Re: Lawrence Henry's Thinking About That "Amnesty":
I employ Latino workers. I'm not blind to the fact that they work for me for one reason and one reason only -- $$. I love them because they outwork any American I've ever had 3 to 1. So I treat them with the utmost respect and expect nothing in return -- except production. But it also bothers me to see some Latinos become "Americanized." In other words, learn how to get something for nothing, and start believing the Democratic Party line. I can't blame them for using our healthcare system for free. Wouldn't you, in their situation, if you or your child were in pain?
I see this immigration idea as a stroke of genius. Ties that bind. Mano en mano: You want to improve your family's welfare? Then come here, work and seek the American Dream. And if you want healthcare and have no plans to retire or stay here, fine, just present your temporary visa health card and pay for it with your family's accumulated work points. Need to leave and come back? No problem, just present your card with at least 1,000 points at the border for re-entry. Pay to play, or work.
Lawrence Henry is delusional. Presidente Bush's idea is just another invitation to disaster. If we really want to help the situation, we should send aid to Mexico with strings attached so that their people don't feel compelled to cross the border. Better yet, threaten to get rid of NAFTA and let the Mexicans keep their ... green onions, etc.
-- Susannah Faria
I'm a Republican and I consider myself to be fairly conservative on most issues. To me, the illegal immigration is a "black and white" issue; people who are in this country illegally are criminals and should (at the very least) deported back to their country of origin. You argue that deporting ten million illegal aliens won't work. That can't be proven because it has never been tried. I say let's give it a try and the place to start is here in California. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.
The mass deportation of criminals from this country is not the business of the UN or the Europeans. It is simply a matter of enforcing our laws.
-- Tillman Jeffrey
Conservatives are supposed to deal with the world as it is, and to understand that it is dangerous to make policy based on ideals absent of surveying circumstances. So why do so many on our side us refuse to deal with reality when it comes to the issue of illegal aliens?
Sure, it's all well and good to say we should do nothing that rewards people for breaking our immigration laws. But what then is the policy to go along with that? Rounding up and deporting millions of illegals is neither practical nor responsible, and those who insist on nothing less are, therefore, in essence, arguing for the status quo. Lawrence Henry has it right when he advises "imagine you have some administrative responsibility for the actual running of the United States." If the big problem with Bush's proposal is that it allows some of the millions of people who are working here illegally to get temporary legal status, then we need to ask ourselves, what is a more palatable solution. I've yet to hear one.
President Bush's plan can't be fully appraised without a lot more detail, and it only addresses a part of the problem. But it is a practicable suggestion for coming to grips with the issue, and for focusing law enforcement and immigration resources more effectively. It will, inevitably, to some extent "reward" those who are already in the country illegally, but, as some have already suggested, that can at least be partially resolved by imposing some moderate fine on working illegals who want to trade in their illegal status for the security of a legal one. Instead of indicating that their support is beyond reach, conservative lawmakers should be working on influencing the all-important details.
I don't know when the Democrats will be running the show again in Washington. But I know they will be sometime. So do we want to start working on this problem now with a reasonable guest worker program along the lines suggested by the President, combined with stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, or do we want to continue to ignore the problem and let the Democrats deal with it down the road by granting all illegals citizenship?
-- Brandon Crocker
San Diego, California
Apropos "Thinking about That 'Amnesty,'" by Lawrence Henry:
Out of context, it may seem mad for GWB to encourage tens of millions of Latin Americans, Chinese et al. to flood into the U.S. In view of GWB's pending announcement of America's return to the moon and travel to Mars, however, it makes perfect sense: He's simply ensuring that we legal Americans have somewhere to go after we become outnumbered by aliens, as it were.
-- David Govett
Well if it is an "ethnic group" that consistently ignores the laws of our country and parasitically sucks the resources from its host (the U.S.A.), then a "cleansing" is very nearly necessary! Is the obvious so clouded in political rhetoric as to be unseen, unknown and even disbelieved? Lets refer to the discussion of the method El-Al uses to screen terrorists.
In our media it is referred to as "racial profiling" For El-Al, whose intolerance of terrorism is known world-wide, it is called "terrorist profiling" Why? Because there is a profile for the common terrorist -- and a large percentage terrorists are from a small group of world culture. No apologies for a strong policy that protects their customers. In the eyes of most Americans, this is a desirous policy- and one that has taken a backseat to attempting to please everyone.
Amnesty? In this "new world" of lost innocence and terrorism arriving on our shores, wouldn't a decry of amnesty simply send the message globally that we have now officially "rolled over and went to sleep" at our borders?
History and culture do not spring up overnight. No event exists alone, every event can be attributed to certain other events- and more importantly, an event of this magnitude should cause concern, if not action from law abiding Americans and legal immigrants.
In the writer's words we are encouraged to "think." Nay I say we must act. We must think about consequences with as much scrutiny as we have recited the causes. We must act congruently with the safety and best possible results for the American people. To make decisions based on the popularity of foreign liberal news media would be to be salve to that media.
There are a vast number of reasons and arguments against this amnesty issue, and this is probably not even the first priority or strongest argument, but I feel it is important.
I am disgusted that our American President, for whom I have a great respect, can even propose such a thing. I opine that our worth as a world hegemony is nearing its own internal dissolution.
-- Roxy Colette
What Bush is doing with immigration is rewarding criminals for criminal a act -- illegally entering the country. It is not for us to "think" as Henry puts it, it is for him to justify coddling criminals.
