Is liberalism contagious?For some years, Jeff Jacoby has been a brave and lonely conservative voice on the op-ed pages of the Boston Globe, one whose voice I have admired. All the more disappointing, then, to read his column this morning, The demonizing of illegal immigrants, which could just as easily have been written by his erstwhile Globe colleague Thomas Oliphant, the quintessential effete East Coast liberal. Consider these excerpts:
Illegal immigrants don't steal across the Mexican border because they lack the patience to wait their turn in line. They do it because there is no line for them to wait in. The great majority of immigrants who enter the United States lawfully qualify for visas because of family ties: They are lucky enough to be related to a US citizen . . . For most illegal immigrants, a legal option simply doesn't exist.
To . . . the Pat Buchanans, the Lou Dobbses, the conservative talk-show hosts and their riled listeners -- the illegal entry is all that matters. They don't ask whether it makes sense to bar industrious and productive go-getters who value America as a land of opportunity and who supply labor for which there is a yawning demand.
[S]omething is not wrong -- intrinsically wrong, bad in and of itself -- merely because it is illegal.
Someone who crosses the border without a visa in order to find work doesn't deserve to be branded a "criminal."
The demonizing of illegal aliens keeps us from having a rational discussion about US immigration policy.
Most shocking is Jacoby's final paragraph:Twenty years ago this week in Berlin, President Reagan uttered his memorable challenge: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Conservatives who extol Reagan's legacy might ask themselves what he would have thought of the idea that our response to hard-working risk-takers so eager for a piece of the American Dream that they endanger life and limb to come here should be a Berlin-style wall of our own.As commentators from Rush to Rich Lowry have pointed out, the Berlin Wall was built to keep its people in -- to render them prisoners in their own country. The border fence is there to keep people out. And any country that doesn't control its borders will eventually cease to be a country.
It's disappointing that Jacoby doesn't acknowledge this. Has Jeff acquired some fuzzy liberal thinking via osmosis? Could it be time for him to take a Beantown break and recharge his conservative batteries elsewhere?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.















Comments Policy
It's called White Guilt Mark.
June 13, 2007 - 07:10 ET by liberal_bug_zapperIt's called White Guilt Mark. And if their not White, it's call "Whitey is a Racist, so these poor souls must be oppressed, hence, we must let them in."
Either way, it's pure liberalism on parade.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
They are Criminals
June 13, 2007 - 15:48 ET by PAPA LMaybe not in the felony sense, but definitly in the civil sense, they steel from the system ie hospital, welfare, low income housing, food stamps, tax credits and anything else they can garner. hundreds of thousand of felony convictions, including murder, vehicular homocide, armed robbery, theft, false and stolen documents. And on and on. Of course American citizens do some of these things too,,,,,,,,,,,,but they are American Citizens and we have to deal with them, we don't have to deal with illegals who are hear just to take advantage of our system,,,,,,,,BTW the Berlin wall worked, the Great Wall of China worked, and the Wall Isreal is building is working.......A WALL WILL WORK!!! AMNESTY BY ANY OTHER NAME (guest worker prograg, z visas etc,) is still AMNESTY. I SAY NO TO ANY TYPE OF AMNESTY.
You want to become an AMERICAN? Do it leagaly, go home apply then wait for an invitation like everyone else had to. Then respect out soverenty our language,and out flag and laws. Oh yes and our customs.
What other laws are liberal
June 13, 2007 - 07:15 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhat other laws are liberals opposed to? I mean, besides sodomy, under-age sex, etc.?
Considering the way they fawn
June 13, 2007 - 09:30 ET by nnptcgradConsidering the way they fawned over Tookie and that psycho woman who drowned her five kids, I'd say just about all of them.
Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law
Murder?
June 13, 2007 - 11:02 ET by steviep831Murder?
What a load of unmitigated bu
June 13, 2007 - 07:26 ET by BeowulfWhat a load of unmitigated bulls#it! What the hell is with these morons and their open borders rhetoric?
And I'm sick of the tired old line that "we can't deport all 12-20 million illegals". Not all at once, to be sure. If we were to first turn the faucet off by securing our borders, we could clean up the mess through attrition. As illegals are caught, for whatever reason, deport them.
