Well, this is idiotic. No matter how violent or dangerous some criminals may be, the police in many U.S. cities cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them and remove them from the streets - their immigration status:
In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of gang members from a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have snuck back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, shootings, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should an LAPD officer arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is the officer who will be treated as a criminal by his own department -- for violating the LAPD's rule against enforcing immigration law."
What a sick joke. The CIS article aptly notes:
"Advocates for amnesty argue that it is the only solution to the illegal alien crisis, because enforcement clearly has not worked. They are wrong in their key assumption: Enforcement has never been tried."
It would take more than this to prove that enforcement has never been tried, but stuff like the nonsense above clearly shows that it isn't being tried very seriously. Stupid is as stupid does, and this policy puts lives at risk. At risk from crime - and at risk from much worse in an age where mega-terrorism is a reality.
One wonders what some of you folks down there are thinking.
UPDATE: Lurker makes a good point with his comment, though surely it would be possible to have a policy that blocked enforcement only for those who report crimes, assist in investigations, or request emergency help. After 9/11, this really isn't an area where one can afford to hog-tie law enforcement.
Even Fried Man's semi-serious proposal would be an improvement over the broken immigration systems we seem to have now. The great North American Experiment is founded in openness to newcomers. Unfortunately, that is one of the critical values whose support is being placed at risk by poor enforcement and insufficient seriousness - in places that go way beyond just the INS and/or Immigration Canada. Time to smarten up.
Personally, I think the law-breaking illegals in the US should be exported to Toronto.
Why is the leadership of this country, both Democrats and Republicans, so soft on illegal immigrants. If they would listen to the wishes of the average citizen our immigration laws would be enforced, but even the media avoids public debate. People who speak out are quickly labeled racists and marginalized by the powers that be. What is going on? Don't try to tell me its just for votes or cheap labor. I am not buying it anymore. There is too much collusion at all levels. Why is Mexico's Vicente Fox treated with so much dewference by our officials? Maybe we should take another look at some of the conspiracy theories with an open mind.
Why is the leadership of this country, both Democrats and Republicans, so soft on illegal immigrants.
Simple: Because the business community likes the cheap union-busting labor provided by illegal immigrants, and the Democrats like the votes they get from the Hispanic community.
We can do instant background checks for gun purchases without much trouble, don't you think the Federal government could come up with a system for instant background checks of job applicants to make sure they are legal immigrants? Of course they could. That would dry up the demand for illegal immigrants pretty quickly. But the business community would scream like stuck pigs because they'd have to start paying American workers a living wage. So it goes.
Hmm, once in the U.S. these persons are guaranteed due process protections in any deportation proceeding they might face.
Cheap labor and votes are the easy answers. Why is all the media going along with it? Pat Buchannen has been labeled a kook because he spoke out about illegal immigration. The Senator from Colorado and Micheal Savage are the only public figures I hear bringing it up. Look past the party lines of cheap labor and votes and tell me why Soveriegn National borders are being blurred along whith the rights of citizens only being allowed to vote. Even the Supreme Court is starting to put international law above our constitution. People who have sworn to uphold and defend our constitution seem to be giving it all away.
RE: bindare @ #23577: Pat Buchanan was labelled a kook because he spoke out against legal immigration.
What's described above is a self-evident situation in which enforcement of American laws is effectively prohibited, creating situations that directly endanger American citizens.
RE: bindare's comment at #23576: Actually, cheap labour and cheap votes are quite enough to explain U.S. inaction. No need to look further. FYI, Canada tends more towards straight-up "cheap votes" explanations.
But whatever one thinks of immigration policies, giving police the authority to enforce the laws of the land should be a no-brainer. This doesn't require any attention at all to conspiracy theories, merely a modicum of intelligence, basic common sense, and public pressure.
giving police the authority to enforce the laws of the land should be a no-brainer
Perhaps cheap labor and votes would explain the reluctance to do even this much.
I'm not as familiar with Bush's work visa proposal as I should be but I think it makes sense. Any sane program would have a couple goals:
1) regulation, documentation, registration of immegrants who want to enter to work (or are already here illegally), relieving them of the danger of their entry as well as the freedom of anonymity and the statutory immunity cited by the post.
2) preventing those here on work visas from "cutting the line" with respect to permanent residence (green card) status and naturalization. The "general amnesty" proposed by some would be a gross injustice to those who played by the rules.
