Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts

When Every Day is Labor Day

As you enjoy your day off, think about this story from Cardinal Sean of Boston.

For 20 years I worked as a priest with immigrants in Washington. There were many Portuguese who had left the old colonies after the revolution and were seeking a new life in America. Most were Hispanic refugees from Central America where civil wars were raging.

One day a man came to my office. He handed me a letter from his wife and sat down and wept. The wife scolded him for leaving her and their eight children to starve in the war torn El Salvador. She said she had waited over eight months and still he had not written or sent money.

The man told me he had left his farm in El Salvador and come illegally to Washington because it was impossible to farm with the war. He lived in a single room with six other men and worked in two restaurants, washing dishes. He told me that he walked to work, so as not to spend money on the bus and that he did not buy food, but rather ate the leftover food on the dirty dishes that he washed. Each week he sent all the money he earned to his wife, but she had not received his letters. I asked if he sent checks or cash. He told me he sent cash and each Friday mailed the letters and money, putting them in the blue mailbox on the corner.

I looked out the widow and saw his blue mailbox. It was a fancy trash bin.

Too often we who want to stop illegal immigration forget that the people entering our country are still people. They have lives and families and emotions and worries. Does that mean we open the borders and let everybody in? No, of course not. Yet there ought to be a way to allow men like this - who want nothing more than to provide for their families and willingly make enormous sacrifices to do so - to work in the U.S. while still keeping out the criminals, terrorists, gangsters, and others who might be a threat. The fact that the situation goes on unresolved is a political outrage and a human tragedy.

Happy Labor Day.

Common Sense Immigration Policy

The decibel level in the immigration debate is on the rise again, with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney trading barbs about the "sanctuary" policies of many U.S. cities, including NYC under Giuliani. Donald Douglas has an interesting post on this subject.

Somewhat related is the recent deportation of Elvira Arellano, the woman who had been hiding from authorities in a Chicago church for the last year. She ventured out on a trip to Los Angeles and was arrested and sent back to Mexico. Much is made of the resulting separation of Ms. Arellano from her young son - who is a U.S. citizen - but that is her choice. She is free to take him with her to Mexico. It appears to me that this woman is allowing herself to be used for political purposes by pro-immigration groups.

I've said before that positions on both sides of this issue are so hardened that any kind of compromise is very unlikely. On one extreme are the "open borders" advocates who would essentially allow anyone to enter the U.S. and stay as long as they wish. At the other end are those who want to lock down the border and take action against illegal aliens who are already in the U.S.

While there are elements of wisdom on both sides of the argument, no one seems to advocate what, to me, seems like a very common sense approach: secure the borders and allow a reasonable amount of legal immigration. Here is my suggestion.

First, we have to get control of the borders. The current situation, with thousands of people willy-nilly entering the country with little to stop them, can't be tolerated. Changing it will involve both tighter security on the border itself, and harsh penalties on those who employ illegal immigrants. National security has to be the first priority.

Second, once we have established zero tolerance of illegal immigration, the government should be generous in allowing people of good will to enter the U.S. and work here legally. Our economy obviously needs the labor that immigrants provide. Everyone will be better served if we open the door to those who want to work and are otherwise law-abiding good neighbors. Of course there have to be limits; but if the limits are calculated to match the amount and types of labor needed in the U.S., then a reasonable balance should be possible.

This leaves open the question of what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here. They will need to either leave or be legalized in some way. Serious workplace enforcement would go a long way to solving this problem. Those who really want to stay here and work will go through whatever process is imposed, while the rest will be motivated be the increased enforcement to leave the U.S.

The reason no one is suggesting such a policy is that both sides distrust the other. Border security groups do not trust the Bush Administration to actually do anything to enforce current laws, much less any new ones. Open-borders advocates think the other side has racist motives and wants to punish those who wish only to earn a living for their families. Attempts at compromise, such as the immigration bill that died earlier this year, have been so riddled with loopholes on both sides that in the end no one could accept them.

It would be nice if we had some kind of national grandpa that everyone trusted to do the right thing. Since we don't, it is hard to imagine any kind of sensible solution emerging from the political process. Where that leaves us, I'm not so sure. It won't be good.

Fred Thompson Watch IV

It appears that The Last Best Hope Of The GOP may be stumbling. First we have this story from MSNBC which says fundraising has slowed way down. It also notes there is chaos in the non-campaign non-organization, with Mrs. Fred Thompson #2 taking a very active role. Are they two for the price of one? We so loved that with the Clintons, remember.

Next, in an apparent bid to rejuvenate things Thompson has brought in former Senator Spencer Abraham as a senior non-campaign non-official. Some very vocal Thompson backers are very disturbed at this, citing two reasons. Spencer Abraham is of Arab-American descent (though he is not a Muslim) and has apparently been supportive of some Islamic groups. Furthermore, as a Senator Abraham was on the wrong side of the immigration argument, wanting to open the borders even more.

Of course, presidential candidates don't always agree with their aides on every single issue, so the problematic Abraham views may not reflect what Thompson thinks. The problem is we can't know this for sure because Thompson has not given detailed answers to questions on immigration policy, or much of anything else. He's a blank slate on which everyone projects what they want to see.

