much easier to emigrate to the us. and thank god -- i think people have the tendency to ignore the fact that demographics drive growth as much as policy.

i know the popular conservative argument is that post-9/11, you have to know who moves across your borders. posh, i say -- that's a police state argument. the people who would do the damage will get in as long as you run any semblance of a free soceity here -- it's the risk you run for freedom. making immigration and trade difficult or impossible injures all of us severely, and does little or nothing to stop terrorism, even if it is the knee-jerk reaction to fear and anger. so why?

[mak_nas]

[i]This initiative combined with the space program rumors have seriously raised my opinion of Bush.[/i]

but i do go with mudflap on this one -- bush has gone irresponsibly profligate. all of what is trasnpiring in washington, from moonshots to drug benefits to energy bills, makes me quote tytler on the athenians:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

[Think About It]

This is just another ploy by the Bush administration to buy votes.

It is easy to see right through this. Bush will register lots of Mexicans living well in Mexico who are enticed to come to America under the lie that they will live a good life. Then, when everybody is registered and the government knows where all these Mexicans are living, Bush will sell off all the Mexicans as slave labor to his cronies. The ones who refuse those jobs will be rounded up and "deported". All the while, innocent Americans who are removed from their jobs will starve on the streets because Mexicans will have taken their rightful jobs.

The next step for Bush is to "allow" these Mexicans to serve in the U.S. military...

[Allen Phelps]

The "no amnesty for illegal aliens" doesn't make much sense to me. Should we never repeal or reform a law because doing so would "reward" people breaking the law? I guess we will never get rid of the drug war then, to cite one small example.

It seems to me like we should judge laws on their fairness, not on if someone may be currently breaking them.

[thoreau]

America's population is aging. Were it not for immigration the age profile of our population would be moving in the direction of Western Europe.

An economist would simply observe that without more young workers America has a problem. How to pay for the old people?

Now, before you start talking about social security privatization, there's a more basic issue. Regardless of who pays the bills, somebody has to pay them. If it's the gov't then we need young workers to pay taxes. If it's a family duty then they'll need more young workers in each family. If it's a matter of savin and investing, remember that investments return a profit when the money is put into a profitable enterprise. Without a whole lot of profitable enterprises (staffed by, say it with me now, young workers), how will all those investors get their returns?

How to solve this problem?

A conservative would probably lament the decline of the "traditional family" (I gotta tell you, though, that as I learn more about my family's history, going back to the 1800's, I start to wonder if families ever were all that traditional). A leftist would probably explain that with some government-funded childcare and other benefits people would have more children. (To learn more about how a regulatory state is necessary for families, just call any Democratic Presidential candidate and tell him or her you're a registered voter in New Hampshire.)

A libertarian could probably look around and find some government policies that supposedly discourage people from having kids. And maybe he or she would be right. But a libertarian with a green streak could probably lament "rampant population growth" and poke around to find some government policies that supposedly encourage having more kids. When the government is big enough, you can always find a way to blame it for just about anything.

Anyway, since the trend in industrial societies is to have fewer children, there's probably a limit to what the government can do. Even if we remove every conceivable anti-family policy, I doubt that lots of American women will decide to have tons of extra kids. I'm sure there will be more kids than there are now, but I'm not optimistic that it will be a huge boost. And why should I expect them to? It's their bodies, not mine.

Immigration certainly provides a safety valve for an aging population. Of course, the elderly are not the only factor to consider when discussing immigration (unless you're a Presidential candidate in a swing state with elderly voters...). There are other issues: Natural resource constraints, a Mexican reconquista of the Southwest (for more information, ask Lonewacko), national security (for more information, ask Michelle Malkin, a first generation American), etc.

But since the article mentioned social security, I thought it was worth discussing this angle.

[yelowd]

"They cost low-wage earner U.S. citizens $200 billion per year. That's a big deal."

Where does that figure come from? Does it also have a corresponding figure of how much time and resources are saved by hiring someone that costs less? This argument sounds strangely like those coming from unions and the left on why we need to hike the minimum wage up. At any rate, you still don't answer where the problem is for someone to come live and work in America other than the notion that they are somehow undercutting Americans and competing unfairly.

"...they can open bank accounts using Matricula Consular cards issued by our friends in the Mexican oligarchy, and they often have other forms of fake ID..."

Fake id's and foreign schemes aren't exactly legitimacy. Can you start a corp? Can you buy a house? Can you buy a car? or any other of legitimate american activities without always fearing it will be taken away purely on the basis that you are illegal. There is little incentive there for someone to truly establish themselves.

Additionally, what is the cost to America to round up all of the existing illegals? What will that do to our economy since many people depend illegals to cut both business and personal costs whether they be picking fruit, landscaping, painting cars, or any other labor intensive job?

Honestly, I grew up in SoCal. About the biggest problem I had with illegals was the fact that they would ring my doorbell at 6 or 7 in the morning asking for work in the summer when I wanted to sleep. Honestly, what is the problem with that? I haven't had any American come to my door asking to pull weeds...ever. Clearly, they are not undermining the American worker.

[megapotamus]

There is a strong moral case for open borders as well as a strong economic case, if you consider the big picture... cheaper labor gets more done for less. Of course if you are one of those doing less for more that is unconvincing. I think the political case is far more intriguing. I've long thought that the great coup de maine of the Bush administration would be Social Security reform. That is one tough nut to crack but if he can do that, short of getting us a WMD pantsing, there is no failure that could make his presidency a net loss. That ain't bad.

