WSJ: Immigration: What Would Reagan Do?

[DCsportsfan53]

Watching John McCain abandon principles that he has strongly held for his whole political career to cater to angry nativists is really a sad thing to see.

You know, that fact is about the only thing I have left to hold onto in reference to my decision to vote for Obama. The scariness of McCain's complete and wholesale abandonment of his principles is the only thing that, in my mind, makes that vote something less than a complete failure. For some reason it's not really a reassuring thought, either. :doh:

Less than the war on drugs.

[Larry]

The same thing that drives all political decisions and policies in America and has for the last 30 years....it's good for the corporate world. That's all that matters anymore so far as elected officials are concerned. A gov't by big business of big business and for big business.

I don't think that's the only reason. But I do think that's one of the factors.

[DCsportsfan53]

I don't think that's the only reason. But I do think that's one of the factors.

It's certainly not the only factor but it seems to me that, the more deeply I look the more that theme keeps popping back up in my face. My faith in the American governmental system is certainly at an all time low right now. What was that line again about liberty and refreshing with blood?

[Hubbs]

Less than the war on drugs.

Well, there's a slogan if I've ever heard one.

"Remember that thing we did that wasted hundreds upon hundreds of billions on an effort that completely and utterly failed to eliminate drug use? Well my idea won't suck quite as much!"

(I disagree, anyway. I think you seriously underestimate what it would take to successfully identify, capture, incarcerate, prosecute, convict, and deport 20 million people hidden in a nation of over 300 million. That's close to ten times our total prison population. That's close to 20 times the size of our military. That's the entire population of Australia. You want to chase, arrest, and move Australia. Good luck with that.)

[The 12th Commandment]

Why?

Because the Democrats don't want to lose 200 seats in the House in November. Simple as that.

Hell, I know. I just thought I'd take part in the over the top emotional reaction fest.

It is true that the situation will never be resolved until we deal with it by allowing a much greater number of them to come legally. The idea that they would endure the hardships they do rather than take part in a program that didn't take 5 years to allow them in and didn't limit their numbers to (last I heard) about 150K a year can only be entertained by someone who has some emotional agenda.

It is highly disturbing to see political expediency take over so completely for rationality.

[The 12th Commandment]

Different era. It wasn't forgotten and of course the liberals in control back then didn't keep up their end of the bargain about securing the border, just like when taxes were raised they didn't reduce spending on social programs.

Plain and simple, securing the border is an extreme element of the GOP's pipe dream. It could never be done for less money than even the highest, most absurd estimate of the cost of illegals on our economy. Never. People are too smart (even those turd world Mexican's) to not find a way around it if the impetus is there. So what other reason than irrational fear or hate would make someone a proponent of such ridiculousness?

Taxes being raised to support more spending makes infinitely more sense than taxes being cut to fund a deficit. One you might not like but the other is just outright thievery.

[Hubbs]

Plain and simple, securing the border is an extreme element of the GOP's pipe dream. It could never be done for less money than even the highest, most absurd estimate of the cost of illegals on our economy. Never. People are too smart (even those turd world Mexican's) to not find a way around it if the impetus is there. So what other reason than irrational fear or hate would make someone a proponent of such ridiculousness?

I actually disagree there. I think a wall with accompanying seismic detectors is pretty economically feasible, given the size of the federal budget.

Hell, I know. I just thought I'd take part in the over the top emotional reaction fest.

It is true that the situation will never be resolved until we deal with it by allowing a much greater number of them to come legally. The idea that they would endure the hardships they do rather than take part in a program that didn't take 5 years to allow them in and didn't limit their numbers to (last I heard) about 150K a year can only be entertained by someone who has some emotional agenda.

It is highly disturbing to see political expediency take over so completely for rationality.

...this, on the other hand, is right on the money. Solves some of the major problems caused by Baby Boomer demographics, too. Remember those "You got chocolate on my peanut butter!"/"You got peanut butter on my chocolate!" commercials for Reese's?

"You got an elderly population without enough workers to sustain itself on my millions of eager immigrants!"

"You got millions of eager immigrants on my elderly population without enough workers to sustain itself!"

Two great tastes that taste great together.

[Fergasun]

Neither side is willing to compromise on this issue, because there's no trust. I started a thread "what would it take for you to accept amnesty?" and we got stuck around the axle for 100 posts debating anchor babies.

The truth is, this issue has been brewing for *10+ years now*. If you don't believe me, than look at some of the memos from Kagan during the Clinton era. Clinton wanted amnesty, didn't get it; Bush wanted amnesty, didn't get it.