NO ONE has the "right" to enter this country illegally. Tens of thousands wait their turn, following the legal procedures to gain US citizenship. Those who EARN their citizenship this way VALUE it more than many Americans born here, including, obviously, morons of the open border variety. Any immigration bill that offers any form of amnesty for being in this country illegally devalues citizenship and slaps the faces of all who adhered to our laws to come here.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Dead-on! The other thing th
June 13, 2007 - 07:33 ET by Sergeant ROCKDead-on! The other thing that pisses me off is that we the people are suppose to just roll over and accept whatever these idiots propose to fix a problem that THEY caused through their utter negligence!!!
You're exactly right, Sarge.
June 13, 2007 - 10:49 ET by GalvanicYou're exactly right, Sarge. The more senior Fools on the Hill who are insisting that this bill is the only way to fix the "immigration problem" are, for the most part, the ones who promised us in 1986 that everything would be fixed after a blanket amnesty, then through gross negligence --- and that's exactly what it is --- failed to resource and oversee the enforcement of the laws guarding our borders and processing immigration.
Now they expect us to believe that this significantly more complex bill will fix the problem. Yeah, right. Utter nonsense!
Well said Beowulf. We need
June 13, 2007 - 11:05 ET by steviep831Well said Beowulf. We need to close the borders first. Why can't we find a politician who wants to do this???
Not a word about how Mexico m
June 13, 2007 - 07:39 ET by Mica the MagnificentNot a word about how Mexico must be a horrible place to live, how their government has failed them. Oh, no. It's always that WE SUCK for wanting to keep illegal entry 'illegal!'
Then, when the terrorists hit a major city in the U.S., and it's proved that they entered this country through Mexico, the same people who demand rights for the right of illegal entry into our country, will blame Bush for not doing anything to protect our borders.
Isn't it great? The people in my country risk their lives to get out of it, and it's the Americans who are struggling with the issue, not me! Ha, ha, ha! Dopey Gringos! - - What Vincente Fox is probably thinking
Mark,I think you just may hav
June 13, 2007 - 07:46 ET by Dave RMark,
I think you just may have stumbled upon tumbler's true identity! :-)
Seriously, though, I think Mr. Jacoby needs to replace the batteries in his calculator.
To me, one of the more hideous aspects of the immigration "reform" bill is the provision that each illegal alien will be permitted to bring in five more over ten years.
Now, the government's "official" estimate is that there are about twelve million illegals in this country today. Knowing the government's propensity for stroking numbers, that tells me right up front that the actual number is probably twice that, or around twenty-four million (personally I think it is closer to thirty million, but who's counting?).
If Mr. Jacoby would just pull his calculator out and run the numbers, he might be surprised at what he discovers:
12 mil. x 5 = 60 mil. over ten years.
24 mil x 5 = 120 mil. over ten years.
30 mil x 5 = 150 mil. over ten years.
No culture that has ever existed could withstand in influx of that many outsiders in that short a period of time without losing its identity.
What makes Mr. Jacoby think that we can?
Build the damn fence, George!
Standard liberal line, they (
June 13, 2007 - 07:47 ET by dscottStandard liberal line, they (illegals) are victims and thus they get a pass on doing the right thing. Victims have no responsibility for themselves since that would involve blaming the victim. Since victims have no responsibility, the closest person with the deepest pockets is responsible to clean up the mess. Corollary: If no one person has deep enough pockets, make everyone pay/share that way we all can feel good about ourselves.
Um, Mr. Jacoby, when does the government of Mexico and other South American countries have the responsibility of taking care of their own people? When are they required to clean up their act and create opportunities for employment for their people? When are the people of these countries responsible to demonstrate in the streets demanding an end to corruption and bad laws and policies that stifle business in their countries?