[Wild Pegasus]

Immigration laws are immoral, as they restrict the right of landowners to rent to whom they wish and the right of employers to hire who they wish. They ought to be pitched. Amnesty is the next best thing.

- Josh

[Hmm]

It seems to me that minimum wage laws have something to do with all this--not everything, of course. But minimum wage laws do create a black market, which is generally undesirable for all parties.

[Neb Okla]

When illegals are legalized, only legals will be illegal!

[thoreau]

To spoof another phrase used by some gun advocates:

Fear the government that fears your gardener!

[Lonewacko]

"The "no amnesty for illegal aliens" doesn't make much sense to me."

If you want an endless series of amnesties, it doesn't make much sense. The amnesties of '86 and '92 got us into this mess. People came here expecting at some point to be granted an amnesty. Bush wants to give them what they've been waiting for.

That will encourage more to come. And, another amnesty will be needed in a decade or even less.

[Lonewacko]

The $200 billion cost of illegal aliens to low wage U.S. citizens comes from Lou Dobbs. I'm sure I could find out where he got it.

"Fake id's and foreign schemes aren't exactly legitimacy. Can you start a corp? Can you buy a house? Can you buy a car? or any other of legitimate american activities without always fearing it will be taken away purely on the basis that you are illegal. There is little incentive there for someone to truly establish themselves."

You apparently don't know much. There's little illegal aliens have to fear. They can do all those things listed above.

The Ford Foundation funds credit unions that offer loans to illegal aliens.

Try getting away with some of this crap in any other country.

"Additionally, what is the cost to America to round up all of the existing illegals?"

Who said anything about a roundup? We use legal economic means to disencentivize illegal immigration. Millions of them will leave all on their own. If they need help booking a Greyhound, we'll help them out.

"I haven't had any American come to my door asking to pull weeds...ever."

Wow, I guess you're right! Millions of illegal aliens aren't a threat to the livelihood of low-wage-earning American citizens.

[Andrew]

Even with the Mediterranian in the way, Europe doesn't seem to be having much luck keeping low-wage immigrants out-- with a land corridor, the US has even less prospect. Open Borders seem all but inevitable, and in that sense this may be the last big amnesty. Bush could not muster a consensus for legal immigration right now...but his successors won't have any choice.

[Vic the Appraiser]

Lonewacko -

If they cost US low-wage workers $200 billion a year, then simple math tells us that they SAVE US consumers and business owners more than $200 billion. We know it's at least $200 billion, because where else would the savings go. And we know there's additional savings, because otherwise, why would businesses hire them and incur the risk of hiring illegals?

So your argument is not that it costs the country money net, but with who benefits more. At least be honest about it.

Vic the Appraiser

[Dan]

"what's the big deal about an immigrant coming here to work?"

They cost low-wage earner U.S. citizens $200 billion per year. That's a big deal.

They save all US citizens, low-wage-earners and otherwise, over $200 billion per year in lower prices for goods and services. Illegal immigrant laborers are a net benefit to the economy, and that helps everyone.

So far as I'm concerned, the new immigrant policy is another good reason to vote for Bush. I do wish he'd lay off this "colonizing space" BS, though (and the "free drugs for rich old people" plan too).

[non-communist]

Jesus, when did the Pat Buchanan brigade decide to make Hit & Run its stomping grounds? About half of the posts in this topic fall into the "socially arch-conservative, economically communist" category.

[Lonewacko]

"And we know there's additional savings, because otherwise, why would businesses hire them and incur the risk of hiring illegals?"

There's little risk of hiring illegals. Sure, you might get raided once every decade or so, but most figure that in the cost. There are non-economic benefits to hiring illegals, just as one gets from, say, slave labor.

"So your argument is not that it costs the country money net, but with who benefits more."

You're referring no doubt to the elites of Mexico and the U.S., right?

[Lonewacko]

I'd be interested in hearing from the pro-amnesty, pro-North-America-as-the-EU crowd what would happen if Bush told Fox to fsck off.

Certainly, we can tell the Albanians, the Macedonians, and the Zimbabweans to fsck off.

But, if we told Fox to fsck off, what could he do?

[Vic the Appraiser]

Lonewacko,

Perhaps you didn't read my message. What I told you was that American consumers and business owners would benefit to the tune of $200 billion PLUS difference between innet value of hiring illegals versus Americans. Those are not elites.

The question of who benefits more - business owners or consumers - depends on the price elasticity of demand of the products that benefit from illegal behavior. If the products are commonplace and easily substituted by other products - or done without - then most benefits convey to consumers. If the products cannot easily be subsituted for, then business owners get most of the benefit.

Inasmuch as illegals are generally not skilled, then they're making ordinary products, and consumers get the great majority of the benefits.

So, to answer your question, no. The benefits do not convey to the elite. They convey to joe sixpack.

[Lonewacko]

"They convey to joe sixpack."

Unemployment Reaches 10-Year High (7/3/03)

Special Interests Big Winners in White House Immigration Plan

Any takers on my last question?

What could Fox do if we tell him to fsck off?

[Vic the Appraiser]

Folks, forgive me if I'm saying something somebody else has already said, but I just read http://www.lileks.com and he makes a good point. We're not going to deport 8 million illegals. It's just not going to happen. Ever. Under any circumstances. I don't think it should happen, but that's not my point. It won't. There's no plausible circumstance under which an American administration will stuff 8 million Mexicans into cattle cars and dump them into Tijuana.

