The title of this post is intentionally provocative for a reason. It is a "Cultural Cruise Missile" intended to fly below the radar screens of the media and political elite at the speed of the blogosphere to frame the debate on this bill.
The title is also an accurate description of the effect of the bill. The new so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act" that is leaving the Senate is just a tarted up Immigration Amnesty bill. If the Bill’s provisions, as currently written, were implemented, the three Duka brothers of the "Fort Dix Six" would have been granted immigration amnesty had they not been arrested for terrorism first.
Resorting to "Cultural Cruise Missile" tactics are necessary as the moneyed interests in Washington are now colluding to put one over on the American public for their narrow interest$ over the General welfare and Security of the American people in their homes and businesses. These developments are being covered by Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and Mickey Kaus. So I won't comment farther other than noting that,
1) There is no major political voting block in favor of Amnesty.
2) There is a huge one against it,
3) This voting block does not have money in party primaries while the public employee unions and the corporate open border caucus do. and
4) While this voting block may not be able to affect primary vote via well funded challengers. It will be there for the general election, and the most motivated portions of this block are Republicans wanting to punish "traitors"
A wipe out of sitting Republican senators may be in the offing in 2008.
If your average person or blogger wants to do something really effective about this bill, let's face facts. You only have the power to name this bill and define it to the American people. That takes a "Cultural Cruise Missile" slogan that can be repeated over and over again on the web and talk radio to destroy the credibility of those supporting the bill.
Here is another example of what bloggers can do with the "Cultural Cruise Missile” approach to the "Family unification" provisions of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act."
Lets suppose that the Ft. Dix plotters had delayed. With this bill enacted, the Duka brothers then brought in more like minded Islamist relatives into the nation to aide them.
This provision makes very real the possibility that we could have suicide vest bombers here in the USA.
Imagine a Palestinian style suicide bomber team set up in an Islamic country that has a forward element in the USA like the Duka brothers. Instead of getting guns and training, this element scouts targets and gathers field expedient explosives for a carefully prepared relative -- say a female relative whose "honor" has been stained and thus is in imminent danger of being murdered -- and fly’s her to the USA for the attack.
Thus the "Family Unification" provisions of for the” Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act" are now "The Suicide Bomber Importation Provision" of the act!
I invite Winds of Change posters and other bloggers to submit their "Cultural Cruise Missile" slogan entries in the following categories:
1) Terrorism
2) Money versus the American people
3) National Party Politics -- Republican
4) National Party Politics -- Democrat.
Let’s see just how creative you all are...and make sure you share the best entries with your friends!
I'm sure that there will be better, but to get it started:
1) The Homeland Insecurity Act
1) An Open Door Policy (on Terrorism)
Are 'Cultural Cruise Missiles' what WoC is all about?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the post, but it seems to say 'We're afraid we can't stop this immigration bill by debating the actual topic of immigration, so we're resorting to fear-mongering about terrorism.' Explain if I'm wrong.
“Give us your poor, your tired, your bombing masses”
"GOP: Giving-up Our Principles"
"Sovereignty thats so 1700's"
1) Peace in our time, but defend yourselves on your own time.
2) A fool and his money are soon elected.
4) Fight Illegal Immigration - Send your Job to China.
3) Fight Global Warming - Send your Job to China.
3&4) We regret that you have only two and a half jobs to give for your party.
What solutions have been offered to stop illegal immigration? What will be done to stop the flow of illegals. They passed a bill to erect over 800 miles of barriers and this has been reduced to less than half in this bill so six years after we were told the borders would be secured after 9-11 they still aren't. Why would anyone believe these peoples promises?
Obviously this is doing the talking points rounds today, the folks over at reason already picked it up and dismantled the logic:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120248.html
Nothing to worry about?
. . .
. . .
. . .
The terror-immigration connection
Untill something or some one gets killed or blown up, no real reform will happen. All else is dick beating.
Lower Wages for EVERYONE!
Welfare for every Citizen of Mexico!
Save the World, invite them all here.
I always thought Winds of Change overt focus on interventionism was just a beard on its covert xenophobia.
Looks like I was right.
A nice exercise in hysterical fearmongering, Trent: complete with catchy slogans! Kewl.
However, you do make one very cogent point:
A wipe out of sitting Republican senators may be in the offing in 2008
Quite possible: the only question is exactly WHO is going to replace them? I think that if you expecting these GOP incumbents to be ousted en masse in favor of even more xenophobic nativists, you are likely to be quite disappointed. The "voting block" (note sp.: should be "bloc") you seem to be counting on to rise up in nationalistic outrage is probably a great deal smaller than you imagine; even with its effects magnified in the echo-chamber of Right Blogistan.
Immigration reform is a serious issue, no mistake: but one that calls for serious proposals, rather than mere hyperventilating hyperbole about "terrorists". Do you have any?
