# Immigration policy or lack thereof



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I love this guys writings

'Vigilantes' on the border?
Thomas Sowell 
May 3, 2005

Social Security used to be called the third rail of politics but illegal immigration is the real third rail that both political parties are afraid to touch.

Cops who find illegal aliens are under orders not to turn them in to the feds. And the federal government's own border guards have their hands tied by the higher-ups as well.

Now that Hispanics are the largest minority in the country, and with the country closely divided politically, neither party wants to risk alienating the Hispanic vote by enforcing immigration laws.

Many other Americans may be outraged at the way illegal aliens are handled with kid gloves -- and, in some places, even given rights normally reserved for citizens -- but so long as this outrage is directed at both parties, neither party wants to be the one to risk losing the Hispanic vote.

America's weakness in controlling its borders has only promoted contempt for the United States on the part of the Mexican government, which publishes instructions to help people illegally get into this country and offers helpful hints on how to take advantage of American welfare state benefits.

When some Americans living near the border in Arizona organized themselves to watch that border and report on people crossing it illegally, the media immediately demonized them as "vigilantes," even though these observers used no violence and inflicted no punishment.

When California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he would welcome such observers on California's borders, there was another media outcry against him.

There is a reason why illegal immigration is the third rail of politics. Not only is there a fear of losing the Hispanic vote, there is a fear of being demonized in the media and therefore losing other votes as well.

Among the intelligentsia, there have long been those who think of themselves as citizens of the world, and who think of national borders as just arbitrary lines drawn on a map. In addition to those with these liberal attitudes, there are some conservatives who think that we need workers from Mexico to do work that Americans will not do.

Virtually every job in the country is work that Americans will not do, if the pay is below a certain level. And the pay will not rise to that level so long as illegal immigrants -- "undocumented workers" -- are available to work for less.

Even those who write editorials about how we need Mexicans to do work that Americans will not do would not be willing to write editorials for a fraction of what they are being paid. If Mexican editorial writers were coming across the border illegally and taking their jobs, maybe the issue would become clearer.

You cannot discuss jobs without discussing pay, if you are serious. And, if you are really serious, you need to discuss all the welfare state benefits available to Americans who won't work.

You might also want to consider the attitudes being promoted by the intelligentsia and the activists that people should do only "meaningful work" and not accept "chump change" but should insist on some arbitrarily defined "living wage," even if that is more than their labor is worth.

When you say that Americans have a "right" to have their "basic needs" met, you are saying that when some people refuse to supply themselves with food and shelter, other Americans should be forced to supply it for them.

If you subsidize workers when they won't work and subsidize employers by making illegal aliens available to them, then under those particular conditions it may well be true that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans won't do. But such statements conceal more than they reveal.

Hard-working immigrants may indeed be a godsend, not only to farmers and other employers, but also to families looking for someone to take care of children or an aged or ill member of the family. But Americans worked as farm laborers and as maids before there were "undocumented workers" to turn these chores over to.

If it has been done before, it can be done again. All that prevents it is the welfare state and the attitudes it spawns.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i can't believe that people are calling these people vigilantes. they have to do the job that our govt doesn't want to do... its weird our govt doesn't care about illegal immigration, especially post 911


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Put up a wall, line it with military, and give them the "freedom to fire"....it may sound radical but it would work....otherwise, we will be the minority VERY soon!!!!!!!


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Jiffy,

Easy now or the other's will make you out to be a "Liberial" like they claim I am. I posted that on another topic and they say I wanted to make the USA a republic of RUSSIA! I agree with you though. Two fences with a guard tower every 300-500 yards and the shot to kill EVERYTHING within it! Man, Woman, Child, Rabbits, Snakes, Deer, ANYTHING MOVING! We are at war, people want to do the USA harm, so it is time to stand up and fight and this is not a sanctioned boxing match, anything goes in this war as the terrorist from the muslim religion have proven NOT THE PEACEFUL, KORAN abidding people of the religion, there is a difference


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

If they are ILLEGAL ALLIENS they have commited a crime so send them back! If they are caught a second time in the USA as illegal's they should be in jail for 10-20 years! We could use all the closed bases as concentration camps for ILLEGALS. I am not saying we kill them, just make them serve their time for committing a crime in the USA!


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Something along the lines of that Sheriff down in Arizona, I can never remember his name. He has the tent city set up down their and runs it for pennys compared to other operations.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This article tells it right
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -5055r.htm
Apparently those volunteers have embarrassed the U.S. Border Patrol. According to a story in this morning's Washington Times the Border Patrol has ordered agents along the very same section of the border that was patrolled last month by Minutemen to go easy on apprehending and arresting illegals coming into this country. Why? Evidently it is hoped that if there are few arrests along this section of the border it will prove somehow that the Minutemen were not effective.