Why? Because Americans want the government to show it can control illegal immigration in the country.

I am in favor of state laws like Arizona, do you want to know why? Even if there is an amnesty, states still should be used to protect their citizens from the illegal competition and unfair business practices of hiring illegals. Additionally, I'm in favor of fixing e-verify and making it mandatory. Additionally, I'm in favor of harsher IRS penalties (they did it with health care), although not that strong about it.

Once the government shows it can be trusted to stop illegal immigrants from getting labor in this country, thus making a living; we can have the amnesty plan. Truth to be told, if they were working on this for the past 10 years; we could have this discussion.

It will take $1B to improve e-verify enough to make it mandatory. This is the whole key to making any scheme work. The I-9's were supposed to be secure, but not. I think e-verify with the improvements (such as a biometric, like a picture); and not allowing employers to get "immunity" if they use e-verify (which undermines the program).

The goal of Arizona is to make it as hard to live in the country if you are illegal. I think we need to make that a national policy.

[Hubbs]

Once the government shows it can be trusted to stop illegal immigrants from getting labor in this country, thus making a living; we can have the amnesty plan. Truth to be told, if they were working on this for the past 10 years; we could have this discussion.

How is the federal government supposed to stop people from simply paying illegal immigrants in cash?

[JMS]

I actually disagree there. I think a wall with accompanying seismic detectors is pretty economically feasible, given the size of the federal budget.

Actually you are wrong... The wall is a joke, the "seismic" or electronic barriers which were supposed to make the wall more economically feasible are actually an even bigger joke. Electronic barriers have been found to be significantly more expensive and less effective than middle ages style walls. Both are placebos designed to convince people to approve amnesty... Look we've sealed the boarder, grant amnesty to 20 million illegals....

The solution is simple, but the solution also highlights the invisible hand behind the entire fiasco.... Hold companies responsible for hiring illegals, with stiff penelties... Attack those who most benifit from the illegal traffic, which certainly isn't the illegals.... Target WalMart, the Pultry Industry, Agriculture, Construction, and Food Services Industry. Hand out a 100,000 dollar fine to anybody found employing illegals. The jobs would dry up, and so would the immigration. People would return home in droves...

That's the only solution which has a prayer of working...

What would Ronald Reagan do? We know what he did. Reagan authored and signed the first amnesty bill. His 3 million immigration problem quickly turned into a 20 million immigration problem..

We go the Amnesty route again and in 2030 we will be looking at a 60 million person immigration problem and all the death, exploitation, and lawlessness associated with it... Mostly purpatrated on the illegals not by the illegals...

[ABQCOWBOY]

How much do you think rounding up and deporting 20 million people would cost?

I don't know but it would be less then the cost of supporting them for the duration of their lives, here in the U.S., I would suspect.

[Rocky21]

What would Reagan do?

Lay a wreath on the Nazi SS graves in Bitburg, sell arms to Iran, then triple the national debt in only 8 years (that took 200 years to accumulate) then fall asleep in a meeting only after consulting his horoscope of course.

[Kilmer17]

I wonder what our Illegal Immigration situation would be today if Congress had actually done what they promised to do under Reagan- SECURE THE BORDER.

3 million granted amnesty, and no more coming in.

[thebluefood]

What would Reagan do?

Lay a wreath on the Nazi SS graves in Bitburg, sell arms to Iran, then triple the national debt in only 8 years (that took 200 years to accumulate) then fall asleep in a meeting only after consulting his horoscope of course.

Someone voted for Carter...:pfft:

[19Skins72]

If you think it's for fear of the hispanic vote, you're wrong. Republicans don't enjoy a hispanic majority and illegal immigration isn't a hot button amongst the segment of the hispanic community from which they do receive support. So what are they seeing that is stopping them to the point where they risk their political careers?

Perhaps the businesses that benefit from illegal immigrant workers have paid enough of them off to maintain the status quo?

Perhaps they rightly fear (*) a not too distant future where whites are no longer the majority?

Perhaps Bush quietly told them not to bother pushing that agenda and forcing a veto?

Clearly just guesses on my part - I'm very interested to see if someone can provide concrete evidence to explain their actions (or lack thereof)

(*) I say this not because Americans should fear this not so distant future, I say this because Republicans have greatly pissed off a large percentage of the Hispanic voter block - should that voting block become the new majority, it would seem likely that the Republican cause would suffer.