The phrase "intellectually lazy scare mongering," comes to mind, here. Lobbing cultural cruise missiles, indeed. Why bother actually posting a reasoned article about why the immigration deal will have bad effects when you can just jump to the illogical conclusion that this is going to result in suicide bombers in the States?
Feh.
Don't waste my time telling me your conclusions are obvious. And unless it's a one-line Instapundit-type pointer, don't waste my time with elaborate propagandistic blog-theater. And make no mistake, that's all this really is. You've added nothing to the debate except a naked call for propaganda, Telenko.
And last but not least, I reserve a special flavor of scorn for the people who took a terrorism scare-mongering post and returned it with economic scare-mongering comments.
This isn't debate.
This is just pathetic.
Bah. This is even worse than I thought. Even the blog links aren't links to reasoned arguments, they're just links to articles that again assume that the conclusion is inarguable.
I stand by my comments: This is pathetic.
Argument aside- Trent gets the politics right. This bill is actually kind of extraordinary. No-one wants it, no-one embraces any of its provisions, it wont actually do anything any-one on any side wants, and it basically embraces the most absurd and ill considered proposals of both sides.
The good news is it is totally unimplimentable, because:
The things illegals are called upon to do, they have no incentive to do. Having already proven their willingness to ignore imigration law this bill is predicated on their cooperation for some inexplicable reason.
Everything the government is called upon to do, they wont do. Enforcement and securing the borders are embraced with so little of a fight you just KNOW there is no danger of it actually happening.
Our government has become very similar to the classic communist politburos- passing laws the have no meaning and no bearing on reality and toasting each other for their clever diplomacy.
I've always felt like our government just always seemed particularly inept, self-interested, and idiotic compared to other eras. I'm now convinced this crop is something new- something recalling Rome in its decline I think. I guess its our faults really- these people have no fear, they have abandoned even the pretext of hiding their hypocracy, crassness, and corruption.
I, for the first time in a long time, shocked by our government.
But it seems I was wrong. Apparently it is a cover for a passionate desire for reasoned debate.
The mating overtures, where you fluff up your plumage and jump in people's faces, were just a little confusing.
This bill is the desire to replace the Average American with a compliant, non-threatening, and subservient Mexican populace. Cheap and subservient gardeners, carpenters, plumbers, truck drivers, factory workers, etc.
As a bonus, it will economically cleanse those troublesome African-Americans out of our cities and replace them with "colorful" Mexicans.
Never has the hatred, contempt, and disdain for Average Americans by the ruling elite been more clear.
Everyone hates this, even Pelosi and Obama. Those noted bigots.
But if nothing else this will make life miserable and degrading for the average White and Black working man. Which makes elitists very very happy. They can't do what Stalin did with the Ukranians (starve them to death) but this is the next best thing.
Never has the hatred, contempt, and disdain...
I read about this in school. They used to call it "irony," back in the day. Benefits of a classical education, I guess.
Irony.. yes, much like the number of trolls that have materialized into this thread to bash WOC for lack of seriousness- and have yet to advance even the tiniest glimmer of reasoned argument. I would think that something resembling a point would have appeared by now, if only by sheer accident. I would LOVE to hear whats so good about this bill for anyone outside of the Capitol Dome.
With all respect, Mr. Telenko, just pointing out some facts:
Islamic terrorists have entered legally the United States several times. The WTC attackers in 1993 get into your country using passports given by an ETA member living in Nicaragua:
ETA Provided False Identifications to the Islamic Terrorists that Attacked the WTC in 1993
However, how many terrorists getting illegally into the States have finally carried out their plan?
I think the link immigration-terrorism is pretty weak and has nothing to do with the lattest. By the way, it has been responsible for the Republican's losing of Hispanic vote. I think the cruise missile is another, it was launched long ago, and it had another objective.
I'm with Mark on this one. Between our government's refusal to enforce immigration law, and it's insistence on maintaining the war on drugs, I can't fool myself that we are much of a democracy anymore.
They make weak attempts to manage the message: that's about as responsive as our representatives get.
You can't replace them, because the next guy is owned by the same people.
Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
J- wouldn't entering the US using false identification constitute entering illegally?
You know what would make it even more exciting? If police were not allowed to report illegals to federal authorities. For a real challenge, we can let the illegals have credit cards and drive anywhere they want without a license or insurance.
Looks like we're in for loads of action-packed adventure. This is like a Philip K. Dick novel, where everyone is trapped in the imagination of a Hollywood publicist.
J Aguilar - You say:
And what pray tell is that? Please elucidate, sir.
And:
Uhm, last time I checked the homegrown Hispanic vote was pretty purely Democrat, they hardly ever did vote Republican, only new immigrants tend to vote conservative. re: Bill Richardson - The conservatives in his home state hate him.
