President Obama's speech Tuesday sought to convince the public that the border is as secure as it has ever been and that immigration is necessary for American society and an essential part of this country's heritage. His failure to address the real issues means he doesn’t really understand the problem or is willing to sacrifice anything to achieve re-election. It has not been demonstrated or proven that immigration levels exceeded a million each year is necessary for American society. Our need is limited to skilled labor and migrant farm workers. The overall quota should be reduced to the level of the 1950s or about 250,000 per year exclusive of students, tourists, and migrant farm workers.
Our country’s immigrant past is undeniable but the operative word in that phrase is “past.” When Emma Lazarus penned her famous sonnet posted on the base of the statue of liberty, the U.S. population was about 50 million. Now it has increased six fold to more than 300 million. No reasonable person should cling to outmoded idea that immigration is as essential today as it was in the mid 1880s. It is a part of our history but like slavery and child labor, it is a thing of the past and the continued reference to our immigrant past as a basis for current policy lacks credibility.
The president seems intent on changing the narrative about immigration now that his re-election campaign is underway. In recent years, the public has become more aware of the threat of excessive legal immigration and the lack of internal enforcement. The president has stumbled in trying to reclaim the momentum by making pro-immigrant arguments. He has spoken about the search for “that elusive middle ground” on immigration reform but appears to impose a pre-condition of another mass amnesty. This is viewed by many as a non-starter for negotiations on immigration reform.
Organizations that favor a tighter immigration policy dismissed the president's speech as a political effort to regain the Hispanic vote. "In his effort to shore up support from his political base, President Obama is choosing to reignite a divisive debate about amnesty for illegal aliens," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
What to do with those who are already here remains one of the biggest questions of the immigration debate. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 11.2 million "unauthorized" immigrants live in the United States, equal to 3.7% of the nation's population. The figure follows a two-year decline from the peak of 12 million reached in 2007. Even if it is true, this is hardly heartening news. From the last amnesty in 1986 to today, the compound rate of increase in the number of illegal aliens present in the U.S. is between 9 and 10% per year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to extrapolate that trend to mid century. Welcome to Mexico Norte!
Showing posts with label immigration reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration reform. Show all posts
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Friday, October 8, 2010
39th Reason Why Obama should be Impeached or NOT Re-elected
Next to the economy, it's one of the most divisive topics, particularly among Latino voters. Immigration has also generated a lot of debate on Ask America, our informal polling platform where readers can vote and comment on hot political issues this election season.
The most popular question posed to users about immigration was on Arizona's controversial new law. We asked, "Would you like to see your state adopt an immigration law similar to Arizona's?" Out of the more than 50,000 responses, 74 percent were in the "Yes" column, with 26 percent saying "No."
If this is a true measure of the popularity of Arizona's law, why did the president sue that State to invalidate SB1070? Who does he serve Hispanics, illegal aliens, or other citizens that think SB 1070 is a good idea?
The most popular question posed to users about immigration was on Arizona's controversial new law. We asked, "Would you like to see your state adopt an immigration law similar to Arizona's?" Out of the more than 50,000 responses, 74 percent were in the "Yes" column, with 26 percent saying "No."
If this is a true measure of the popularity of Arizona's law, why did the president sue that State to invalidate SB1070? Who does he serve Hispanics, illegal aliens, or other citizens that think SB 1070 is a good idea?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Reason #3 Why Obama Should be Impeached or Not Re-elected
The Obama administration, anticipating that Congress might not pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, is considering ways it could act without congressional approval to achieve many of the objectives of the initiative, including giving permanent resident status, or green cards, to large numbers of people in the country illegally.
The ideas were outlined in an unusually frank draft memo [1] prepared for Alejandro N. Mayorkas, director of the federal agency that handles immigration benefits, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS). The memo lists ways the government could grant permanent resident status to tens of thousands of people and delay the deportation of others, potentially indefinitely.
"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different branches of USCIS.
The 11-page document was made public Thursday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who with six other senators wrote to Obama [2] more than a month ago, asking for his assurance that rumors that some sort of reprieve was in the works for millions of illegal immigrants weren't true.
"The administration has failed to reassure us that the information we were hearing was inaccurate," Grassley said in a statement to ProPublica Thursday night. "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan."
The memo's release is certain to put the administration on the defensive with opponents of "comprehensive immigration reform" -- Washington code for putting many of the estimated 12 million people in the country illegally on a potential path to citizenship. It is also likely to make immigration an even hotter topic in this year's congressional elections, which have already been roiled by Arizona's controversial attempt to use state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
Christopher Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said last night that the agency would not comment on details of the memo, which he described as an internal draft that "should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department...We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's immigration challenges."
Bentley said that internal memos help the agency "do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected" and that "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."
"To be clear," he said in an e-mail, the Obama administration "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."
One of the memo's most controversial suggestions is wider use of "deferred action," the agency's discretion to indefinitely delay the deportation of otherwise deportable non-citizens. "This would permit individuals for whom relief may become available in the future to live and work in the U.S. without fear of removal," the memo said.
The memo acknowledges that granting deferred action to an unrestricted number of people "would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive." Instead, it suggests that this option be used for particular groups, such as the approximately 50,000 young people who would be allowed to stay in the country if Congress passed the Dream Act. That bill would provide a potential path to citizenship for qualifying young people who complete a college degree or two years of military service.
The memo also says that standards for "extreme hardship" cases could be eased so "many more spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents" could seek relief without fearing deportation.