[Hubbs]

Actually you are wrong... The wall is a joke, the "seismic" or electronic barriers which were supposed to make the wall more economically feasible are actually an even bigger joke. Electronic barriers have been found to be significantly more expensive and less effective than middle ages style walls. Both are placebos designed to convince people to approve amnesty... Look we've sealed the boarder, grant amnesty to 20 million illegals....

I've seen several stories about electronic equipment that's shown a lot of promise. A combination of "tunnel detectors," unmanned infrared cameras with human identification technology, and fences where it's easy and cheap to build fences (in other words, where it's relatively flat) could go a long way. Would that be 100% effective? Of course not. Would it be expensive? Well, we spend $600 billion of defense every year. Maybe we should shift some of that money away from relics of the Cold War and towards a renewed effort to secure our borders. Would what I just described, in tandem with a much more aggressive effort to make legal immigration as easy and quick as possible, do a lot to cut down on illegal immigration? I have to think so.

(I've also always wondered why it wouldn't make sense to require that, over the next 15 years or so, any new domestic military base be built within, say, 50 miles of the border, and also to require that all units stationed at those bases take regular shifts along the border to boost the Border Patrol. We have hundreds of thousands of troops here. Let's make the best use of them.)

The solution is simple, but the solution also highlights the invisible hand behind the entire fiasco.... Hold companies responsible for hiring illegals, with stiff penelties... Attack those who most benifit from the illegal traffic, which certainly isn't the illegals.... Target WalMart, the Pultry Industry, Agriculture, Construction, and Food Services Industry. Hand out a 100,000 dollar fine to anybody found employing illegals. The jobs would dry up, and so would the immigration. People would return home in droves...

I'll ask you what I asked someone else in the other thread. How does that prevent illegal immigrants from simply coming here and working for cash?

[Larry]

I don't know but it would be less then the cost of supporting them for the duration of their lives, here in the U.S., I would suspect.

:secret:You are aware that the reason they're here is jobs, aren't you?

You can (and I have) said a lot of bad things about the illegals. (I like to rub people's noses in the word "illegal".) But the reason they're here is because there are Yankees standing on the US side of the border, waving stacks of money at them.

[JMS]

I've seen several stories about electronic equipment that's shown a lot of promise.

Honestly, and I'm not trying to be insulting. But I don't think you have. Boeing advertised and lobied hard for the "electronic fronteer" solution to the nations boarders. They were awarded a huge contract... And they totally fell flat on their face....

It was a boon dogle... a science experiment which never had any hope of achieving sucess.

http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dhs-freezes-funds-us-mexico-border-security-system

DHS freezes funds for U.S.-Mexico border security system

Published 18 March 2010

In 2006 Boeing won the contract for the ambitious Secure Border Initiative Net (SBINet) project -- a system of cameras, radar, and other sensors aiming to detect illegal immigrants as they cross the U.S.-Mexico border; after countless technical glitches and many delays, DHS freezes funding for the project to allow it too assess how to deal with Boeing's failures and decide on future steps

The ambitious but troubles electronic surveillance system aiming to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border may have to be changed after DHS secretary Janet Napolitano stopped the program’s funding. “Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we have a responsibility to do so in the most cost-effective way possible,” Napolitano said in a statement yesterday.

Fact is it was never and never had a hope of becoming cost effective. Even the small prototype sections where they got it working, required massive overbudget spending to both implement and maintain.

I saw the GAO report. It was a big waste of money.

Would that be 100% effective? Of course not. Would it be expensive? Well, we spend $600 billion of defense every year. Maybe we should shift some of that money away from relics of the Cold War and towards a renewed effort to secure our borders. Would what I just described, in tandem with a much more aggressive effort to make legal immigration as easy and quick as possible, do a lot to cut down on illegal immigration? I have to think so.

Could we secure the national boarder if we spent on the scale of 600 billion dollars annually... Certainly.... But that's never going to happen.

It's not cost effective, nor is it advisable to give up the DoD in favor of a massive DHS on the boarder with Mexico.

The cost effective solution which would work perfectly fine, would be to adjust the documentation every person needs to provide when they begin a new job. They once worked to limit and check illegal employment. They certainly could again with a little tweaking. If we control the jobs, we control the immigration, and we control the boarders. Big business doesn't want you to know that because trafficing in illegals is a huge money maker for them. They don't want it to stop. So they want us to put our resources down rat holes with no hope of sucess and hand out millions of amnesty slips on a regular basis.. That's the bottom line.