Most Mexicans I know vote conservative unless they have a vested interest in the status quo (sucking from the gov't teat). Most Mexican immigrants I know are very conservative and do not much like illegal immigration, you know, the ones that are actually legal. The ones that are not have turned neighborhoods in my home town into replicas of their homes - Tijuana and Juarez. They are trashy, poor ghettos only painted bright colors.
As to the rest of the trolls that popped up on this thread, what do you not get about illegal immigration? What do you not understand about the debates of closing the borders? MS13 runs people and drugs with the same aplomb and disregard for the laws of this country. Illegal immigration is tantamount to slavery. It makes those who are victims of it stay underground and serve the elite in their gated communities.
And, BTW, when is someone in DC going to try and get the sitting Mexican el Presidente to clean up the corruption in his own country? Talk about a banana republic.
I always have a tendency to cheer when 'Jim Rockford' shows up to lambaste the trolls.
Wastelandlive - Well, do something about it. Quit sitting on your 'hands' and doing nothing but kvetch. It is a Republic and a participatory democracy, that means you have to participate. Get busy. Write letters, send emails and campaign for the best of the choices we are offered, then bug the hell out of them and let them know what you think. Otherwise..... you get what you ask for......
And lastly, be nice as you can....it is kind of like in the movie 'Roadhouse'... be nice.... you will know when it is time to not be nice.....
AL - I am trying, really.....to be nicer....
Irony.. yes, much like the number of trolls that have materialized into this thread to bash WOC for lack of seriousness- and have yet to advance even the tiniest glimmer of reasoned argument.
You've got to be kidding. Let's all remember how this is supposed to work: One side or another of some issue traditionally begins a debate by posting a well-reasoned article explaining what they think the consequences of some actions are going to be, why they think that, and whether or not the net results will be good or bad.
That has yet to happen, here. All we had as a base was an article that said, in effect, "This is going to lead to more terrorism. I'm not going to explain why, but I'd like some help on the propaganda angle to get people to agree with me." (Followed by people jumping on the economics protectionist bandwagon with just as little justification.)
If you actually want people to debate your ideas, put some ideas out there in a fashion that can be debated. I will not let you hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
Trent, I disagree more than a bit. I'll toss a flag and come back with a post when I'm at the airport Monday...
A.L.
"Wastelandlive - Well, do something about it. Quit sitting on your 'hands' and doing nothing but kvetch. It is a Republic and a participatory democracy, that means you have to participate. Get busy. Write letters, send emails and campaign for the best of the choices we are offered, then bug the hell out of them and let them know what you think. Otherwise..... you get what you ask for......"
Written like an eager twenty something.
Go for it Roboho. Actually, you don't have to start from scratch: you can throw your lot in with any number of PACs and foundations which support common sense policies that our government refuses to implement or support, particularly on the subject of immigration. Hell, you can vote for Pat Buchanan in the primaries: he always seems to throw his hat in the ring, and homophobic curmudgeon that he is he has no illusions about what illegal immigration is doing to our Republic.
Let us know how it goes.
What this debate is really all about is the upper class elite's hatred and contempt for the blue collar class in this country.
And the hope to replace them with La Raza.
That's what it's all about. We understand it very well.
And here I thought this was all just a wee bit of fun with a serious side.
I've only managed to read the first two pages of the draft bill, which actually shows a good deal of distrust for President Bush. If the U.S. must build over 300 miles of actual fence before the law becomes effective, then I will be dead as will everyone I care about. Unless President Bush has in fact been struck with a case of "the slows" and the fence can be built much faster.
Still there may be more to read. I don’t think I'll have time to finish it tomorrow. I usually let the servants off on Sunday and without page-turners and martini-fillers, I doubt I can manage through. Page-references from the serious commenters would be appreciated.
Fight Terrorism. Vote For Democrats. Because They Understand.
========I guess we must have won the war. When the fight has moved to immigration.
========BTW guys. The problem is not the Mexicans. Proof: look at the unemployment rate.
========But I can see your point. Higher taxes and fewer workers will fix the American economy for sure. Gas prices will go down.
And who let all those Irish Catholics and Jews in this country anyway?
They are nothing but trouble.
They are inherently criminal and will work for slave wages.
===Oh, wait. Wrong century.
Roboho,
We provide price supports for MS 13 with drug prohibition and guest worker prohibitions. MS 13's job is arbitrage of supply and demand in markets the government has outlawed.
Why not take our foot off the gas while (before even) trying to put on the brakes?
I know. Stupid idea. Americans love their prohibitions.
Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It won't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
Franklin P. Adams, 1931
A total prohibition on the Southern border will only empower organized crime.
Because only organized crime will be able to corrupt or evade enforcement.
