Brandon Crocker's reply to his critics freely packages his apples with his oranges, and is indicative of the Hobson's Choice he and other supporters of the Senate's bill and the president's will would have us believe that we face: a border control bill with a guest worker program attached, or no bill at all with the continued Mexican inundation that would naturally follow. He asserts that "the ultimate goals of immigration reform should be (1) better border security and (2) to rationalize how we let people into the country so that we can reasonably accommodate our labor needs while controlling who gets to come into the country to work and who gets to stay[,]" and that "[a] guest worker program as part of a broader border security package serves these goals." (Emphasis mine.)
The only bill that should come out of the conference for a vote, and ultimately for the president's signature, should have as its only goal not "better" border security, but complete border security. The determination that any such bill must include accommodation for those already residing or working in the United States illegally is an obstacle advanced by servants of the open-borders lobby that intends it as a poison pill to end, or at least further delay, the effort. Once the border is secured, if the U.S. economy is deemed after reflection to require the continued importation of cheap foreign labor, then separate legislation to establish such a program can be considered. That reflection, though, will be more time-consuming than our security needs permit.
We are at war with ruthless and bloodthirsty opponents, fully capable of availing themselves of the same laxity enjoyed at our frontier by garden-variety illegal aliens. Close the border today. Quibble over the niceties of deportation tomorrow.
-- Stephen Foulard
Please, tell me that "Brandon Crocker" is actually a pseudonym for some hotshot huckster on TAS's financial staff who has decided to raise interest in subscriptions by raising the blood pressure of its reliable readers. Come on, it's Karl Rove now joined to your staff, isn't it? Don't try to deny that he, after having destroyed the Republican Party, has now infiltrated TAS, advising that your readers "have no place else to go..."?
-- T. Swain
Mr. Crocker's supremely arrogant and dismissive "reply" to Reader Mail is even more maddening than his original piece. It is exactly the kind of slap in the face we average Americans are receiving from the Senate on a daily basis and is why his point of view elicits such a passionate response. But I would warn Mr. Crocker not to confuse passion with incoherence. Simply saying the responses to his piece did not consist of reasoned argument does not make it so and does not give him license to ignore the consequences of his position if made into law.
Mr. Crocker states that to be in favor of a guest worker program for illegal immigrants does not mean to be in favor of "...no punishment for illegal activity, or even to be in favor of illegal immigration." However, even if Mr. Crocker is personally dead-set against these things, the argument put forth in Reader Mail was that the senate bill amounts to no punishment and more illegal immigration as a consequence of its actions.
The "punishments" in the Senate bill for illegals currently in the country are hardly burdensome and do not in any way fit the crime, or in this case crime(s), because a great deal of illegals are guilty of identity theft, fraud, tax evasion, and many other crimes that would land ordinary American citizens in jail for several years and subject them to oppressive fines. (Richard Hatch anyone?) It is the conservative point of view that these so-called punishments of paying a $2000 fine, holding a job, paying some back taxes, and learning English, are nothing more than a bargain-basement price for U.S. residency, access to our education system and social safety net for them and their families who may or may not contribute boo to our economy. Not to mention that potential immigrants outside this country know, by being good students of history, that even these trivial punishments will not be enforced and border security will not be taken seriously, leading to even more illegals who will rush to this country to sit and wait in the darkness for the next immigration "reform" and amnesty.
What is needed here is enforcement of existing laws, not new laws that contradict those already on the books. The Senate bill is amnesty no matter how you slice it, and worse yet, it's just empty political pandering. Once our borders are secure and our businesses are compliant with current law, I would certainly support some kind of guest worker program, but only if the illegals were willing to pay for their defiance of our laws. There should be a mandatory prison term and at least a $50,000 fine. Then and only then will the illegals be permitted guest worker status. If the illegals that are here are willing to pay this cost, then their commitment would be clear. The rest are free to cross the border one last time.
Unfortunately for business, once illegals are granted any kind of status, they will then demand at least minimum wage, defeating the purpose of hiring illegals in the first place. This reality is precisely why we will never see any serious enforcement of any immigration law by politicians in the pockets of big business, and why the whole guest worker argument is moot without first enforcing existing law.
Nobody is calling Mr. Crocker pro-illegal, but there are some things that cannot be denied: The 1986 amnesty did nothing to curb illegal immigration. There are businesses and politicians intent on creating and expanding a permanent American underclass. Politicians are not serious about enforcing current immigration policy.