(I've also always wondered why it wouldn't make sense to require that, over the next 15 years or so, any new domestic military base be built within, say, 50 miles of the border, and also to require that all units stationed at those bases take regular shifts along the border to boost the Border Patrol. We have hundreds of thousands of troops here. Let's make the best use of them.)

Posse Comitatus Act for one. It's illegal to use the military to enforce civilian laws inside the United States.... Besides that's just wrong headed thinking. Holding the illegals who are being exploited responsible for stopping it. That's how we get teen agers shot to death by American officials on our boarder. Target the jobs, everything else will fall into line.

I'll ask you what I asked someone else in the other thread. How does that prevent illegal immigrants from simply coming here and working for cash?

Working for cash is also against the law. A job is a job. Target the employers, and you will have solved the problem.... I don't even care about the small businesses or individuals. The problem is the fortune 500's and fortune 100's who are employing these people by the thousands. That's who you need to target.....

The bolivian racking leaves in your neighbors yard isn't the problem.

[PeterMP]

I'll ask you what I asked someone else in the other thread. How does that prevent illegal immigrants from simply coming here and working for cash?

Why does it matter how they pay them?

You think the government doesn't have the ability to identify crimes that occur with cash payment?

On another note, I love when people try and figure out what a person that realistically has been dead/mentally incapicatated for 20+ years and changed his mind on important issues during his life time would do.

Who the heck knows what Ronald Reagan would do. The world has changed, and I'm pretty sure Reagan would have changed with the world.

[Jeeb]

[Larry]

I'll ask you what I asked someone else in the other thread. How does that prevent illegal immigrants from simply coming here and working for cash?

Just pointing out that the reason why employers, right now, don't pay all employees in cash (and avoid taxes and lots of other laws), is that the IRS is really gung ho on finding, and massively punishing, people who try to dodge taxes.

There's a reason why people who employ illegals use fake IDs, and withhold taxes for their illegals: They're a lot more scared of the IRS than they are of immigration.

[JMS]

:secret:You are aware that the reason they're here is jobs, aren't you?

You can (and I have) said a lot of bad things about the illegals. (I like to rub people's noses in the word "illegal".) But the reason they're here is because there are Yankees standing on the US side of the border, waving stacks of money at them.

Exactly correct. Those guys are the real benificiaries of the boarder fiasco. It's the businesses who exploit these guys to the tune of billions which need to be reigned in... The actual illegals are a symtom, The actual problem is all economic and domestic internal to the US.

[Larry]

Posse Comitatus Act for one. It's illegal to use the military to enforce civilian laws inside the United States....

Just pointing out that I think a really good legal argument could be made that there's a heck of a difference between using the military to catch drunk drivers, and using them to secure the borders.

I would assert that the military certainly has a claim that that mission is within their jurisdiction.

[JMS]

Just pointing out that I think a really good legal argument could be made that there's a heck of a difference between using the military to catch drunk drivers, and using them to secure the borders.

That may be, but even when Bush and Obama have sent troops to "the boarder". They don't actually work at the boarder. They take up logistical jobs and free up more boarder patrol personell to work the boarder.

Posse Comitatus Act excludes defense personel from actually working as boarder security....

I will note that that is one thing Ronald Reagan actually did try, with some sucess. Reagan called out the Navy and Airforce to help the coast guard identify and intercept drug smuggleing craft in the air and at sea. Again in support roles.

I would assert that the military certainly has a claim that that mission is within their jurisdiction.

Well that's another problem. The military doesn't want the job. They don't want to and argue they don't have the resources for controlling our boarders. The navy, airforce and army all object to tying down their resources for this thankless task. They all have powerful voices on the hill too.

[Larry]

Well that's another problem. The military doesn't want the job. They don't want to and argue they don't have the resources for controlling our boarders. The navy, airforce and army all object to tying down their resources for this thankless task. They all have powerful voices on the hill too.

OTOH, I would also argue that the mission of "securing the border" is a mission which could provide experience for our troops that could be really useful overseas, too.

The difference between securing the US-Mexico border, and securing the Afghan-Pakistan border, is?

----------

Recall reading an article somebody posted about some company that's developed a tethered blimp with cameras and sensors. They were testing it somewhere in Canada, and were supposedly taking pictures of Americans on the other side of the border, to demonstrate the blimp's capabilities.

I'd suggested that if they wanted to test the thing, they should tether one over Key West or Miami, and see how many smugglers they can catch with it.

And, I asserted, I'd bet they would get much better pictures of people, from there.