Btw- Mr. Jacoby we have more than done our part to spread the wealth, we outsourced millions of jobs around the world now they demand to come here and take the remaining jobs especially from our own poor? Maybe it is time for liberals to grow up and become conservative. Only a child runs home to momma to get their problems solved, we ain't your momma. The difference between a survivor and victim is taking personal responsibility for the outcome, the same difference is true between what makes adult and a child.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
OUT-FRIGGIN-STANDING post dsc
June 13, 2007 - 08:42 ET by BeowulfOUT-FRIGGIN-STANDING post dscott! Talk about spot-on! Why does no one else place the responsibility (read: BLAME) where it belongs?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Amen, brother, amen! I love
June 13, 2007 - 09:40 ET by ValendilAmen, brother, amen! I love this line: "Maybe it is time for liberals to grow up and become conservative" ... Ab-so-lute-ly Fu*king fantastic!
Simply brilliant!
June 13, 2007 - 11:07 ET by steviep831Simply brilliant!
Do people actually believe th
June 13, 2007 - 07:50 ET by LeonDo people actually believe that a wall is going to prevent illegal immigration?
Seriously, it seems genuinely silly to me. If people want to come here, they will come. A wall won't do anything. They'll dig under it, or go around it.
There are two things the government can do very little to control: Drug Traffic & Illegal Immigrant Traffic.
My solution to the problem? Simple:
1) Punish those that hire illegal immigrants harshly - no jobs = no illegals
2) Legalize and regulate drugs - people should be able to make their own decisions concerning substance use - if you want to spend your money on drugs, go right ahead - you'll get them whether they're legal or not
time to accept the reality of the situation.
Ok Leon I give you one for th
June 13, 2007 - 08:03 ET by dscottOk Leon I give you one for three, Punish those that hire illegals.
On the other two, fence and drugs- way out there in liberal land and Libertarian fantasy, respectively.
Fence - no one here claims that the fence will stop 100% of the illegals from coming, just as punishing any employer for hiring illegals will not stop 100% of the hiring, both must be done in addition to other things to be 99.9% effective. Oh, and just because we can't stop the 0.1% doesn't mean we failed to stop illegal immigration, it just means we still are working on the solution. We view such rhetoric as insincere debating, few things in life are 100% effective.
I won't get into the drugs debate, you won't convince most of us on that, I have seen people on drugs and the human wreckage that results, any argument you muster fails in the face of the wreckage I have seen. This is the same failed idea as libs wanting to pull out of Iraq leaving them to their fate with the terrorists. Quitting is the stench of failure.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Great reply dscott.I hear wha
June 13, 2007 - 08:09 ET by LeonGreat reply dscott.
I hear what you're saying about the wall, and I agree that i could prevent some illegals from coming, but I don't think it would be many.
I genuinely believe the only way to prevent illegal immigration is to punish employers that hire illegals. I mean, let's be honest, it's not hard to target industries that might be more likely to hire illegals. We all know what they are, why not go after them? Huge fines, take aways licenses, etc.
This to me, seems like the easiest solution to enact and the most effective solution. Again, why would they come here illegally if they know they won't be able to work? I'll bet you'd start to see people lining up to become legal immigrants almost immediately.
As for the drugs, no need to get into it here, I just find these two issues to be similar in that they are purely market, invisible hand driven.
Yes, I agree whole heartedly
June 13, 2007 - 08:24 ET by dscottYes, I agree whole heartedly that employers need to be punished severly for hiring people who have no business working here. My sentiment is not just on the principle of breaking the law but the harm their lazy and inconsiderate behavior has on our country's poor. Depressing their wages and then saddling us the taxpayer with having to pay for government programs to deal with the results of their behavior. This cost shifting in my opinion is stealing. Just today another meat processing plant got raided, of 600 employees only 48 were legal with valid SS#s. Inexcusable! People need to go to jail for this as an example to the rest.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I agree w/ Leon! Hell has officially frozen over!
June 13, 2007 - 09:08 ET by The Wicked ConservativeI totally agree with Leon on the fence. They already use tunnels! The only way to stop them from coming in illegally is to take away the incentive. Even barring punishment if we'd just stop rewarding them so handsomely they'd stop the invasion. As for the drugs though Leon, legal or not the are a highly progressive and highly destructive. Just because uncle sam regulates it doesn't mean that they can be used responsibly. The crime associated with it could only drop briefly in the short term when the dealer wars ended. After that it would be replace by more prolific habit support crime.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Ergo... no new legislation
June 13, 2007 - 09:12 ET by Sergeant ROCKErgo... no new legislation is needed.
