Insincerity On Immigration at the New York Times
I ran across a sane sentence in a New York Times editorial today:
America needs to shut the path to illegal entry and employment while opening smoother and more rational routes to legal immigration.
If we take this at face value, this would mean that the NYT’s editorial staff supports a secure southern border. And a secure southern border requires a high, multi-layer fence along nearly all of the southern border. Do they mean this? No way. So what do they mean? You know - hire a few more border agents, provide more aid of some type to Mexico to get people to want to stay there, or add a few more guest-worker programs. Right, like these things will have any impact on illegal immigration.
You can be sure that this NYTs editorial claiming they want to “shut the path to illegal entry” is all lip service. They would never support the steps needed to actually “shut the path to illegal entry”.
I recall the last mass amnesty reform in the 1980s. There were lots of claims then about how border security would be tightened. That turned out to be a complete joke as illegal immigration then dramatically increased over the southern border. I guess we are all just supposed to ignore this piece of history and plow ahead with this latest immigration reform.
All amnesty proposals should be opposed until the southern border is first secured. Actually, this was sort of agreed to at the end of the last Bush term. A program was put in place to build a fence - to first secure the border - but then this fence building program was gutted once the limelight went away. The American political class, Democrats and also establishment-Republicans, really don’t mind the open border. They ignore all of the problems that illegal immigration is leading to over time - like increased inequality, increased crime, massive new urban welfare-ghettos, educational decline, more demands for socialism, more congested highways, and charges of American racism as evidence mounts that 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos are not moving up economically.
It’s really bizarre that we let about 500,000 people sneak illegally into our country each year, and our elites believe that there are no problems with this. Imagine if you sat in an airport and watched 500,000 people (1370 per day) sneak into the country each year. Wouldn’t you think maybe something is wrong with the security system?
January 9th, 2010 at 6:44 am
A writer called “Hawaii Libertarian” has had some interesting things to say about “matriarichal ghettos” online. I think he’s right.
These “welfare ghettos” are simply places for single mothers to collect transfer payments from the government and child support from fathers (whom they were usually never married to anyway). We fund this type of behavior amongst females. Women who are unmarried should be using birth control, and not make babies until they are married with a man who is committed to them. We should not pay for women to have babies on purpose while they are single. If they cant afford the child/child care on their own, they shouldn’t be expecting the rest of society to pay for their kids. We simply dont have the money right now.
Our debt is now at 12 trillion. Thats about 30 thousand for every man woman and child, and truthfully only about a third of us pay taxes, if that much. I bet our debt is approaching $100 thousand dollars for every legitimate taxpayer, and probably a good $200,000 for every tax payer who pays over a couple of thousand in taxes each year. We simply dont have the money for these kinds of indulgences anymore.
The native born-hispanic out-of-wedlock birthrate is up to 50%
The illegal immigrant out-of-wedlock birthrate is close to 40%
The white out-of-wedlock birthrate is 25%
The asian out-of-wedlock birthrate is 11% and rising.
The black out-of-wedlock birthrate is just south of 70% (and close to 100% in some ghettos).
40 years ago the black rate was merely 25%, we hardly had any hispanics, and the white rate was less than 5%. The cultural assault of the entertainment media on our morals, and the indulgences of our transfer payment policy, and our collective “falling away” from religious beliefs have contributed greatly to this result. I think we should bring back orphanages for children whose single parent cannot afford, and end welfare for the parent (no free housing, no transfer payments, no anything that other unemployed people do not get). We are subsidizing single-motherhood, and therefore we are getting a lot of it. If a woman can afford it, thats her choice, but if she cannot, we should not be made to pay for her whims like this. We no longer have the money to do so, and the Chinese aren’t going to keep lending it to us forever.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
What if the southern border can never be secured? Smugglers are now using tunnels to move people and drugs. Defensive plays are clearly not going to solve the problem. The illegal immigration problem can only be solved by stopping them in Mexico. If US troops needs to be stationed in foreign soil, the most logical place is not in some middle eastern country but in Mexico. We need a 20 mile buffer zone between US and Mexico.
The left is used to prays on people’s emotions to get what they want. The best way to handle this is to force them to make tough choices that is hugely unpopular with their base. Ask them how legalization of million illegals would benefits the working poor in this country. Ask them why they care more about people from other countries than people who are already here. Some of them insists in using the word “undocumented workers’ because they believe people have the right to pursuit a better life. If that logic holds, illegal drug dealers should have the right to call themselves unlicensed drug dealer. They are merely trying to improve their own life by selling a product that people want. They are not forcing anyone to buy their product. The list goes on and on. The real problem is that there is simply no real rebate about the issues of immigration in this country. That is not likely to change as long as there is no one on the right that has the media savvy to get the message out.