So yeah. Write your congress critters and complain about insufficient corruption. My mistake. That won't happen until the MS 13 gets an even bigger chunk of business.
Market forces are very powerful. Fortunately we live in a capitalist country were all citizens are at least acquainted with supply and demand. Fortunately few believe in that crap.
There is a simple way to fix it. We can ruin the American economy so that Mexico is more attractive than America. That'll show the bastards. Fortunately the Democrats in Congress know what to do on that score.
talboito: I always thought Winds of Change overt focus on interventionism was just a beard on its covert xenophobia.
Time to think again, buddy.
Armed Liberal: Trent, I disagree more than a bit.
I post here, too. If I were a xenophobe I wouldn't have moved to the Middle East and rented an apartment in Beirut. And I sure as hell wouldn't have checked into a hotel in Iraq.
Mark (#21)
J- wouldn't entering the US using false identification constitute entering illegally?
Sure, but it has nothing to do with the immigration-terrorism debate. Actual terrorist will have a better infrastructure to attack the U.S than begining the plan crossing the Mexican border illegaly.
Glen (#22)
So the lesson of Fort Dix is that we can always count on law enforcement to nail them in the nick of time?
Wastelandlive (#20)
Between our government's refusal to enforce immigration law, and it's insistence on maintaining the war on drugs,
That's it! Why further criminalize immigration as it has happened with drugs? Both are demand triggered processes and a tougher stance on them in the end yields in a further deepening of those criminal networks and its strengthening (i.e. Dry Law). IMHO illegal immigration over the Mexican border has to be kept at an amateur criminal level.
Robohobo (#23)
Uhm, last time I checked the homegrown Hispanic vote was pretty purely Democrat
With all the respect, Al Gore might not think the same.
M. Simon (#33)
Glad to see some common sense in the thread.
Wastelandlive -
I'm sorry, I did not realize you were a comedian! I may have been a bit punchy when I wrote my reply last night, I had just ridden a jet for 14 hours. My point still stands, get off your duff, get involved. Otherwise, when you get the government you did not work to get, then you can stand on your soapbox and tell the rest of us how stupid we are. And you may not want to compare grey in the beard with me, I got lots.
M Simon -
As far as the market dynamics that drive the drug supply, remember Econ 101 - first you have to have a demand! Then suppliers will rush to fill the void. My point is that MS13 practices real slavery today. They send mules over the border with crystal and coke and no water. They kill police chiefs in Mexican border towns. I am not enough of a Libertarian to think that legalising the stuff will solve the problems and dry up the demand. That is up to us in this country. My generation made a BIG mistake in the 60's and 70's with all the free love and dope. It brought us record rates of VD, AIDS and record new types of drug addiction. We were wrong and now we have to fix it somehow. I have no answers for it that most will not mock in the present political climate. But, I do hear you, this one is the tough one.
May be the point is mute about protecting borders. Jorge Arbusto seems determined to have open borders with Mexico and Canada. Stupid I think, but....
Oh, yeah, did you leave the last syllable off the moniker on purpose? Robo-ho is Imus worthy! Pretty good, I like it!
The Hobo
M. Simon -
There are a couple of things which are neglected in this entire debate. One of them is Mexico itself. This beautiful country ought to be a paradise, not a hellhole, but has been perpetually ruined by governments that combine the worst aspects of aristocracy and socialism.
We should be very concerned about the future of Mexico, especially since Mexico obviously isn't. The spectacle of the Mexican elite encouraging their people to swim for it is deeply ominous and disturbing.
The other neglected issue is marijuana. The extent to which precautions against terrorism and illegal immigration have interfered with the movement of dope - and mobilized opposition to the WoT - is under-appreciated. Some huge percentage of dope enters the US from Mexico (figures go as high as 80%) and some people want open borders because they want the pot, not the Mexicans. And the drug trade has contributed enormously to the corruption, degradation and ruin of Mexico.
I guess I know what your answer to that would be. But I wonder why it isn't more widely discussed.
Mr. Roboho,
Surprisingly, we agree on quite a bit. But I spent fifteen years of my life in public service, so please spare me the lecture on the responsibilities of a citizen.
I'm telling you that the problem is not about the dumb choices we voters are making. The problem is systematic.
Before we had this pathetic bill - which is an attempt to sell Americans exactly what we don't want via craft and obfuscation - we simply had a government unwilling to enforce it's own laws. Simultaneously we are abused with a raft of laws which we have had no hand in crafting, and despite their ingenuity, the framers created no referendum mechanism at the Federal level by which we could force the issue. That might be OK if our Supremes were actually up to the task of ruling impartially on the constitutionality of laws passed by our rank legislature - as the framers had intended - because many of those laws would have been struck down.
Unfortunately, it's not.
Your point still stands? Fine.
So does mine. What you are suggesting isn't going to work, period. We need a constitutional convention. But it's nice to see faith. For what it's worth, I think you're probably a better man than I. Best of luck!
Mr Aguilar,
A: "That's it! Why further criminalize immigration as it has happened with drugs? Both are demand triggered processes and a tougher stance on them in the end yields in a further deepening of those criminal networks and its strengthening (i.e. Dry Law). IMHO illegal immigration over the Mexican border has to be kept at an amateur criminal level."
I understand that there is an attractive symmetry in arguing that people are like products, and that if we are to have free trade, we must have free movement of labor: I've had that argument with Mr. Simon before, and I suspect that we both came away dissatisfied.
Likewise, you seem to suggest that if prohibition of a narcotic does more harm than good, than attempts to control immigration must likewise be deleterious.
But a theory must be proven valid by empirical evidence before it is considered "true." I don't think yours will be. People are not narcotics, and I don't think that there is very little of substance to your theory that is truly parallel.
You are suggesting - quite boldly - that we must allow uncontrolled immigration into our nation, regardless of the consequences, or we will be empowering organized crime.
For crying out loud... they must love you over at la Raza.
Mr Aguilar,
A: "That's it! Why further criminalize immigration as it has happened with drugs? Both are demand triggered processes and a tougher stance on them in the end yields in a further deepening of those criminal networks and its strengthening (i.e. Dry Law). IMHO illegal immigration over the Mexican border has to be kept at an amateur criminal level."
I understand that there is an attractive symmetry in arguing that people are like products, and that if we are to have free trade, we must have free movement of labor: I've had that argument with Mr. Simon before, and I suspect that we both came away dissatisfied.
Likewise, you seem to suggest that if prohibition of a narcotic does more harm than good, than attempts to control immigration must likewise be deleterious.
But a theory must be proven valid by empirical evidence before it is considered "true." I don't think yours will be. People are not narcotics, and I don't think that there is very little of substance to your theory that is truly parallel.
You are suggesting - quite boldly - that we must allow uncontrolled immigration into our nation, regardless of the consequences, or we will be empowering organized crime.
For crying out loud... they must love you over at la Raza.
Glenn W.,
As far as I am able to discern, from people I know involved in buying and selling pot, the crack down on the cross border marijuana trade is having no effect on that market.
There was no sustained price hike post 9/11. I'm guessing that any short falls were made up by indoor grow ops (our town of 160,000 has TWO grow op stores.
But hey. If Americans think criminals need price supports I'm all for it. If Americans want to subsidise criminals it must be a good idea. I guess the corrupting of government officials is just a side bonus.
We do in fact get the government we deserve.
#40 Wastelandlive,
I do not support uncontrolled immigration. I do support making it easier for those who come here to work to be allowed in legally. There would then be fewer illegals crossing between border stations and they would be easier to capture.
If in fact terrorists are crossing from Mexico they are now lost in the flood.
Besides we are not reproducing sufficiently in America. Our birth rate is a little below replacement rate. So the flood of people coming here helps increase the number of Americans - at the cost of some economic pain.
I think more Americans in the world is a good thing. Given China's advance in the world. Children are expensive. So in effect we have outsourced reproduction to the Mexicans.
===
I know some 3rd generation Mexicans in our town. I speak better Spanish that they do and I barely speak it at all.
Just like all the immigrants that came before in a generation or three they will become Americans. I like that.
BTW I'm personally involved in reproducing at above the replacement rate. I have 4 children. One of them is graduating from U Chicago in a couple of weeks.
#38 from Wastelandlive,
A government that will not enforce its own laws?
This is America where it is very hard to get citizens to obey laws they don't like. We are all rebels here. Evidently the Mexicans coming here are similarly disposed. Welcome to America.
The simple way around this fact is to avoid passing laws that will not be obeyed. However, this is America and we love our prohibitions. There is no problem so complex that the right kind of laws can't fix.
Robo,
Did legalizing alcohol in 1932 dry up demand? Or did it just dry up the demand for criminals?
And the reason demand will not dry up? Well most Americans do not understand the problem.
Addiction Is A Genetic Disease
Is Addiction Real?
Here is a nice on on sexually abused women and why they are in the vast majority of female heroin users:
Heroin
PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System
But hey. A war on the traumatized is always a good deal. They are used to being beaten up and abused so few of them will complain. They assume it is their lot in life. Especially those of a minority persuasion. Try having a drug war in a white neighborhood. Never heard of such a thing? I wonder why.
I must admit that drug prohibition is the perfect government program. Since the theory behind prohibition is wrong - "drugs cause addiction" - then the methods used (make drugs unavailable as a legal product) can NEVER work. Thus more laws and resources will always be required to "solve" the problem.
Well any way. I look forward to your expostion on demand reduction.