A massive inflow of unskilled, uneducated workers would be a net drain on the economy. If the border is not secure and existing law not enforced, the rest of this discussion is academic. How's that for reason, Mr. Crocker?
-- Chuck Lazarz
Mr. Crocker is totally correct, further discussion of this topic is fruitless. He, unlike the great majority of American citizens, sees nothing wrong with changing existing laws, that both illegal aliens and American business have been ignoring for years, simply to benefit these two groups. He pays some lip service to increasing border control and interior immigration law enforcement, but then wishes to allow those who have demonstrated a penchant for criminal behavior to remain in this country and be given preference over those still waiting for entry who have shown no penchant for criminality. How skewed the thinking of today's individuals are. Next, will he suggest that we allow child molesters to work in day care centers because they have not molested any children or committed any other crimes for the last ten years while they were in prison?
This is about rewarding criminal behavior. People do not like that concept and, for the good of a society, it is not a good practice. Increase the number of work visas issued, if is desirable, but simple enforcement of existing laws is all that is needed at this time. That is all the reason needed in this discussion.
-- Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Brandon Crocker's bashing of Rep. Tom Tancredo made me feel the same as when President Bush called millions of Republicans and conservatives in this country vigilantes and racists for opposing illegal immigration. The Senate's sell-out with its amnesty proposal insults the intelligence of the American people, with its promise to collect a $2,000 fine over a period of years from the millions of illegal aliens who rack up billions of dollars annually in medical, education and incarceration costs borne by taxpayers.
Suppose you or I forged federal documents or broke tax laws for years and thought we could get away with a $2,000 fine, assuming the federal government even knew how to track and collect it from the millions of illegals laughing their heads off at these elected blowhards. Rep. Tom Tancredo speaks for the millions of Americans whom the Senate does not care about. The Senate's proposal that illegal aliens who commit fraud through phony documents and forged social security cards should collect government benefits beats out the insanity of the Senate proposal to charge illegal aliens lower college tuition fees than legal residents. The Republican Congress, with the exception of brave souls like Tancredo, has sold out the American people. I look forward to the 2008 election, when all those Republicans that Republican elites have spent the last few years ignoring and insulting stay home, and the Democrats take over. Al and Hillary need not campaign on anything but the slogan, "I told you so."
-- Caroline Miranda
North Hollywood, California
I must take umbrage with the article by Brandon Crocker entitled "Room for Compromise." I found it hopelessly myopic, to put it mildly.
First off, Mr. Crocker tries to obliquely play the "hate" card, subtly accusing those who don't agree with him of intolerance, and complains that Congressman Tom Tancredo "seems only interested in punishing people and throwing and keeping people out of the country."
Gee, I thought that was the point of enforcing the law. Lawbreakers should be punished, and people trespassing in this country should be thrown out and kept out. Would he hold the same view if some of these people were to break into his home and set up housekeeping?
He goes on to say, "Effectively squeezing out probably upwards of 10 million workers from a U.S. economy that only has an indigenous long-term unemployed population of about 1.4 million, does not strike me as wise public policy, especially if there are better alternatives." Uh, what exactly are those better alternatives? Allowing tens of millions of aliens to violate our sovereignty is not an alternative. Increased efficiency, automation, and innovation are a better alternative. Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, etc. all prospered from their lack of cheap labor-they found new ways to do things, and production went up while prices fell. Does Mr. Crocker really believe that cheap labor ultimately helps the economy? Fat lot of good it did in the antebellum South; he is advocating a plantation system.
He shrugs off the argument that a guest-worker program will undermine enforcement; "Again, there is no reason to believe that such stronger enforcement would be less likely than under an 'enforcement only' approach, which would face far larger political and practical problems."
There is every reason to believe that; the guest-worker program would increase demand for illegals by making it easier to obtain cheap labor, and regularizing them would lead to vertical movement, which would mean new aliens would need to be recruited. Does Mr. Crocker want to see the AFL-CIO unionize the "guests" and recruit them into the Democratic Party? Has Mr. Crocker ever thrown bread crumbs out for the birds? The more you throw, the more they come. The guest-invader program would have the same effect.
Don't believe me? It happened in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; they've had a guest-worker program for years, and the islands are full of illegal aliens who have destroyed the indigenous culture.
"And though not all working illegals may find the security of legal status worth the expense of the $2,000 or the hassle of the other requirements, their employers will."
REALLY? Who's going to make them? The Government has refused to enforce the law for 20 years; are they going to have a change of heart and start now? Besides, when the guest-worker moves on, or the company grows, will the employer follow the legal path, or just hire his guest-worker's kid brother and skip the hassle?
