Thread: Bordering on fraud

http://www.tracypress.com/voice/2006-06-12-Fraud.php

STANFORD - The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country. Yet it is not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media. Instead, it is being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.

Some of the most momentous consequences - a major increase in the number of immigrants admitted legally - are not even being discussed at all by those who wrote the Senate bill, though Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ga., has uncovered those provisions in the bill and brought them out into the light of day.

How many times have we heard that illegal aliens are taking "jobs that Americans won't do"? Just what specifically are those jobs?

Even in occupations where illegals are concentrated, such as agriculture, cleaning, construction and food preparation, the great majority of the work is still being done by people who are not illegal aliens.

The highest concentration of illegals is in agriculture, where they are 24 percent of the people employed. That means three-quarters of the people are not illegal aliens. But when will the glib phrase-mongers stop telling us that the illegals are simply taking "jobs that Americans won't do"?

Another insult to our intelligence is that amnesty is not amnesty if you call it something else. The fact that illegals will have to fulfill certain requirements to become American citizens is supposed to mean that this is not amnesty.

But let's do what the spinmeisters hope we will never do - stop and think. Amnesty is overlooking ("forgetting," as in amnesia) the violation of the law committed by those who have crossed our borders illegally.

The fact that there are requirements for getting American citizenship is a separate issue entirely. Illegal aliens who do not choose to seek American citizenship are under no more jeopardy than before. They have de facto amnesty.

Yet another insult to our intelligence is saying that, since we cannot find and deport 12 million people, the only choice left is to find some way to make them legal.

There is probably no category of law-breakers - from counterfeiters to burglars or from jay-walkers to murderers - who can all be found and arrested. But no one suggests that we must therefore make what they have done legal.

Such an argument would suggest that there is nothing in between 100 percent effective law enforcement and zero percent effective law enforcement.

The reverse twist on this argument is that suddenly taking 12 million people out of the labor force would disrupt the economy. No one has ever said - or probably even dreamed - that we could suddenly find all 12 million illegal immigrants at once and send them all home immediately. This is another straw man argument.

The real question is what we do with whatever illegal aliens we do find. There are various communities around the country where local officials have a policy of forbidding the police from reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

Why are people who are so gung ho for punishing employers so utterly silent about needing to punish government officials who openly and deliberately violate federal laws?

Employers, after all, are not in the business of law enforcement.

If some guy who runs a hardware store or a dry cleaning business hires someone who shows some forged documents, why should the employer be fined for not being able to tell the difference, when government officials who can tell the difference are not doing anything - or are even actively obstructing federal laws?

Putting unarmed national guardsmen on the border is another cosmetic move, a placebo instead of real medicine. The excuse is that it is not possible to train more than 1,500 border patrol agents a year. Meanwhile, we have trained more than 200,000 Iraqi security forces while guerilla warfare raged around them.

You can put a million people on the border and it will mean nothing if those who are caught are simply turned loose and sent back to try again tomorrow - or perhaps later the same day.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and is a Creators Syndicate columnist. His Web site address is: www.tsowell.com .

There is probably no category of law-breakers - from counterfeiters to burglars or from jay-walkers to murderers - who can all be found and arrested. But no one suggests that we must therefore make what they have done legal.

Such an argument would suggest that there is nothing in between 100 percent effective law enforcement and zero percent effective law enforcement.

That is the attitude it seems. I read some crime statistics, according to the latest - not sure what year - we solve 65% of all homocides. The rates for solving the other crimes are lower than that. So should we give up on crime?

There are various communities around the country where local officials have a policy of forbidding the police from reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

Why are people who are so gung ho for punishing employers so utterly silent about needing to punish government officials who openly and deliberately violate federal laws?

Employers, after all, are not in the business of law enforcement.

If some guy who runs a hardware store or a dry cleaning business hires someone who shows some forged documents, why should the employer be fined for not being able to tell the difference, when government officials who can tell the difference are not doing anything - or are even actively obstructing federal laws?

Now we are going to part company on this last premise. I agree that local officials should be held accountable - as well as federal officials.

Suddenly, though, it seems there is this idea that employers don't know they are hiring illegals, and even if they do, they shouldn't be held responsible because the government is doing nothing.

I don't agree.

Our federal government is ultimatey responsible - yes - that's a given.

That doesn't absolve the employer from his responsibility. Without the jobs that are provided by these employers, the illegals would go home.
That's just a cop out for business - they know. Could it happen?? Certainly, it is possible they could unknowingly hire illegals - but not often.

The fact that there are requirements for getting American citizenship is a separate issue entirely. Illegal aliens who do not choose to seek American citizenship are under no more jeopardy than before. They have de facto amnesty

This is SO true and the pro-amnesty pushers, including Bush, know it. They want to completely muddy the waters as to who is here legally and who is here illegally by granting ANY group of illegals amnesty. American citizens will be under PC lockdown as it would now be just as likely for legal guest workers not to speak a lick of english, or live 20 to a home, or hang out at a day labor center...as all the remaining illegal immigrants who have no intention of leaving.