So let's consider real alternatives. One is to retain a black economy where millions of human beings live without legal protection and in terror of being discovered or exploited. The other is to recognize that we've written laws that, for better or worse, we were unwilling to enforce, and to deal with that fact. I say the latter. We had reasonable laws, but we did not enforce them and everybody knew it, and now there's a population of illegals in this country larger than many other countries.

I really believe the only humane and reasonable policy is to integrate them. We simply won't deport them. We shouldn't maintain a black economy which is not in our national security interests, and which is inhumane. So we integrate. I'm a democrat and I'm not a big fan of George Bush, but he's right on this. He seems willing to actually deal with the problem, instead of simply ignoring it.

If you guys disagree, then tell me what we should do. Deport them all, or ignore them?

[Vic the Appraiser]

Lonewacko -

Unemployment used to be 6% and now it's 5.7, so it's obviously not at any kind of high. Further, ten years ago everybody thought that 6% was the LOWEST sustainable level of unemployement, and now you're suggesting that it's some kind of apocalypse? Give me a break. It's around 9% in Canada and most of Europe. You've got to be fooking kidding me if you think 5.7% is terrible and Mexicans are the cause of it. Think about it - we have high immigration AND very low unemployment. You're going to have to do a LOT better than that.

[Vic the Appraiser]

Lonewacko -

You also completely misunderstood me. I do not deny that some Americans will lose jobs to Mexicans. My point is that many, many, many more Americans will save money because goods and services are cheaper using native Mexican labor. This is not a minor point - for most people, saving a few thousand dollars a year because goods are cheaper means that they can save more money for college, on better healthcare, on buying a home, etc. We naturally tend to focus on the few who suffer large losses, as through joblessness, but there are MILLIONS who reap real, meaningful benefits because the cost of living is reduced.

[dlc]

"You apparently don't know much. There's little illegal aliens have to fear. They can do all those things listed above."

How do you know this? Have you ever been illegal? And no, they cannot (generally) buy a house. Most loan programs require proof of at least permanent residency. Also, it is very easy to get deported, especially post 9/11. It happens every day, check out the stats.

Are you the authority on what someone else has to fear? What a fucking elitist thing to say...

[TM Lutas]

Social Security privatization is the key to the temporary workers program. The bottom line is that these people are not going to be permitted to stay here in retirement. Work to 70 and go home senor is the best they're going to be able to do. Now that's going to be a good deal for a lot of people. For others, that's not going to be a good deal and they'll stay home.

While they're here, they're going to pay Social Security taxes and medicare taxes and in the end they're not going to collect on those programs. Fiscally, that means that a huge chunk of change is going to drop into the SS coffers that is available to pay the transition costs to move to an actuarially sound program structure.

Yes, it's taxation without representation. Yes, even with equalization treaties, they're not going to make out too well on pensions. But if they don't like it, they don't come. If the difference in income is enough, they'll pour over the border, work like crazy, save a stake, and go home to start a business.

Get a clue people. This is what the original article was talking about. Social Security transition costs are the fly in the privatization ointment. If this passes, it will be possible to make the jump right now and some future president can unravel the side effects after the entitlements crisis is resolved.

[Sebastian]

Geez, I'd expect this crowd to be less anti-immigrant. Eventually it's probably going to make sense to make all of North America a free trade zone which includes free movement of labor. Folks like lonewacko will have a fit when this happens, but it will be of tremendous benefit for everyone involved.

The amnesty is the right thing to do, because the people who are breaking law aren't doing anything to hurt anyone. They may be willing to do crappy jobs for less money than you, but this should not be a crime. You have no right to a job or a certain wage.

[dj of raleigh]

> America's population is aging. Were it not for immigration the age profile of our population would be moving in the direction of Western Europe.

[thoreau]

200 million Chinese? Great! As long as the government doesn't get in their way it will work out fine.

Chinese immigrants are among the most productive, hardest-working people in the US (although most other immigrants give them stiff competition). They'd build a ton of homes, open a whole bunch of rice and ginseng farms, sell a ton of software, open countless restaurants, and their kids would all get chemistry and engineering degrees and find a way to desalinate water cheaply so the country's natural resources aren't strained by the influx of 200 million Chinese. They'd also produce a whole bunch of health care workers to dispense the free pills that W is giving to the elderly, but they'd probably also give us plenty of pharmaceutical innovations to bring down the cost of those pills.

Of course, the government would probably try to stop them from building homes, and require them to jump through countless hoops when starting businesses. But as long as the government stays out of the way I say bring 'em on!

[Lonewacko]

"We're not going to deport 8 million illegals. It's just not going to happen. Ever. Under any circumstances."

1. I already agreed with that point in my first comment.
2. In my first comment I also identified it as a strawman.
3. Do you consider the fact that we can't deport people who are here illegally a bad situation? Under what mindset is it permissible for a country to allow itself to be settled by people of another country, and there's no way we can then get rid of them if we want to? Is that acceptable?

"So let's consider real alternatives."

Yes, let's. However, you only gave us two alternatives: the Bush amnesty, or the current situation.

What I proposed above is neither an amnesty nor the current situation. It's what we used to do, and it worked. And, it will work again.

---
I don't know and a quick search couldn't find recent deportation rates. I'm pretty sure they're down from what they once were.
---
"Geez, I'd expect this crowd to be less anti-immigrant."

