Friday, February 22, 2008

Alan Colmes and Open Borders: Political Hack or Just Stupid?, Part II

This is a continuation of the earlier entry today.

Colmes says he wants the Mexican border to be like the Canadian border--just polite checkpoints without any real effort to keep people from crossing (subtext:  you racists just don't like Mexicans).  The problem, of course, is that we can't solve Mexico's (or the world's) problems, and more than HALF of Mexico's population want to live in the United States.  That is because Mexico is a FAILED country.  There is just no way for us to even try to handle MEXICO'S poverty problem.  We will destroy ourselves if we try (that is, if we adopt Colmes' "open border" "solution. 

Didn't I agree with Colmess, though, that we can't really "secure" our borders?  Wee are not really making a serious effort to keep people from "sneaking" across the Canadian border.  And there is always going to be more traffic across the Mexican border, in places like El Paso (viturally a twin city with Juarez, although one--Juarez--is run under the corrupt Mexican system: while the other--El Paso--is run under the superior U.S. system, even though the people living in the "twin cities" are almost the same).  There are always going to be "temporary" visitors who "overstay", and people who manage to get across the border illegally.  This is why McCain is still WRONG to say that he has "learned" his lesson to "secure the border" first. 

You do your best to "secure the border", because you don't want hordes of people flooding across illegally, all along the border (smugglers, criminals, terrorists, and everyone else.  But that does not STOP illegal immigration.  The ONLY way to stop illegal immigration is to DISCOURAGE people from coming here illegally to try to make a better life for themselves.  You STOP those you can at the border.  But you know you can't stop them all.  Then you ENFORCE the law as to those who get past the border.

Alan Colmes says (in addition to that total falsehood about people held here in "fear" of the INS--see Part I for that particulat outrageous "argument"):  We can't deport 12 milliong people."  That is one of the standard DECEPTIONS of the open borders advocates.  The idea is to cause more to LEAVE (by deportation or volluntarily) than are coming in.  Otherwise, you are LOSING the battle (and will continue to lose it after every amnesty).  The "border" is NOT, in fact, "secure"until we both do that, AND show that we can enforce the immigration laws WITHIN this country well enough to FIND and DEPORT criminals and terrorists who should not be here.   That means deporting those undesirables that we come across.  Since EVERY illegal immigrant is "undesirable" (in the sense they are here illegally), we should deport every illegal immigrant (who we don't arrest and put in prison for a serious crime) that is arrested for ANYTHING, or comes to the attention of any law enforcement person.  Unless we are doing that, how can we be "finding" and getting rid of the "criminals".  In other words, we HAVE to be able to get rid of illegal immigrants generally to get rid of the "criminals" (you don't know who is a criminal, by the way, until he or she is caught).

More importantly, sicne we know that we can't stop everybody at the border, we KNOW that we must be able to discourage those who get past the border (or find and deport them).  HOW can we do that if we don't have procedures in place to start discouraging/deporting those illegal immigrants who are already here ("the 12 million").  It is a LOSING policy to try to "secure the border", but to let every person who gets past the border have what he or she WANTED:  the right to stay and live in the Untied States.

Jay Leno said it best, or at least most succinctly:  "I hear people say that you can't send 12 million people out of the country.  Why not?.  MEXICO DID."  People came here illegally (mainly from, or through, Mexico--but certainly by other means, including a substantial percentage who are not Mexican), because they think they can BENEFIT.  If we make it HARD for them to benefit, so that most of them can't, they will leave.  More importantly, fewer and fewer will try to come here at all (as the maessage gets out).  This is the TRUE "comprehensive immigration plan".  Stop as many at or near the border as you can.   Then have a cooperation among all law enforcement agencies to ENFORCE the immigration laws.  Finally, make it impossible, or at least very hard, for illegal immigrants to benefit by living in this country.  This means keeping them from employment, and from government benefits. 