The high tech industry supported work visas (H1-B) for their cheap labor, because the cheap laborers were an ocean away, and didn’t much like the idea of camping out in shipping containers. They kinda liked being treated like, you know, human beings. Which, all things being equal, is generally the way to go.
And on the flip side, if those human beings break the law, we can treating them as criminals they are, not as constituents of powerful patrons.
This is quite depressing. Especially since it runs directly counter to Homeland Security. Samuel Huntington recently wrote a book on the impact of immigration on American culture, suggesting the possibility that the entire thing, that component that provides us with a society of pragmatic/realist patriots, could come unraveled. Actually he goes further than that, suggesting it will come unraveled.
I just have no answers. It appears that people are willing to support same-sex marriage out of a kind of good-hearted desire not to say "no" to their friends, regardless of the social consequences (which are unknown, but theoretically quite disastrous), and people have adopted something like the same approach to illegal immigration. It's understandable human nature, but it reminds me of those kinds of wicked problems that become critical, before they ever become "serious," if you know what I mean.
In the late '60s and early '70s Pat Moynihan was saying that the movement away from traditional sexual morality to "open relationships" and the like, while having a moderate impact on the high-income people promoting it was bound to have a devastating impact on poor families. Yet who was going to tell the well-heeled that they couldn't do whatever they damn-well pleased because there was a secondary effect that was socially disruptive? God forbid!
And thus, the consequences spread through our inner cities like an epidemic. Ironically, it's a secondary effect of affluence.
Got rope?
This issue is more complicated than it appears. Certainly, the overall system - the entire US - could be improved by universal enforcement of immigration laws. The problem is that for whatever reasons (it's impossible, no political will, etc.) they are not or can not be enforced uniformly.
Now, let's focus in on LA. There's nothing LA can do to prevent an influx of illegal aliens. One response could be to arrest them and deport them as they are found. What are the implications of this policy? One is that illegal aliens will stop reporting crimes, those directly commited against them, those that they witness, and perhaps even the very gang activity that Joe mentions.
In this context, it's possible that LA's position is a valid local response to a global issue.
Surely illegal aliens, like anyone else, can be arrested and imprisoned for committing crimes, right?
If criminals are terrorising the people, and law enforcement isn't stopping them, the real issue is that law enforcement is failing, not that the criminals moved in from the south rather than from the east. I don't care if they come from Mars - it's law enforcement's job to remove them, punish them, and deter them so law-abiding citizens can travel freely and live in peace.
Actually punishing and imprisoning them here strikes me as a better idea than driving them back across the border and hoping they'll bugger off and terrorize Mexico instead.
Every policy has its 90 degree implications. The precessional effect Bucky says.
Sure you can crack down on the immigrants. What you get tthen is unreported public health crises and people held in virtual slavery in fear of the border police.
So you have to ask yoursel is late response and an increase in slavery an acceptable trade off for the more vigourous enforcement of immigration laws?
Is focusing on the bad guys reason enough to leave the rest alone? When we believed in Liberty we used to think so.
As DeSoto points out: in every one of these types of situations the illegals over time get legalized. Why not face reality and come up with a better interim plan to do the inevitable?
So you have to ask yourself is late response to public health problems and an increase in slavery an acceptable trade off for more vigourous enforcement of immigration laws?
This article from City Journal talks about how much crime is caused by illegal immigrants. It's disturbing.
"• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation."
The stated reasons for sanctuary policies are that they encourage illegal-alien crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with cops without fear of deportation, and that they encourage illegals to take advantage of city services like health care and education (to whose maintenance few illegals have contributed a single tax dollar, of course). There has never been any empirical verification that sanctuary laws actually accomplish these goals—and no one has ever suggested not enforcing drug laws, say, for fear of intimidating drug-using crime victims. But in any case, this official rationale could be honored by limiting police use of immigration laws to some subset of immigration violators: deported felons, say, or repeat criminal offenders whose immigration status police already know.
You would this this would be common sense.
Sorry for the previous double post.
Hey, Heather's article that Joe links to is the same as her City Journal article that lindenen links to. It was published in City Journal first and I linked to it in my post Heather Mac Donald On The Illegal Alien Crime Wave.
I've also linked to a more recent article of Heather's with my post Heather Mac Donald: Government Panel Opposes Google Searches By Spies. If you click thru to this later article and read thru the comments you will see a comment left by Heather! Eat your heart out Joe!
