February 01, 2006
...and Domestic
President George W. Bush, in his January 31, 2006 State of the Union Address:
"In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores."
A massively outnumbered border patrol agent somewhere on the U.S. Mexican border (original source unknown).
Mr. President, we cannot retreat within our own borders, because you have done almost nothing in five years in office to protect them. Despite attempts to fight for American security in battles overseas, you are failing the nation's security in a far more fundamental way on the domestic front.
A nation that fails to control its borders fails in "a fundamental act of sovereignty." United States ex rel Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). President Ronald Reagan is credited with later echoing this sentiment when he stated, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation."
President Bush, we do NOT control our borders in any way, shape, or form under your present administration. We suffer an invasion of illegals equivalent to 160 12,500-man military divisions every year under your presidency, and this torrent shows no signs of abating.
Only 25% of Americans approve of your handling of immigration, Mr. President. You have failed to secure America itself, and that fact is not lost on the American voter.
As Rep. Tom Tancredo said tonight:
The President must enforce our immigration laws before we consider any guest worker proposal. Until we bring law and order to our border anarchy, importing more workers into the equation is out of the question.In 1986, Congress passed a blanket amnesty on the promise that border security would come later. We all remember the '86 bait-and-switch, and we won't be fooled again. There is no way to determine if we need guest workers, and there is no way to gain control of this broken system until we seal our borders and control our country's interior.
We expect leadership on this issue, Mr.Bush, both from you and the Republican Congress. If you will not provide this leadership, we will eagerly seek it elsewhere this fall.
Bay Buchanan on local AM radio(WPTF) this afternoon said, finally someone said it, what I've been thinking for some time: there is no good, identifiable reason why our borders have not been protected except for the obvious. The President prefers open borders. I'm not a conspiracy nut but there is no other explanation that fits, guest worker programs included.
This is something that must be fixed now and if Republicans won't, 2006 will not be a happy time for them.
Posted by: Cindi at February 1, 2006 02:12 AMTancredo for president! I loved hearing him say, "There is no way to determine if we need guest workers...". Right on.
Whenever someone says, "We need immigrants to do the work that Americans won't do", They are really saying, "We need immigrants to do the work that Americans won't do for minimum wage." The free market doesn't work for poor people if you have an endless supply of them coming into the market.
Posted by: Kevin at February 1, 2006 06:25 AMThe borders must be secured, of that there is no doubt. Failure to do so not only weakens national security and sovereignty but will unnecessarily foster a bias against our invaders. In other words, it will cause a national bigotry against people of Mexican ancestry, because they are the vast majority of the invaders. Open borders are a shot to the head of anti bigotry programs and policies. Right now the anger is directed toward those who fail to secure the borders. IMHO, unless the flood gates are closed and the flood waters are pumped back across the borders, animosity is going to lead to a racial/cultural bigotry – all because President Bush doesn’t want to close the borders with Mexico. I am at a total loss to understand his reasoning, especially considering his appropriately strong stand against radical Islamic terrorists.
The unintended consequences associated with the illegal aliens are wreaking havoc with our economy. Skilled illegals can and have caused wage rates to decline for skilled citizens. Lower income equals lower tax revenue. Social welfare and medical outlays have been enormous. Higher outlays require more tax revenue. Couple that to the fact that a great percentage of the money illegals earn is sent out of country – not spent inside our borders. If you discovered that someone was withdrawing $100 a day from your bank account, how long would it take you to stop it? Well?!?
I do wonder about the "close the border" faction, if you've thought about what happens in phase II? Let's go through a thought experiment.
You win, you close the border down reducing illegal immigration by 95%. Let's even say you figure out how to do it without ticking off the tourists and disrupting that trade (overstaying tourist visas is a traditional method of illegal immigration). What happens to the sea of illegals that aren't in the US anymore? What happens to the governments that have been living on borrowed time by exporting these people to the US? What happens to our international security when these countries start to blow up en masse because their labor lifeline is gone?
Those revolutions are a bad thing for the United States. Is having a tighter labor pool, lower economic growth, and a higher standard of living for the US poor a net positive or negative when you have Latin America burning and the necessity to actually have to militarily monitor the border with Mexico because some Chavez clone actually would support armed groups doing cross border raids into the US?