I don't know how likely it is to keep people in pain away from pain relief. So far we have been at it for 90+ years with criminal gangs proliferating. It only took us 12 years to figure out alcohol prohibition. I attribute the long delay re: drugs to one thing. Drugs make people stupid.
Wastelandlive (#39, #40)
As I understand it, Classic Liberalism, on which your country was founded, encloses the empirical fact that a free society is far more productive and therefore grants a better standard of living. Labor is seen from the investing point of view of the economy simply as a production factor, just as capital. For instance, the European Union was founded on the three principles of freedom of movement across the borders of goods, capitals and... workers.
You are suggesting - quite boldly - that we must allow uncontrolled immigration into our nation, regardless of the consequences, or we will be empowering organized crime.
What I suggest is that immigrantion should not be criminalized beyond certain level. You can control illegal immigration from a demand point of view making contingents, but I repeat, I don't think this is the point of this discussion, the debate is about the link between immigration and terrorism which, today, is non-existent, as the WTC attacks show.
Simon old friend,
I don't think we're ever going to agree... at least on the subject of immigration.
Apparently we already agree on prohibition... at least as the term is generally understood, and according to the new and surprising definition being cast in this argument.
(I never cease to be amazed by the gymnastic ability of those rationalizing their need for an illegal gardener or nanny.)
I mean what to make of this?
S: "I do not support uncontrolled immigration. I do support making it easier for those who come here to work to be allowed in legally. There would then be fewer illegals crossing between border stations and they would be easier to capture."
I pondered how many people want to come to America legally (I've spent much of my life abroad) and how to communicate to you the absurdity of that statement. I don't think that I can. If you don't see it yourself... nothing I could say would be persuasive.
S: "This is America where it is very hard to get citizens to obey laws they don't like... The simple way around this fact is to avoid passing laws that will not be obeyed."
It's impossible to even parody this statement. I surrender the field a broken man. Carry on!
Mr. Aguilar:
A: "As I understand it, Classic Liberalism, on which your country was founded, encloses the empirical fact that a free society is far more productive and therefore grants a better standard of living. Labor is seen from the investing point of view of the economy simply as a production factor, just as capital. For instance, the European Union was founded on the three principles of freedom of movement across the borders of goods, capitals and... workers."
Wow. Where to start? Classic liberalism encloses the empirical fact that a free society grants a better standard of living? Heady stuff.
Well... the economic definition of labor as a production input is useful to economics, operations, and managerial accounting. It is not particularly useful to a discussion of national immigration policy because people are not - at the end of the day - simply simply production inputs.
And government is not simply a production enterprise. (?!)
If the point of your argument is to hold up the EU as an example of the success of unlimited immigration... then I'd have to ask you: why do neither I nor the Turks among whom I live have the right to move to and work in Europe?
Did you perhaps skip over lightly some issues of sovereignty? And hey - you and I agree that freedom is a great thing - what are all those pesky Copenhagen criteria all about anyways?
A: "What I suggest is that immigrantion should not be criminalized beyond certain level."
I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
A: "You can control illegal immigration from a demand point of view making contingents."
I don't know what that means. What contingents are you suggesting will reduce peoples desire to move to America?
A: "I don't think this is the point of this discussion, the debate is about the link between immigration and terrorism which, today, is non-existent, as the WTC attacks show."
I really don't know what that means.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you are very serious.
M Simon #44
A small nit. In fact, per capita alchohol consumption was lower during prohibition than at any time in american history before or since.
A total prohibition on the Southern border will only empower organized crime.
We can’t totally stop illegal immigration. We can increase the cost. If the cost of border-crossing increases, the flow of illegal immigration will be reduced. A smaller pool of illegal immigrants, the smaller the underground economy in which that extremely small percentage of terrorist sympathizers can hide. This might encourage more hard-core criminal organizations, but I expect such groups to be extremely careful about who they work with. There is a certain honour among thieves. See the War of 1812. Or at least they know where their bread is buttered.
J Aguilar: I think you analogize a lot with the tide of illegal immigration coming from Africa into Spain. I think the difference in wealth btw/ Africa and Europe is much greater than the difference btw/ the U.S. and Mexico. I think the risks and costs the illegal immigrant is willing to bear are on a different scale of magnitude.
And there is some indication that Mexico has been turning a corner economically. Its just that Mexican improvements are spotty and many of the economically dislocated appear just as likely to try to make some money in the U.S. as to move to other parts of Mexico.
Again and again.
I am not discussing immigration policy, I am proving that actual terrorists use other means to get into the States and that the link illegal immigration-terrorism is weak and is brought into discussion in order to justify measures that have nothing to do with the latest and that those measures would worsen the problem.
Wastelandlive (#47)
It is not particularly useful to a discussion of national immigration policy because people are not - at the end of the day - simply simply production inputs.