In what would be a reversal of a position held by the agency's Office of General Counsel under previous administrations, the memo suggests granting green cards to large numbers of people currently in the country under Temporary Protected Status. That status typically is used to forestall deportation proceedings for large groups of undocumented foreign nationals when it would cause them hardship, such as sending them home in the wake of a major earthquake or hurricane or during a civil war.
Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform, like Dee Perez-Scott and others who are disloyal to America, are certain to welcome any effort by the Obama administration to unilaterally open pathways to citizenship for many currently in the country illegally. But the draft is also sure to outrage immigration-restriction groups.
"The memo proposes 18 different ways for the Obama administration to essentially eliminate our borders through regulatory fiat and in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of U.S. immigration laws, which Obama swore an oath to faithfully execute," said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, an organization that lobbies for tighter immigration laws and practices.
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/memo-on-alternatives-to-comprehensive-immigration-reformhttp://www.propublica.org/documents/item/congressional-letter-to-president-obama-on-immigration-june-21-2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
A Commentary on President Obama’s Recent Immigration Speech
A recent report on CNN stated “President Barack Obama renewed his push for comprehensive immigration reform Thursday[7/1/2010], calling for bipartisan cooperation on an issue that has repeatedly proven to be a major cause of deep social and political division.
The president tried to find what has often proven to be an elusive middle ground on the subject, highlighting the importance of immigrants to American history and progress.”
If he was trying to find an elusive middle ground, he didn’t look very hard or very far. There is no denying America’s “immigrant past” but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.” Our country is now fully settled and developed and has a limited need for more immigrants. More in this case means less for everyone – a lower standard of living, a lower quality of life, more pollution, more demand for energy and the use of fossil fuels, and the depletion of finite natural resources already spread too thin.
The middle ground is not so elusive; it is right there staring us in the face. The goal post on one end of the playing field is mass deportation; on the other it is amnesty and mass legalization. In search of the middle ground both of those extremes need to be abandoned or rejected and neither the President nor the Congress has shown any inclination to do so. The way to heal the deep social and political division in this country regarding immigration is to stay a little closer to the fifty yard line. There is plenty of room there for a statesman but the charlatans, demagogues, and partisans will have to sit closer to the goal posts in the cheap seats.
What could be more reasonable than to tie the immigration rate in each sector of our economy to the unemployment rate in that sector? That is the middle ground on the numbers of immigrants we should admit.
Must we sacrifice the employment rights and opportunities of American labor to satisfy applicants for immigration and the special interest groups that support them? I say no, that is not the middle ground.
What could be more reasonable than to require employers to present irrefutable proof that they have been unable to fill their jobs with citizen labor by offering a living wage and a hiring preference before they can even consider retaining or hiring foreign labor? That is the middle ground.
Obama acknowledges “the fear and frustration many people now feel with a system that seems ‘fundamentally broken’ ” but provided no details.
There is no evidence to support the unfounded allegation that our immigration system is “fundamentally broken.” That term is just a cliché. It is one of the many used by the politicians in Washington when the facts say otherwise. This is just a ploy of those who want a looser and more expeditious immigration process even though the one we currently have has already permitted Russian sleeper agents and terrorists to enter our country easily without challenge.
The fear and frustration arises from the people’s distrust of an Administration that refuses to enforce the immigration laws already on the books and secure the borders.
“According to CNN, Obama asserted that the majority of Americans are ready to embrace reform legislation that would help resolve the status of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.”
Indeed they are but, considering what happened after the last amnesty, they are not ready to embrace another one. Even Obama admits that another amnesty could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. The best way to resolve the status of an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens is to make E-verify mandatory across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and prospective. Vigorous internal enforcement is the only thing that will stem the tide of illegal aliens streaming across the border on a daily basis, taking jobs, and swelling the ranks of unemployed Americans. If we grant another amnesty that allows all of the illegal aliens to stay and work, that will create a huge incentive for millions more to violate our borders.
The East Germans found to their dismay that people would brave machine gun towers, mine fields, and multi-layered fences and walls to escape to the West. The reason they were willing to take these incredible risks is because if they were successful, they knew they would never be repatriated.
Similarly, illegal aliens are willing to cross the hot and forbidding deserts of Arizona and other border states because they know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free. Under the current Administration’s non-enforcement policies, the probability of being apprehended internally and repatriated is extremely low. What President Obama and Secretary Napolitano refuse to admit is that to secure the borders requires more than just improvements in staffing, infrastructure, and rules of engagement improvements; it requires vigorous and continuous internal enforcement with expeditious repatriation of all of those who are apprehended. That is the missing ingredient of border security in depth. The borders can never be secure without the sure threat and actuality of repatriation of the large numbers of the illegals who are surplus to our economy. Obama and Napo seemed to have missed the lesson learned by the East Germans or are simply ignoring it to pander to the Hispanics who seem to have a greater loyalty to their ethnic brethren than they do to America and, for that matter, even to their own enlightened self-interests.
"I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that's accountable," Obama told an audience at Washington's American University. "I believe we can appeal not to people's fears, but to their hopes, to their highest ideals. Because that's who we are as Americans."
Yes, but he has not put politics aside as he continues to pander to the immigration special interests and ethnic communities that apparently believe American has an unlimited capacity to absorb more people without any adverse effects. They think our finite natural resources can somehow be stretched ever farther without impacting the quality of life and standard of living for all of us, including those misguided and shortsighted immigration advocates.
