My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Comprehensive immigration bill: A pig in a poke | Main | Capt. Coulson in Iraq: Don’t give the enemy a weakness to exploit »

June 28, 2007

Comments

Carl

Why don't they try enforcing the existing laws before they go on to enact more laws that they won't enforce that only cost the taxpayers more money and generally just piss everyone off?

If the Dems want to show America how damn great their leadership and oversight is, make the Bush administration enforce the existing laws and build that damn fence as was enacted into law last year.

Frank Warner

Most Americans want illegal immigration stopped 100 percent, and yet most Americans don't want a border wall or fence. A big fence seems rude.

However, the fence that Congress authorized last year would cover just over a third of the Mexican border. Its construction probably would have been a reassuring step, and could have helped pass whatever was in that bill that was defeated today.

Electronic border security sounds too loose. The picture-taking drones just look like a way to record illegal border crossings, and not stop them.

So we're left with no fence, no real border security, and no real commitment to do anything for or to the 12 million illegal aliens.

This is a weirder limbo than Puerto Rico. This is like having a Dominican Republic and an Albania transported to the middle of the United States. All these people deserve respect, but what to do with them?

Carl

Americans want to see current laws enforced, no matter how imperfect, before any other laws are enacted, which will more than likely be far from perfect in how they get enforced anyway.

We don't need more laws. And we need the laws we have simplified. And we need all in Congress and the president to recognize that we are a sovereign nation with borders that must be secured or they are totally derelict in their duty to all of legal American citizens.

Carl

The one new law that could be easily introduced would be the one that allows illegal aliens to sue any employer that pays them less than minimum wage. That would go a long way to help a bit of self-enforcement by employers who like to pay under the table.

Frank Warner

In fact, double the minimum wage for illegal aliens. One law the U.S. enforces zealously is the minimum wage law. And illegal aliens can use the extra money.

Carl

Even if you doubled the minimum wage for illegals, the key is to give the illegal aliens the right to sue if they don't get it. The threat of court litigation scares the crap out of every company for not only direct money awards, but for the bad publicity they would surely get in a public court of law. Bad publicity can drive many a company right oit of business.

jj mollo

I think that's a great idea. The benefit that employers get by paying under the table would be completely nullified. The only thing I would change is to make the officers of record personally liable for those back wages plus court costs.

jj mollo

I think the US govt has all the authority they need to enforce the border. I could be wrong, and maybe they don't have the money. In that case they could do the right thing and put the onus on Congress by holding a press conference to explain where the shortfall is.

The real problem is that the companies who make money on the backs of illegal immigrants have too many friends in the administration. As a result, the border remains unenforced as a willful neglect of duty.

Frank Warner

For Bush, supporting amnesty is not a matter of economics. It's a matter of wanting that compassionate, liberal really, legacy.

We certainly have enough money to secure the border. However, during most of the discussion, whenever it came to "tough border security," the definition was vague. It was, "We'll hire all these border guards, or we'll fly drones." It was never, "We'll stop the illegal flow 99 or 100 percent."

Americans don't like the idea of a wall, but they like the idea of 100 percent border security.

A few Republicans exploit the illegal flow of foreigners, but they can't be significant enough to influence the vote much. They appear more against guest workers and amnesty than the Democrats.

The Democrats, on the other hand, see amnesty as 5 million new Democrats guaranteed in 2020. Their leadership didn't care about border security at all. To them, it was make new Democrats, and keep 'em coming in.

jj mollo

Maybe Bush's stance isn't so compassionate after all. Wretchard points out that the massive flow of immigration is breaking up families on the other side of the border. The correct compassion question is what should we be doing to help Mexico and other contributers to the flow. The poor of Mexico are IMO being strangled by elites and corruption. They leaders of these countries make nationalistic noises (see Wretchard on this sj also) and stand on their dignity, but it's a just a shameless front for what they have been doing all along to systematically hold down the masses. The status quo is what they like.

We should also take note that our own elites have, in the past and still today, been generous enough and decent enough to encourage the development of a middle class in America. Cutthroats like Carnegie, Rockefeller and even Henry Ford ended up doing a lot to help. Today Warren Buffet and that cutthroat Bill Gates are giving back to society in a big way. There are many, many more of somewhat lesser means as well.

Can anybody name the "Bono" of Mexico?

Carl

I bet Bush has Mexican immigrant workers on his ranch. Once he retires to Crawford, he has to live right there where they are.

The comments to this entry are closed.