They are also consumption outputs, but that's all for the economy. I repeat, it is a fact on which the European Union was created. It is the fact on which credit cards are issued to illegal immigrants.
And government is not simply a production enterprise.
From the Classic Liberal point of view, a government simply has to avoid interferences in the market.
why do neither I nor the Turks among whom I live have the right to move to and work in Europe?
I know Americans working here, I also know Turks. People moves and works, either legaly or illegaly. It is simply a market.
I don't know what that means. What contingents are you suggesting will reduce peoples desire to move to America?
I suggest that contingents are a way to reduce the illegal immigration from a demand point of view, I don't step into your country's immigration policy, but on presumptions that simply are not true. The labor market is a market like any other, terrorist have not entered the States crossing the Mexican border (read the link), that's all.
Geeze. How is it that I always attract the wack jobs? Are you recently out of the assylum? Or have they brought internet access to the hospital to help with ideation?
Wasteland:
Please be advised that expression of frustration, per se, is not frowned upon at WoC.
But if all one has to say is what you've just said, one is in danger of being banned from this thread. Curt expressions of frustration (combined with a degree of infelicitude) don't make the grade.
Please consider this a warning.
Nort, wearing his Marshal's hat.
#48 Fred,
Uh, Milton Friedman disagrees. It declined for the first few years until supply chains were re-established.
If you look at the trend lines before and after prohibition there was a gap where the figures showed a decline. Except that the beginnings and ends of the trend line are on the same curve. It is quite possible that illegality reduced the quality of the data.
Which makes me dubious about the stats for drug use. I'd bet they are off by a factor of 1.5X to 3X.
#52 Wastelandlive,
It is possible you are looking at the wrong end of your internet connection for the wack jobs.
#49 P.D.,
Of course we can increase the cost. Which will increase the profits which will draw more people into the market as suppliers. Did I mention that since we have been increasing the costs to drug suppliers the price for a given amount of pure heroin (thus adjusted for purity vs street weight) has declined by a factor of 600 in the last 40 years?
In addition - like any other market where you have willing sellers and buyers you will need informants to secure arrests.
I kind of like it. Informants. Secret police. Round ups. The American dream to be sure.
I have always wanted to live in a police state. It looks like I'm going to get my wish. It has a lot of advantages that I can see. Were people trying to get into the USSR? Of course not. They were trying to escape. I do believe such tactics could solve a lot of problems in America. Crime and illegal immigration just to start. Add in that it may very well wreck the American economy and I can see illegals leaving in droves. A very small price to pay.
Wasteland,
The only purpose of passing laws that will not be obeyed is to make criminals. The purpose of making criminals is to give government more opportunities for revenue enhancement and controls.
At least you see the drug prohibition thing clearly. Now if you could only expand that to see what a heavily enforced illegal immigration policy would be like you might actually come up with something that works.
We learned from drugs that the more vigorous the enforcement the more vicious the criminals. Evidently from your point of view (although you don't see it yet) there are not enough vicious criminals in America.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . .
We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Editor: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Ayn Rand
from:
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl10a.shtml
===
So no - I wasn't joking about not passing laws that won't be obeyed.
America is a magnet for people who didn't like the laws or the enforcement where they used to live. So the respect for stupid laws in America is low. We are a nation of lawbreakers. If we were not Alcohol Prohibition would have been a roaring success instead of aroaring failure.
"You can control illegal immigration from a demand point of view making contingents, but I repeat, I don't think this is the point of this discussion, the debate is about the link between immigration and terrorism which, today, is non-existent, as the WTC attacks show."
Kinda seems like your inventing your own parameters on this one. I dont know how you can seperate people overstaying their visas or using fraudulent identities from controlling the borders. They all fall under the banner of knowing who is in the country and why. Obviously we need to overhaul how we monitor visa and green card holders- but the flip side to your coin is that even if we did that 100% effectively, its only slightly more inconvenient for the invader to slip over the border at this point. Its like squeezing a balloon.
So simply saying closing the border is pointless because its easy to cheat your way in is circular. I could make the same argument that tightening our visa scrutiny is pointless because crossing the border is so easy- so whats the point? Its a pointless rhetorical game- we need to do both.
I am not discussing immigration policy, I am proving that actual terrorists use other means to get into the States
I would strongly suggest that the link I provided in #7 disproves that. All I think you are proving is that specific terrorists did not get into the country over the Mexican border.
I operate on the assumption that if the U.S. uses military action against Iran, there will be terrorist attacks in the U.S. How did they get here? Probably over the Mexican border.
M. Simon Of course we can increase the cost. Which will increase the profits which will draw more people into the market as suppliers.
