Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Don't Say I Didn't Warn You”

« The Distinction Goes Sub Silentio | Main | An Exchange of Note(s) »

August 14, 2010

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You

Hatched by Dafydd

Secretary of Homeland Security <giggle> Janet Napolitano issued a pronunciamento that may startle longtime immigration disputants:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday said the administration has "enough" resources to secure the border now that President Obama signed into law a $600 million border security spending bill, and she said Congress must now act on a larger overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.

"This is what we asked for. And of course, what we asked for was what we thought would be enough," Ms. Napolitano told reporters at the White House, hours after she joined Mr. Obama as he signed the bipartisan bill.

Yep... with that additional $0.6 billion (1.2%) added to the Department of Homeland Security's previous budget of about $52 billion, the Administration of Barack H. Obama can add 1,000 extra Border Patrol agents, a 4.95% increase. And that means -- the border is now secure!

With that minor task accomplished, Napolitano and Obama can turn to more vital immigration issues: How to "overhaul... the nation's immigration laws" to give instant amnesty and voting rights to all 12+ million illegals without requiring them to:

Pay a punitive fine

Pay all back taxes

Be prosecuted for any other crimes committed while here illegally (including identity theft)

Pass a background check

Carry a tamper-proof alien identification card that includes biometric information

Go to the end of the line, behind everyone already in the legal immigration system

...And without requiring employers to actually verify whether employees are legally resident in the United States upon penalty of very large and compounding fines. Oh yes, almost forgot; without building even one more foot of border fence:

As for critics who accuse the Obama administration of not doing enough to erect security fencing along the border, Ms. Napolitano said the fence has been built out as far as it has been funded, save for six miles, and noted that the $600 million supplemental does not include new money for fences.

"The fence is only part of this [effort]," she said. "You show me a 15-foot fence and I'll show you a 16-foot ladder."

Translation: They haven't finished building the length of fence already budgeted, but they're not even going to finish that much, let alone build any more.

Napolitano does have one good point; any fence can be breached. I've made the same point for years: There is no wall so strong that a million people pushing can't knock it down. That's why we so desperately need real immigration reform; in particular, a legal immigration system that lets in immigrants who truly deserve to be here, who are already Americans in their hearts, a path to immigration which is rational, predictable, and just.

What we have now is arbitrary, capricious, vindictive, petty, racist, and utterly un-predictable; even the most earnest and honest immigrant is put into the position of either giving up all hope of ever being an American -- or else entering illegally, hoping to fix his and his family's status later.

The overwhelming majority of illegals commit no crimes other than illegal entry and ancillary charges (forging papers, &c); under a rational system, nearly all would be admitted legally in the first place. Thus we keep out the very people we should welcome, while welcoming those who have no intention of becoming Americans -- along with gangsters and terrorists -- who should be the very ones we keep out. What a system!

When those who embody the American dream have a real path to immigration, you don't have a million people battering at the wall; all the proto-Americans can work their way through legally. The only putative "immigrants" who would still need Napolitano's sixteen-foot ladder would be those entering with ill intent, the very ones we should exclude. Not families, not students, not people who want to start a new life in the land of liberty; but mules, gang-bangers, Mexican mafiosi, welfare leeches, migrant workers who have no interest in becoming Americans... and of course radical Islamists who are interested only in killing Americans.

Knowing that, we can not only focus our law enforcement activity on a much smaller number of people, but we can also use much harsher and more aggressive methods. Simply put, we can be much rougher on someone slithering through the window when we know that any legitimate person can walk through the front door.

If, that is, we had a legal immigration system that was rational, predictable, and just... which neither conservatives nor Obamunists appear to desire.