An immigration system that is accountable should take cognizance of the rate of unemployment by sector in our economy. It should be accountable to U.S. citizens not to foreign interests or special interest groups who give precedence to foreigners over the wishes of the American people.
By making our immigration system accountable, the hopes and aspirations of Americans can still be realized, despite the current prolonged recession. It is not contrary to American ideals to focus on the needs of our economy and our people rather than the desires of all those who may wish to come here. We have no need for or obligation to accept more immigrants than we can reasonably assimilate and accommodate without economic dislocations. That number is no greater than 250,000 annually in all categories including chain immigrations or so-called family reunifications and including the estimated number of illegal aliens who slip through our borders undetected. This overall limit, however, should be exclusive of foreign students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers.
“The president targeted Arizona's controversial new immigration law, which requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.”
He is dead wrong to criticize the Arizona law. In fact, the Arizona law should be the centerpiece of any immigration reform. Anything less would constitute mere lip service to border security, something we may soon regret when the next terrorist incident occurs. Border states have a special problem that Obama has yet to recognize.
“The Arizona measure -- currently under review by the Justice Department -- has ‘fanned the flames of an already contentious debate,’ Obama said. It puts pressure on police officers to enforce rules that are ‘unenforceable’ while making communities less safe -- in part, by making people more reluctant to report crimes. It also has ‘the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.’"
Those flames should be fanned. That seems like the only way to get the attention of the Administration. This is too important an issue to be left solely to politicians interested only in their own re-election. Obama might be surprised how many law enforcement officers welcome the new rules as a tool they have long needed to do their jobs effectively. There are ways to minimize the imposition on loyal American citizens and legal residents but there should be little sympathy for those who aid and abet the illegal aliens physically or by supporting their cause.
“Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, responded Thursday that Obama’s failure to secure the border with Mexico is what forced her state to act on its own.
‘Do your job. Secure the border,’ Brewer said of the president in a speech to a Republican group. She pledged to ‘defend this law against every assault, including attacks by the Obama administration.’"
In his speech, Obama warned that rounding up everyone in the country who has entered illegally would be both "logistically impossible" and "tear at the fabric of the nation." At the same time, the president indicated it would be wrong to offer blanket amnesty for people who came into the United States unlawfully. He got that second part right!
He said to do so "would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. ... It would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally." The problem with this statement is that the repercussions he proposes would have no deterrent effect whatsoever on any foreigners bent on violating our borders.
Ultimately, he was right when he said, "our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable."
However, he was wrong about the logistic feasibility of rounding up and repatriating a substantial number of the illegal aliens . The logistic feasibility of such an effort was amply demonstrated by the repatriation of eight million ethnic Germans back to the German heartland from the Eastern Territories in less than a year following the close of World War II in 1945-6. And this was done using a war-ravaged transportation system. However, we don’t need to round up and repatriate every one of the 12-20 million illegals to make a point. Most will get the message if we begin a systematic and effective program of apprehension and repatriation without delay.
“Obama said those who entered the country illegally must admit they broke the law, register with the appropriate authorities, pay taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must ‘get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship.’"
Surely you jest, Mr. President! Admitting they broke the law is meaningless and laughable. We don’t let other law breakers off the hook just because they plead guilty!They can only get right with the law if they come into compliance with the law as it existed at the time they violated the border. They need to return home and apply for legal immigration under whatever quotas might be available to them.
What is Obama thinking of? Is he thinking at all? In any event, he did not propose any mechanism or funding to enforce the registration, payment of back taxes and a fine, and provide testing to assure that they are learning English. Those provisions are either unenforceable or will simply be unenforced just like the current immigration laws.
“The president urged Congress to tackle immigration reform legislation, but stressed that it would require support from both Democrats and Republicans.
‘That is the political and mathematical reality,’ he said.
“Despite Obama's call for bipartisan immigration reform, several senior Democratic sources said Thursday that they see virtually no chance of Congress taking up such a measure before November's midterm elections.
Though some hold out hope for potential movement during a lame-duck session of Congress after the election, most sources say the more realistic earliest target is next year. But even that, according to one source, may be ‘happy talk.’”
At the same time as the President is calling for bipartisan immigration reform, he continues to support what is known euphemistically as “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR). Most understand CIR to be a code term for the granting of amnesty to or the mass legalization of millions of illegal aliens. That term also encompasses a major increase in legal immigration quotas which are already way too large. If the President wants bipartisan support for immigration reform, he needs to narrow his focus to border security as the first step. The number of illegals transiting the border must be reduced to no more than 10,000 per year. The actual achievement of this goal must be attested to by border patrol and ICE agents in a privately administered confidential survey before any other reforms should be considered. That level cannot be achieved without intense internal enforcement and the repatriation of relatively large numbers of the illegals. That is the only way to create the necessary disincentive.
We can do this humanely at little cost to the government. If the illegals paid their way here, they can certainly pay they way back. If not, their employers should pick up the difference. The most important thing is to expedite their removal rather than keeping them in detention facilities for long periods of time. To accomplish that goal, we should pay the detention facility operators on the basis of throughput rather than detainee-days.
In the meantime, a study should be done to determine how best to determine the real needs of our economy for immigrants and to propose a way of adjusting our immigration quotas so that they are more precisely metered to those needs. Our objective should be to stabilize our population before it is too late.
The president tried to find what has often proven to be an elusive middle ground on the subject, highlighting the importance of immigrants to American history and progress.”