They already use tunnels!Re
June 13, 2007 - 09:12 ET by Jack BauerRelease the GIANT MUTANT RATS, Smithers!!
Don't be too quick to mock
June 13, 2007 - 09:26 ET by The Wicked ConservativeDon't be too quick to mock there Scooter! I just said I agreed with him. I don't want to pick out china or anything.
Supertunnel!
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Hi Leon,About the drug th
June 13, 2007 - 08:52 ET by shawn228Hi Leon,
About the drug thing. I agree with decriminalizing marijuana, but i have seen what crystal meth and crack does to people lives. I also like your immigration idea.
Agreed shawn. Crystal Meth
June 13, 2007 - 12:07 ET by LeonAgreed shawn. Crystal Meth and crack are devestating monsters, however, I don't consider that to be in the same category as say marijuana.
Some might argue also that if drugs are legal, people wouldn't need to turn to cheap substitutes like Crystal Meth.
It's a complicated problem with no easy solution. The only thing we know for sure is that the war on drugs is a complete waste of money.
I'm only really in favor of l
June 13, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Challenger GrimI'm only really in favor of legalization because I think government oversight and regulation is about the only way to destory something.
I mean look at tabacco. I say we legalize drugs, put the tabacco companies in charge of them and then let the government tax and regulate them out of society.
It is funny sometimes talking with people who advocate drug legalization yet are part of the "anti-smoking" movement and I reply: "Are you ok with putting tabacco companies in charge of them?" (note: Leon excluded)
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Challenger,I think that's the
June 13, 2007 - 14:55 ET by LeonChallenger,
I think that's the perfect plan. Let the tobacco companies handle everything and sure, tax the hell out of it. It's better than flushing money down the toilet fighting drugs only to have them become more accessible, stronger, and cheaper.
Alas, sad to say it I have entered the world of the non-smokers. I've been saying i was going to quit for a while and I finally did this spring. But, in no way am I anti-smoking. Again, I'm all for people killing themselves if that's their choice.
Just so no one misunderstands
June 13, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Challenger GrimJust so no one misunderstands me, I'm not "pro-drug". I just think the drug war as it's currently being waged is failing so it's best to try a different strategy.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Leon???
June 13, 2007 - 12:59 ET by LionKing"The only thing we know for sure is that the war on drugs is a complete waste of money."
As a parent, I could not disagree with you more. We may lose battles, but we win some too. We should never be afraid to fight the Good Fight...even against tremendous odds.
Hollyweird and their lot promote drug use with their movies, TV Shows and their lifestyles. There is no doubt that they are not helping the cause.
Now the question for you is, if the War on Drugs saves one life, is it worth it?
Winners never quit, Quitters never win.
[Which are you?]
outlaw booze or legalize refe
June 13, 2007 - 13:06 ET by florida_chadoutlaw booze or legalize refer....................
booze is more dangerous than pot.
We should have learned from prohibition, it doesn't work. The drug war is very expensive.
Exactly florida. Extremely
June 13, 2007 - 14:57 ET by LeonExactly florida. Extremely expensive.
And I'm tired of people acting like drugs are the devil and then going out and getting drunk on the weekends.
Drinking is worse than any drug. How many people die every year from drunk driving? 10s of thousands.
No other drug even comes close to this level of death.
"No other drug even co
June 13, 2007 - 15:02 ET by MightyMouth"No other drug even comes close to this level of death."
Well no duh, could it be because they are NOT legal?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Technically speaking, alcohol
June 13, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Challenger GrimTechnically speaking, alcohol IS a drug by textbook defintion.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Ha true true!
June 13, 2007 - 15:05 ET by LeonHa true true!
Right, so give all the addict
June 13, 2007 - 13:31 ET by BDRight, so give all the addicts and kids hospital grade Morphine.... Hahahahahahha!!!! You guys KILL me.