Who's anti-immigrant? Oh, wait, I forgot, that's the left's standard smear attempting to stifle debate about immigration. Put down the playbook for a moment, and answer the question at the end of this comment, OK?

"Eventually it's probably going to make sense to make all of North America a free trade zone which includes free movement of labor."

Great! One world, one people, one government. Just like Vicente Fox and (apparently) Bush want.

---

Once again, I'll ask someone to step up to the plate and answer this: What could Fox do if we tell him to fsck off?

[SM]

dlc wrote -
"How do you know this? Have you ever been illegal? And no, they cannot (generally) buy a house. Most loan programs require proof of at least permanent residency"

This has been my experience with Lonewacko too. He seems to get his info solely from anti-immigration sites and appears more than willing to believe any urban myth & folktale about immigrants there. I can tell you from the debates i've had with him here that his knowledge of legal immigrants & current legal immigration procedures is complete bullshit.

[Lonewacko]

Gadfly's comments at least have some content. Perhaps we could send the other commentators back to Hatrios.

Gadfly, what would be the repurcussions if we told Fox to fsck off? I'm not necessarily suggesting we do so, I'm just asking what power does he have over us.

Once again: Do Vicente Fox and Mexico have some form of power over the U.S.? If so, describe that in detail. Look at the history of the two countries, and the history of other countries that have accepted large populations from neighboring countries.

[s.m. koppelman]

What part of Bush's proposal is an "amnesty" for illegals? It sounds to me like this plan mainly permits business owners to hire them legally while still denying them the rights (and access to government services) accorded to H1-B and Green Card holders, much less citizens.

It creates the real possibility of a pernanent class of lifelong guest-workers. This way lies Saudi Arabia.

[Vic the Appraiser]

Lonewacko -

Instead of continuing to play this idiotic game, why don't you do us all a favor and tell us what you think Fox will do if we tell him to "fsck" himself. You obviously have some kind of conspiracy in mind whereby Bush, when he's not being ordered around by Halliburton and/or Likudniks, is being bossed around by (snicker) Vincente Fox.

1. What is our motivation for telling ANYBODY to "fsck" himself? What kind of person does that? (By the way, it's spelled "fuck")

2. Specifically, what policies would constitute " 'fsck' yourself, Vincinte Fox"?

3. Why do you insist on playing moronic games, instead of just speaking your xenophobic mind?

At root, your posts say that Bush's proposed policy is an attempt to make Mr. Fox happy (for some unknown, but undoubtedly dark and nefarious reason), instead of trying to deal with the fact that we have a gigantic population of unknowns who are open to exploitation, pay no income taxes, and are almost untraceable if they commit crimes or try to blow shit up. Please enlighten us, or shut the "fsck" up with your unstated, but undoubtedly insipid, conspiracy theories.

[Andrew]

Lonewhacko

Will assilimating a big chunk of immigrants be a problem? Yes...and it already is. It may be less of one if their presence is normalised, and more more of one at the present time.
School choice would help-- most immigrants would choose assilimation for their own children, and in so choosing, to a considerable degree choose it for themselves.

Bush is a big and quite genuine advocate of school choice, and this probably expains his adherence to bi-lingualism, which the NR crowd so deplores. You can't have it both ways-- choice is choice-- but the attraction of English is irresistable.

National Review is apoplectic about all this. Bush has confounded the official conservatives...from the "right", and from a libertarian position.

[Andrew]

I can't see how this idea pulls any votes for Bush directly, but it does steal the show-- it says to everybody "I am the President-- I DO things-- the others are just poseurs.

And he is wiley, like Reagan. An amnesty was the best Reagan could do...and some make-work triple-ID requirements.

None of which, likely, had anything to do with it. Nobody credits him for it, but Bush mostly proposes things...well, just because he thinks they are right.

[Mona]

sm writes: "Mr. Lonewacko, I normally don't wade into the tinfoil-hat ward,"

Among the reasons H&R is my favorite blog and where I spend most of my online recreational hours, is the relative absence of the loony tunes brigade, and the many fellow libertarians who offer well-written and astute comments and info that have helped me clarify a number of my own views. As near as I can tell, LW is the only poster whose brain is fevered with paranoid conspiracy theories (in his case, about Mexican immigrants and a Plot to take over the U.S. by the Hispanic hordes when The Order is issued). (Um, Justin Raimondo is close to being a second such nutjob, his issues are different, however.)

I decline to engage LW on immigration issues, having already done so in a different thread and finding it to be a waste of time. It's not a materially different activity than when I was trying to convince my schizophrenic brother that he could get out from under the table at the restaurant, because, really, "they" were not coming to get him. He wasn't buying it.

I pipe up now only so that readers of this blog, especially newcomers to H&R, do not get the impression that most commentary here is anti-immigrant, or that **serious** anti-immigrant arguments go unchallenged.

[SM]

Vic,

I think that LW is getting at something along these lines -
1. Bush tells Fox to fsck off.
2. Fox is furious, and after a couple of tequilas to calm down & think lucid thoughts, he authorises a army of illegal immigrants into the US. Chaos.
3. He calls up the Mexican Viceroy in CA & asks him or her to activate the Mecha sleepers.
Etc.
I've learned lots from following the links LW posts here.

[SM]

I hasten to add that i've mixed feelings about this amnesty.

[Lonewacko]

My "experience" with SM appears to be limited to this one previous thread. I'll leave it to other to determine who "won."

"What part of Bush's proposal is an "amnesty" for illegals?"

Any plan that rewards illegal immigration is an amnesty of some kind.