If he was trying to find an elusive middle ground, he didn’t look very hard or very far. There is no denying America’s “immigrant past” but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.” Our country is now fully settled and developed and has a limited need for more immigrants. More in this case means less for everyone – a lower standard of living, a lower quality of life, more pollution, more demand for energy and the use of fossil fuels, and the depletion of finite natural resources already spread too thin.
The middle ground is not so elusive; it is right there staring us in the face. The goal post on one end of the playing field is mass deportation; on the other it is amnesty and mass legalization. In search of the middle ground both of those extremes need to be abandoned or rejected and neither the President nor the Congress has shown any inclination to do so. The way to heal the deep social and political division in this country regarding immigration is to stay a little closer to the fifty yard line. There is plenty of room there for a statesman but the charlatans, demagogues, and partisans will have to sit closer to the goal posts in the cheap seats.
What could be more reasonable than to tie the immigration rate in each sector of our economy to the unemployment rate in that sector? That is the middle ground on the numbers of immigrants we should admit.
Must we sacrifice the employment rights and opportunities of American labor to satisfy applicants for immigration and the special interest groups that support them? I say no, that is not the middle ground.
What could be more reasonable than to require employers to present irrefutable proof that they have been unable to fill their jobs with citizen labor by offering a living wage and a hiring preference before they can even consider retaining or hiring foreign labor? That is the middle ground.
Obama acknowledges “the fear and frustration many people now feel with a system that seems ‘fundamentally broken’ ” but provided no details.
There is no evidence to support the unfounded allegation that our immigration system is “fundamentally broken.” That term is just a cliché. It is one of the many used by the politicians in Washington when the facts say otherwise. This is just a ploy of those who want a looser and more expeditious immigration process even though the one we currently have has already permitted Russian sleeper agents and terrorists to enter our country easily without challenge.
The fear and frustration arises from the people’s distrust of an Administration that refuses to enforce the immigration laws already on the books and secure the borders.
“According to CNN, Obama asserted that the majority of Americans are ready to embrace reform legislation that would help resolve the status of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.”
Indeed they are but, considering what happened after the last amnesty, they are not ready to embrace another one. Even Obama admits that another amnesty could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. The best way to resolve the status of an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens is to make E-verify mandatory across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and prospective. Vigorous internal enforcement is the only thing that will stem the tide of illegal aliens streaming across the border on a daily basis, taking jobs, and swelling the ranks of unemployed Americans. If we grant another amnesty that allows all of the illegal aliens to stay and work, that will create a huge incentive for millions more to violate our borders.
The East Germans found to their dismay that people would brave machine gun towers, mine fields, and multi-layered fences and walls to escape to the West. The reason they were willing to take these incredible risks is because if they were successful, they knew they would never be repatriated.
Similarly, illegal aliens are willing to cross the hot and forbidding deserts of Arizona and other border states because they know that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free. Under the current Administration’s non-enforcement policies, the probability of being apprehended internally and repatriated is extremely low. What President Obama and Secretary Napolitano refuse to admit is that to secure the borders requires more than just improvements in staffing, infrastructure, and rules of engagement improvements; it requires vigorous and continuous internal enforcement with expeditious repatriation of all of those who are apprehended. That is the missing ingredient of border security in depth. The borders can never be secure without the sure threat and actuality of repatriation of the large numbers of the illegals who are surplus to our economy. Obama and Napo seemed to have missed the lesson learned by the East Germans or are simply ignoring it to pander to the Hispanics who seem to have a greater loyalty to their ethnic brethren than they do to America and, for that matter, even to their own enlightened self-interests.
"I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that's accountable," Obama told an audience at Washington's American University. "I believe we can appeal not to people's fears, but to their hopes, to their highest ideals. Because that's who we are as Americans."
Yes, but he has not put politics aside as he continues to pander to the immigration special interests and ethnic communities that apparently believe American has an unlimited capacity to absorb more people without any adverse effects. They think our finite natural resources can somehow be stretched ever farther without impacting the quality of life and standard of living for all of us, including those misguided and shortsighted immigration advocates.
An immigration system that is accountable should take cognizance of the rate of unemployment by sector in our economy. It should be accountable to U.S. citizens not to foreign interests or special interest groups who give precedence to foreigners over the wishes of the American people.
By making our immigration system accountable, the hopes and aspirations of Americans can still be realized, despite the current prolonged recession. It is not contrary to American ideals to focus on the needs of our economy and our people rather than the desires of all those who may wish to come here. We have no need for or obligation to accept more immigrants than we can reasonably assimilate and accommodate without economic dislocations. That number is no greater than 250,000 annually in all categories including chain immigrations or so-called family reunifications and including the estimated number of illegal aliens who slip through our borders undetected. This overall limit, however, should be exclusive of foreign students, tourists, and temporary migrant farm workers.
“The president targeted Arizona's controversial new immigration law, which requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.”
He is dead wrong to criticize the Arizona law. In fact, the Arizona law should be the centerpiece of any immigration reform. Anything less would constitute mere lip service to border security, something we may soon regret when the next terrorist incident occurs. Border states have a special problem that Obama has yet to recognize.
“The Arizona measure -- currently under review by the Justice Department -- has ‘fanned the flames of an already contentious debate,’ Obama said. It puts pressure on police officers to enforce rules that are ‘unenforceable’ while making communities less safe -- in part, by making people more reluctant to report crimes. It also has ‘the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.’"