Actually, the prosecution of the war on drugs, while not perfect, does have beneficial effects. Those effects are that illicit narcotics flow into the country IS limited. Just because Libertarians can get their supply from a dealer they know does not mean the flow is not mitigated in some manner. (No vending machines on street corners selling Qualone to all comers for $1 a pop.)
That, and only those with weak character use illicit drugs.
How is booze different than d
June 13, 2007 - 13:33 ET by florida_chadThose who imbibe tooo much as
June 13, 2007 - 13:38 ET by BDThose who imbibe tooo much as a matter of sport do.
We in society pass value judgements on smokers these days, why not druggies and alchy's as well?
BD,You are wrong. Anybody w
June 13, 2007 - 14:59 ET by LeonBD,
You are wrong. Anybody who wants drugs can get them easily. Their illegality is immaterial.
Not only that but if you look at prices and strength of all drugs, prices are way down and strength is way up. Cocaine and marijuana especially.
The war on drugs has simply made drug traffickers more efficient. While wasting my tax dollars.
In my experience, when I was in high school it was easier to get drugs than alcohol.
Eric Schlosser, the author of
June 13, 2007 - 15:08 ET by LeonEric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation, wrote a great book about 3 years ago called Reefer Madness.
In the book he analyzes two current black markets (Marijuana & illegal workers) and contrasts them with an industry that was black market but is now public (porn).
Very interesting book. His ultimate thesis is similar to that of Adam Smith. Where there's a demand, there will be a supply, regardless of the barriers set up to block said supply.
Going Nowhere
June 14, 2007 - 05:33 ET by UnsaneOne little problem: your posts show that you have completely given up on the United States. I haven't. You would be HAPPY to see the United States just exist, and Go Nowhere. I wouldn't be. The nations that have decriminalized drugs all have one thing in common: They Are All Going Nowhere.
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
unsane
June 14, 2007 - 22:22 ET by shawn228Well, your theory of a country going nowhere is if they do not have a great military and are short on innovation. Well I am convinced the leaders of taco bell must be potheads and innovative, how else could you create a cheesy gordida crunch if you were not stoned? lol.
Who gets to decide which dr
June 13, 2007 - 14:59 ET by steviep831Who gets to decide which drugs are legal and illegal. I'm sorry but this is way too slippery of a slope to say that one drug is worse than the other and this one should be legal and this one not.
Walls do work. Of course, t
June 13, 2007 - 09:01 ET by PeskyDaneWalls do work. Of course, they are only as good as the personnel manning them.
I do love love love this idea
June 13, 2007 - 10:50 ET by MrListerI do love love love this idea.
But, how do we find out who is hiring illegals if there is no documentation of them working for the company or business?
It's called enforcing the exi
June 13, 2007 - 11:32 ET by dscottIt's called enforcing the existing law, every person who is hired fills out the I-9 form. They must supply two forms of ID ususally a drivers license and SS Card. Make ICE run the SS#
Every state in this country keeps a running tally (data base) of "every" employed person in their state to match against for child support enforcement purposes. Run the names with associated SS# against the SS data base, any mismatches, dispatch ICE agents to investigate and arrest.
Every person who is hired fills out the W-2 for their employer to calculate the proper withholding tax. On this form, the SS# is required, in fact the employer is required by law to submit a check or payment to the IRS every quarter with the employee's name and SS# for withholding. The IRS has the means to run every name and SS# against the SS data base for which it receives payment of taxes.
As you see, we already had on the books the means to enforce the law, the lazy politicians and bureaucrats didn't do their jobs three times over. I don't want to hear the quack that something isn't legal, that's why we have legislators to pass laws to make something legal or illegal. They created the problem by their incompetence, now they can fix it by being conscientious.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
MrLister:It's simple. Have
June 13, 2007 - 12:04 ET by LeonMrLister:
It's simple. Have the police do the 'pop-in' on companies that are more likely to hire illegals. i.e contractors, agriculture, maid services, restaraunts, etc.
It's pretty easy to make an educated guess concerning the companies that would employ illegals. All you would have to do is bust a couple in a particular area and i can guarantee other's that employ illegals will begin to change their behavior.
"I hear what you're sa
June 13, 2007 - 12:08 ET by ckc1227"I hear what you're saying about the wall, and I agree that i could
prevent some illegals from coming, but I don't think it would be many."
Right, and the Berlin Wall didn't stop many from leaving either, and the wall around Israel has done little to reduce suicide bombings, lol. Seriously, do you people even think at least a nanosecond about what you post before you post it?
People who oppose the wall do so for one primary reason: because it will work.
"I'm tired of hearing the nonsense that we can't deport 12 million who are here too"
Of course it's nonsense. No, it wouldn't happen over night, but no one said it would, or that it had to. In fact, it's better that it doesn't happen so quickly. That's nothing more than a strawman argument.
According to Michael Chertoff, 1 million illegals were deported last year. At that pace, we could deport the 12 million in 12 years, and by sealing the border, we could keep most of them from coming back.
Would this stop all illegals? Of course not. But if it reduces the current million or so who come here illegally each year to 100,000 a year, that would be a success.
Real quick. I have to run,
June 13, 2007 - 12:10 ET by LeonReal quick. I have to run, but how long is that wall in Israel again?
how long is the border between the US and Mexico?
That's what I thought.
Good thing Leon wasn't in charge
June 13, 2007 - 12:16 ET by RJSo if a wall is difficult to build and if it doesn't stop "most" illegal immigration, it's not worth the attempt?
Good thing hand-wringers like you weren't in charge of, say, the Manhattan Project, the Hoover Dam, or the Space Program.
RJ, libs like Leon have a h
June 13, 2007 - 12:26 ET by MightyMouthRJ, libs like Leon have a hard time getting off their asses to do anything worthwhile. Ohhh, it's gonna be HARD so lets not do it!
Or smack dab in the middle of an endeavor Libs will wanna give up and go home because it's soooo HARD!! Liberal head hurt too much, must quit.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
not that they have the courage to admit it, MM
June 13, 2007 - 12:32 ET by RJ"or smack dab in the middle of an endeavor, Libs will give up and wanna go home because it's so HARD!!"
Not that they have the courage or self-awareness to admit that.
I suppose we could take all o
June 13, 2007 - 12:43 ET by TruthMongerI suppose we could take all of our prison walls down in this country then - i mean if their not really doing anything...
TM,Could you please explain h
June 13, 2007 - 15:04 ET by LeonTM,
Could you please explain how your comparison is even remotely similar?
RJ,why waste the time and the
June 13, 2007 - 15:03 ET by LeonRJ,
why waste the time and the money to build a wall that 'might' work when all we need to do to stop illegal immigration is to hold employers accountable?
Seems worthless to me. Why is everybody ignoring the obvious solution? Enforce the laws we already have. It's not that complicated.
For once, we're in agreement, Leon
June 13, 2007 - 15:13 ET by RJFor once, we're in agreement, Leon, at least partially.
Yes, the primary focus should be on enforcement of existing laws, in particular going after employers. But that can't be the only focus. As we've seen recently, the pro-illegal forces have been putting legal roadblocks in the way of attempts to envorce the law and that will continue and increase. Further, I don't trust legislators in Washington. There will be ongoing efforts from that quarter to change the laws to the benefit of the illegals.
Therefore, border enforcement, including a fence, is necessary as a back-up while enforcement is being fought out in courts and in Washington.
RJ,It had to happen sometime
June 13, 2007 - 15:18 ET by LeonRJ,
It had to happen sometime :)
Plus, I'll bet if we were sitting at a bar, having a beer, chatting we'd agree with each other on a lot of things. Just not liberal media bias!
I hear you on the wall, I just think that you have to look at Mexico. It's a horrible place. People will do anything to get the heck out of there. Wall or no wall. People are clever, especially when it comes to criminal things. Where there's a will there's a way. So for me, the wall can be defeated. Not being able to find a job b/c employers that hire illegals are getting fined, etc. canNOT be defeated.
Mexico, Leon...
June 13, 2007 - 15:27 ET by RJMexico, Leon, needs to have their feet held to the fire. The only way to do that is to force them to keep enough of their people home to foment sufficient anger to create change. No, a fence won't keep out all, but it would keep out enough.
Further, a fence will make OTMs hesitate about using our southern border for entry.