I think it is important to understand that low priced labor is labor that is subsidized by middle class and higher income taxpayers. There is no free lunch. The decline of the minimum wage in inflation-adjusted terms from about half its late 1960s peak has just shifted costs to the government and to the people who pay the most in taxes. This increase in the size of the welfare state is a result of massive amounts of low-skilled immgration. When price does not equal costs the market is hiding the costs and the argument that open borders immigration is just the free market in action misses this basic point.
That's pretty funny. I feel rather stupid now.
Anyway, here's another link! Mexican Official Wants Border Eliminated
I've read the Vicente Fox wants to turn the US, Mexico and Canada into a giant EU with no borders.
"This increase in the size of the welfare state is a result of massive amounts of low-skilled immgration."
Actually, it's a result of consistent political decisions here in the US to keep raising the standard of living at which it will consider one eligible for welfare benefits.
And any shifting of costs from low income people, native or immigrant, to the taxpayers is also an American political decision, and not one made inevitable by the presence of immigrants. In fact, I'd say that our immigration problems are caused by the welfare state and not the other way around - if we didn't offer welfare benefits to immigrants, then immigrants who wanted or needed them would stay away while immigrants willing and eager to pull their own weight would come.
I think the crime problem can be addressed far more effectively by letting evil American corporations take over the recreational drug market and wipe the floor with the thugs in the marketplace. It worked in 1933, after all.
Ken,
The immigrants do not just come for what get labelled welfare benefits. They have kids. Their kids have to be schooled at the cost of $5k-$12k (depending on jurisdiction) per year. They have to have police protection and the police have to come after them if they break the law. Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders have to be hired to try them and prisons must be operated to incarcerate them.
If they are driving down the road uninsured and wreck someone else's car, and maim or kill someone then there are additional costs.
If they are harmed in an accident and medically uninsured then someone has to pay their medical care. The majority of the US populace opposes letting poor immigrant accident victims die from their wounds. So if they are here we will pay.
There are yet more costs that the can cause just as anyone else here can. The problem is that they pay less in taxes and so others have to pay more to service them.
If we could totally eliminate the welfare state then some of those costs would be avoided. But we'd still have to pay for police, courts, prisons, and some other unavoidable costs. Plus, there is the matter of their kids and education.
I get the libertarian "if only we could eliminate the welfare state" argument all the time. But hear me loud and clear: We are not going to succeed in eliminating the welfare state.
We are not going to live in libertarian utopia because most people oppose it.Also, poor immigrant naturalized Hispanic citizens and their children and grandchildren are more opposed to libertarian utopian than is the average American. The prospects for the end of the welfare state are becoming worse every day due to demographic trends caused by immigration. Libertarian immigration policy produces a very unlibertarian government and society.
Surplus populations should be sent to underpopulated regions. Today South America is lightly populated, and could easily absorb 'surplus' Mexicans. This might be easier if the United States extended the free trade area throughout the hemisphere and at the same time restricted imports from Asia. I also wonder if Spain wouldn't be better off with Mexicans instead of Moroccans.
IMO, we need to put a lot more energy, resources, dollars, and attention into improving Mexico. That's what I missed in Bush's proposal. There needed to be more attention to fixing the systemic problems in Mexico.
(sarcasm)
Yes, we need to more efficiently reallocate state resources, like surplus population
(end sarcasm)
>>They have kids. Their kids have to be schooled at the cost of $5k-$12k (depending on jurisdiction) per year. They have to have police protection and the police have to come after them if they break the law. Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders have to be hired to try them and prisons must be operated to incarcerate them.
Do we expect these kids to be a poor return on investment of the state's resources? Do we expect the kids to be a net drain on the state over the course of their lives? If so, why? Are Mexican kids fundamentally less intelligent than native kids? Genetically flawed in some other way?
I'll flip this argument around. When an adult immigrant comes to the US and begins working, we get the benefits of whatever minimal education and training they received in Mexico for free! By contrast, we have to train everyone born here from age 5.
>>The prospects for the end of the welfare state are becoming worse every day due to demographic trends caused by immigration. Libertarian immigration policy produces a very unlibertarian government and society.
The welfare-warfare state is going to eat us alive regardless of the actions of the Mexicans. Increasing the power of the state still further to deal with this relatively minor group of rent-seekers isn't going to help.