Those flames should be fanned. That seems like the only way to get the attention of the Administration. This is too important an issue to be left solely to politicians interested only in their own re-election. Obama might be surprised how many law enforcement officers welcome the new rules as a tool they have long needed to do their jobs effectively. There are ways to minimize the imposition on loyal American citizens and legal residents but there should be little sympathy for those who aid and abet the illegal aliens physically or by supporting their cause.
“Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, responded Thursday that Obama’s failure to secure the border with Mexico is what forced her state to act on its own.
‘Do your job. Secure the border,’ Brewer said of the president in a speech to a Republican group. She pledged to ‘defend this law against every assault, including attacks by the Obama administration.’"
In his speech, Obama warned that rounding up everyone in the country who has entered illegally would be both "logistically impossible" and "tear at the fabric of the nation." At the same time, the president indicated it would be wrong to offer blanket amnesty for people who came into the United States unlawfully. He got that second part right!
He said to do so "would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. ... It would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally." The problem with this statement is that the repercussions he proposes would have no deterrent effect whatsoever on any foreigners bent on violating our borders.
Ultimately, he was right when he said, "our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable."
However, he was wrong about the logistic feasibility of rounding up and repatriating a substantial number of the illegal aliens . The logistic feasibility of such an effort was amply demonstrated by the repatriation of eight million ethnic Germans back to the German heartland from the Eastern Territories in less than a year following the close of World War II in 1945-6. And this was done using a war-ravaged transportation system. However, we don’t need to round up and repatriate every one of the 12-20 million illegals to make a point. Most will get the message if we begin a systematic and effective program of apprehension and repatriation without delay.
“Obama said those who entered the country illegally must admit they broke the law, register with the appropriate authorities, pay taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must ‘get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship.’"
Surely you jest, Mr. President! Admitting they broke the law is meaningless and laughable. We don’t let other law breakers off the hook just because they plead guilty!They can only get right with the law if they come into compliance with the law as it existed at the time they violated the border. They need to return home and apply for legal immigration under whatever quotas might be available to them.
What is Obama thinking of? Is he thinking at all? In any event, he did not propose any mechanism or funding to enforce the registration, payment of back taxes and a fine, and provide testing to assure that they are learning English. Those provisions are either unenforceable or will simply be unenforced just like the current immigration laws.
“The president urged Congress to tackle immigration reform legislation, but stressed that it would require support from both Democrats and Republicans.
‘That is the political and mathematical reality,’ he said.
“Despite Obama's call for bipartisan immigration reform, several senior Democratic sources said Thursday that they see virtually no chance of Congress taking up such a measure before November's midterm elections.
Though some hold out hope for potential movement during a lame-duck session of Congress after the election, most sources say the more realistic earliest target is next year. But even that, according to one source, may be ‘happy talk.’”
At the same time as the President is calling for bipartisan immigration reform, he continues to support what is known euphemistically as “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR). Most understand CIR to be a code term for the granting of amnesty to or the mass legalization of millions of illegal aliens. That term also encompasses a major increase in legal immigration quotas which are already way too large. If the President wants bipartisan support for immigration reform, he needs to narrow his focus to border security as the first step. The number of illegals transiting the border must be reduced to no more than 10,000 per year. The actual achievement of this goal must be attested to by border patrol and ICE agents in a privately administered confidential survey before any other reforms should be considered. That level cannot be achieved without intense internal enforcement and the repatriation of relatively large numbers of the illegals. That is the only way to create the necessary disincentive.
We can do this humanely at little cost to the government. If the illegals paid their way here, they can certainly pay they way back. If not, their employers should pick up the difference. The most important thing is to expedite their removal rather than keeping them in detention facilities for long periods of time. To accomplish that goal, we should pay the detention facility operators on the basis of throughput rather than detainee-days.
In the meantime, a study should be done to determine how best to determine the real needs of our economy for immigrants and to propose a way of adjusting our immigration quotas so that they are more precisely metered to those needs. Our objective should be to stabilize our population before it is too late.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
A Postmodern Presidency
After reading Victor Davis Hanson’s piece “A Postmodern Presidency” last week, I was furious for two reasons. One, it was one of those columns that I wish I had written. Two, it made me realize exactly who Obama is and how we conservatives have been battling him on all the wrong fronts.
The heart of Hanson’s piece is this: Barack Obama is the first truly “postmodern” President. Having been raised and educated on the deconstructed principles of “relativism and the primacy of language over reality,” Obama is a walking, talking and bowing (more on this later) ambassador of postmodernism.
A brief primer on this “after modernity” ism, quoting Hanson:
“Genres, rules, and protocols in art, music, or in much of anything vanish as the unnecessary obstructions they are deemed to be — constructed by those with privilege to perpetuate their own entrenched received authority and power. . . .
“. . . What we signify and brand as ‘real,’ in essence, is no more valid than another’s “truth,” even if we retreat to specious claims of “evidence”—especially if our aim is to perpetuate the nation state, or the primacy of the white male capitalist Westerner who long ago manufactured norms in his own interests.”
In Hanson’s mind (and I completely agree), everything Obama has done – from “stimulus,” to healthcare reform, to alienating our “allies,” etc. – is for the purpose of removing the centuries-old hegemony enjoyed, by namely, white, Christian men.
Postmodernism exhibits progressive liberal “victimhood” ideology in the sense that everything, literally, is a struggle between class, race and gender. Societal norms and “absolute truth” are outdated modes lacking contextualization. Obama believes all of this. And this is what “hope and change” has always been about.