Finally, the controversy about Thompson's lobbying work on behalf of a pro-abortion organization isn't going away. In fact, his lawyer-like attempts to first deny the story, then spin it in his favor when the evidence became clear are hard to square with the straight-shooter, regular-guy image he wishes to project. This story has video of Thompson flip-flopping on TV.

I continue to maintain that if you like George W. Bush, you'll love Fred Thompson. There doesn't appear to be a dime's worth of difference between them in any matter of public policy. If anyone has seen stories of Fred actually disagreeing with anything Bush has done, please tell me. I haven't seen it.

Bro. Robin has a nice round-up of all the GOP candidates that is worth reading. Here is what he says about Thompson. (He doesn't link to back-up for all these positions and I haven't verified them. It all sounds about right, thought.)

Fred Thompson: Sorry folks, the kindly actor you’ve come to know through the TV series "Law and Order" is not who you’d like him to be. Despite the polls (AP/ IPSOS 6/9/07) which tout Thompson as a darling among conservatives, most are apparently ignorant of his political pedigree. Like his friend, McCain and other GOP leaders, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a main group behind the North American Union.

Thompson’s "Pro-Life" position in his own words: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."

After 8 years as a US Senator from Tennessee, Thompson racked up some votes that should be cause for concern. He voted YES:

1. in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act- the law to silence grassroots conservative groups.
2. to expand NAFTA. Modeled after the European Common Market, NAFTA was a first step toward open borders in North America and the North American Union.
3. on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
4. on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
5. for permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
6. for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
7. to fund the GOP Medicare prescription drug benefit debacle.

Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq."(Freemarket news.com) Prior to his run for U.S. Senate, he was a Washington lobbyist for 20 years.

Why anybody who is a thinking conservative would support Fred Thompson is beyond me. If this is the best we can do, I'm not sure Hillary would be that much worse.

Immigration Corrupts

Those, like me, who want tighter border enforcement and other measures to reduce illegal immigration like to point out that the immigrants are illegal. Such disregard for the law is not good, we constantly remind each other.

While this is absolutely true, what we often forget is that we're all part of the problem. People come to the U.S. seeking jobs because we want cheap labor. We want inexpensive gardeners, cooks, and housekeepers. The economy responds to this demand by attracting people who are willing to work at relatively low wages. We don't see what happens beneath the surface.

This article expresses the point well. You must read it. The author tells the story of his daughter going to work in a popular restaurant with many Latino employees.

One evening, my daughter noticed two new Latinos quietly eating in the kitchen. She asked a co-worker who they were, and he said he had just watched them being “delivered.” He had been having a smoke on the back steps a few minutes earlier when a truck drove up, pulling behind it a sedan. A man got out, went to the car, opened the back door, pulled back a blanket, and two men, who had been lying covered up in the backseat, got out. One of the restaurant’s owners came out of the cafĂ©, spoke with the driver a bit in their native language, then handed the driver a wad of bills and took the men inside, where they were given dinner.

Reportedly, the delivery man was paid $1,500 for each of the workers. The fee, as well as a lot else, had to be worked off. The owners house their workers in two decaying split-level homes about a mile from the restaurant: their own ethnic group’s workers in one, Latinos in the other (the owners’ sister serves as a kind of frat-house mother). The workers are shuttled between the houses and the restaurant in vans. Housing and transportation fees are deducted from their wages. Whatever money is left, the workers seem mostly to send back to their homes.

The Latinos whom my daughter met were hard workers. And they were in the United States because they loved their families and had the courage to go to desperate measures to try to provide for them. But with their world caged between the interior of the restaurant, the continually shuttered split-levels where they are housed, the van that shuttles them between the two, and the fear that they were criminals, they are isolated and deeply lonely. And they found comfort in those two traditional friends of the lonely and the poor: alcoholism and prostitution.

He goes on to explain how this state of affairs has a corrupting influence on virtually everyone involved: the employers, the workers, their families, the customers, law enforcement, and the public at large. Then he goes for the jugular:

The politicians—all those other folks at the Rotary tables—seem to be pitching their rhetoric and tailoring their legislation more to a view of capturing the loyalty of a new voting block than finding a solution that is both charitable and honors the law. Law enforcement, perhaps through resigned frustration, appear to be blind to the situation. But equally blind are the patrons. Because the mountains of food are so cheap, we still wait for the tables. We just have to pretend not to see the dark-skinned boy speaking Spanish hauling the plates back to the kitchen.

But then we have a tradition here in the South of not seeing dark-skinned boys hauling plates back to the kitchen, don’t we? Oh, that hurts. Maybe it’s not that the illegal immigration business is corrupting us here in Tennessee. Instead, perhaps it’s our corruption that’s attracting the illegal immigrants. The problem now, just as it was in 1845, isn’t the exploitation of an underclass. The problem is our greed that makes the exploitation tolerable.