Now Alan Colmes seemed to make noises about "employer sanctions".  Trust me, Alan Colmes does NOT eblieve in keeping illegal immigrants from working here  (well, for him, there are no "illegal" immigrants--so what can he mean).  What is going on here is merely that this is a leftist "talking point".  They certainly like it when big corporations are FINED, but they don't want illegal immigrants to actually be kept from working here.  So leftists will say "snactions" are fine, but OPPOSE serious efforts to stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants.  That meant USING the information we already have from computer matching of names and social security numbers.  Letters were ready to go out to employers (with employees who had major discrepancies in names and social security numbers) to either clear up discrepancies in the names and social security numbers, or face SANCTIONS if they kept employed peoople using a fraudulent social security number (illegal immigrants and, really by definition. criminals using fraudulent numbers).  The ACLU and the AFL-CIO SUED before a Clinton appointed Federal Judge in San Francisco to BLOCK this attempt at EFFECTIVE sanctions against employers.  In other words, Alan Colmes, and people like him, do not want EFFECTIVE sanctions against emplouers.  The leftist judge issued an order to BLOCK the new regulations.  No one in Congress--certainly not Democrats--seems to be interested in pushing this issue.  Unfortunately, not many Republican polilticians seem very interested either.  It hardly came up in the Republican nomination fight.

Do illegal immigrants receive welfare benefits?  They certainly recive BENEFITS (emergency health care, education at public schools for their children, etc.).  But part of the DECEPTION of the illegal immigration debate is that illegal immigrants don't receive welfare.  They will certainly receive welfare under any "amnesty" program, once they qualify.  And Alan Colmes surely has in mind that many of these people coming across the "open border" he evisons will eventually be leftists voters helping him advance his overall political agenda.  HOwever, what is rarely talked about is that the CHILDREN of illegal immigrants born in this coutnry are CITIZENS.  That meanst that they often receive many types of welfare benefits that benefit the illegal immigrant PARENTS.  Just having theri children be citizens is a MAJOR benefit for illegal immigrants.  In El Paso, it is notorious that Mexican  pregnant women will camp (figuratively, or even literally) outside of the county hospital (Thomason General Hospital) waiting fo go into labor. Consider what would happen under Comes' "open borders".  There would be a steady stream om pregnant women coming across the border to have their babies.

This is an anachronistic policy that no one can now defend.  They don't even try.  They just ignore the issue.  How can we have a large "temporary worker" program if every baby born to such a worker on U.S. soil is an American citizen (even if both parents are not permament residents of the U.S.)?  It probably takes a Constitutional Amendment, and Democrats will block it, but the policy--of babies born here automatically being citizens--is stupid. 

Alan Colmes, of course, likes to talk about wages, and how wages are not rising fast enough for the middle class.  This is another of the DECEPTIONS of the illegal immigration/open borders advocates.  A MAJOR factor keeping down wages is illegal immigration.  Can you imagine how much it will keep down wages to have an open borders policy like that advocated by Colmes?   We are already being flooded by people wanting to work in the U.S.  The more we give amnesty, and open our borders, the more this will happen. 

WHY don't leftists like Colmes (not to mention the AFT-CIO) not CARE that they are betraying American workers?  It is a matter of POWER.  Colmes wants leftist POWER for his agenda.  That is an agenda where the government runs everything, and takes from the rich (never mind that eventually you kill the "goose that laid the golden eggs").  The Afl-Cio wants MEMBERS, and its own leftist agenda to be advanced.  Thus, these kind of leftists WANT dependent people in this country ready to vote Democratic.  That is why they are willing to betray American workers.

Now I have said before that Alan Colmes obviously regards it as his JOB to take the "leftist talking point" positon on almost EVERY issue.   However, his statements on "open borders" are so outrageous as to indicate another possibiity.  Sure, Colmes is DECEPTIVE in his arguments, as are all illegal immigration proponents.  However, Colmes is so OBVIOUS that he goes beyond merely the deceptive leftist talking points.  This leaves open the POSSIBILITY that Colmes parrots leftist talking points because he is INCAPABLE of really thinking on his own.  In other words, I think I have to face the possibility that Alan Colmes is just stupid, rather than a political hack deliberately regurgitating leftist talking points for political/career reasons.  He may be doing it because it is all he knows how to do. Anyone who talks the way Colmes does about open borders should never even try to think on his own.  Regurgitating what other leftists are saying is by far his best option.

I will never find out for sure if Colmes is just a mind numbed, leftist robot deliberately spouting leftist political talking points, or a stupid man whose empty mind is being filled with what he believes are brilliant thoughts by the leftists he listens to.  That is because I am changing the station on my bedroorm radio to which I have been going to bed and waking up.  This has the added advantage of getting rid of Doug Stephan in the morning.

I can prove it.   The Bush Administration proposed to put into effect regulations which would STOP the fraudulent use of social security numbers. 

No comments: