Thread: OP:Only Congress, not raids, can fix immigration mess

Somalis and other refugees are hardly the answer to this nation's low-wage labor needs, however one may feel about their appearance in Greeley and Grand Island. Those needs can be solved only by Congress - which, by failing to alter immigration laws so Latino immigrant workers could arrive and be hired legally, laid the path for these federal raids.

"Somalis and other refugees are hardly the answer to this nation's low-wage labor needs, however one may feel about their appearance in Greeley and Grand Island."
Ms. Sanchez's comments seem to indicate she is a RACIST preferring Hispanic over Somalis workers.

Her article recommends illegal aliens take preference over refugees--is that not discrimination and illegal?

If the raids didn't have an impact, the pro-illegal immigration groups would not be writing propoganda articles like this one and protesting the raids.

As a tax-payer I would rather pay for raids and deportment rather than programs supporting illegal aliens and their families over their lifetimes, the human and monetory costs of their crimes and the degeneration of American values and our political system.

I do not feel American tax-payers should pay for the investigation, raids, detainment costs, medical fees, court costs and deportment fees--IMO the company that employed the illegal aliens should be fined a sum to cover all these expenses. Impose that a couple times and employers will view 'cheap illegal alien labor' in a new light.

Great letter Squire!

No government can help the destinies of people who insist in putting sectional and class consciousness ahead of general weal.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Here was Ms. Sanchez's reply to my e-mail. Please notice that, even in her reply, she didn't accurately address the attrition through enforcement model:

I'd put you into the deep thinking group; but you might note that even ICE
officials routinely say that we can't deport our way out of our immigration
quandaries. Deportation is one tool, affective and extremely appropriate in
some cases, not so as an overall solution.

Mary Sanchez
Editorial Columnist


And here was my reply to hers:


Dear Mary,
Thanks for the deep endorsement

I agree that we can't realistically deport our way out of the current immigration solution. Well, we could, but appropriations would never approve the billions it would take to get it done.

But the goal of "attrition through enforcement" isn't to forcefully deport millions, but rather to enforce existing laws so illegal immigrants self-deport. Given a choice between self-deportation and forced deportation, I think most would prefer the voluntary variety, anyway.

When the infamous NY Times(?) poll (supporting amnesty over forceful deportation) was modified to add "enforcement through attrition", the overwhelming majority chose that as the solution over the other two (www.cis.org).

All we're asking for is what we were promised in the 1986 Immigration Control Act. We were promised border security, interior enforcement, and workplace verification. In return, millions were given amnesty. Since then, the amnesty was granted, but the vast majority of enforcement provisions have been underfunded or flat out ignored. That is exactly how we got here. We, in essence, trained the rest of the World to think, "If you can get here, we'll eventually let you stay".

Now our politicians want to confirm that mistaken notion with another amnesty. They promise if we give them just one more amnesty, they'll really fulfill the enforcement provisions this time. Would you care to wager your own money whether they'd follow through? Because that's exactly what people are doing with their tax dollars when they go along with such promises. I, instead, demand that they fulfill their existing promises first, before any more good will is lent to them.

In closing, I truly have the utmost respect for anyone who goes through so
much suffering in order to fulfill their dreams. I'm not a racist, xenophobe, or hate monger (as advocates suggest). But, as an American, I believe it is still my choice whether or not to subsidize others dreams at the expense of my own. When those choices are taken away from citizens to benefit non-citizens, we can no longer call ourselves a sovereign nation.

Thanks again for your article and kind reply,

Sincerely,
XXXXX

Originally Posted by Squire

Here was Ms. Sanchez's reply to my e-mail. Please notice that, even in her reply, she didn't accurately address the attrition through enforcement model:

I'd put you into the deep thinking group; but you might note that even ICE
officials routinely say that we can't deport our way out of our immigration
quandaries. Deportation is one tool, affective and extremely appropriate in
some cases, not so as an overall solution.

Mary Sanchez
Editorial Columnist

I love it when a journalist commits a 'raw' mistake in misspelling or misusing a word in casual conversation.

I believe she meant 'effective' not 'affective'.