Comparing today's illegal immigrants to slaves isn't quite right. For one thing, the government does not officially regard them as non-humans who can be treated like property. No one is forced to come work in the U.S., and squalid as the conditions here may seem, it is often even worse back home. On a practical level, though, it is easy for employers to take advantage of illegal workers and difficult for the workers to resist. This leads to a kind of quasi-slavery that most Americans choose to overlook while we continue enjoying the fruits of their labor.

In former times many of the menial jobs now held by immigrants were done by young Americans. I don't have any hard data on this, but today's teenagers seem far less likely to be gainfully employed than past generations. Some are intensely involved with academic or athletic pursuits. Others just stay home and play video games. The need for labor has not gone away, however, so we end up with immigrants filling the jobs. Is this state of affairs an effect of illegal immigration, or the cause of it? The answer isn't as clear as we like to think.

Whether it was a conscious decision or not, the reality is that we Americans have collectively decided our youth should have lives of leisure. We achieve this by importing the youth of other nations to do the work that keeps our lifestyles affordable. We pretend not to notice the conditions under which these children of other people live and work. That's why we gripe when we have to look at them, or when they clog the emergency rooms. Something is wrong with this picture.

The point is that the current situation is not good for anyone. All the parties receive certain benefits, but in the long run all are harmed as well. I don't have a magic answer. Maybe there isn't one. The legislation that has been proposed so far falls short, or is even counterproductive.

As with so many other contentious matters of public policy, I suspect we won't face up to this one until we face a crisis. By then none of the solutions will be easy or pleasant. It's the price we pay for the lives we lead. I hope it's worth the cost.

Hat tip: Crunchy Con

Smart Kids

Leticia from Causa Nostrae Laetitiae has this interesting story from her time as a public school teacher.

I was teaching bilingual US history. We were studying how a bill becomes law. The class was Congress, and as, the President, I could veto any bill they passed. Now, what kind of law would you expect teenagers to pass? Lower the drinking age, perhaps?

The first law was open immigration. OK, that I expected. The second law was to outlaw abortion, giving a life sentence to the mother, and the death penalty to the abortionist. This passed 29 to 1, with the only 'nea' coming from Maria, who was the only student from Europe, not Latin America. "Maria, you are intelligent, why can't you see that abortion is murder?" her classmate argued. I told the students not to listen to their other teachers, they already knew MUCH more than they. MORE

The immigrant kids sound like they have a much better moral compass than a lot of native-born Americans. Unfortunately it won't stay with them for long. This is one area where assimilation into our society will not be to their benefit.

I highlighted another of Leticia's stories here a few weeks ago.

UPDATE 7/2/07: I wish to clarify that I am NOT in favor of prison for women who have abortions. Maybe in some cases, with women who are very irresponsible and have repeated abortions, some kind of sanction would be in order. Most of the women who have abortions are confused and misled. Those who perform abortions for money, however, are nothing less than murderers in my opinion, and should be treated as such.

Amnesty Bill Fails

The Kennedy-McCain immigration bill was shot down in flames today and is probably dead until after the 2008 elections. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. On June 9th I said this:

Meanwhile President Bush seems once again unable to know when to give up. He's still pushing Senators to change their minds and is planning a rare personal visit to Capitol Hill next week to twist some arms. I predict Bush will accomplishment nothing except to make himself look even more irrelevant than he already does. Even if he succeeds in getting this bill through the Senate, the chance of it getting through the House is close to zero.

On May 23rd I said this:
My guess is that the new immigration bill has little chance of passing in anything like its current form. This is such a polarizing issue I'm not sure any kind of agreement will ever be possible. It is kind of like Social Security in that regard: we all know the problem is only getting worse, but nobody is willing to make the sacrifices a solution would require. In both cases, there isn't likely to be a happy ending to the story.

While the bill died a well-deserved death, the longer-term political impact may not be so pleasant. As long as the issue is on the table, candidates will be forced to talk about it and the GOP will remain split down the middle. This was, I suspect, the real motivation for Bush and other Republican supporters. They just wanted to pass something, anything, so they could say they have "done something" about the immigration crisis.

This is standard politics: kick the can down the road and let somebody else deal with it. Such decisions are the reason we have these problems in the first place. We don't have leaders who truly want to do what is right. We have politicians who want to get re-elected. They do whatever they think will best support that goal. It's the way politics works in a democracy.

Take A Deep Breath

In the last few days Texas Fred has launched a graphical and rhetorical jihad against President Bush. It was precipitated by Bush's claim to personal ownership of the U.S. government along with his obstinate efforts to impose open borders on the country whether the legal residents want such a thing or not.

As far as I know, Fred has never been a big fan of Bush. So he doesn't mind saying things like this. Here's a sample of the fun.

And oh yeah, that oath you took, the one where you swore to defend this nation from ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, you need to re-think that part of the equation too Mr. Bush, because AT THIS TIME, you Mr. Bush, and your cohorts in the Senate and Congress, the ones that support you in your effort to make the United States a northern province of Mexico, are as big a threat to the security of this nation as is ANY terrorist…

You Mr. Bush, are a TRAITOR to this nation and to the LEGAL citizens OF this nation and YOU are a disgrace to the office of President of the United States…

This quote is even better.
This man has lost his mind, his grip on reality and every time he opens his mouth he further endangers this nation in ways we have not yet begun to see…

John McCain is also in Fred's crosshair (idiot, traitor, liberal, etc).

I would probably have used somewhat less incendiary language, but Fred has his own style that I can't imitate. I'm in general agreement with the sentiments. As a political matter Fred is exactly right: this immigration bill means amnesty and open borders.

Bush, McCain and their henchpersons are apparently OK with amnesty and open borders, and they thought they could push the bill through before the rest of us noticed. What does this tell us? Two things. First, they are really evil. Second, they think the rest of us are really stupid.

Hopefully the Senate will soon kill this ill-considered legislation once and for all. Meanwhile I am worried about Texas Fred. I think his head may spin right off before Bush leaves office. We all need to help him relax. Any ideas? I'm not sure flowers would do the job. Maybe a Bush dartboard? A McCain punching bag? A really long book to read? Trip to France? Please do whatever you can.

Immigration Bill On Life Support

Lost amid the Paris Hilton news this weekend is the apparent failure in the Senate of the new immigration bill. I expected as much but I thought it would take longer. The bill was doomed from the start, in my opinion. In crafting a "comprehensive" solution, the authors put in something for everyone to like. This means there was also something for everyone not to like.

If our political heroes actually want to get something done - which is doubtful - the better idea would be to take an incremental approach. Find a few minor points everyone can agree on and pass them into law. Do what you can instead of insisting on this all-or-nothing deal.

Meanwhile President Bush seems once again unable to know when to give up. He's still pushing Senators to change their minds and is planning a rare personal visit to Capitol Hill next week to twist some arms. I predict Bush will accomplishment nothing except to make himself look even more irrelevant than he already does. Even if he succeeds in getting this bill through the Senate, the chance of it getting through the House is close to zero.

Red Carpet For Terrorists

In the recent case of the man with drug-resistant tuberculosis, most of the news coverage revolved around his extreme narcissism. There is certainly plenty to say on the subject. Yes, both local and federal officials failed to react quickly enough, but in time they let him know he was a threat to other people and needed to be isolated. He still chose to get on an airplane and expose not only hundreds of strangers but his own wife to his potentially fatal condition. "Selfish" is definitely an appropriate description for his behavior. There is another angle to this story, though, and it has to do with border security.

Having flown back from Europe to Montreal rather than straight to the U.S., reportedly because he knew he was on the no-fly list, this gentleman entered the U.S. via rental car at Champlain, New York. By this point the wheels of government had turned enough to flag his passport in the immigration computers.

The screen the agent looked at, when this person attempted to enter the U.S. from Canada, said he had a contagious disease and should be detained and isolated. So what happened? Thinking to himself the man did not look sick, the agent welcomed the TB carrier home and wished him a nice day.

Keep in mind, this person was not trying to hide his identity. He wasn't sneaking across the border in darkness. The staff at the border checkpoint, whose job is to keep dangerous people out of the United States, knew exactly who he was and how they were supposed to react if he appeared. They just didn't do it.

If this is indicative of the motivation and training of the people who guard our borders, it doesn't really matter how much money we spend on fences or how many background checks we run on immigrants. We might as well roll out a red carpet for terrorists - especially terrorists who are carrying deadly viruses.

The U.S. managed to fight and win World War II in less than four years. It's been almost six years since 9/11 made clear that there are people who want to kill mass numbers of Americans. Why are our borders still not secured? If our government can't even stop a lawyer with TB when they know he is coming, it is only a matter of time before terrorists enter the country with a far more deadly disease.

Oh, I remember now. We're fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. The Bush Administration is working hard to keep out foreigners who might threaten places like, say, Fort Dix or JFK Airport. Got it. I feel safer already.

UPDATE: Congress mad too.

Random Border Thoughts

I've been thinking a lot about the whole immigration quandary. I think I've come to the conclusion that, for me at least, it's almost completely about national security. If we have no practical control over who crosses our borders - and we even admit as much - then the United States is not a functioning nation.

I don't particularly mind if people from other countries come here to work. If I lived in a Central American slum and watched my family suffer day and night, I would go wherever I could to make enough money to better provide for them. I can't blame anyone for doing whatever they can to build a better life.

The problem is that some percentage of those who enter the U.S. illegally are not coming to seek honest work. Maybe they are criminals. Maybe they are lazy and think they can live better on welfare here than they can by working for pennies an hour at home. Maybe they are terrorists who want to hurt Americans. We need to stop such people from entering our country, while at the same time welcoming those who truly want to be contributing members of our society.

Some argue that immigrants take jobs away from law-abiding Americans. Maybe in a few specific occupations that is true, but in the aggregate our economy is now operating at nearly full employment. Businesses need labor of all kinds. The wages they offer are the magnet that attracts people to cross the border. Are immigrants willing to work for less than Americans? Maybe. What counts is they are willing to work. There's nothing wrong with an employer hiring the least-expensive workers he can find, as long as they aren't be exploited or enslaved.

This brings up the next point. The illegal immigrant population has certain benefits for Americans. Their presence allows us, for example, to have inexpensive lawn care, construction, restaurant service, nanny service, and a variety of other things. We all like having these things. If by some miracle we were able to expel all the illegals, what would happen to our economy? To the extent we need the services they provide, we would all suddenly have to pay a lot more and we would have to reduce our spending elsewhere. The result would be recession.

Suppose, by another miracle, we are able to not only expel all the illegals but also secure the southern border so that no more are able to cross. What would happen on the other side? The U.S. acts as a kind of relief valve for the dysfunctional Mexican economy. The money illegals send back to their families would be sorely missed. There would soon be serious social unrest in Mexico, and violence would probably follow. Having such a burning cauldron right next door would be problematic for the U.S., to say the least.

So what we need is a filter: a wall with doors in it, doors that are closely guarded and through which are allowed only the people we determine are non-threatening. What about those who are already here illegally? They need to go through the same process. Give them a reasonable time to register, check them out thoroughly, and let them stay. After a deadline, anyone who fails to register should go to prison. Call the "amnesty" if you want, but I don't see any practical way around it.

Incidentally, the concern many on the right have about "law-breaking" immigrants would be a lot more convincing if they would stop making excuses for the Bush Administration's own railroading of the Constitution and defiance of laws it doesn't like. A lot of these people are all for enforcing the law on people they don't like, while exempting themselves and their friends.

Now some of you will say that immigrants consume an extraordinary amount of tax money for various government services. This may well be true. Is it relevant? The fact is most of these "services" should not exist in the first place, for anybody - American or otherwise. Get rid of them, use the money on border security and we can kill two birds with one stone.

Another argument is cultural: immigrants don't assimilate and become real Americans. For some this is probably true, but I'm not sure the current wave of Mexicans we are seeing is all that different from past mass migrations of people from other cultures to the U.S. Once in the melting pot they eventually lose their prior identity and become Americans. The problem is that it takes 2-3 generations for this process to work. Children of immigrants want to speak English and become part of the larger culture. This process would be helped along if we would eliminate bilingual education from our public schools, but that's another subject.

So my problem with the current immigration proposal boils down to this: it's not serious. The laughable background checks that would be done before granting Z visas would do nothing to stop undesirables from being here, and may even attract more. I don't trust the Bush Administration to really do anything about border security. I'd like to be proven wrong. If they will actually build the fences and hire the Border Patrol agents that Congress has already authorized, it would be a good start. I'm not holding my breath. If, as the president says, the U.S faces threats to its very existence, there is no excuse for leaving the border virtually open.

A Movement Torn Apart

Peggy Noonan, now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, was a top speech writer for Ronald Reagan. For the past few years she's been in a kind of slow burn over the way Bush has squandered opportunities and betrayed conservative principles. She has, I think, been trying to nudge him back, gently and eloquently.

With today's column Ms. Noonan appears to have gone over the edge. Her last straw is the attack campaign the administration has unleashed on conservative who oppose the latest immigration reform plan.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism." MORE

I distinctly remember Ms. Noonan's column reacting to the utopian rhetoric of Bush's second inaugural address in 2005. Read it now and you'll detect the seeds of her current disappointment. At the time I thought she was being too hard on him. Now I see what she meant. Bush has almost single-handedly destroyed the conservative movement that took decades to build.

Peggy Noonan is so respected and so widely read that I have to think her column is sending shock waves through the GOP establishment. It won't matter, of course. As she says, the White House no longer cares what anyone thinks. Bush is playing to the history books now.

If nothing else, Ms. Noonan gave bloggers a lot of material today. As of this evening Newsgator detects 61 links to her column. A quick perusal found one story defending Bush but most are in total agreement with Ms. Noonan. Check out the reaction from Stephen Bainbridge, Rod Dreher, Daniel Larison, Mark Shea, and even Texas Fred.

Bad Move by Bush

President Bush is on the attack against opponents of the new immigration plan.

GLYNCO, Ga., May 29 — President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.

“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”

The president used some of his toughest language yet as he began an effort to build support for the bill in the Senate. The measure hews closely to his long-sought goal of a new immigration system with three components: tighter seals on the nation’s borders, a guest-worker system for noncitizens who want to work here, and a path to citizenship for some 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

The bill, the product of a compromise struck by Republican and Democratic leaders two weeks ago, has encountered stiff resistance from the left and right. Liberal opposition taking aim at the proposal for shifting the system for awarding permanent residence status to give more weight to education and skills and less to family reunification, while conservatives have derided the plan for allowing illegal aliens to legalize their status.

It was the conservative opponents whom Mr. Bush seemed to address most forcefully in his remarks here today — a rare example of the president crossing swords with key members of the political coalition that helped him attain the Oval Office and then keep it four years later: The same conservative radio hosts, writers, bloggers, and legislators who killed an attempt at compromise immigration legislation last year. MORE

This is a big mistake, and doubly sad because Bush has made it before. Remember the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination? The Dubai Ports World deal? In both cases, Bush faced serious opposition from his own base and was eventually forced to back down.

Bush seems to have a real problem with what he perceives as "disloyalty." The problem is he can't fire the American people, like he does with staff who disagree too loudly. Yet instead of addressing their concerns, he lashes out at the same folks who would like to be his allies on other issues. This is not the way to win friends and influence people.

The immigration deal was already on shaky ground and this may be enough to kill it. Whatever support Bush ever had with grassroots conservatives is gone. The strange thing is he doesn't seem to mind. It's enough to make you wonder if he is a liberal at heart.

Immigration Overload

As I noted in Border Insanity a few days ago, "we need to know who is here and have at least some assurance that they are not dangerous." Details of the new immigration bill are beginning to emerge and they are not at all reassuring.

AT the center of the bill is the massive "Z visa" amnesty - whereby virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country could become lawfully present, able to renew the visa indefinitely until they die.

To qualify, an alien must have entered before Jan. 1, and have remained in the United States ever since. Each applicant must also have a job or be the parent, child or spouse of someone who does.

Many of the bill's advocates claim the amnesty doesn't take effect until some future date - after the measure's border-security goals are met. Not true - at least, not in effect. The amnesty starts immediately - with the issuance of probationary Z visas.

And that qualifier means little: The probationary visa is nearly as good as the non-probationary one, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation and work authorization the alien to work. He or she can exit and re-enter the country (with advance permission).

It will extremely hard for the government to prevent criminals and terrorists from getting these probationary visas. The bill allows the federal government only one business day to do a "background check" on each applicant.

The bill's authors seem ignorant of what this means in practice... MORE

Here's what Bush, McCain, Kennedy, and others want to do. ALL illegal aliens currently in the U.S. will be given full legal status, with no practical effort to weed out criminals, terrorists, or other undesirables. It's a blanket amnesty, in effect, and not only for those already here. New entrants will have little trouble finding the "documents" necessary to prove they were here on Jan. 1st.

See now why they wanted to ram this through the Senate quickly with no debate? Fortunately they are being caught, and this bill will probably die a quick and well-deserved death. We've learned something useful, too. All the Bush Administration talk about "defending America" is just so much talk. If they really think the terrorist threat is so dire, why are they trying to open our borders to everyone who wants in? It makes no sense.

What does make sense is that the construction, agriculture, and restaurant industries need cheap labor. They have political power. Money talks in Washington. National security is being sold out for cold, hard cash.



Slow Down

The erudite Peggy Noonan appears to have thoughts about illegal immigration similar to what I said earlier this week. Of course she says it much better than I did.

We should stop, slow down and absorb. We should sit and settle. We should do what you do after eating an eight-course meal. We should digest what we've eaten.

We should close our borders. We should do whatever it takes to close them tight and solid. Will that take the Army? Then send the Army. Does it mean building a wall? Then build a wall, but the wall must have doors, which can be opened a little or a lot down the road once we know where we are. Should all legal immigration stop? No. We should make a list of what our nation needs, such as engineers and nurses, and then admit a lot of engineers and nurses. We should take in what we need to survive and flourish.

As we end illegal immigration, we should set ourselves to the Americanization of the immigrants we have. They haven't only joined a place of riches, it's a place of meaning. We must teach them what it is they've joined and why it is good and what is expected of them and what is owed. We stopped Americanizing ourselves 40 years ago. We've got to start telling the story of our country again.


Read the rest.

Border Insanity

Crunchy Con has an excellent post today quoting an immigration attorney. His reaction to the new Kennedy-McCain bill that Congress is about to consider:

The long an the short of it is this: this bill has no enforcement to it at all.

Look, it says, in effect, that 'no Y [guest worker] or Z [amnesty] visas will be issued to anybody until the following steps are taken to seal the borders.' But in the mean time, provisional Y and Z visas will be issued, with exactly the same effects and benefits except that they can't be turned into LPR (green card) status.

There is no requirement that the border be 'sealed', just that they hire more people (yay*) and build a tripwire fence (double yay*) and throw out a few more 'criminal' aliens (no yay here, this means that more misdemeanants with US citizen kids will be thrown out).

*((insert the sounds of cheering made when they ate Robin's minstrels here))

And as for the Great Wall of Texas? Forget it. Won't never be built. Not while the Dems are in office.

Furthermore, there are about 30 million non-citizen immigrants, and eight to twelve million illegals in this country. There are 180,000 Homeland Security bureaucrats, of whom about 40,000 or so work for BICE, from border patrol to Homeland Security paperwork drones, for the whole country. I work in one of America's biggest cities, and here, with a half million aliens in this state, BICE and its sister organization, US CIS, have together – count 'em – 30 people processing papers. It takes five years to get a marriage green-card interview. Five years.

Look, this is the crew that gave Mohammad Atta a green card six months after he destroyed the North Tower. And they expect these people to process twelve million Z visa applications in the next three years??? WHO ARE THEY KIDDING?

Click here and read the whole thing. It's fascinating.

Here's where I stand in the immigration debate. First, I have no problem with people coming to the United States to work. Our economy clearly needs them - at least if we all want to continue enjoying the fruits of their labor.

Second, to the extent people are here, regardless of how they arrived, they deserve basic rights: medical care, police protection, etc. They remain fully human regardless of their legal status. On the other hand, if we allow them to enter the country and work here legally they should be willing to accept some reasonable restrictions.

Third, we need to know who is here and have at least some assurance that they are not dangerous. The only way I know to do this is to lock down the borders so people don't cross illegally, and then have a mechanism to let people who want to work in the U.S. enter the country legally, quickly, and efficiently.

As the attorney quoted above illustrates, our government has failed to provide such a process. Fix this and the whole problem would be solved. People will not go to the danger and expense of crossing the border illegally if it is simple to enter the U.S. and work legitimately.

The first step must be to get control of the borders. We have yet to see any serious effort to do so. (This, incidentally, is one of the reasons I have a hard time taking the Bush Administration seriously when it says we must do "whatever it takes" to protect Americans from terrorism. The border is threat #1 and they have done little to secure it. Quite the opposite, actually - Bush is willing to trade national security for political support from the agriculture, construction and restaurant industries.)

My guess is that the new immigration bill has little chance of passing in anything like its current form. This is such a polarizing issue I'm not sure any kind of agreement will ever be possible. It is kind of like Social Security in that regard: we all know the problem is only getting worse, but nobody is willing to make the sacrifices a solution would require. In both cases, there isn't likely to be a happy ending to the story.


Cho's Coin Toss

The media and blog world is breathlessly trying to figure out what drove Cho Seung-Hui to kill so many people at Virginia Tech, and what to do about it.

First, as tragic as it is let's keep this incident in perspective. This morning on Fox News I heard that in a normal year about 20 people a year die violent deaths on American college campuses. This year's total will be higher, obviously. Meanwhile about 1700 college students die every year from alcohol-related incidents. If the goal is to save as many lives as possible, which problem should we focus on - guns or booze? For that matter, how many babies are aborted by Virginia Tech students each year? I'm guessing it is more than 33.

I've come to the conclusion that Cho's killing spree resulted from a series of coin tosses. Can you flip a coin and get heads ten times in row? Probably not. However, if we put a thousand people in a room and have them all start flipping coins, we can say with statistical near-certainty that one person will get ten heads in a row. The rub is we can't know in advance who it will be.

So what were Cho's coins? Here's what we know.

  • He was, according to relatives, afflicted with some sort of mental illness from early childhood. After the family came to the U.S. he was diagnosed with autism.
  • For whatever reasons, the family did not get Cho any treatment for this condition.
  • He had to make a transition from Korean culture to American culture.
  • He was unable to relate to his peers during his school years. He may have been shunned and bullied.
  • Both his parents worked long hours trying to establish new lives in the U.S.
  • Cho's older sister graduated from Princeton, maybe creating unrealistic academic expectations.
  • His creative writing involved dark, violent themes.
  • At college his social awkwardness continued and intensified.
  • He was referred for psychiatric care, but a judge determined he was not an imminent threat to himself or anyone else.
  • From what we know, he was not given (nor did he ask for) any psychiatric medications that might have helped his condition.
  • He was able to buy two guns and learn how to use them.
  • He did not have any sort of religious faith or firm moral principles.
  • He was surrounded by the violent, relativistic modern American culture.
Many people face several of these challenges and do not become killers. We can't pull out one of them in isolation and say that it was the deciding factor. Lot of kids have trouble adjusting to a new school; usually, they get past it. Kids is creative writing classes often write creepy stories; should every young Stephen King be hospitalized? The vast majority of people who buy guns do not use them to kill anyone.

Most of these conditions are innocuous until they combine to strike the same person. All the coins came up heads for Cho. If one or two of them had rolled the other way, maybe 33 people would be alive right now. We can't know.

I'm not suggesting it was all just fate, and none of this relieves Cho of moral responsibility for what he did. My point is that the frantic search for "answers" is ultimately pointless. The answers are clear. We just don't want to hear them, and we don't want to accept that these events can't always be stopped. We want a perfect world.

Our efforts to prevent such incidents in the future will probably have unintended consequences and ultimately not accomplish the goal we want. Yes, there are lessons to be learned and things we should change: better mental health care, for one. At the end of the day, however, we have to accept that we live in a fallen world and evil will always be with us.

Evil came to Virginia Tech this week. It will strike again.

Death Visits Blacksburg

The shootings at Virginia Tech yesterday were tragic and we must pray for the victims and their families. Today the blogs and editorial pages are filed with reaction, blame and conclusions. I hesitate to say anything when the dead are not even buried yet. That is not stopping our 24-hour news media from providing endless coverage, however, so I will do likewise.

First point: I’ve noticed that the coverage varies on whether the number of deaths is 32 or 33. The difference is whether you include the shooter, who apparently committed suicide. Some editors seem to feel the killer should not be included in the total number of dead.

This seems strange to me. He was, according to initial reports, a deeply troubled person living away from home and family. He was arguably a "victim" as well. Those who loved him are now doubly tormented: grief at their own loss, and guilt for the loss of others. They need our prayers and support just as much as the other families.

Second point: I am already tired of hearing Virginia Tech students called "children" and “kids.” They are adults. That's why we let them drink all night, casually sleep with each other, and then kill any babies they happen to conceive. Having given them those privileges, it is schizophrenic for us to now talk about the students like they are emotionally helpless toddlers.

People got shot. People died. Without minimizing anyone’s pain, soldiers of these students’ age and younger deal with this sort of thing every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.

Soldiers face another challenge, too: they have to shoot back. Then they must look at what they did to other humans. They don't get to leave the world early like the shooter yesterday did. They see the bodies every night in their dreams, for the rest of their lives. I feel sure the students of Virginia Tech will get far more emotional support and professional help than our combat veterans do.

Today’s college students blithely let their less-advantaged peers do the fighting overseas while they stay home to party. Their parents like it that way. Yesterday, some of these students got a taste of what they're missing. Let’s hope they learn from it.

Third point: This event was not the result of poor gun control, lax immigration, video games, cultural insensitivity, or lazy campus police. We do not yet and may never know the killer’s exact motivations. There are plenty of lonely, troubled people with access to guns who don’t go crazy and shoot others. Some unique confluence of factors drove this one over the edge. Evil does exist, and in this fallen world it will find a way to make its presence known no matter what we do.

Fourth point: Large campuses like Virginia Tech are almost impossible to secure from a such a determined person. I feel sure the police reacted as quickly and forcefully as they could. Parents are already calling for the university president and police chief to step down. There will be plenty of opportunity for everyone to consider what they could have done differently. Now is not the time to point fingers.

Fifth point: People ask “Where was God?” in all this. He was, and is, the same place as always: in control. Why does God let bad things happen? I don’t know. My choice is to accept in faith that He will ultimately make all things work together for good, and that in the fullness of time I will come to understand it. So will we all.

"For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

Amazing Grace

I have not yet seen the Amazing Grace movie but it sounds great. It is about William Wilberforce and the other English Christians who fought for years to have the slave trade outlawed. In so doing, they changed the world without firing a shot. We can learn from this example.

Mark Shea had an interesting reaction:

One of the weird paradoxes of history is that Christianity has proven to be the only tradition capable of destroying slavery (and it took all of its power to do it). For most of human history, slavery has been taken to be the normal and natural thing, so rooted in antiquity, so bound up in the social, economic and political order that the idea of getting rid of it was simply inconceivable even to highly educated and civilized people. Once Christianity is successfully repressed, I think slavery will return almost immediately, because the whole notion of equality is a purely mystical one deriving from the Christian tradition. Get rid of that tradition and you return to a sort of rude pagan empiricism that says, "Why should I think my inferior is my equal? And if I can force him to work for me, why should I pay him?"

Sad to say, this attitude is still with us today. Every time we redefine "person" into something of lesser value, we take a step down that road. We see it in the business owners right here in the U.S. who hire illegal aliens at below-market wages simply because they can. We see it when the lives of disabled people don't have enough "quality" to justify continuation. We see it when abortion is used as back-up birth control. We saw it our own Constitution, which as originally written considered slaves to be only 60% human.

Mark is right - if Christianity lets down our guard, slavery will return. We may call it something else, and it may look different in the details. It will be slavery nonetheless.

Karl Rove Slipping

Bush political architect Karl Rove revealed more than he intended last week. Referring to immigration policy, he reportedly said this:

"I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

The White House quickly claimed that Rove's comment was being taken out of context. Maybe so, but at the very least it was a monumentally stupid thing for someone in Rove's position to say, regardless of the context. It makes me wonder whether he really is such a political genius, or just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Anyway, let's think this through. Obviously someone has to pick tomatoes and make beds; the question is who will do it and under what conditions. That is something we can argue about. Whatever the right answer to the problem may be, though, Mr. Rove is quite sure it should not include his son.

There was a time when it was considered virtuous and useful for young people to learn firsthand the value of manual labor, even if they were likely to move on to a more intellectual career. It helps us to appreciate the efforts others make on our behalf. Even later in life it keeps us humble to sweat a little sometimes. Reagan knew this - remember all the pictures of him chopping wood on his ranch?

For many in our society, and Karl Rove sounds like a good example, physical labor is regarded as something to be done by members of a lesser class. This is wrong. Those who pick tomatoes and make beds are people, too, and they deserve more respect than comments like Mr. Rove's give them.

As for Mr. Rove's son, if he is 17 he should be just about out of high school. I wonder if Karl is encouraging him to visit the local recruiting station and sign up to serve his country? Surely college can wait while young Rove does his part in the War on Terror.

So Why Are They There?

This week an Arizona border observation post, manned by some of the 6,000 National Guard members that Bush so generously allotted a few months ago, was overrun by invaders. The Guardspersons retreated, apparently under orders from higher command.

According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat. MORE

Question: WHY is this not front-page news everywhere? Our country was just attacked by foreign forces. Shouldn't we DO SOMETHING about it?!?!

I have an idea. Give weapons to the National Guard and deploy them to the border. Arrest anyone who tries to come across without permission. If they don't surrender peacefully, shoot them. It's really not that complicated. Our Dear Leaders either can't see the obvious, or they have some other agenda.

Caveman has more details and comment.