Mr. Crocker makes a fatuous argument; "It is true that the processing of millions of illegals would take a bit of manpower. But this is a strange objection coming from a group that uses the phrase 'whatever it takes' as a slogan." Now, we are told that it is impossible to deport all of the illegals in this country, but that we can legally process and organize this bunch. If we can catch them and tag them, we can deport them. The fact is, this will require an enormous bureaucracy which will have to have a way of identifying and keeping track of all of these people. It will either be impossible or will require a National I.D. card for ALL Americans.
His remark that "There simply are not enough Americans around to do all the jobs currently being done by illegals, and the impact of eliminating upwards of 10 million workers will be a bit more than merely forcing a few middle class families to clean their own homes and mow their own lawns" simply ignores the slow attrition rate that would allow the economy to adopt. This is a straw man argument, an argument which requires us to assume all 11 million invaders will be deported immediately.
The guest-worker program is an atrocious idea, an idea which will merely accelerate the invasion. This immigration is as dangerous to the ultimate welfare of the Republic as Islamic Terrorism; the terrorists seek to destroy us with bullets, while the aliens will destroy us with babies.
There are three things which need to be done: Secure the border with all means at our disposal, maintain strict enforcement of all laws pertaining to the hiring and aiding and abetting of illegal aliens (I advocate setting up work-camps for illegals on the border, so their friends will see them working for weeks or months for no pay-call it a voluntary WPA program), and, finally pressure Mexico to clean up it's act. That last is an often forgotten necessity; if the illegals don't make it to the border, we won't have a problem. The CIA has too much time on their hands; they've engaged in special ops against the President. Perhaps we should allow them to do what they do best down in old Mexico. Perhaps regime change is in order? (Why not? We've done this sort of thing before.) The Mexican government is hopelessly corrupt, and has repeatedly squandered the money we have given them for economic development. It's time for a change.
The guest-worker program is not the answer.
-- Timothy Birdnow
St. Louis, Missouri
"Does not consist of any reasoned argument." This is the height of leftist arrogance. What is it about the word ILLEGAL do you NOT understand Brandon? What you want is AMNESTY pure and simple. Oh golly gee they've been here a few years and golly gee I don't care if they are here illegally. Golly gee we must now allow them to become citizens because they broke the law for some years. We must reward them for the illegal act they have committed for years. Might as well, these illegals already get more benefits than MOST true citizens. Hell, let's just burn all the law books and shut down all the courts. Golly gee that guy that murdered his wife must be understood and golly gee the poor fellow must be given a reward of some kind. Your leftist thinking makes me want to retch. How you ever managed to have your tripe picked up by the American Statesman [sic] is beyond me! I don't know which is worse. You for writing this garbage or TAS for making it available!
-- Karl Weber
What Brandon Crocker does not understand about the word "amnesty" and how it applies to the illegal immigration debate is that when compared to the consequences of violating the same laws for American citizens the illegal population is getting off with a slap on the hand. The Mexican government will throw Americans in jail for violating any of their immigration laws. They will throw you under the jail if you work there illegally which by definition is pretty much forbidden for non-native Mexicans. Forgetting the legalities surrounding being here illegally for a moment, the laws that illegal aliens violate to work here and draw on entitlement services here would get an American citizen jail time and huge fines. I can lose my job tomorrow for any untruthful statement made on an employment application. Document forgery is not a trivial crime. Tax evasion will get you jail time and the fines, back taxes and accumulated penalties associated with such make the $2000.00 fine (paid over several years in the Senate bill) look like trivial pursuit by comparison. To put it concisely Brandon, the list of illegal activity just begins with breaking our immigration laws. What the Senate bill does in effect is reward people for breaking the law and the longer you have broken the law the bigger the pay off in effect. In political speak that is called pragmatism. That is what the 1986 immigration reform bill did on a smaller scale, a pragmatic political decision to get the item off the table and out of the headlines.
As for the House bill's emphasis on "enforcement" first not only as you call it, well we do have 20 plus years of evidence that Senate bill wordings are worthless on the subject at hand. What more evidence of this do you need than to have McCain and Kennedy's name on the template for the Senate bill? If we can't enforce the existing laws on the books to stop the inflow of illegal aliens NOW at our southern border, a reasonable person might conclude that the Senate's approach of taking another 8 years to hire enough border guards to do the job is just window dressing at best.