We can’t expect to win the battle for the soul of our nation (and the stability of the entire world) by battling Obama the way we have. When we question Obama’s numbers on healthcare reform, when that lady at the town hall asked if it’s wise to up the tax burden, when we howl at his narcissism, when we call him naïve, we’ve already lost.
To us, all evidence points to the fact that Obama is naïve, that he really doesn’t understand how the world works. But as Hanson wrote, “[Obama] is offering us another — a postmodern — way of looking at the world.” Obama’s remarks about “Greek exceptionalism” last spring make a little more sense now, don’t they?
He’s like the Joker in the Dark Knight. No matter how insane or random Obama’s policies look to us, they are, as the Joker would say, “all part of the plan.”
Hamstringing our nuclear capabilities? Can’t get more hegemonic than hoarding nuclear warheads. Peace through strength is so modernity.
Bowing to foreign heads of state? America has had more than its fair share of time in the limelight.
Redistribution of wealth? Your capitalistic wealth is homophobic, sexist and probably Islamophobic.
So we cry “Socialist!” And like the Joker when accused of being insane, Obama simply quips, “No, I’m not.”
Being a “socialist” isn’t deep enough, isn’t narrative-changing enough. Attacking health care, foreign policy, cap-and-trade or anything else is fine, but it doesn’t get at the embedded philosophy and life system. We have to realize we’re not even battling against Obama. We’re up against an entire zeitgeist, a paradoxical and chaotic worldview that needs to be dug up by the roots.
As Batman and Joker struggled physically and philosophically over Gotham, the Joker turned to his nemesis and said, “The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.”
So it is with Obama. There are no rules – just language, that fluid gift of reality construction that eliminates all “traditional” obstacles and norms. It’s no surprise, then, that he loves to speechify, because in postmodernity, if you don’t have language, you don’t have anything. [Since there are no rules, it is useless to prevail upon Obama to enforce the immigration laws or secure the border.]
Trevor Sides, former editor of the Akron News-Reporter, is a Liberty Features Syndicate writer for Americans for Limited Government.
The heart of Hanson’s piece is this: Barack Obama is the first truly “postmodern” President. Having been raised and educated on the deconstructed principles of “relativism and the primacy of language over reality,” Obama is a walking, talking and bowing (more on this later) ambassador of postmodernism.
A brief primer on this “after modernity” ism, quoting Hanson:
“Genres, rules, and protocols in art, music, or in much of anything vanish as the unnecessary obstructions they are deemed to be — constructed by those with privilege to perpetuate their own entrenched received authority and power. . . .
“. . . What we signify and brand as ‘real,’ in essence, is no more valid than another’s “truth,” even if we retreat to specious claims of “evidence”—especially if our aim is to perpetuate the nation state, or the primacy of the white male capitalist Westerner who long ago manufactured norms in his own interests.”
In Hanson’s mind (and I completely agree), everything Obama has done – from “stimulus,” to healthcare reform, to alienating our “allies,” etc. – is for the purpose of removing the centuries-old hegemony enjoyed, by namely, white, Christian men.
Postmodernism exhibits progressive liberal “victimhood” ideology in the sense that everything, literally, is a struggle between class, race and gender. Societal norms and “absolute truth” are outdated modes lacking contextualization. Obama believes all of this. And this is what “hope and change” has always been about.
We can’t expect to win the battle for the soul of our nation (and the stability of the entire world) by battling Obama the way we have. When we question Obama’s numbers on healthcare reform, when that lady at the town hall asked if it’s wise to up the tax burden, when we howl at his narcissism, when we call him naïve, we’ve already lost.
To us, all evidence points to the fact that Obama is naïve, that he really doesn’t understand how the world works. But as Hanson wrote, “[Obama] is offering us another — a postmodern — way of looking at the world.” Obama’s remarks about “Greek exceptionalism” last spring make a little more sense now, don’t they?
He’s like the Joker in the Dark Knight. No matter how insane or random Obama’s policies look to us, they are, as the Joker would say, “all part of the plan.”
Hamstringing our nuclear capabilities? Can’t get more hegemonic than hoarding nuclear warheads. Peace through strength is so modernity.
Bowing to foreign heads of state? America has had more than its fair share of time in the limelight.
Redistribution of wealth? Your capitalistic wealth is homophobic, sexist and probably Islamophobic.
So we cry “Socialist!” And like the Joker when accused of being insane, Obama simply quips, “No, I’m not.”
Being a “socialist” isn’t deep enough, isn’t narrative-changing enough. Attacking health care, foreign policy, cap-and-trade or anything else is fine, but it doesn’t get at the embedded philosophy and life system. We have to realize we’re not even battling against Obama. We’re up against an entire zeitgeist, a paradoxical and chaotic worldview that needs to be dug up by the roots.
As Batman and Joker struggled physically and philosophically over Gotham, the Joker turned to his nemesis and said, “The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.”
So it is with Obama. There are no rules – just language, that fluid gift of reality construction that eliminates all “traditional” obstacles and norms. It’s no surprise, then, that he loves to speechify, because in postmodernity, if you don’t have language, you don’t have anything. [Since there are no rules, it is useless to prevail upon Obama to enforce the immigration laws or secure the border.]
Trevor Sides, former editor of the Akron News-Reporter, is a Liberty Features Syndicate writer for Americans for Limited Government.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Open Letter to President Obama
July 2, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
I take note that you are pushing for immigration reform and an amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens. Considering the support you received in the past election from Hispanics, I understand your problem. Of course, not all of the others who voted for you necessarily share the view of the Hispanic Caucus regarding what reforms are needed. Therefore, to craft an acceptable and modest reform package, you need input from the real opposition leaders who can show the way to a compromise on the issues before us based on what most voters want.