RJ,I agree that in an ideal w
June 13, 2007 - 16:06 ET by LeonRJ,
I agree that in an ideal world Mexico could be held accountable, but if you ask me. I don't think they really care if their citizens come to America or not.
They certainly aren't interested in stopping illegal immigration.
All I'm saying is if I'm making 25 cents a day, I'm coming to America, wall or no wall.
Disagree, Leon
June 13, 2007 - 16:12 ET by RJI disagree, Leon. I think Mexico cares very much that their citizens come to America. The billions of dollars they send helps the economy, but more importantly, America provides a pressure relief valve for their unemployed and unhappy citizens. Oh, the Mexican government cares very much.
Main sources of income for Me
June 14, 2007 - 05:40 ET by UnsaneMain sources of income for Mexico:
1) Oil
2) Remittances from the United States
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
Mexican income
June 14, 2007 - 05:43 ET by Cool ArrowUnsane, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't your 2 observations in the wrong order?
But you are correct, sir.
No, especially not these days
June 14, 2007 - 05:47 ET by UnsaneNo, especially not these days. PEMEX has a lot of oil to spare.
But what does that tell you about a country like Mexico, that has a TON of geographical and demographic advantages in its favor? It's number 2 earner of GDP are remittances? Something is wrong, and indeed HAS been wrong, for quite some time...
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
PEMEX
June 14, 2007 - 06:05 ET by Cool ArrowWhat is wrong is that the big money folks have a convenient receptacle for all their poverty. US.
The gift that keeps on giving is that our economy gets bloated with Illegals who, in a very dysfunctional way still love the Country that hates them. So much so that Mexico enjoys the benefit of having its children trying to buy the love of their parent country.
We're not hearing a lot about Mexican citizens condemning the corruption in their country, but get them across the border, and they aren't very damned quiet about what is wrong with ours.
Reminds me of the riddle:
How many Country Western singers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Four. One to screw it in and three to sing about how much they miss the old one.
Hi Leon,You do have a point a
June 13, 2007 - 18:40 ET by Darth DutchHi Leon,
You do have a point about the size and scope we're dealing with here. But I've always boiled down illegal immigration in my mind to an uninvited house guest. I'm more than willing to let people in my house that I know (this equates to the legal immigration process). I also take away incentives for people to steal my stuff by not putting a TV right by my window (this equates to taking away incentives for illegal aliens to be here by not giving them benefits, jobs, etc.). Up to this point I'm sure you and I agree. No one would stop there with their personal home, they would lock the doors, code the alarm, have guard dogs, and even have a gun in the house to protect themselves from unlawful entry. My question is, why stop there when is at a national scale?
Yes, doing this would be expensive, but if it could cut the number of illegals down from the full flow it has been to a trickle, we'll see savings that will more than pay for the cost of the wall, maintenance, personnel, materials, etc. And, our country will be much more secure.
Dutch
Great post Darth. I underst
June 14, 2007 - 07:52 ET by LeonGreat post Darth.
I understand your house analogy unfortunately locking down an expansive border is a little more complicated than locking one's house.
The sheer size of our border makes a wall utterly absurd.
Leon and Tumbler
June 14, 2007 - 08:23 ET by RJLeon is using the "it won't work" argument because he agrees with the liberal (and LaRaza) position against border enforcement.
It fits that he agrees with the liberal position of that intellectual giant, Tumbler. Both of them wring their hands and say that since a fence is "difficult", there's no sense in attempting it....but it's just a cover used by open border proponents.
I'm reminded of what Rich Low
June 14, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Challenger GrimI'm reminded of what Rich Lowry wrote the other day.
Not to mention, primative Chinese can build a 4,000 mile wall but we can't?
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
This comment from a spoiled L
June 14, 2007 - 05:38 ET by UnsaneThis comment from a spoiled Leftist who cries and whines whenever presented with any difficulty, and aches for a day when the United States shoots for total mediocrity on a daily basis.
(By the way, the inner-German border was 858 miles long. The total was 960 if you toss in the Berlin Wall.)