I'm not opposed to a comprehensive approach to control and document the presence of foreign nationals in this nation for what ever reason they are here. I am firmly against elevating illegal aliens to a special status, outside that Americans are held to both in responsibilities and consequences of law breaking. Using citizenship as a carrot is simply rewarding law breaking while millions have legally immigrated here following the rules and making a considerable sacrifice in the process. Swimming the Rio Grande to sneak in or being smuggled in by a human Coyote is not my definition of good citizenship behavior. Is it yours? A guest worker does not trespass on my property, break into my house and then demand that I must pay for his entitlement expenses, subsidize his existence with my taxes (not his) and turn my back on his willingness to break laws that carry heavy consequences for us "nativist" paying the freight for all this. Compromise is certainly possible on this subject but the Rule of Law and earned citizenship is not one of the things I'm willing to continue to cheapen to the lowest common denominator.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
Mr. Crocker response is weak. He still doesn't get it. The government caused this problem by NOT ENFORCING the 1986 immigration bill. At that time amnesty was given -- but no border enforcement was done (which was suppose to happen) and very little was done to employers who were hiring illegals. Why in the world would WE THE LEGAL CITIZENS believe the government again? We are asking that our government protect us -- which they are sworn to do and enforce the laws on the books now -- you know the ones they have passed previously!!! Our government representatives love money and that's what they are getting from various industries thru lobbyists -- Hotel, Resorts, Agriculture to name a few. This country is being invaded and nothing is being done. Don't tell me we are fighting the enemy abroad so we don't have to do it here at home -- well guess what -- they are here!
Mr. Crocker, I am an educated American male with a military background (officer). I have been around illegal aliens since my childhood. As a first hand observer of illegal aliens, I believe there is absolutely nothing gained by having them here.
Visit Dalton, Georgia and see what the illegals have done to that once great town. Check your history and you will see that Dalton at one time had the highest number of millionaires per capita. That may still be true today but look at today's demographics. The public schools are more than 50 percent Hispanic (many illegal). The jail is overcrowded, the incidence of rape has increased dramatically, crime in general has skyrocketed, and the quality of education continues a downward spiral. Dalton has so many illegals who are not assimilated into U.S. society that the city now brings in Mexican teachers to teach in its schools. A permanent underclass has formed to complete work that was once performed by U.S. citizens. What has America gained by allowing a permanent underclass to form? These illegals cannot speak our language and have little incentive to learn it. They are doomed to a life of menial labor at low wages. Giving them amnesty does not change that fact.
I will willingly donate part of my time to helping round up all 20-plus million illegals in this county and sending them to whatever country wants them. We don't speak Mex around here and do not want them here unless they want to become an American. When they follow the prescribed path to citizenship, then we will welcome them with open arms. Mex -- go back. Long live the United States of America!!!
Mr. Crocker's reply to reader mail concerning his article "Room for Compromise" is, just like his article, condescending crap. If I didn't know better I'd suspect Ted Kennedy and George Bush had their speechwriters forward the article and the "reply" to Mr. Crocker to which he signed his name (with the speechwriters' permission and encouragement no doubt).
Since when does insisting that the rule of law be upheld qualify one as a "yahoo"? Make no mistake, that's what Mr. Crocker and John McCain and all the other amnesty cheerleaders think of those who want our borders secured. I can only conclude that Mr. Crocker has a "differing, irreconcilable agenda that simply will not allow [his mind] to process the idea of doing anything other" than surrendering to the hordes of illegal aliens who have invaded our country and licking the boots of corporate fat cats searching for cheap and easily exploitable labor. As a result, I do agree with Mr. Crocker on a single point -- "further discussion of the matter would be fruitless."
-- Dave Mills
It is unfortunate that Brandon Crocker is saddled with readers that do not meet his intellectual standards. Perhaps he would do better over at The Nation or Mother Jones. Despite his demurral, most of the letters he received (with the possible exception of the one advocating his beheading) were quite well reasoned. I guess his mind is closed to any suggestion that the continuation of policies that have led to the presence of 12 million illegal aliens might lead to another 12 million illegal aliens. Apparently, further discussion of the matter would be fruitless.
-- Glen Hoffing
Shamong, New Jersey
...Crocker's idea of analysis seems to consist largely of deriding his opponent's opinions while stating his own as inarguable facts. Thus he calls Congressman Tancredo a "patron saint of the immigration hardliners," an extremist, an ignorer of proper definitions, one who wishes to "cut off our nose to spite our face," who has weak arguments, is "intransigent." He himself, meanwhile, poses as the voice of reason.