So what should be the framework for a solution to the immigration illegal alien problem? There are some obvious parameters within which the solution is to be found.
1. The rule of law. As a Constitutional scholar, the rule of law should have special meaning to you. In fact, you have mentioned it many times in various speeches. The rule of law has to be the primary focus of reforms because it is the foundation of all civilized societies. Changing the law to accommodate illegal aliens or to avoid compliance and enforcement issues is not the answer. Rather than actually solving the problemm, this would be tantamount to “sweeping it under the carpet”
2. Protection of American Labor. With 14 million citizens out of work, this is not the time to be adding more cheap labor to our labor force. Surely we can establish some meaningful criteria, perhaps by sector or industry, based on the unemployment rates to guide our immigration and temporary guest worker policies. If the total unemployment rate is above a certain level in an industry, green cards should be cancelled and immigration quotas reduced. With a little attention to the details, we can meter the supply of qualified immigrants more precisely to our actual needs instead of promoting some arbitrary or fixed quota.
3. Finite Natural Resources. The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us. That may seem like a selfish point of view but America’s generosity in foreign aid and relief leaves us with nothing to be ashamed of. We should be trying to do what is best for our own citizens for a change. I like to cite the calculus concept of a “limit”. The limit of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. The question thus becomes: how far down that road is too far? The primary sources of population growth in America are legal immigrants, illegal aliens, their progeny, and their higher fertility rates.
Pete Letheby writing in the Denver Post put it this way, “… I watch the continuing plunder of the Great Plains’ Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground reservoir in the United States and one of the largest on the planet. It once held as much water as Lake Huron. It is a treasure that took millennia to accumulate. Remarkably, it could cease to be a water resource within another generation…. We are left with yet another illustration of an all too common American [political] mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.”
4. A Stable Population. Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable. The projected doubling of our population before the end of this century is certain to magnify the difficulty of finding a solution to the energy, climate change, and pollution problems. At our present annual rate of output of 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita, a doubling of our population will produce a total of 6 billion more tons annually. Even, if by some technological miracle, we were able reduce our per capita output of pollutants by half to that of Mexico, we will have accomplished nothing if our population balloons to 600 million over the same time period. One might also ask: how will “cap and trade” limits be adjusted for any increase in the number of people who must be served?
5. Illegal Aliens. Many of the illegal aliens deserve special consideration. If they have learned the English language, have children in school learning civics and English, are socially integrated and linguistically and culturally assimilated, they represent no threat to America. If they are holding jobs Americans won’t take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference, they should be cleared for green cards as soon as they can pass a background check and health exam. Of course, employers must provide irrefutable proof that they have made a good faith effort in this regard before they are permitted to retain or hire foreign workers.
Highly-trained foreign students at the PhD level in science, engineering, or mathematics should be given expedited consideration for citizenship if they are willing to renounce their allegiance to any foreign government and give up dual citizenship.
6. Secure borders. The sheer volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the borders makes the task of securing the borders all but impossible. Some of this traffic is commercial but a good percentage of it is cross-border work commuters. This must stop. If you are a citizen and you work here, then you should live here and pay all the taxes good citizenship requires, rather than shifting your economic activity across the border. If you are not entitled to be here, you should not be allowed across the border on a daily basis to take jobs away from citizens.
Our borders can never be completely secure and that is of great concern to many Americans. We can do more. When one considers what needs to be done to stop the hemorrhaging at the border, four things come to mind: improvements in border infrastructure and staffing, tougher rules of engagement, an end to birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens, and most importantly, the creation of disincentives for border violations.
Tougher rules-of-engagement means an end to catch-and-release, whether it is in the immediate environs of the border, at ports of entry, or in the interior. There must be a penalty for border violations or the whole house of cards falls apart. Six months working on border infrastructure at minimum wage would be an adequate penalty for the first offense. A treaty to permit hot pursuit of gang members and drug smugglers should be negotiated with our neighbors.
The best border violation disincentives are the denial of birthright citizenship, the elimination of employment opportunities, and the sine qua non , prompt repatriation of all those who do not have the proper documents to work in the United States. Without these disincentives border security will remain a pipe dream. So far politicians have only given lip service to secure borders. If an illegal knows he cannot get a job and he and his family will be sent home as soon as he is apprehended, he will think twice about violating the borders. On the other hand, if an illegal has good reason to expect an eventual amnesty like the one in 1986 or those proposed in the 2007 and 2008 reform bills, our borders will remain porous and we will be wasting our money on border security.
The 2 million illegals given amnesty in 1986 grew to 12 million today. On that basis, we could expect a continuing growth in the number of illegals of more than 8% per year compounded if another amnesty is granted. Do the math! What will that mean to the country we know and love? Are there no visionaries who are concerned about this or have we become a nation of myopics?
Several immigration-reduction bills have already been offered in the House that would increase border security and interior enforcement; allow local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration laws; reduce the implicit and explicit rewards that encourage illegal aliens, and make E-Verify mandatory nationwide for all current and new employees in both the public and the private sectors.
Your whole-hearted support for these bills would facilitate a later solution to the remaining immigration reform issues.