"3. Why do you insist on playing moronic games, instead of just speaking your xenophobic mind?"

Why are unable to answer questions without resorting to ad hominem attacks?

Let me try to make my earlier question clear for you: Does Vicente Fox have any kind of power over the Last Remaining Superpower? Could Bush fear Fox for one reason or another? Certainly, we could tell the entire country of Albania to take a hike, and nothing would come of it. However, what could Fox do against us if we decided to do the opposite of what he wants?

Let me state that again: does Fox have any kind of power or advantage over the U.S.? Does the U.S. have anything to fear from Mexico?

Once again, Does Fox have any kind of power, advantage, or pull over the U.S. in any way?

I have to admit, SM was kind of close, except even a cursory knowledge of U.S.-Mexico history or the history of other countries for the past few thousand years might give one the proper perspective.

[thoreau]

Mecha sleepers? That's pretty funny.

I've heard that a lot of the Mecha or La Raza types are actually born here. In an ironic way, they are actually thoroughly Americanized: They romanticize life in foreign countries. Like many Americans, they think of quaint villages where people wear colorful clothes and pass on their traditions to their kids.

We forget that these quaint villages are often dirt poor. We forget that the women who spent countless hours weaving all of those colorful ethnic costumes would love to be have a decent job so they could go to a store and pick from a wide variety of styles (a luxury we take for granted). We forget that the parents teaching their kids traditional farming methods wish they could send their kids to school for a trade more lucrative than subsistence farming. (Or that over the centuries many immigrants have come to the US for precisely that purpose.)

We also forget that many places have already left behind the old lifestyle (but have yet to achieve full modernity and affluence), so "the simple life" is already long gone. (Sorry, Paris Hilton.)

Finally, we forget that the best parts of that nostalgic life are present in all cultures. I haven't eaten traditional dishes made by a grandmother using a clay pot over a wood fire. However, my grandmother's pancakes (made from a mix) are far superior to my pancakes made from the same mix, and equal to the most traditional dish cooked in a humble village. Why? Because my grandmother made them. It's the grandmother that matters, not the clay pot.

Anyway, most immigrants seem to like America. It's their descendants who are more likely to romanticize a country and life that they never knew and rebel against the society around them. Fortunately, such kids are a vocal minority, and most children of immigrants are busy leading normal, productive lives.

[SM]

Read LW's response. Must in all humility publish the following corrections ...

"he authorises a army of illegal immigrants into the US. Chaos."

should read -

he authorises AN army of illegal immigrants into the US. Diablo !!!!

[dlc]

Re: 'Ad Hominem'

Vic:

"Why do you insist on playing moronic games, instead of just speaking your xenophobic mind?"

LW:

"Why are unable to answer questions without resorting to ad hominem attacks?" [sic]

[SAME POST]

"I have to admit, SM was kind of close, except even a cursory knowledge of U.S.-Mexico history or the history of other countries for the past few thousand years might give one the proper perspective."

Gee, its still ad hominem even if it is subtle and passive aggressive.

More ad hominem: LW, you are a hypocrite (oh, and still a xenophobe as well).

[yelowd]

Thank you, Mona...

I'm going to present the fact that LW has dropped all of his previous points with the exception of presenting a rhetorical question about Fox and the Mexicans taking over the US (BTW, LW how many immigrants are actually mexican? I've run into quite a few guatamalens, panamanians, hondurans, etc. that get terribly peeved when lumped in with the Mexicans) and based on that fact and in good parliamentary debate form I declare that he ceded those arguments and considers them lost.

To conclude, 8 mil illegal immigrants are already here and assimilated into an underground black market where in they lack legitimacy, access to ALL freedoms and protections afforded us by our benevolent gov't, and they provide Americans with terribly cheap labor. Can we deport all of them? no. Can we do a better job of keeping people out? Sure.

What then is the solution to a significant population of illegals already working and living here? I would say make them legal. If LW is paranoid, like those at VDARE, that WASP culture is going to be washed away in America and ruin us by mass immigration of people that are already here, I would like to appease his and others fears by pointing out that the best way of assimilation is by legitimacy. Keeping someone in a black market, subculture will only further the subculture and instill some resentment. OTOH, providing them with the freedoms and protections that we have and incorporating those into education (something everyone agrees needs to be fixed) will be the best hope for preserving American values in the SW and other regions in the country.

[yelowd]

dlc-
true.....

[Lonewacko]

While I appreciate all the talk about me, even if it's inaccurate and quite pointless, I'd really like someone to make an attempt to answer my question in a serious, thoughtful manner. I haven't conceded any points; my comments above stand.

Unfortunately, I find it quite telling that instead of trying to answer the question, the various posters here want to discuss me.

In any case: Do Vicente Fox and Mexico have some form of power over the U.S.? If so, describe that in detail. Look at the history of the two countries, and the history of other countries that have accepted large populations from neighboring countries.

[Mona]

LW implores: "I'd really like someone to make an attempt to answer my question"

Very well, and giving it all the seriousness it deserves: Sartre, however, according to Abian, says it is not so much society that is fundamentally impossible, but rather the stasis, and some would say the collapse, of society. In a sense, Debord uses the term 'neocapitalist discourse' to denote a self-referential whole. Reicher suggests that we have to choose between cultural materialism and capitalist neocultural theory. "Class is part of the paradigm of art," says Sontag. However, if modernism holds, we have to choose between cultural materialism and subdialectic libertarianism. Several deconstructivisms concerning the common ground between society and sexual identity may be revealed.