Crocker and other enthusiasts of the Senate bill seem to think that rewarding more lengthy terms of lawbreaking somehow legitimizes the proposal, as if having more unpaid parking tickets were to give a scofflaw unlimited rights to free parking -- after paying a small fine, of course. All those favoring the Senate bill seem to reason that with seniority in lawbreaking should come privileges. Further, they seem to think that portions of the U.S. economy, having become addicted to low-wage labor, will collapse if the illegals happen to return home. At the same time they propose a 'guest-worker' program which will supposedly dispel all future immigration problems. Seems to me I've heard this proposal before; it is known as the Reagan amnesty. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
Crocker refers to the "12 million illegals in the country" when, in fact, we have no firm idea how many there are, just as we don't know what percentage are breaking more laws than immigration, how many are on welfare -- legally or illegally, or how many are avoiding taxes. Despite what Crocker thinks "it is fair to say," we don't know how many or what percentage have "regular" jobs, or even jobs at all. To put it another way, we really have no remotely accurate idea to what degree illegals are either contributing to or taking from our economy.
The main supporters of unlimited, unlicensed immigration have long been those employers, whether large-scale or simply hirers of servants, who worship at the altar of low wages -- for others. A favorite argument has been to compare the number of long-term unemployed citizens (supposedly 1.4 million) with the number of employed illegals (guesstimated as 10 million), and then state that the former can never fill the latter's slots.
Except they find it convenient to ignore the far larger pool of short-term unemployed, some of whom just might want a different job; the under-employed, such as college graduates working in pizza delivery; and the retired who might wish to earn extra income. Further, they ignore the options open to employers, such as increasing efficiency by use of more labor-saving machinery, and by simply looking at new ways of doing things. In short, they consider the American economy to be absolutely rigid when, in fact, it is highly flexible. And they probably also believe that the power loom can never replace hand weaving....
Crocker's article was uninformed and one-sided -- largely filled with opinion and pseudo-facts. Just for once, let us try to enforce the law by closing the borders and strictly enforcing employer sanctions. Until that has been tried we shouldn't be suggesting what is, for all practical purposes, just more of the same old failed approach.
What we are being told by Crocker and his ilk is that while the old amnesty didn't work -- indeed, made the problem worse -- the new improved version surely will -- because, you see, rather than calling it amnesty we'll call it "earned citizenship." Ta-da! No thanks, Brandon. Instead, let's try enforcing the laws.
-- Richard Donley
New Lyme, Ohio
The below statement in "Crocker Replies" reveals his tiny liberal mind. As with any liberal, if you don't agree with them, they resort to insults and name calling. I say to Mr. Crocker, "SEND THEM BACK." "BUILD A DAMN WALL AND BE DONE WITH IT!"
"I can only guess that the above writers who are so virulently opposed to the concept of a guest worker program have a differing, irreconcilable agenda that simply will not allow their minds to process the idea of doing anything other than deporting (one way or another) 12 million people. As such, further discussion of the matter would be fruitless."
-- James George
Your snotty condescending reply to us working stiffs who daily see the impact of the surrender you propose was like a bee up a bull's nose. Put down your latte and stroll to the observation deck of your ivory tower and take a look at what is happening in working class America.
Out here it is not some testy slap fight between over-educated Ivy-Leaguers where the winner gets to sit in the front of the press bus. This is a war. This is an invasion. It is our nation, our future, our taxes- not theirs. Yes, we are emotional!
On one point you're correct. "Further discussion" is "fruitless." We passed discussion about 10 miles back and we are rapidly closing on fighting.
I submit that many of the writers that bruised your feelings and brought on your hissy fit are citizens who deal with this every day. They see the impact down range every day of our government's feckless abdication of responsibility. I know I do. My town is now inundated with illegals. The larger general contractors love it. They can get 2-3 Mexicans for the price of one American mason or carpenter. That's real sir!
Go to any large construction site in our region and at many of them the only person speaking English is the foreman.
As to deportation, you state a grain of truth. Possibly we cannot deport 12 Million but we can make a big dent. Without the realistic threat of deportation all your talk of security and enforcement is unmasked as toothless bluster. We have too much of that in our diplomacy now as it is.
Confiscate the property and accounts of all illegals sized. We do it for drug dealers why not other felons? Mandatory jail time and asset confiscation for persons hiring illegals will go long way to fixing this.
Finally, to The American Spectator. Why are you overpaying Mr. Crocker? I am sure you are as interested in cutting costs as any other business. I suggest that you could find an equally articulate bi-lingual Mexican apologist for illegal invasion that would mirror Crocker's views simply by contacting the nearest chapter of La Raza. You could pay him half as much as Crocker gets and you pocket the difference. Call it a "Guest Writers" program. Now that would be sweet irony.