It would take effort, but every illegal should be deported. Let the world scream "ethnic cleansing" all they like. Bush should stand up and do the right thing -- the legal thing, as his oath of office requires him to do -- instead of doing what he is proposing. If his proposal makes it through Congress this Republican will stay home in November.
-- Richard L. Hardison
My comments on Lawrence Henry's "Thinking About That "Amnesty"" are here. (Search for "lonewacko" at that page. I've included my first comment below, I'm sure there will
Lawrence Henry suggests we think. OK. Here's my first thought: after establishing a strawman, he deftly manages to knock it down.
Even if some people are suggesting "deport them all," most people realize that's not possible.
The very fact that it's not possible indicates that a) we have a serious problem, and b) we can't let what happened in the past happen again. If we can't control who's inside our country, then we have to make sure that we don't encourage even more people to come here illegally.
The way to do that is not to militarily "deport them all," the way to do that is to make it very difficult to be an illegal alien. That will discourage more from coming. Offering any kind of amnesty will only encourage more to come.
Furthermore, moving the current millions of illegal aliens up a notch in pay grade will lead to some employers hiring another crop of illegal aliens to replace those who were moved up in the world.
Any sort of amnesty will just beget another amnesty down the line.
We need to reform our entire immigration policy and also make it clear that Vicente Fox doesn't dictate our policy in such matters. Does Bush have the cojones to tell Fox to fix his own mess rather than shoving it off on us?
The solution to the immigration mess is reform that's consistent with American values and laws:
• No amnesties ever.
• No driver's licenses for illegals. Only (real) emergency services will be provided to illegal aliens.
• No DREAM Act. Why should illegal aliens pay less college tuition than U.S. citizens? That makes no sense.
• Stronger border enforcement, using drones and modern sensors and more officers.
• Interior enforcement like there used to be, complete with frequent raids at businesses known to employ illegals.
• Encouraging labor-intensive industries to modernize. If there had been no illegal aliens, the fruit industry would be largely automated by now. That would be progress, using serf labor isn't.
• No more kowtowing to Mexican officials. If they want to take revenge by harboring al Qaeda or sending us even more drugs, we can take whatever steps necessary to make sure they get the message that's not a good thing.
-- Chris Kelly
One "Illegal Immigration" issue is never discussed: As a deliberate-but-muffled principle of U.S. foreign policy, we allow the dysfunctional, corrupt nation of Mexico to export its social problems to the North. The alternative: Nicaragua-Only-Worse right on our southern border. The Canadians are idiots, but at least they strive for Socialist Nirvana with BS and votes, instead of AK-47s and ski masks. Send 10 million illegals back home where they could not make a living? Do we really want a Central American Vietnam going on in Baja?
But a solution from Bush? YOU think, please. The worst job a Mexican illegal may obtain here in Southern California is better than the best job he might get in Mexico. But he comes from one of the poorest of economic circumstances to one of the costliest places to live in America. The economics of this cannot work. The slack must then be taken up by us -- the taxpaying citizens -- for education, healthcare, civil administration, law enforcement, insurance fees, workman's compensation and prison housing (since Latinos make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population) plus the inevitable negative impact on our communities and culture. In short, tolerating illegal immigration directly subsidizes the corrupt, ineffectual Mexican national culture along with illegal conduct by some Latinos in the U.S., while indirectly paying off &%$#@ American Businesses out here who employ such.
In addition to a tax impact never fully estimated, this also grossly insults all American citizens who obey the law along with those honest -- and even literate and skilled -- Asian, Middle Eastern, African and European persons who aspire to emigrate here legally and who must put up with all the INS red tape and delays.
Oh yes, and have you paid any attention at all to the continuing comments of Vicente Fox? His view: The Gringos have an absolute obligation to let Mexicans come to the U.S. anytime they want as the best means to fix whatever is wrong with his country.
The problem is deep-rooted in Mexican culture, economics and politics, not ours. Question: Would we tolerate Jacques Chirac campaigning in the US among French-Americans to revise our Iraq policies?
Que pasa, Señor Bush.
-- Gene Wright
Laguna Niguel, California
You obviously suffer from the Rush Limbaugh disease. That is the one that says, "If George Bush said it, it must be defensible and must be so defended, regardless." I suppose that given the number of deaths by auto accident every year and their inevitability, we might as well offer amnesty to all who have violated said laws. Why don't we do the same for murder. After all, Cain slew Abel, and that was a long time ago and murders still happen.
Oh wait, there are to be quid pro quos. Mexico is going to be our buddy and do what we want them to in return for this bit of cheek turning. Well take your quid and stuff it in your pro quo. If you or Bush or "Svengali" Rove are so naive to believe that, then you all need institutionalization to protect you from hurting yourselves.
Oh, I forgot, our Hispanic citizens are going to be so ecstatic that they will suddenly give 90% of their votes to Bush in November. First, the Cuban community gets nothing out of this and will not be further enticed to vote Republican when the Coast Guard is still returning Cuban refugees to Castro's loving embrace. Second, the Mexican community, which this is aimed at, is simply going to scream that it is not enough. Why not just give California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico to Vicente Fox as a birthday present and see if that satisfies him? I bet it won't.
I have not failed to vote in any election since 1960. I have never failed to vote Republican for President. I will not be voting for the office of President in Nov. 2004. We survived eight years of Clinton, we will survive the next 4 years with some other Democrat.
Bush: You have gone several bridges too far. Such a shame. You are good on the military. Unfortunately, that is not all there is to the job. No more Bushes -- ever!
-- Ken Shreve
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article