Here's how it works. When the Minutemen were patrolling the Arizona border the numbers of arrests of illegals went down. The Border Patrol was anxious to come up with some explanation for the reduction in arrests ... some explanation that discounted the efforts of the Minutemen. Officials came up with some cock and bull story about the Mexican military being deployed south of the border and the effectiveness of some new U.S. program called the Arizona Border Control Initiative. All of this would be exposed for the BS that it is if the number of arrests suddenly went up as soon as the Minutemen left.

The Border Patrol is part of the executive branch of the U.S. government. George Bush is the boss. Ultimately the president calls the shots at the Border Patrol. Is this just another indication of Bush's weak stance on illegal immigration? The answer would be "yes."

So now we're going to allow more illegal aliens to invade this country because we're worried that some civilian volunteers might make the government look bad. Civilian volunteers can almost always be counted on to make the government look bad. Civilian volunteers aren't shackled by the dictates of political correctness, and civilian volunteers don't particularly care what the leaders of foreign countries, who don't have our best interest at heart anyway, have to say about any particular policy issue. This type of political correctness is going to come at a terrible price. Illegals that break the law and sneak across the border often commit crimes. These are crimes that will have victims. Those victims will pay for the decisions made by bureaucrats who don't want to control the border.

The Minutemen never would have showed up if the United States government was doing its job to police the border and keep out illegal aliens. How on Earth can we ever be expected to secure this country when potential terrorists can just stroll right across into the U.S.?

At this rate, the border will never be secure ... at least not until the people of this country make certain that their politicians know that this is what they not only want, but insist on.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Bobm,

I could not agree with somebody more than I agree with you on this subject.....very eloquent I might add....


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

I just found my way into the political board here...I will be visiting here frequently. I am a 22 year old College Student, and I wrote this on the College Republican Website on the same issue:

This is one of the reasons I cannot stand President Bush. He has called the "Minutemen" vigilantes. Vigiantes? I think not. As it is defined by Websters, and sorry if the websters defintion is not acceptable to anyone, is:

1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands. 
2. A member of a vigilance committee.

While it may fit the definition I find it hard to believe the minutemen are vigilantes. They are helping to enforce the law. If Bush condemns these honorable men and women for upholding the law, which he obviously does, he should see to it we have stricter border security. With over one million illegal aliens entering this country it seems obvious we have a serious problem on our hands. If you couple that with the fact Al Qaieda is seeking to establish in parts of Mexico we have an extremely urgent issue on our hands. Lastly, considering the fact Pakistani scientists have sold nuclear technology on the black market, North Korea is almost there with Nuclear capabilities, Iran seeks nuclear power, biological weapons are relatively easy to obtain, and chemilcal weapons can be made in a high school chemistry lab...border security is, and should be, an utmost concern--not only to the people of the United States of America...but also our president. Sadly, the latter part of this is lacking.

As most of you know (or atleast the people reading this know) I am a staunch supporter of the war on terror. But, if we concentrate too hard on fighting the war abroad and pay no attention to the war that is going on at home...then the war on terror could potentially be lost with a U.S. city being destroyed; leaving only a mushroom cloud or any amount unacceptable amount (anything over 0 lives) of death in its wake.

Maybe it is just me, but I feel we all know what is right and what is wrong. In this case, Bush, I feel is putting his politics infront of his morals. Sometimes that can cost you popularity, votes, or even friends. In this particular case it could potentially cost the lives of hundreds of thousands American lives. I am a big supporter of doing what is right rather than "playing politics" and this particular action, or lack thereof, on behalf of President Bush makes me sick because of the possibilties of his actions/policy.

In regards to " the Mexican military was bracing for possible violence on the border," I do not know what to say. President Bush has, seemingly, sided with Mexico on the issue. I hardly think if the Mexican military got into a skirmish with the minutemen leaving US citizens dead, President Bush would act militarily on the Mexican military--do you? In this case, Bush is hardly putting morals of what is right and wrong in front of politics.

I am a proud supporter of the MinuteMen Project and feel any state touching Mexico should not have them. Not because I do not feel they are doing the right thing, but rather, the federal government should be taking actions because it is indeed a federal issue as these illegals are breaking federal laws.

Rep. Tom Tancredo is a true republican that proudly puts his morals infront of politics--even if it goes against the President--and subsequenly "the leader" of the Republican party. I proudly support what this man is doing and would strongly encourage the same of any other American--regardless of their party.

Jeff Given


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> While it may fit the definition I find it hard to believe the minutemen are vigilantes


You can't have it both ways. Either it fits or it doesn't fit. By your own definition of "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands" the word vigilante is not in and of itself a dirty word. They were not a mob, they were not law breakers, they were vigilantes. Only when those that seek to use the word in a negative context does it become negative. Once upon a time the word ****** simply meant any person of dark colored skin. It had no other meaning but as we all know those that chose to make the word negative were successful. The Minutemen were in fact vigilantes and there should be nothing wrong with that term. Treat it as such.........


----------

