With Immigration Bill Dead, It's Time To Turn To... Immigration

As I wrote last time we (thought we) won, now that all the Open Borders crowd has gone on record for months calling the current situation intolerable and shrieking about the need for enforcement at the border -- can we now, you know, get some enforcement at the border?

Or was that all just a lie to get the amnesty through? I'm sure that's what it was, but they have made certain representations they cannot easily walk away from now.

Former Spook writes:

In reporter Todd Bensman's recent series for the San Antonio Express-News , he detailed the tide of illegal immigrants who come to America from high-risk countries that support or harbor terrorists. Using data from the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bensman discovered that more than 6,000 illegals from 46 "countries of interest" have been apprehended along our southern border since 2001. the number who managed to sneak through is much higher, probably between 30-40,000. Federal authorities have no idea about the whereabouts of these potential terrorists. Under current enforcement policies, most will remain at large, with the opportunity to plan new attacks on our soil.
We also know that Al Qaida views our southern border as a "secondary" infiltration route for smuggling operatives into the U.S (bringing them in with legal documentation remains the preferred method). Intelligence sources tell us that there was "great concern" about a possible Al Qaida-Mexico connection three years ago. Officials were so concerned that all ranking Al Qaida terrorists then in custody were questioned about possible strikes originating from Mexico, or using that country as a transit point. The terror group clearly understands that our southern border remains open, and we've taken only modest steps to stop the flow of illegals.
If you want proof of that, consider the 700 mile security fence, approved last year by Congress for the U.S.-Mexican border. The money has been appropriated, but at last report, less than 15 miles of fence had actually been built--despite clear evidence that barriers in other areas have reduced illegal immigration by as much as 50%.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM

Comments

1 How hard can it be to build a fence? By way of comparison, one of the biggest buildings in Washington, the Pentagon, was built in an amazingly short amount of time.

Ground was broken on September 11, 1941 and the building was dedicated January 15, 1943.

Posted by: Slublog at June 29, 2007 10:30 AM (R8+nJ)

2 Build. The. Fucking. Fence. Bush is trying to "secure and hold" areas in Iraq, but refuses to secure our own border. I'm done with these assbites.

Posted by: Hammer at June 29, 2007 10:35 AM (eXdIs)

>>the number who managed to sneak through is much higher, probably between 30-40,000.

I am extremely uncomfortable to see those numbers. Usually, when people try to sneak into US, they are just looking for work and a better life. Only a small percentage comes in with terrorism/sabotage intentions. However, if you are a bloke from a Muslim country, taking the trouble to get into Mexico and then sneak across, chances are very high that your ambitions do not include running a falafel stand on 49th and 5th Av.

Posted by: Tushar D at June 29, 2007 10:36 AM (IlgNp)

4 Forget the fence. 2,500 miles of mine field will do it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 29, 2007 10:41 AM (fdMig)

5 Yes, let's turn right back to immigration.

Two things are clear.
1. The silent majority ain't so silent anymore.
2. We are definitely NOT for the "status quo".

I say we hound them all day every day.

Posted by: Nate at June 29, 2007 10:42 AM (h/im3)

>>Forget the fence. 2,500 miles of mine field will do it.

Or build two cheap wire fences, with a 200 yard band between them. Populate it with deer and such. Declare it a free-fire rifle range. Big tourism money too!

Posted by: Tushar D at June 29, 2007 10:48 AM (IlgNp)

John Hindraker of Powerline:

Republican Representatives are enjoying being in the minority more than they had expected. Okay, that's damning with faint praise, but they are excited about the extent to which their guerrilla tactics, like motions to recommit and exposure of the Democrats' earmark fraud, have thrown monkey wrenches into the liberals' gears. Morale is high.

If they love being in the minority, we will be glad to help.

Posted by: Tushar D at June 29, 2007 10:58 AM (IlgNp)

but they have made certain representations they cannot easily walk away from now.

That's if anyone in the press is gonna call them on it. I think we all know the likelihood of that coming to pass. Even Fox is in the tank for the open borders/amnesty crew. Nope, this crisis that must be dealt with immediately will now fade into the background and no action will be taken for at least two or three years.

Posted by: Big E at June 29, 2007 11:03 AM (uw1/g)

9 Yes, let's keep after them to 1) build the wall; 2) enforce the laws (as they apply to both illegal aliens and their employers). Let's do so with the same zeal and energy we deployed to defeat the bill.

We've broken through their previously impenetrable defenses. They are fleeing, disorganized. We're in the pursuit phase of our operational cycle. Unleash the panzers! Constant relentless pressure. Run them down!

Chaplain, I need a prayer for good weather, and I need it now!

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at June 29, 2007 11:04 AM (WeXV4)

How hard can it be to build a fence?

no big deal really.

Posted by: the Israelis at June 29, 2007 11:13 AM (pzen5)

What is this reasoning on how Mexicans are just here to earn some money, and we should feel sorry for them and all this other emotional stuff. They still don't belong here until they do it legally. I mean it is like a homeless person coming to your house and saying "Well, you have an extra bedroom, I am homeless and I just want a warm place to sleep, therefore I have the right to come to you house uninvited and sleep here." It is the same thing just on a much bigger scale. I don't mind having a legal guest work program that is done properly. But otherwise I don't want them in my country. Especially since many of them end up on the dole. I mean is that the price we have to pay for "cheap produce"??? And if calling me a bigot makes the lefties tails go up...so be.

Posted by: mag at June 29, 2007 11:16 AM (uBflb)

Agree with you 100% there mag.

We do truly need a few of these people here, but we need them to contribute to the system, not constantly take from it.

We are also doing them a tremendous disservice by letting the population of Mexico just "drift" over here. When will their corrupt government ever be influenced to change? Their 2 class sytem will only exist as long as its citzens allow it to.

Remember this little hubbub we had back east about 231 years ago? It was us saying, "Enough of the bullshit, we're changing it." We are not empowering the people of Mexico to do that. We are giving them the easy way out.

The wall will do nothing but help the evolution of democracy in Mexico. When the flow of illegal drugs across the mexican border is diminished and all the cash and corruption that goes along with it, opportunities for Mexican citizens will become greater and things will inevitably change.

It's time for the Big Picture here Libs.

Posted by: Gunslinger at June 29, 2007 11:34 AM (x0jT7)

30-40,000

Scary...

There are 258 cities in the U.S. with a population over 100,000 people.

Using the high estimate, and assuming they are all up to no good, (highly unlikely, but this is a worst case scenario) it would mean around 135 potential terrorists for each of those 100,000+ population cities and 5,000 "messengers" to deliver commands in person; therefore thwarting electronic interception of plans via phone/email/fax/snail mail.

Even if only 10% of those people are truly up to no good, that's about 13 terrorists per city with 500 messengers.

Why aren�t the borders sealed yet? I'm just a poster on a moron blog and I can see the potentially very bad scenario�s these numbers represent.

Posted by: theBman at June 29, 2007 11:48 AM (/vN7m)

It does amaze me how Bush can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war on the other side of the world to protect us, yet he can't spend a few billion to throw up a fence and secure our border.

How does his thought process on protecting the county work?

Posted by: geb4000 at June 29, 2007 12:53 PM (a1oRP)

15 Ace, since you didn't like the immigration bill - maybe you could start a grassroots effort at making a new one. Use the existing bill as a blueprint, but re-write it using "our" voice. I'm sure between here, Hot Air, Powerline and Instapundit you've got enough lawyer-sey types that could make it work. Hell, it can't be hard to outdo the Congress-critters. Write it up and submit it to the senator of your choice. At least, it'd be a bit more interesting than more Paris-posting.

Posted by: scotty at June 29, 2007 12:54 PM (lCtCL)

16 I read this morning that the wacko "La Raza" and other off-the-wall "Mexico owns America" groups are planning "civil disobedience" and "massive protests"... which sounds like a wonderful opportunity to round up illegals and ship them back south. I wonder if Mayor Ray Nagin has any extra school buses he's not using?

Posted by: Jonas Parker at June 29, 2007 01:27 PM (+JwYj)

Arm yourselves.

Ace, thanks for the astonishing clarity of your opinions on the issue of border security. I say "astonishing" only because this clarity eludes somewhere around 90% of our U.S. Senators, apparently.

Posted by: Jaibones at June 29, 2007 01:37 PM (8DbK4)

18 Gunslinger and Scotty, thanks for the comments - you've both hit what I think is the critical issue. Killing the POS was the first step; now what do we want to do about it?

I don't thnk a fence is enough. A fence by nature is defensive; to really get the southern border illegal immigration under control we need to not only make it difficult to get in, but make it unattractive to be here illegally instead of back in Mexico.

1) I forget who said it originally but it still looks to me like a good suggestion. Change the tax law so that employers cannot deduct as a business expense anyone who is not demonstrably a citizen or a legal immigrant. I'm personally tired of being taxed to provide medical care and social services so that the local landscaping and drywalling companies can pay peanuts.

2) Push Mexico to clean up its act. As long as the sort of endemic corruption and economic classism exists as it does now, there's no incentive for anyone on the low end of the scale to stay put because the low end of the scale is exactly where they'll stay. TigerHawk cites a Stratfor report that indicates 400,000 Mexican cops are under investigation for corruption. That's Four. Hundred. Thousand. And just how corrupt do you have to be to draw an investigation in Mexico?

3) Revamp the US immigration system; everything I've heard says it's a nightmare for those trying to immigrate legally and completely useless at dealing with the illegals. I recognize that we do need some sort of temporary labor visa - I picked strawberries several summers as a kid and I can see why field work is not the preferred child's summer job choice for the modern parent - but temporary should mean temporary. You want to immigrate, get in line with everyone else.

4) Eliminate anchor baby provisions. To my knowledge - which is far from complete, so I'm perfectly willing to accept a correction if someone knows different - the US is one of the few if not the only country that does this. When you couple anchor babies with the emphasis on reuniting families and the quality and availability of free medical care here in the States versus over the border, any pregnant Mexican woman would have to be daft not to try to make it here.

5) Build the fence. It's not economic, it's national security. Even if the Mexican illegal immigration issue disappeared tomorrow, there'd still be people trying to get across the border for non-economic reasons (such as smuggling drugs, weapons, or other nastiness). I'm tempted to say build it for the Canadian border as well since Canada seems to be unwilling to deal with the proto-terrorist cells in Toronto.

Contrary to the various politicians who've tried to paint me as a racist and a bigot over the last few weeks, I'm not as much concerned about the ethnic background of immigrants as I am about the economics. What we're getting from Mexico is the poor and unskilled; I have yet to have anyone tell me why importing poor and unskilled people is a good idea when we have so many already here. The claim that illegals contribute more to the economy than they take strikes me as risible - were that so, the areas with the highest number of illegals should be doing very well economically. What we see instead is pretty much the opposite, i.e. exactly what you'd expect when large numbers of poor people with low skills live in an area.

I will cop to being selfish in this. I want Social Security, Medicare, and the other government services to help me support my parents; they paid into the system all their lives and I do not want to be in a position where I have a choice between an unreasonable tax rate and a reduction in their services because the system is overwhelmed by people who have no business being in it in the first place. I don't care what their race is - it could be a clone of me personally, and I'd still feel the same way.

Posted by: unrepentant at June 29, 2007 02:19 PM (tUDQM)

...make it unattractive to be here illegally instead of back in Mexico

That and make it attractive to be here leg
ally rather than illegally. Those who say they don't have a problem with immigration so long as it's legal are blowing smoke because it's pretty much impossible to get in legally.

Push Mexico to clean up its act.

I think this is a singularly bad idea. We do not need to be getting involved in internal politics in other countries. The internal squabbles in our own nation complicate matters enough already.

Revamp the US immigration system; everything I've heard says it's a nightmare for those trying to immigrate legally...

Amen to that. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of "Well, I married this woman from (insert nationality here) 8 years ago and we still can't get her in legally." People like this usually give up and take the illegal route. And I honestly can't blame them. When I hear stories like that, I feel like going down and smuggling people in myself.

Eliminate anchor baby provisions.

I agree with that. But it's easier said than done, since this is in the Constitution. You'd need an amendment. And that will probably never happen.

Build the fence.

Yep. Although I prefer "wall" to "fence." If this crew in Washington hears you say "fence," you know what you'll get. And the wall should go down a couple hundred feet to deter tunneling.

What we're getting from Mexico is the poor and unskilled; I have yet to have anyone tell me why importing poor and unskilled people is a good idea when we have so many already here.

There is actually an answer for that one: (1) economies need a range of labor from the poorly educated low-skilled labor to brain surgeons and engineers; (2) the poor here don't work; (3) minimum wage laws produce unrealistic wage requirements for low-end jobs; (4) immigration quotas create an artificial government run system for choosing who to let in rather than a free-market solution. The combination of minimum wage laws, an unreasonable tax burden for legal workers, and a Socialist immigration quota system is responsible for this situation in the first place. If you're not going to fix those things, you can just scrap the reform and walk away.

I will cop to being selfish in this. I want Social Security, Medicare, and the other government services to help me support my parents

Now that I can't agree with. Social Security and Medicare are criminal violations of the Republic's charter. They should just go away ASAP.

Posted by: jhc at June 29, 2007 02:54 PM (A0beJ)

20 I know people are sick of me always talking down the "wall". I'm sick of me talking down the wall, but yesterday I hiked down Seminole Canyon in West Texas, which empties into the Rio Grande, so this subject is very immediate for me. This canyon and the nearby Pecos River canyon are in a region that's the second worst on earth in difficulty of predicting precip. It's prone to massive flashfloods, as in 90 ft. walls of water. Any wall that would be built in these canyons would be completely destroyed in the next big flood event. I'm sure the people planning the fencing know this, but people should be aware that it's just not possible to have that solid Israeli- style wall that everyone wants, at least in certain areas.

Posted by: stace at June 29, 2007 05:32 PM (T7hdH)

Posted by: �Ƚо�� at January 30, 2009 07:00 AM (hXNNS)

22 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 10:38 PM (MtGwJ)

23 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

Posted by: discount ugg boots at November 01, 2009 07:32 AM (MlIdd)

24 buy air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Cheap UGG
mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt saleform usa

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 09, 2009 06:20 AM (pEyMs)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 14, 2009 09:51 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 03:22 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 07:52 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:48 PM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 04:32 AM (C/zDM)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0208 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0052 seconds, 38 records returned.
Page size 55 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.