TJ,
As for how those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation kids will do, there is a considerable body of empirical evidence on the subject. If you look at the update of my post Samuel P. Huntington Comes Out Against Immigration From Mexico you will find a table of educational achievement across generations with Hispanics compared to America as a whole. Very bad news.
We are getting a free deal on education of Mexican immigrants? Do you realize what level of education they have on average? See my post Mexican Immigrants To US Have 8th Grade Educations and see.
Also see my post Immigrants Do Not Improve Academically In Later Generations.
I have tons more posts on immigration. See some of my several category archives on different aspects of the immigration issue.
TJ,
As for how those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation kids will do, there is a considerable body of empirical evidence on the subject. If you look at the update of my post Samuel P. Huntington Comes Out Against Immigration From Mexico you will find a table of educational achievement across generations with Hispanics compared to America as a whole. Judge for yourself..
We are getting a free deal on education of Mexican immigrants? Do you realize what level of education they have on average? See my post Mexican Immigrants To US Have 8th Grade Educations and see.
Also see my post Immigrants Do Not Improve Academically In Later Generations.
I have tons more posts on immigration. See some of my several category archives on different aspects of the immigration issue.
TJ,
As for how those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation kids will do, there is a considerable body of empirical evidence on the subject. If you look at the update of my post Samuel P. Huntington Comes Out Against Immigration From Mexico you will find a table of educational achievement across generations with Hispanics compared to America as a whole. Judge for yourself..
We are getting a free deal on education of Mexican immigrants? Do you realize what level of education they have on average? See my post Mexican Immigrants To US Have 8th Grade Educations and see.
Also see my post Immigrants Do Not Improve Academically In Later Generations.
I have tons more posts on immigration. See some of my several category archives on different aspects of the immigration issue.
TJ,
As for how those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation kids will do, there is a considerable body of empirical evidence on the subject. If you look at the update of my post Samuel P. Huntington Comes Out Against Immigration From Mexico you will find a table of educational achievement across generations with Hispanics compared to America as a whole. Judge for yourself..
We are getting a free deal on education of Mexican immigrants? Do you realize what level of education they have on average? See my post Mexican Immigrants To US Have 8th Grade Educations and see.
Also see my post Immigrants Do Not Improve Academically In Later Generations.
I have tons more posts on immigration. See some of my several category archives on different aspects of the immigration issue.
TJ,
As for how those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation kids will do, there is a considerable body of empirical evidence on the subject. If you look at the update of my post Samuel P. Huntington Comes Out Against Immigration From Mexico you will find a table of educational achievement across generations with Hispanics compared to America as a whole. Judge for yourself..
Having a lot of Mexicans schooled in America might be a good long term investment even if it is involuntary.
Of course the problem is the Stalinist school system.
Funny thing is that every immigrant group who came to America was the center of criminal activity for a few generations. It is how people get their start in this country. At least some of them.
Every new wave brings its problems and resources. Over all I'd say the net benefit was positive. Hybrid vigor.
Having a lot of Mexicans schooled in America might be a good long term investment even if it is involuntary.
Of course the problem is the Stalinist school system.
Funny thing is that every immigrant group who came to America was the center of criminal activity for a few generations. It is how people get their start in this country. At least some of them.
Every new wave brings its problems and resources. Over all I'd say the net benefit was positive. Hybrid vigor.
Having a lot of Mexicans schooled in America might be a good long term investment even if it is involuntary.
Of course the problem is the Stalinist school system.
Funny thing is that every immigrant group who came to America was the center of criminal activity for a few generations. It is how people get their start in this country. At least some of them.
Every new wave brings its problems and resources. Over all I'd say the net benefit was positive. Hybrid vigor.
We have a /lot/ of Mexicans arriving here in eastern Kansas. The best result is that they have pushed a lot of White Trash out of the area --and I certainly prefer most Mexicans, legal or illegal, to the WT we had.
That said, I have also spent a great deal of time in rural Mexico (obviously my Spanish is pretty fluent) and there is one feature of the illegal immigration phenomenon that seems completely overlooked.
'Mojarse'--to wet-back it--is a rite of passage that greatly increases the marital desirability of Mexican males because it demonstrates resourcefullness, derring-do, and cojones. The more challenging it gets, the greater the rite of passage value.
What's more Mexican society, bureaucracy, corruption and economy generally frustrate the genuinely motivated. We're getting some of the best, along with the chaff.
It will be interesting to see how quickly they all integrate, and when they do which of the two other massive Roman Catholic immigrant groups they'll follow. The Italian (now largely Republican) or the Irish (now largely Democrat).
Therein lies the reason for all the pandering by both parties. It is a struggle for generations of votes.
We have a /lot/ of Mexicans arriving here in eastern Kansas. The best result is that they have pushed a lot of White Trash out of the area --and I certainly prefer most Mexicans, legal or illegal, to the WT we had.
That said, I have also spent a great deal of time in rural Mexico (obviously my Spanish is pretty fluent) and there is one feature of the illegal immigration phenomenon that seems completely overlooked.
'Mojarse'--to wet-back it--is a rite of passage that greatly increases the marital desirability of Mexican males because it demonstrates resourcefullness, derring-do, and cojones. The more challenging it gets, the greater the rite of passage value.
What's more Mexican society, bureaucracy, corruption and economy generally frustrate the genuinely motivated. We're getting some of the best, along with the chaff.
It will be interesting to see how quickly they all integrate, and when they do which of the two other massive Roman Catholic immigrant groups they'll follow. The Italian (now largely Republican) or the Irish (now largely Democrat).
Therein lies the reason for all the pandering by both parties. It is a struggle for generations of votes.
We have a /lot/ of Mexicans arriving here in eastern Kansas. The best result is that they have pushed most of the White Trash out of the area --and I certainly prefer the majority of Mexicans, legal or illegal, to the WT we had.
That said, I have also spent a great deal of time in rural Mexico (obviously my Spanish is pretty fluent) and there is one feature of the illegal immigration phenomenon that seems completely overlooked.
'Mojarse'--to wet-back it--is a rite of passage that greatly increases the marital desirability of Mexican males because it demonstrates resourcefullness, derring-do, and cojones. The more challenging it gets, the greater the rite of passage value. What's more Mexican society, bureaucracy, corruption and economy generally frustrate the genuinely motivated. We're getting some of the best, along with the chaff.
It will be interesting to see how quickly they all integrate, and when they do which of the two other massive Roman Catholic immigrant groups they'll follow. The Italian (now largely Republican) or the Irish (now largely Democrat).
Therein lies the reason for all the pandering by both parties. It is a struggle for generations of votes.
We have a /lot/ of Mexicans arriving here in eastern Kansas. The best result is that they have pushed most of the White Trash out of the area --and I certainly prefer the majority of Mexicans, legal or illegal, to the WT we had.
That said, I have also spent a great deal of time in rural Mexico (obviously my Spanish is pretty fluent) and there is one feature of the illegal immigration phenomenon that seems completely overlooked.
'Mojarse'--to wet-back it--is a rite of passage that greatly increases the marital desirability of Mexican males because it demonstrates resourcefullness, derring-do, and cojones. The more challenging it gets, the greater the rite of passage value. What's more, Mexican society, bureaucracy, corruption and economy generally frustrate the genuinely motivated. We're getting some of the best, along with the chaff.
It will be interesting to see how quickly they all integrate, and when they do which of the two other massive Roman Catholic immigrant groups they'll follow. The Italian (now largely Republican) or the Irish (now largely Democrat).
Therein lies the reason for all the pandering by both parties. It is a struggle for generations of votes.
Abbra Cadabbra... comments appear!
Bart, Where do you suppose the Kansas White Trash have gone off to now? How do you suppose they are doing in those new places? How do you think their neighbors are doing dealing with them?
Your comments remind me of comments of another guy who was glad that the Mexicans had driven the blacks out of East Palo Alto. I asked him where the blacks had gone to, what jobs they would have been able to find, and whether their living standards were better or worse as a result. He didn't seem interested in these questions.
So Mexicans people are your preferred lower class over American white people? Are brown people also your preferred lower class over American black people as well?
HOW TO SOLVE THE ILLEGAL ALIEN PROBLEM.
It is simple. We don't need more laws.
Make every legal American a deputy and place a bounty on illegals.
If an American catches an illegal alien pay them anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of what it costs the Border Patrol to apprehend an illegal.
The closer to the border you catch the illegal alien the more money you make. Catching an illegal within 10 miles of the border should net a bonus! This would benefit the property owners near the border who have had their property destroyed by illegals.
Of course, police would be eligible too! So a routine traffic stop just might earn them some extra spending money.
I would wager the problem with illegal crossings just about ceases the minute the policy is put into place.