Post-Gazette Editorial – 5/20/07

This page was last updated on May 20, 2007.

Fair deal: The immigration compromise can’t be put off; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; May 20, 2007.

You can tell the PG has a strong case – not – because the editorial engages in name-calling for those who disagree with the PG.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Plenty of issues in American political life can be put off until another day. With immigration reform, the nation does not have that luxury. Everyone needs to remember that, in considering the imperfect but necessary compromise worked out by Senate negotiators to get this thorniest of legislative initiatives moving at last.

…

“At least 12 million illegal immigrants are already here, and for all the horror stories concerning their presence, their labor and talents have become indispensable to the economy, especially in low-level jobs that Americans themselves scorn. To leave them here as a permanent underclass, with uncertainty, fear and no opportunity to match their residency with the obligations of citizenship, is a certain prescription for social alienation and distress.”

[RWC] The “low-level jobs that Americans themselves scorn” comment is just a different version of “jobs Americans won’t do.” This position is simply BS. When a job pays enough, someone will do it.

When an unemployed person won’t take a job, it’s for one of two reasons. The first is he uses welfare to mooch off the rest of us. The second is the job doesn’t pay enough. If an employer can’t get enough employees, he’ll raise the compensation until the job attracts applicants. In other words, the free market will take care of supplying employees.

The problem we currently have is that illegal immigration distorts the marketplace. Since the bulk of illegal aliens wants to “stay below the radar” and tend to be uneducated, they will work for far less than what the market would dictate.

“Even if it were possible to ship every one of them home, a logistical nightmare beyond imagining, the forced deportations would be as cruel as anything seen since the Nazis loaded up their trains to purify their fatherland.”

[RWC] In case you missed it, if you believe people who are in our country illegally and continue to break our laws should be sent home, you’re comparable to a Nazi killing Gypsies, Jews, et cetera.

While we’re on the topic of deporting illegal aliens, I don’t believe anyone is in favor of a search and deport program. In general, those of us who believe illegal aliens should be deported simply want them deported when discovered. For example, if a person is discovered to be an illegal alien during a traffic stop, during an arrest, or while applying for government services, he should be deported. This won’t result in the deportation of every illegal alien, but a lot would be deported and the process would serve as a deterrent against future illegal aliens.

“There is no tomorrow, no manana, on this issue. The problem is now and it is only going to get worse if that truth is not faced squarely. The choice is very simple: to play the demagogue or to work out a solution. The Senate negotiators, with the support of President Bush, have made the responsible choice, fashioning a comprehensive bill that cannot please everyone, which is the sign of many a good compromise.”

[RWC] Why can’t the “good compromise” to enforce our existing laws that were deemed to be good compromises?

“The framework of that solution has been known for months. In the first place, the borders must be made secure and employers must be required to check that only legal immigrants work for them. The other essential step is to permit immigrants to apply for legal status (provided they have no criminal record) and set them on the path of eventual citizenship.”

[RWC] The citizenship issue is bogus. That ship sailed when illegal aliens protested en masse last year waving Mexican flags. People who want to become real Americans want to become part of American culture. From what I can tell, the bulk of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the U.S. view our country simply as a place to work and they have no desire to assimilate.

Note: If you saw any of this year’s much smaller May Day protests, you probably noticed a lot of American flags and few Mexican flags. It was not the result of a change in attitude. This was the result of organizers realizing the mistake they made last year and correcting it for media consumption.

“In melding the concerns of Republicans and Democrats, the bill does all these things. It calls for the construction of 370 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border (and 200 miles of vehicle barriers plus 70 ground-based radar and camera towers). It would add 18,000 Border Patrol agents. And it would require employers to electronically verify new hires within 18 months and existing employees within three years.”

[RWC] As a reminder, previous immigration reform bills passed in the mid-1960s and mid-1980s (Simpson-Mazzoli) also had enforcement provisions that were supposed to address illegal immigration. While the amnesty provisions of these bills were implemented immediately, the border security and other enforcement provisions were not. That’s why we’re where we are. Why should be believe this bill will be any different?

“The proposed law requires that these security benchmarks be reached before provisions opening the path to legalization and citizenship take effect. Illegal immigrants could then obtain a renewable ‘Z visa’ allowing them to stay in the country indefinitely. After paying fees and fines totaling $5,000, they could eventually get on track for permanent residency, but it might take eight to 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first. A temporary worker program also would allow up to 600,000 people to fill jobs that American employees can’t fill.”

[RWC] Regardless of what the bill allegedly says, if you believe we’ll add “18,000 Border Patrol agents” and carry out other border security and enforcement provisions before “provisions opening the path to legalization and citizenship take effect,” I have a bridge to sell you.

Here’s a prediction. President Bush’s signature on the bill won’t be dry before we start reading editorials that it’s cruel to charge poor illegals $5,000 for amnesty and the fine should be waived. The same will be true of the requirement that “Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first.”

“Even so, there’s something here for everyone to dislike. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, for example, has concerns about the temporary worker program and the limitations on family immigration (the bill would place more emphasis on job skills and education than family ties).”

[RWC] Rather than give preference to people who have skills, Mr. Reid wants to import the poor and unskilled. While that may have been OK 100 years ago when fewer Americans were educated (none of my grandparents graduated from high school and at least two never went) and “good” jobs were available for the unskilled, that’s not the case today. We also need to remember that in those days taxpayers didn’t subsidize the unskilled. Things like welfare – and the drag on legal residents – didn’t exist. Today, importing people who will automatically receive taxpayer-funded benefits makes no sense and is wrong.

In any case, the job skills provision won’t be enforced anymore than any of the other control provisions.

“Conservatives are repelled by giving a group of foreigners who broke the law ‘amnesty,’ although many of the bill’s supporters claim it is not that. These last objections, coming from those who normally support the president, threaten to be the most damaging. Their concerns will be amplified by broadcast blowhards who tap into the nativist sentiments in America that have never completely gone away.”

[RWC] Note the “group of foreigners” comment. After throwing down the Nazi card above, perhaps the editorial author thought actually referring to conservatives as racists was too much so he worded it differently. Conservatives tend to oppose amnesty for anyone regardless of the crime.

…

“Yes, obeying the law is important, but there are probably few adults in America who haven’t broken the law at some stage of their lives. And there are far worse crimes than coming illegally to a country that is a beacon of hope and opportunity in order to pursue a better life for yourself and your family. Who among us who love America can say we would not have done that ourselves? In that context, amnesty -- for that is what it is -- is not perfect but it is reasonable, as long as Congress and the White House take steps to secure the borders, thus ensuring this is the last time it is ever granted.”

[RWC] The PG actually admits the bill is amnesty? I can only assume the proofreader missed it.

The editorial fails to note illegally coming to the U.S. is not the only crime committed by illegal aliens. For them to live in the U.S., they must procure fraudulent identification documentation and they frequently engage in identity theft.

Finally, what about the thousands of people who want to come to the U.S. and – out of respect for their prospective new home – comply with our immigration laws? Do they love the U.S. less than the illegal alien who ignores our laws? How is this law fair to them?

Regarding the “ensuring this is the last time it [amnesty] is ever granted” comment, isn’t this what we were told about the immigration reform and control bills of the 1960s and 1980s?

“Immigration reform has to be done, it has to succeed and it can’t wait. If the demagogues succeed in derailing it, America will be the loser. To their credit, President Bush and some in the Senate are now bravely defying the naysayers.”

[RWC] As I noted above, you know a person can’t defend their position when they succumb to name-calling.