[Thanks to the Postmodernism Generator, which spews tens of thousands of essays that are utterly meaningless, and thus, are well-suited as replies to LW's inquiry]]

[Gadfly]

Wha..??

[yelowd]

Seriously, i'm not trying to be a jerk, you failed to respond in several of your own posts to arguments against your original points. They are therefore lost in any true sense of debate.

As for the question... and having recently watched Conspiracy Theory, I'm really curious what your point is regarding fox and mexico having something over the US. Just tell us what you think...

[s.m. koppelman]

Mr. Lonewacko, I normally don't wade into the tinfoil-hat ward, but I have to ask something. Do you at least realize that Vicente Fox and his political party are virtually identical to the American GOP and that his government is the first in decades of Mexican politics that's compatible with Republican policymaking? They're for privatization, reduced state spending, free trade agreements, a pro-business bias in law and taxation and institutionalized Christian conservatism. Sound familiar?

Fox is about as sympathetic to US perspectives on border policy as any Mexican leader can get, short of the US invading Mexico and installing someone of its choosing.

Above all else, the Bush administration's cold shoulder toward Mexico since 9/11 has been weird, the same way the anti-France propaganda campaign against a rare center-right fiscal-conservative French government is weird. It's as though Bush and his advisors have no idea who's running these countries.

[thoreau]

I'll try to answer the Lonewacko's question. I don't think that the Mexican government has any significant clout with Washington. While it's always good to get agreement with the neighbor on various matters (trade, shared bodies of water, etc.), my understanding of history is that the US has rarely reacted to pressure from Mexico unless the US (however rightly or wrongly) thought that it was in our own best interest to do something that they wanted.

e.g. My understanding is that the currency bailout of the peso was done because the US feared the economic impact of a trading partner's problems. At this point I know that various people will argue that the bailout is bad economics, bad policy, unjust, etc. My only point is that the US did it because our officials believed there was some sort of economic interest, not because they feared retribution by the Mexican government.

Anyway, I don't think the Mexican government has much clout with the US government.

[Andrew]

"One world, one people, one government"

Sounds OK to me, as long as it was a free world. One North America would be a good place to start.

I don't understand the question. Unless we are prepared to deport millions of people, how is it Fox's problem?

[yelowd]

First off, if we're going to be resorting to ad hominems (I know, it was indirect), I'm down with that game. I've worked plenty of fields with illegals (I didn't hire them for you IRS stooges). I've found them to be decent people just like every other schmo out there. They work to make a better life for them and their families. I helped them take their hard earned money and go do wire transfers home or buy presents and clothes at christmas (on occassion having it ALL stolen on the Mexican side of the border) to send home to their families. They felt like a king here, doing crap jobs that no one else wanted to do and buying a pissy $100 worth of presents to send home.

You're really living up to your name there bud. Way to live the american dream "blogging across the US" and then pissing on some one who is ALREADY here and WORKING and LIVING for who knows HOW LONG just because you're viewing the world through some 18th century mercantilist prism.

As for legitimacy, no, they don't have legitimacy. Sure they know some backdoors and ways to get some things, but really that is true for any blackmarket. RICO takes care of using anything to transfer or sell drugs. Is there a drug underground that knows how to play some games and get things done? Absolutely. Is it legitimate? NO. There are still huge risks. Risks make people leary of investing. Investing is required for wealth. Increasing wealth and prosperity benefits us all.

As for your joe six pack, he certainly is doing well right now with an 8mil member black market to do cheap labor. Sure, when the 8 mil hit the real market and have to be paid minimum wage there will be some unemployment and people will do cash jobs, much like current Americans. OTOH, there will be a new tax market, a new group of investors, new workers, etc. These are good things as long as people are free to trade and work without gov't or any other coercion. Only a mercantilist would see things as limited to what is in the now.

let's consider DJ of Raleigh's post which funny enough refutes itself by siting a Dr. from 1968 who thinks 180 mil is too many. Hi, we're almost at 300 mil last I checked and what's our biggest health epidemic? FAT people. Give me a break. Your arguments are going to look the same in 35 years when someone points out that we didn't bring in 8 million new people. They are ALREADY here! They are already part of the economy.

As for your last line... gee, what will fox do if "we" tell him to F*ck off? Who gives a rip. Stupid question. Do you really think fox talked to bonanzio down on the corner and told him to come here? Or did Bonanzio say, damn... I want to have food on plate, in door plumbing, and I want to be FREE? I go with #2. That's the same ludicrous notion that people some how think that one group or person can control all of us. Or that we can "fix" a country.

[Lonewacko]

OK, let me try to make this clear. Fox likes Bush's amnesty plan. Except, he doesn't think it goes far enough. He wants more. He wants the whole enchilada.

Let's say that Bush changes his mind, and says there will be no amnesty ever. Bush tells Fox that he likes him, and they're still buddies, but he's decided not to play along with Fox's schemes.

In other words, Bush tells Fox to go fsck himself.

What would you do if you were Fox?

In other words, you are now Vicente Fox. You have just been told by Bush to fsck off. What do you do?

Please respond in detail, and come prepared with your knowledge of the history of various countries over the past few thousand years.

[Heather]

The proposed legislation only grants a three month temp status, and is pretty expensive to obtain. On top of the thousands of dollars in fees, the system garnishes over 50% of the employee's pay check.

[Will Spencer]

I find this entire discussion to be wildly insane, frighteningly racist, and generally low-brow.

Human beings do not "belong" to land. A particular portion of geographic real estate does not "own" a defined group of human beings.

Mexicans belong in Mexico because they were born there? U.S. citizens belong here because we were born here? No.

Human beings must be free to travel.

Human beings must be free to work.

Human beings must be free to live.

Free minds and free markets.

[Lonewacko]

We have at least 5 million Mexican citizens on our soil, perhaps many more.

If you were, say, a CIA analyst, would you just ignore those people, or would you take them into account when determining whether Mexico has some power over the U.S. in some way?

Could, for instance, the Mexican government attempt to rally those people either for peaceful means or something like civil insurrections or strikes or similar?

Once again, let's assume you're a CIA analyst, and you need to take everything into account. It can happen here, and in your "job" you need to cover all bases.

Do you know of cases where the Mexican government has tried to rally its citizens in the U.S. to support its goals?

[Mona]

Will Spencer declares: "Human beings do not "belong" to land. A particular portion of geographic real estate does not "own" a defined group of human beings.

Mexicans belong in Mexico because they were born there? U.S. citizens belong here because we were born here? No."

Exactly right. The idea that I unquestionably "belong" here because my mother pushed me from her womb in Wisconsin makes sense only as an arbitrary, practical means of *one* way of determining citizenship. But she was here to give birth to me because two generations prior some Czechs crossed the ocean. That is another way of becoming a citizen, and is more noble because it reflects human choice and self-direction.

My Czech- and Irish-American parents strongly favor slamming closed the doors of immigration, in large part because they think those Mexicans are just so...icky. Of course, when their forebears arrived on these shores the WASPs didn't want them, and thought they, as papists, were super-icky.

Catholics were thought to owe their allegiance to the Vatican; the industrious Know-Nothings spewed out reams of propaganda claiming that those belonging to the Roman church were not, and could not be, loyal Americans. They rang the alarum bell about a Romish plot to store weapons and take over the nation for His Holiness. These notions were widely believed and resulted in rioting against Catholics and mob murders of them.

German- and Japanese-Americans also faced extensive suspicion about their loyalties, and no small amount of paranoid agitation. And, while a few of these did sympathize with their country of origin, the vast, vast majority were rather quickly assimilated and embraced an American identity as primary. Hispanic immigrants can be expected to follow suit, altho the identity politics movement is mucking up their assimilaton process in some respects. One can, as I do, favor open borders while also both taking a dim view of Hispanic militancy, and insisting that English should be our national language, even if only informally.

[Rebecca]

Seems that Lonewacko is trying to lead us Socratic-style to answering a question to his satisfaction. Since it is not obvious what answer he is looking for, except that he insists we answer his question - really, I find it quite pointless. So I shall not respond to *that*.

Seem to me that the benefit of offering amnesty (legal recognition) to the 8 million illegal immigrants currently in question, would remove them from the list of things that INS and border control have to worry about. Sorta like attempting to wipe the slate clean and start over again at zero. Make all current illegals legal, then we can begin again at enforcing immigration law. Theoretically, it will be easier to focus immigration personnel on the new people coming across the border than it would be to focus on the newbies as well as the current 8 million.

As to whether the illegals are truly better off here than in their country of origin: ask them. The fact that so many stay here - and then send for their relatives - must indicate that they do think they are better off. Surely they are capable of knowing for themselves what their best interests are? Most of us are so surrounded by luxery and success, we can't understand how one could be happy in what we would consider intolerable conditions (for Americans, at any rate).

Also, fears of a Mexican uprising are ludicrous. The Mexicans who come across the border do not amount to 8 million; and they are coming here for economic reasons. Lonewacko seems to assume that all members of a foreign country do whatever their current leader tells them to. If that were the case, Saddam's call for "killing the invaders" would have resulted in 100% of Iraqis fighting against the Americans, as opposed to about 5%. Mexico is a democracy. Do all Americans jump when the president - ANY president - says so? Of course not! Why then would Mexicans, or any other group of immigrants?

[yelowd]

wacko-
FBI. The FBI deals with internal matters. CIA is external.

Tell me, LW, what do you propose we do with 5-8 mil people who are ALREADY in the US illegally? Would you support assimilation through legalization if we also tightened down our borders to prevent a further 5-8 mil in that we would then grant amnesty to in 15 years?

[Lonewacko]

"Sorta like attempting to wipe the slate clean and start over again at zero."

Any amnesty will just lead to another amnesty down the line. I already made that - and part of my solution - clear away back in the third comment. The 1986 amnesty was supposed to be the very last amnesty, remember? We've had six since then.

As for the FBI/CIA difference, I'm sorry. I forgot the CIA doesn't get involved in domestic matters.

So, let's say you're a realistic FBI analyst. What are some of the things we need to watch out for? Have Mexican officials already, for instance, threatened us with encouraging their people (all of whom we supposedly couldn't live without) to "act up?"

"Mexico is a democracy"

[squeegeeee.... squeegeeee.... squeegeeee....]

[Ruthless]

Free minds.
Free markets.
Open borders.
Fly to Mars on your own nickle.
Open flies.

I hope Nick will eventually let us know when we're getting warm about what it is we're supposed to be thinking about this topic.

[joe]

"No, I think this is a pressing administrative issue that President Bush simply will not ignore. Further, it will set the stage for handling another even more exigent administrative issue that is one of George W. Bush's most cherished dreams: reforming Social Security."

OK, I think I've got it. Mr. Henry thinks that the new citizens will look at their paychecks, see that money is being deducted for Social Security, and march through the streets demanding a revolution against the welfare state. That's the only link I can imagine between this amnesty-type proposal and the Social Security issue.

Think. (rolls eyes)

[fyodor]

"Do Vicente Fox and Mexico have some form of power over the U.S.?"

I thought the use of the word "power" here was rather loaded, so I looked the word up to make sure I had a clear idea of what was being said. Of many various definitions, the one that looks the most applicable is:

The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.

Using this definition, I would answer Lonewacko's question in the negatory.

If the question, OTOH, was whether the Mexican govt (led by Fox or otherwise) has some influence with the US govt, I would say sure, I imagine so.

To which I would add, so what?

[Vic the Appraiser]

Wacko -

Your bait's in the water, but nobody's biting. Your entire thesis - as best as I can tell - is that the US faces some kind of threat from having Mexicans here, who stand primed and ready to rise up as one agaist El Diablo as soon as Mr. Fox gives the go-ahead. That is an incredibly asinine proposition, which is why nobody here is taking it even remotely seriously.

First, sadly for you, the brown hordes are not so easily commanded. Second, they do not all think alike. Third, they are not like some kind of giant termite mound where one queen termite makes decisions for the mound, whose orders are selflessly executed.

Mexicans, see, are human beings, sort of like you (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here). So just as George Bush cannot command that, say, everybody vote for him, Vincente Fox cannot command...whatever it is you're bizarrely hinting around at.

At the risk of giving your third-rate analysis too much credit, I'll add that I find it highly implausible that any more than, say, a half dozen Mexicans would be inclined to piss off the country they've risk their freedom to relocate too, in the hopes that so many other Mexicans will, too (safety in numbers), and instead of arresting and/or deporting him, will simply sigh, shrug, and say, "Ok, Vincente, tell us what we must do in order to placate these mobs of swarthy day laborers and grapefruit pickers."

In other words, is that all you have, or are we done here?

Buy more tin foil.

[yelowd]

Act up? When did the mexicans join with the gays?

It all makes sense now....

[Vic the Appraiser]

BTW guys, I was just yanking your chain. It was me posting under the "Lone Wacko" nom de plume the whole time. The jig is up - there actually is no Lone Wacko.

[Lonewacko]

"Things like that don't happen here. No one is crazy enough to fly jets into buildings! Nope, not gonna happen. Can't even conceive of it! La la la de de dah. I can't hear you!"

It'd be nice if one of the reason people would make an appearance here. Perhaps we could discuss this in a more adult and intelligent fashion.

BTW, Drudge links to a couple of interesting stories:

Fox seeks to open U.S. borders

Border council calls Bush plan 'slap in the face'

[Mona]

my alter ego outrageously claims: "BTW guys, I was just yanking your chain. It was me posting under the "Lone Wacko" nom de plume the whole time. The jig is up - there actually is no Lone Wacko."

Stand down, sir! All along it has been *ME*. Me, I tell you.

[Lonewacko]

"Real Cost of Bush's Immigration Plan Staggering":

The U.S. General Accounting Office released findings Thursday that show the federal agency that oversees immigration applications has a massive backlog and is inadequately funded to meet existing, much less increased demand...

It remains unclear how the massive costs of implementation and monitoring will be paid for as the federal budget deficit promises to reach a record of more than half a trillion dollars in 2004.

In a Jan. 5 letter to the top members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, GAO reports that from fiscal 2001 through 2003, the agency's operating costs exceeded the fees collected from applicants by almost $460 million.

The GAO review of immigration application fees and processing was required by law under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

The audit agency also reports that CIA has not met the goal, set in March 2002, of a 6-month processing time for immigration applications and that the agency has no system to track the status of individual applications as they move through the process...

But most important is the fact that despite a funding increase of $80 million annually starting in 2002, the number of pending applications had increased by 59 percent, or more than more than 2.3 million to around 6.2 million by Sept. 30, 2003, the end of the fiscal year...

Maybe we could hire some illegal aliens to do the work for us, eh?

[Vic the Appraiser]

Wacko -

The question is not whether we can dream up "various scenarios", but whether the scenarios are plausible. Yours is not, to the extent that you've even bothered to define it.

As for whether Mona and I are the same person - it's neither crazy nor sane. In fact, we are not, but sure, we could be, right? Nothing's stopping us. And it would be a clever, crafty way of giving the illusion that you are more outnumbered than you really are. I say, you are correct in assuming that Mona and I are the same person, as any sufficiently paranoid...er, guarded...person should.

BTW, the best way of preventing people from posting under duplicate identities is to wrap your monitor in tin foil. Little factoid there for ya.

[joe]

Gotta watch out for those Appraisers - masters of reality. They can make you $100,000 richer just by saying so. 😉

[yelowd]

LOL

LW/Chris Kelly, why in the world would you write to the Spectator and then link to a Hit & Run blog where the vast majority of people are pro-amnesty and they are portraying you as a tinfoil type?

[Lonewacko]

The message I'm getting is that so far no one has the brain power to dream up various scenarios. It's kinda like shortly after 9/11 when the military asked film makers to think up possible scenarios for future terrorist attacks. No one here appears to have the brains or creativity to run through a few possible scenarios.

As for tin foil, would it be wacky of me to assume that Mona and Vic are the same person?

[Steven Crane]

Pancho Villa =/= Saladin.