-- Bill Talbott, USMC (Ret.)
P.S. Crocker, when you start a fight be prepared to taste blood in your mouth. Your "further discussion is fruitless" is simply demeaning to you and this publication. If you believe in what you wrote then fight for it. If you really believe this crap then write more about it. Don't run away. At least then I might not agree with you but I might respect you.
How, and more importantly why, does one compromise with Democrats who see little about America worth defending and Republicans that would sell her to anyone willing to offer what they consider a fair price?
The main issues are enforcement and the status of those now here illegally. There been virtually no enforcement of existing laws during the entire Bush presidency. The Senate bill further constrains enforcement, and even requires us to consult with Mexico before building a fence to protect us from invasion by their people.
The Senate bill also does nothing about the biggest scam under the current no-enforcement regimen, which is the automatic grant of citizenship to all born here. That allows those who come illegally and stay long enough to produce a child to then use "family unification" to justify remaining here with their citizen child.
Until we see consistent and vigorous enforcement, there can be no compromise on the status of those now here illegally. Without enforcement, we essentially accept without question whatever those who are now here illegally tell us when they apply for legal status. Why would anyone with half a functioning brain accept the word of someone who has already proven himself to be a liar and a lawbreaker?
Given the sorry record of our government with respect to enforcement, it will take years before the American people will trust it to enforce our immigration laws. Negotiations require trust and, until that trust is earned, it will not be possible to negotiate the status of those now here illegally.
American citizens are not similarly trusted by their government to pay their taxes (the IRS has formidable audit and enforcement resources to ensure we pay the full amount due every year, not just three of five) or even to obey traffic laws (where we are monitored by thousands of speed measurement devices and traffic signal cameras). What is so unreasonable about equal government scrutiny for those who not only are not citizens, but have proven themselves unworthy of trust by being and/or working here illegally?
Those who believe this is principally about Mexico ignore one inconvenient fact. For over a decade, manufacturing has been moving from Mexico to other nations where labor costs are even lower. (I saw this first-hand as the Mexican national who took my job had become available because his job moved to Malaysia.) Employers will gladly bring shiploads here from elsewhere if that will save them significant dollars. Billions living elsewhere would eagerly pack those ships for a chance to work and live here.
I do not appreciate the condescending attitude of Mr. Crocker's response to the letters published today. Whether or not one agrees that giving legal status without enforcing the law solves no existing problems, encourages further abuses, and makes a mockery of the rule of law, it is entirely out of bounds to simply dismiss those arguments as illegitimate. Reading any more from him would, in his words, "be fruitless."
A Republican Party that would sell America to the highest bidder is no more worth preserving than was a Whig Party that would allow millions to remain enslaved. If self-labeled GOP "moderates" want to engage in mortal combat over this issue, let's have that fight now rather than later when it is China to whom they would sell us.
-- Steve Fernandez
The last two sentences of Mr. Crocker's reply state: "I can only guess that the above writers who are so virulently opposed to the concept of a guest worker program have a differing, irreconcilable agenda that simply will not allow their minds to process the idea of doing anything other than deporting (one way or another) 12 million people. As such, further discussion of the matter would be fruitless."
Well, that's not the only thing Mr. Crocker is guessing about. In fact his original piece is premised on no more nor less than a guess, and not even an educated one, that what he wants will be good for the majority of citizens over the long term, when at best there is absolutely no reason to assume that, and when in fact there are many compelling reasons to believe that just the opposite would prove true.
In his reply Mr. Crocker also conveniently and self-servingly ignores the many sound objections of letter writers on aspects having little or nothing to do with a guest worker program; for example the objections of some letter writers to Mr. Crocker's offensive, ad hominem attack upon Congressman Tancredo.
So yes, Mr. Crocker, this writer agrees that "further discussion of the matter would be fruitless." At least with you. So please, take your marbles, shut up, and just go away...preferably to Mexico, if you can get in, and if you don't mind living there as a permanent second- or even third-class resident.
-- Chuck Vail
Let's see how all these fire-breathing "deport-'em-all" types like it when it costs $150 to have their lawns mowed, $300 to have their houses cleaned, $15,000 to have their siding painted or a new roof put on, and there's a six-month wait to get that backyard deck built. By good old, legal, all-American, fingerprinted and photographed, English-only certified laborers.
-- Doug Welty
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article