Sure, I agree, punish those who hire illegal immigrants...BUT you MUST turn off the taps. Shut down the border. Burn the candle at as many ends as possible. (But why am I not surprised at your sole focus on business, considering your documented intense, passionate hatred of business and capitalism?)
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
Unsane,The difference between
June 14, 2007 - 07:51 ET by LeonUnsane,
The difference between you and I (and many on this site) is that you're an idealist. I'm a realist.
I think about realistic situations while you daydream about what 'should' happen. It must be nice.
No, a wall won't prevent ille
June 13, 2007 - 08:52 ET by BeowulfNo, a wall won't prevent illegal entry into the US (it just plain ain't immigration, so lose the term). It will, however, reduce it. The only way to prevent illegal entry is to fulfill Jacoby's accusation, and really make it like the Berlin Wall. Coast-to-coast wall, fence, concertina-wire, minefields, and machine-gun nests. How many coyotes, river swimmers, fence hoppers, and drug runners do you think would challenge that?
While I certainly wouldn't endorse such a thing, I will come right out and say that I would support it over open borders. And if it came to a choice between the two, I would add the same configuration to our northern border as well as mines and gunboats along both coasts. Think of all the employment opportunities such security would generate...
Radical enough for you Leon???
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
It is more cost-effective t
June 13, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt is more cost-effective to ENFORCE the laws we already have. That, or use land mines rather than a wall.
You have a point there, Leon,
June 13, 2007 - 10:54 ET by mattmYou have a point there, Leon, but the main problem with Jacoby is that his hyperbolic rhetoric completely discredits him. To compare a border fence to the Berlin Wall is a non-sequitur of the highest order.
Sadly, there is way too much of this kind of crap masquerading as legitimate journalistic debate. Jacoby should be fired.
1.) A wall will not prevent
June 13, 2007 - 13:25 ET by BD1.) A wall will not prevent illegal immigration by people walking as much as it will be a five minute obstacle. If not covered by adequate border patrolmen it will be a wasted exercise.
However, the wall in question WILL stop what the border patrolmen in the Cochise County area call "Drive throughs" Drive throughs are usually 4WD vehicles that are used to smuggle contraband into the US.
2.) Government CAN control narcotics trafficing at the border, but you might not like the results.
Another reason the border fen
June 13, 2007 - 08:39 ET by GothampcAnother reason the border fence can't be compared to the Berlin Wall is because the BW split one country (or group of citizens) into two. The fence America is building is between two countries (or two different types of citizens).
Exactly. The Berlin wall wa
June 13, 2007 - 08:45 ET by Sergeant ROCKExactly. The Berlin wall was constructed to keep people in, rather than out. A more accurate comparrison would be the The Great Wall of China.
What bothers me is that I don
June 13, 2007 - 09:05 ET by GothampcWhat bothers me is that I don't hear the argument about cultures coming from very many people. The Berlin Wall separated Germans from Germans. They all spoke the same language, lived under the same law and had the same value system. The Border Fence is separating Americans from Mexicans, two different cultures.
What bothers me is that our
June 13, 2007 - 09:10 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhat bothers me is that our government ignores the fact that their government officially sanctions illegal immigration.
Sarge,What bothers me still m
June 13, 2007 - 09:34 ET by Dave RSarge,
What bothers me still more is that our government appears to be unofficially-officially sanctioning illegal immigration.
Build the damn fence, George!
That's a pretty fair observ
June 13, 2007 - 09:42 ET by Sergeant ROCKThat's a pretty fair observation. And both sides have their reasons, but none of them are good for the country.
About the only thing East and
June 13, 2007 - 09:30 ET by BeowulfAbout the only thing East and West Germans had in common was language. Their post-WWII philosophies were diametrically opposed. And the Berlin Wall was to keep people from leaving that "People's Paradise" in the GDR, not to keep FRG West Germans from swarming into East Germany for their fair share of the vast benefits of communism.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
The culture issue doesn't bot
June 14, 2007 - 05:43 ET by UnsaneThe culture issue doesn't bother me so much. To solve that problem, we need a Constitutional amendment to make English the official language (Read the next part very very carefully) of all government transaction: meaning that at minimum, you need to speak English in order to interact with government officials.
FIFTEEN DOWN, ONE TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)