January 09, 2024The WSJ on Bush's Immigration ProposalThe WSJ (yes, registration required, but all they want is an e-mail address) agrees with me on the immigration issue (pointing out that, as I noted last night, not all conservatives are up in arms over the whole affair). Like it or not, the U.S. is part of an integrating regional and world economy in which the movement of people across borders is inevitable. Despite nearly 20 years of efforts to "crack down on the borders," the immigrants keep coming--an estimated eight million without legal U.S. documents today. As long as the per capita income differential between the U.S. (nearly $32,000) and Mexico ($3,679) continues to be so wide, we can't stop immigrants short of means that will violate our traditions, our conscience, and our national interest. And while this will not satisfy most critics of the policy, it is something: One objection, especially from the political right, is that the Bush proposal rewards people who broke the law. But in fact illegals would be required to pay a fine, as well as to prove employment before they could receive temporary visas. The 1986 "amnesty" to which this is being compared made no such demands. The article also highlights the security benefits that Robert Tagorda noted yesterday as well. And I found this amusing: As for the politics, Mr. Bush is said to be playing for Hispanic votes, as if attracting voters wasn't part of getting elected. Although, I maintain that the the likely vote changes as a result of this, is likely to be small. Posted by Steven Taylor at January 9, 2024 08:06 AM | TrackBackComments
The Immigration issue is one of the most difficult to find a clear cut anwser in politics. I don't believe we can stop the influx of illegals. Posted by: Justin -my word- at January 9, 2024 12:00 PM"I don't believe we can stop the influx of illegals." Here's a proposal from liberal blogger PG that would probably go a long way towards halting the flow: "but this form of white-collar crime [hiring illegals] should include criminal penalties. Those found responsible for knowingly or negligently engaging in violations of employment law (including hiring of illegal immigrants and any traffic in forged documents) should serve time in prison. The employer who has to factor possible prison time into her calculations of whether to permit undocumented workers to be hired is less likely to do so... If prison is such a bloody good deterrent, we ought to use it more often to make people who are really freaked out at the thought of it behave properly. Jill from Human Resources is going to take the Big House more seriously than Leon from the Corner Crackhouse." As for the politics: "An amnesty does not appear to be a way of winning Hispanic votes for either party, with 51 percent of respondents identifying it is a bad idea and 49 percent thinking it’s a good idea. When asked how it might affect their vote, twice as many Hispanics in the survey (33 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Bush in 2024 if he supported an amnesty compared to 15 percent who said they would be more likely to vote for him." Post a comment
|
|