But thank goodness the former prevented us from enacting real comprehensive immigration reform in 2006! See how much better things are now, and how wonderful they soon will be, if the latter get their way?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, August 14, 2010, at the time of 2:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4545

Comments

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I agree the legal system is broken, but I don't see how you can say that we just need to legally accept all comers and sort out the details later while we make it even easier to come in and stay illegally. Why fill out a little simple paperwork when I can just NOT and get exactly the same benefits? No, you have to make it easier to obey the law than to break it, which means you have to mandate the use of e-Verify for new employees, share Social Security "no-match" lists with ICE and insist on resolution (not necessarily deportation), revoke birthright citizenship, suspend all funding of sanctuary cities, and make the Arizona law nationwide. Oh, and build the d___ fence 17 feet high.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at August 15, 2010 6:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: Chris Hunt

Conservatives may be for increased immigration or not; what they want is that the borders be secured FIRST, then we can discuss how to reform our immigration rules. Until we control the flow of unwanted (unskilled and unasked for) immigrants, there can be no honest discussion of further problems.

The above hissed in response by: Chris Hunt at August 15, 2010 6:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

What about a fine for illegals which is inversely proportional to provable years of residence? I'm not sure what the right numbers would be , but suppose it was $2,000 for somebody who had been here at least 20 years. If only 19, it would go to 4k, and so on until less than one year, it would be 42K.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens at August 15, 2010 10:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

Oh, I meant to say that the fine could not decrease, so that my example of a 2k fine would be people who can prove residence before 1990.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens at August 15, 2010 10:53 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Snochasr:

Except for revoking birthright citizenship, which would require a constitutional amendment -- I am not persuaded by those who say that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteenth Amendment rules out the children of illegals who intend to stay in the U.S. if they can -- I support, and have called for, all of the other policies you suggest.

Second, where did you get the idea that I advocate we "legally accept all comers and sort out the details later while we make it even easier to come in and stay illegally?" That is precisely the opposite of what I have repeatedly proposed.

I propose that instead of a system biased towards accepting immigrants on the basis of distant relatives living here, poverty, persecution, the alleged need for "guest" workers, and of course race (we heavily favor Hispanics because Democrats think they will swell the ranks of their own voters), we create a system biased towards accepting immigrants on the basis of their "Americanness" -- their understanding of and support for democracy, individual liberty, Capitalism, and religious tolerance; their knowledge of America's history and institutions and what makes us exceptional; and their willingness to become citizens of the United States alone, forsaking all other allegiance.

Such a system would be rational, because the policy for introducing new citizens into the country would actually match up with our own foreign and domestic needs.

It would be predictable, because at any point in the process, the would-be immigrant should be able to find out exactly what else he needs to accomplish in order to become a citizen, however long that will take and however arduous we decide to make it. That is, a clear path to citizenship for all would-be immigrants; follow it to completion, and you're in... stray far enough off the path, and you're out.

And it would be just, because those better qualified to assimilate as American citizens would be privileged over those less qualified or less welling.

None of these three urgent characteristics exist in the present system: The system is irrational, admitting hordes of people with no interest or desire in becoming Americans and keeping out those who desperatly do want it and already share many of our values (those fleeing the tyranny of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the far East, or Africa, for example).

It's unpredictable, because the candidate for immigration is kept in utter darkness about what he needs to make it through the gates.

And it's unjust, because of two equally qualified candidates, one is let in immediately while the other waits for years, and then is told to go away -- with no rational reason to discriminate between the two other than random chance or obvious bias on the part of immigration officials.

Once we have such a system, you can build the fence and put machine-gun emplacements along its length... because when anybody who is truly American in his heart can enter legally, the only ones trying to sneak in will be those who have no business being here in the first place.

(We daren't simply cut off all or most immigration, or we'll go the route of Europe, with declining fertility rates leading us to a catastrophic collapse of population -- that will perversely force us to begin accepting the worst of the worst to come here, just to avoid economic disaster.)

Chris Hunt:

Conservatives may be for increased immigration or not; what they want is that the borders be secured FIRST, then we can discuss how to reform our immigration rules. Until we control the flow of unwanted (unskilled and unasked for) immigrants, there can be no honest discussion of further problems.

Yeah, that political strategy has sure worked out well, hasn't it?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at August 15, 2010 1:26 PM