Controlling our border is a self-evident good but is closing down these immigration flows a net good? Serious thinkers should have an answer. I haven't seen much of one from Tancredo & co.
Posted by: TM Lutas at February 1, 2006 01:07 PMWhat happens to the governments that have been living on borrowed time by exporting these people to the US? What happens to our international security when these countries start to blow up en masse because their labor lifeline is gone?
They collapse or they don't. Either way, I don't give a damn. You grossly overstate the national security consequences. As it stands now, it would be far easier for Chavez, Bin Laden, etc to send some nuts over the border to commit terrorist acts than it would be if the border was actually sealed. I'm not willing to sacrifice my security so some third world failed state can continue to exist.
Posted by: Jordan at February 1, 2006 01:20 PMI don't believe that most advocates of a closed border also advocate for NO immigration. I certainly don't. I think the lawful immigration processes should be expedited, but exercise enough care to ensure we're not allowing known criminals into the country. As for armed incursions into the US, I'm sure a few Predators and Apache helicopters would deter much of that happening...
Of course, one solution would be to offer Mexico statehood.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 1, 2006 01:48 PMYou win, you close the border down reducing illegal immigration by 95%. Let's even say you figure out how to do it without ticking off the tourists and disrupting that trade (overstaying tourist visas is a traditional method of illegal immigration).
Can you really justify the statement that we can’t reduce illegal without ticking off the tourists and disrupting that trade”? That is naked speculation on your part, and many nations have far stricter immigration controls without these problems, I’d suggest it is an inaccurate statement as well.
What happens to the sea of illegals that aren't in the US anymore?They go home.
What happens to the governments that have been living on borrowed time by exporting these people to the US?They are forced to confront the reality of failed economic policies and rampant corruption. By closing the gate on illegal immigration, these flawed, mostly socialists governments are forced to reform. A horrible concept for liberal statists, to be sure.
What happens to our international security when these countries start to blow up en masse because their labor lifeline is gone?
Our internal security and security through the hemisphere increases when corruption is at a minimum and governments are forced to be held accountable by their citizens. Again, this must terrify liberals, who hate any sort of accountability that doesn’t end with blaming Halliburton.
Those revolutions are a bad thing for the United States.
A completely false conclusion, apparently based upon the false premise that stagnation of a failed state is better than evolving to a better form of government. Stasis equals death, not life.
Is having a tighter labor pool, lower economic growth, and a higher standard of living for the US poor a net positive or negative when you have Latin America burning and the necessity to actually have to militarily monitor the border with Mexico because some Chavez clone actually would support armed groups doing cross border raids into the US?
Completely false assumptions throughout. A tighter labor pool would create higher paying job for those on the lower end of the scale who need it the most. Economic growth would expand, not contract, as we would now have 26 billion dollars more to circulate in the U.S. economy each year. (the 10 billion taxpayers lose supporting illegals every year, plus the 16 billion they wire out of the country).
And please, unless you have factual evidence to support your Chicken Little assertions, don’t make these preposterous charges that Latin America will burn because we require legal immigration. That goes for your preposterous border raids scenario, which is already occurring on a small scale precisely because we do not control our borders. And do you think Ecuador or Columbia is such a military threat?
What are they going to do, bleed on us?
Controlling our border is a self-evident good but is closing down these immigration flows a net good?
Learning to be able to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration is a “net good.” Forcing countries to be accountable for their own economic and social problems is good for everyone in the hemisphere… except for statists, drug dealers, and corrupt politicians.
Serious thinkers should have an answer.
And the chronically unserious cannot even offer valid criticism.
I think I’ve made my point.
I didn't come away from Bush's speech last night with the idea that he intended to do anything whatsoever about the border situation.
Posted by: Van Helsing at February 1, 2006 02:49 PMThere is only one thing that we can do to get the politicians to listen to us (the vast majority of the American people who want the borders controled) and that is to throw the bums out of office. Outside of that, they simply will not act. Mark my words - the Senate will pass on reform this year! They (Bill Frist) promised action in January, then pushed it to February, then March, now its the "end of March", and I'm sure with this port issue, they will push it off some more!
We must withold all funding for all incumbants who favor open borders and guest worker programs and we must vote against them en-mass. Thats the only thing they understand!
Posted by: charles fletcher at February 28, 2006 03:39 PM