You are using way too inelastic of a demand curve. If the prime motivator of illegal immigration is monetary, then higher costs will curtail this activity. The illegal immigrant has to ask two questions:
1. How much more money will I make working in a foreign country below minimum wage than staying at working?
2. How much will it cost to go to the U.S.?
If you increase the risk that the illegal immigrant will not find a job or that the pay will be lower than expected, fewer will come.
If you increase the cost of transport and the risk of being caught, fewer will come.
Too much reinventing the wheel here when we are dealing with a very simple problem at its core. This is an issue that has existed since the first tribe of cavemen crossed the valley to the other tribes side. Lets deal with the low hanging fruit before worrying about what happens next- tighten our visa controls and build a big honkin wall across the Mexican border. Will that solve all our problems? Of course not! But it will allow us to then focus on our other failings with precision. Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Despite what the talking heads have been spewing- walls have historically worked great for keeping people where they are supposed to be.
#57 from PD Shaw,
It all depends on the demand curve vs the level of enforcement.
Even with a steep demand curve if enforcement is lax (figure 100,000 rounded up per year vs a population of 10 million +) it will not change much behavior.
Think of illegal drugs. Every one who is interested tries them. Why? The odds of being caught per use event is probably 1 in 100,000 or 1 in a million. Not much of a disincentive.
So you weigh the 1% risk vs the rewards.
I doubt if that will move you up the demand curve much.
To have an effect you probably need a 5% or even 10% rate of capture and deporataion.
Which means a lot of resources.
The government has better things to do with your money. Like buying your vote.
PD,
Re: terrorists.
So far the experience has been that they come in through airports as tourists and students.
If terrorism worrys you tightening up entry rqmts. is the best way to go.
I would strongly suggest that the link I provided in #7 disproves that. All I think you are proving is that specific terrorists did not get into the country over the Mexican border.
Well, both groups that attacked the WTC did not enter through Mexico, but through airports. Another one tried to enter legally from Canada. Those are the facts.
A terrorist preparing a big attack, like both WTC ones, is backed by a good infrastructure that allows him to come into the U.S. "legally". They won't spend a single in the desert or jumping over fences, knowing that, if caught, he would have failed forever. That is not serious, as it is not serious blaming the Mexican border when there are two million Muslims in Britain, many from Pakistani origin which is more likely that have links to Al Qaeda, that could easily enter the United States. This is simply not serious.
Want a rational immigration policy with Mexico.
1. Recognize that there is no southern border and there never has been. Mexicans and Americans have been going back and forth forever. The sealing of the border with Troops, Walls, UAVs, infrared sensors and whatever is simply a waste of time and money which will only impede the flow of labor which the U.S. economy needs.
2. Recognize that a sealing of the border without a rational guest worker program actually makes the country less safe because it puts money into the hands of criminals who will think of ways to get around the security. There is a much better chance of someone getting into the country through the desert than through the border checkpoints.
3. Have a simple Guest worker program that allows for workers to come, repeatedly on a seasonal basis and gives the worker some benefits.
4. Make the price for employers who hire undocumented workers under the new simpler system prohibitive and enforce that.
5. Make the price of overstaying the temporary visa the loss of all further right of entry into the U.S.
6. Look at the "problem" as a matter of back and forth Migration, not as a matter of invasion.
7. The problem is one of demand, more than supply. Mexico is the 9th largest economy in the world. The economy is expanding and will continue to. The demads of the American economy will continue to attract Mexican workers to what has always been a market for their labor.
8. If you treat this like the the drug problem is treated, no real attempt to curtail the demand, you will get the equivalent of the Mexican Drug Cartels which are created by the demand for Drugs in the U.S.
For the most part, Mexicans want to cross the border to do work that is required in the U.S. and then return to Mexico.
I live in Mexico, In the rural areas, Almost every man from 18 to 80 has crossed the border to work in the north. Then they return. If you are worried about Illegal immigrants staying in the States, make it simple for the Migrant force to cross the border and return.
I agree with every point except number 1. A wall can work, especially in combination with all the latter policies outlined.
The problem with the proposals on the table now (and to some extent this will affect any new program) is that our current policy has encouraged both immigrants and employers to break the law for so long, anything that is going to require them to jump through hoops will be ignored in mass. I suspect to a lot of politicians this is a feature and not a bug.
The positive part of the fence once a rational guest worker program is in place is that there will be drastically less people trying to get around the fence, and the people that are will be exactly the ones we want to keep out- felons, drug smugglers, potentially terrorists. Again, walls do work to a large extent. This idea that they dont is often posited but rarely supported with data.
I agree with Mark B in agreeing partially with TOC.
I think we do need more legal immigration from Mexico. There will not be any popular support for that unless illegal immigration is reduced. Its all nice and good to develop a sane, rational immigration policy with our neighbor to the South, but so long as each individual Mexican has a personal veto on such a policy, its useless.
How about "NOMAS!" -- No More Amnesty, Stupid!