Thread: Strong wall, generous amnesty - guest editorial piece of BS

This columnist is full of a stinky brown substance. The article orignally came from The Washington Post. I saw it in the Raleigh, NC News & Observer today but cannot seem to find the link.

www.washingtonpost.com

First a Wall -- Then Amnesty

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A19

Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.

Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come.

We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's phony.

What do you think was said in 1986 when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform? It turned into the largest legalization program in American history -- nearly 3 million people got permanent residency. And we are now back at it again with 11 million more illegals in our midst.

How can it be otherwise? We already have a river of people coming every day knowing they're going to be illegal and perhaps even exploited. They come nonetheless. The newest amnesty -- the "earned legalization" being dangled in front of them by proposed Senate legislation -- can only increase the flow.

Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are not only useless; they are pernicious. They turn employers into enforcers of border control. That is the job of government, not landscapers.

The irony of this whole debate, which is bitterly splitting the country along partisan, geographic and ethnic lines, is that there is a silver bullet that would not just solve the problem but also create a national consensus behind it.

My proposition is this: A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years.

Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.

Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we can do that, everything becomes possible -- most especially, humanizing the situation of our 11 million illegals.

If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.

This is no time for mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America.

This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving anything. It is not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily divides illegals into those with five-year-old "roots" in America and those without, or some such mischief-making nonsense.

This is full amnesty (earned with back taxes and learning English and the like) with full border control. If we do it right, not only will we solve the problem, we will get it done as one nation.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

You must be a registered user of washingtonpost.com to post comments.
The Fine Print: WPNI Rules for Posting Content | Privacy Policy

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are not only useless; they are pernicious.

NOT TRUE! Tennessee jerked your business license and there was NO employment of the illegals until the Feds took over and everything stopped. It is the MOST effective tool there is. If you bust a few large operations along with some small ones and some in-between and fine them and take away their licenses to operate, then NO ONE is going to take a chance on being caught. Way too much at stake. You don't have to bust everybody. The POOR business people have too much to do to check out their employees and besides it isn't their job. Give me a break. Employers check references, have to file tax forms and a ton of other stuff and you are going to tell me "It's too much trouble to make ONE phone call to verify a SSN"? You're nuts!! They don't wanna know!! I heard several people say they knew the documents were fake, but "hey, they had documents." These people are just plain pitiful!!!











"When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that individual is crazy.

Originally Posted by gofer

Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are not only useless; they are pernicious.

NOT TRUE! Tennessee jerked your business license and there was NO employment of the illegals until the Feds took over and everything stopped. It is the MOST effective tool there is. If you bust a few large operations along with some small ones and some in-between and fine them and take away their licenses to operate, then NO ONE is going to take a chance on being caught. Way too much at stake. You don't have to bust everybody. The POOR business people have too much to do to check out their employees and besides it isn't their job. Give me a break. Employers check references, have to file tax forms and a ton of other stuff and you are going to tell me "It's too much trouble to make ONE phone call to verify a SSN"? You're nuts!! They don't wanna know!! I heard several people say they knew the documents were fake, but "hey, they had documents." These people are just plain pitiful!!!

Gofer,

You make some accurate and good points here. Charles KrautWhatever -who wrote the guest column and as I've implied before he is full of a nasty and stinky brown substance - is, well full of it. Pewwweeey!

Annie

Beleive me, I was alive and well and, beleive it or not very wealthy at that time. Very positive attitude and there were 2 things I knew as well as I knew the back of my hand. Amnesty would not work. There was no thing such as the trickel down theory, no matter how many second graders they could put on TV to tell me it made sense. #1 they said it would, they warned the best do-gooders it wouldn't, but breaking the law does not work. The second you give slack with no back-up....it's nothing. One would also want so desperatly want to beleive that once a coorperation has enough money to meet expenses and even pocket a decent profit, that the rest would "trickel down". Didn't happen.
How many moms have you heard screaming in the store.....this is the LAST time I'm gonna tell you........and she's still screaming an hour later? How many times have you had an empty promise go undelivered? Been there....done that. Say what you mean and MEAN what you say! This government SAYS a whole boatload of stuff with DIDDLY SQUAT to back it up. And they give a baseball game of chances to come around ,for nothing.

Originally Posted by crazybird

Beleive me, I was alive and well and, beleive it or not very wealthy at that time. Very positive attitude and there were 2 things I knew as well as I knew the back of my hand. Amnesty would not work. There was no thing such as the trickel down theory, no matter how many second graders they could put on TV to tell me it made sense. #1 they said it would, they warned the best do-gooders it wouldn't, but breaking the law does not work. The second you give slack with no back-up....it's nothing. One would also want so desperatly want to beleive that once a coorperation has enough money to meet expenses and even pocket a decent profit, that the rest would "trickel down". Didn't happen.
How many moms have you heard screaming in the store.....this is the LAST time I'm gonna tell you........and she's still screaming an hour later? How many times have you had an empty promise go undelivered? Been there....done that. Say what you mean and MEAN what you say! This government SAYS a whole boatload of stuff with DIDDLY SQUAT to back it up. And they give a baseball game of chances to come around ,for nothing.

You've been here several weeks/days and I missed you in the forums. Welcome to Alipac. Avatars: We look like identical twins. Tell me - did your Avatar too reflect your facial expressions over the illegal alien situation? This is why I chose it, that is, it was one of the choices here at this forum and it appeared as if I was saying, "What the #$%#%#! You have good taste too!



Annie