Sincerely yours,
Ultima
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
I take note that you are pushing for immigration reform and an amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens. Considering the support you received in the past election from Hispanics, I understand your problem. Of course, not all of the others who voted for you necessarily share the view of the Hispanic Caucus regarding what reforms are needed. Therefore, to craft an acceptable and modest reform package, you need input from the real opposition leaders who can show the way to a compromise on the issues before us based on what most voters want.
So what should be the framework for a solution to the immigration illegal alien problem? There are some obvious parameters within which the solution is to be found.
1. The rule of law. As a Constitutional scholar, the rule of law should have special meaning to you. In fact, you have mentioned it many times in various speeches. The rule of law has to be the primary focus of reforms because it is the foundation of all civilized societies. Changing the law to accommodate illegal aliens or to avoid compliance and enforcement issues is not the answer. Rather than actually solving the problemm, this would be tantamount to “sweeping it under the carpet”
2. Protection of American Labor. With 14 million citizens out of work, this is not the time to be adding more cheap labor to our labor force. Surely we can establish some meaningful criteria, perhaps by sector or industry, based on the unemployment rates to guide our immigration and temporary guest worker policies. If the total unemployment rate is above a certain level in an industry, green cards should be cancelled and immigration quotas reduced. With a little attention to the details, we can meter the supply of qualified immigrants more precisely to our actual needs instead of promoting some arbitrary or fixed quota.
3. Finite Natural Resources. The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us. That may seem like a selfish point of view but America’s generosity in foreign aid and relief leaves us with nothing to be ashamed of. We should be trying to do what is best for our own citizens for a change. I like to cite the calculus concept of a “limit”. The limit of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. The question thus becomes: how far down that road is too far? The primary sources of population growth in America are legal immigrants, illegal aliens, their progeny, and their higher fertility rates.
Pete Letheby writing in the Denver Post put it this way, “… I watch the continuing plunder of the Great Plains’ Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground reservoir in the United States and one of the largest on the planet. It once held as much water as Lake Huron. It is a treasure that took millennia to accumulate. Remarkably, it could cease to be a water resource within another generation…. We are left with yet another illustration of an all too common American [political] mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.”
4. A Stable Population. Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable. The projected doubling of our population before the end of this century is certain to magnify the difficulty of finding a solution to the energy, climate change, and pollution problems. At our present annual rate of output of 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita, a doubling of our population will produce a total of 6 billion more tons annually. Even, if by some technological miracle, we were able reduce our per capita output of pollutants by half to that of Mexico, we will have accomplished nothing if our population balloons to 600 million over the same time period. One might also ask: how will “cap and trade” limits be adjusted for any increase in the number of people who must be served?
5. Illegal Aliens. Many of the illegal aliens deserve special consideration. If they have learned the English language, have children in school learning civics and English, are socially integrated and linguistically and culturally assimilated, they represent no threat to America. If they are holding jobs Americans won’t take if offered a living wage and a hiring preference, they should be cleared for green cards as soon as they can pass a background check and health exam. Of course, employers must provide irrefutable proof that they have made a good faith effort in this regard before they are permitted to retain or hire foreign workers.
Highly-trained foreign students at the PhD level in science, engineering, or mathematics should be given expedited consideration for citizenship if they are willing to renounce their allegiance to any foreign government and give up dual citizenship.
6. Secure borders. The sheer volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the borders makes the task of securing the borders all but impossible. Some of this traffic is commercial but a good percentage of it is cross-border work commuters. This must stop. If you are a citizen and you work here, then you should live here and pay all the taxes good citizenship requires, rather than shifting your economic activity across the border. If you are not entitled to be here, you should not be allowed across the border on a daily basis to take jobs away from citizens.
Our borders can never be completely secure and that is of great concern to many Americans. We can do more. When one considers what needs to be done to stop the hemorrhaging at the border, four things come to mind: improvements in border infrastructure and staffing, tougher rules of engagement, an end to birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens, and most importantly, the creation of disincentives for border violations.
Tougher rules-of-engagement means an end to catch-and-release, whether it is in the immediate environs of the border, at ports of entry, or in the interior. There must be a penalty for border violations or the whole house of cards falls apart. Six months working on border infrastructure at minimum wage would be an adequate penalty for the first offense. A treaty to permit hot pursuit of gang members and drug smugglers should be negotiated with our neighbors.
The best border violation disincentives are the denial of birthright citizenship, the elimination of employment opportunities, and the sine qua non , prompt repatriation of all those who do not have the proper documents to work in the United States. Without these disincentives border security will remain a pipe dream. So far politicians have only given lip service to secure borders. If an illegal knows he cannot get a job and he and his family will be sent home as soon as he is apprehended, he will think twice about violating the borders. On the other hand, if an illegal has good reason to expect an eventual amnesty like the one in 1986 or those proposed in the 2007 and 2008 reform bills, our borders will remain porous and we will be wasting our money on border security.
The 2 million illegals given amnesty in 1986 grew to 12 million today. On that basis, we could expect a continuing growth in the number of illegals of more than 8% per year compounded if another amnesty is granted. Do the math! What will that mean to the country we know and love? Are there no visionaries who are concerned about this or have we become a nation of myopics?
Several immigration-reduction bills have already been offered in the House that would increase border security and interior enforcement; allow local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration laws; reduce the implicit and explicit rewards that encourage illegal aliens, and make E-Verify mandatory nationwide for all current and new employees in both the public and the private sectors.
Your whole-hearted support for these bills would facilitate a later solution to the remaining immigration reform issues.
Sincerely yours,
Ultima
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)