Try amnesty without the hypocrisy

Posted: Feb. 10, 2013 | 2:05 a.m
Vin Suprynowicz
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Delegates preparing to cave on amnesty for another 10 million to 14 million illegal immigrants might want to take a gander at a new Pulse Opinion Research survey of 1,000 likely voters nationwide, available at Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home | Center for Immigration Studies.

"A new poll using neutral language - and avoiding the false choice of conditional legalization vs. mass deportations - finds that most Americans want illegal immigrants to return to their home counties, rather than be given legal status," reports Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, an outfit that would appear to agree with that recommendation.

Of likely voters, 52 percent responded they'd prefer to see illegal immigrants go back to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who want them given legal status, the poll found.

Furthermore, of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent said they felt "very strongly" about that, while just 35 percent of those who want illegal immigrants to get legal status said they felt very strongly about it.

Which means amnesty opponents are more likely to let their votes for politicians be guided by the issue.

When asked why there are so many illegals in the country to begin with, voters overwhelming (71 percent) thought it was because Uncle Sam had made no real effort to enforce immigration laws.

Another reason for skepticism about amnesty is that most voters polled (69 percent) agreed with the statement: "Giving legal status to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem because rewarding law breaking will only encourage more illegal immigration." When asked if they had confidence that immigration laws would be enforced after a new amnesty or "legalization," just 27 percent expressed confidence there would be enforcement; 70 percent doubted it.

And enforcement remains popular. Of likely voters, 53 percent indicated they're more likely to support a political party that supports enforcing immigration laws, vs. 32 percent who'd support the legalization party.

Meantime, a simple exercise should help us determine whether those now calling for "comprehensive immigration reform" are in fact interested primarily in amnesty for those here illegally.

Hand them a proposal that's a virtual wish list of potent immigration reforms, omitting only one. Offer them a renewed "bracero" program allowing temporary workers to enter the country in large numbers to do seasonal work (largely agricultural), as long as they leave their families at home. Offer a huge expansion in the number of work visas for immigrants who can show there's an American job waiting for them that the employer can't find a qualified American to fill, or that will generate more American jobs than it takes away.

Require American embassies to grant travel papers to any worker for whom an American employer has acquired such proper papers from the U.S. Department of Labor (rather than treating chefs with jobs waiting for them at Indian restaurants here, for example, as "guilty till proven innocent" of intending to overstay their visas.) Hand "reformers" a plan that "secures the border" so effectively that mine fields can be laid on our side, with no concern that anyone will be blown up, since after all, "The border is now secure."

Offer them all that, omitting only amnesty (they'll want to call it "a path to citizenship") for the illegals.

They'll howl in outrage. They won't take it.

Now offer them the amnesty, while removing everything else. What do you think they'll say?

Libertarians traditionally favor open borders. I have my doubts, since statists will often abandon the hellholes created by their own collectivist policies, flocking to the relative prosperity of a free-market enclave, where they quickly form a functioning electoral majority and start demanding the same freedom-destroying redistributionist policies that led them to flee New York or Chicago.

Case in point? Las Vegas.

But I suppose if some kind of supermajority really wants open borders and amnesty, I could be talked into it, with one provision.

You want scofflaws to be able to make a mockery of the power of the U.S. Congress to set immigration policy? Then at least let us hear no more dog drool about "securing the borders."

The amnesty gang promised to "secure the borders" in 1986, when Ronald Reagan got sold this same bill of goods - an amnesty for a modest 3 million illegals, as I recall - and the product of those "sealed borders" is the additional 10 million to 15 million more now marching in the streets with Mexican flags, shouting that they want to "reclaim" the stolen states of "Aztlan."

But you know what? I'm willing. I'm willing to support an amnesty for every illegal alien currently in this country, on one condition.

Rather than again promising to "secure the borders" - and then doing nothing of the sort - let's take this to its logical, non-hypocritical conclusion: an amnesty for every illegal immigrant currently in this country, and an invitation for anyone who wants to come into this country, from anywhere in the world, to do so, no questions asked.

Close down the passport offices; they'll no longer be required. Close down the border checkpoints and customs stations. Repeal the immigration laws. You don't have to have any "papers" to come here, to work here, to drive a car, anything. If 50 million new immigrants beach their boats on our sands in the next year, fine.

Mind you, your tax-supported youth internment and propaganda camps ("public schools") will go bankrupt and collapse under the strain within a year or two. So will your tax-funded public hospitals and emergency rooms.

I guess I could live with that, if you insist. Anyone who wants medical attention or to have their kid tutored will have to pay cash, preferably silver - a system that worked fine for centuries, right up through 1964, in the case of medical care.

Take the huge insurance and government bureaucracies out of the picture, and "cash" prices for basic educational and medical services will drop through the floor, by the way.

Of course, the very people whose endless demands for amnesty must lead to the eventual collapse of these tax-funded welfare institutions will squawk that this is a heartless prescription.

But all I was doing was agreeing to their demand, while attempting to remove the hypocrisy.

Instead they'll go on hassling American citizens with their airport searches and seizures; their labor union backers will kill the bracero program again (since they consider it pointless to unionize a worker who's going home to Mexico in November), and they'll be right back again to demand another amnesty for the next 50 million trespassers in the year 2040.

Right?

Try amnesty without the hypocrisy - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com