Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review-Journal is a libertarian, and admits that on principle he supports open borders -- but only once teh welfare state is eliminated and replaced with a true system of free enterprise capitalism. Absent that, he argues that our nation's immigration laws should be vigorously enforced.

We can't even get the federal government to stop enforcing their absurd marijuana laws when we so direct them by majority vote. So, if they "have to enforce all the laws," why in hell won't they enforce sensible immigration laws, currently on the books, that have overwhelming public support?

In support of that position, Vin takes on the standard "pragmatic" arguments against even trying to enforce those laws.

The "pragmatic" objections are pretty lame.

"Who would replace them in the work force?"

All the regular work -- and lots more -- got done when millions of boys went into the armed services on short notice in 1941. If we need more workers, stop sending out "disability" checks to drunks. When they get hungry, they'll work.

"But once we give them amnesty, they'll pay more in taxes than they cost us."

Actually, under the proposed Senate amnesty, illegals could cost us billions more. Remember, the reason 85 percent of Mexicans currently in this country are here illegally is because most don't have the education or job skills to beat out would-be immigrants from Asia, Africa, or Europe in any fair contest for high-paid jobs, in the first place.

"Actually, the reverse is true: The federal government will give billions to the illegal aliens," writes author Bradley Steffens and Las Vegas-based certified financial adviser and tax preparer Scot Fairchild. Nothing in the Senate amnesty legislation "prevents illegal aliens from qualifying for the earned income credit. All a family of four has to do is file a tax return showing earnings lower than $37,263 (tax year 2005) and it will be eligible for the EIC. The credit can be up to $4,400 (tax year 2005) per family. A family filing five years of back taxes could receive a check from the government for $22,000. Multiply that by the estimated 3 million illegal alien families, and the government could pay out $66 billion in earned income credits, roughly $660 for each of America's 100 million taxpayers."

What's that? "But it's not feasible to round up and deport millions of illegal aliens"?

Wrong. Former Managing Editor John Dillin recalled in the July 6 Christian Science Monitor how "Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve." We had 3 million illegal migrants.

"President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic ... quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents -- less than one-tenth of today's force."

Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner. On June 17, 1954, "Operation Wetback" began. Over the objections of "business-friendly" politicians like Lyndon Johnson and Pat McCarran, some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, more than 50,000 aliens were caught. An additional 488,000, fearing arrest, fled the country. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas alone, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had voluntarily fled the Lone Star State. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Yeah, that's right -- jobs will get done if we incentivize work rather than idleness. The newly legalized immigrants will have a claim on more taxpayer money. A serious effort at rounding up some illegals will lead many more to return home. Remember those three arguments and use them the next time you are told why we cannot make a serious effort to enforce the immigration laws we have rather than pass new ones.

Posted by: Greg at 07:21 AM | Comments (67) | Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

Something has got to be done to fix this problem -- not only do border-jumping immmigration criminals walk among us with impunity, those arrested on serious criminal charges are let free -- even when they are repeat offenders eligible for deportation.

TAMPA - The immigration agent didn't like the looks of Manuel Pardo's Social Security card. When the 20-year-old from Mexico was questioned, he admitted it was fake.

Pardo and several other immigrants were picked up at a brothel in Dover that night in June 2003, a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office report shows. Five months earlier, Pardo tried to attack some people with a shovel and was charged with aggravated assault. He served 24 days in county jail.

After Pardo was picked up at the brothel, the federal immigration agent ordered him to remain in Orient Road Jail until he could be transferred for deportation proceedings.

Federal officials said Pardo was deported, but three weeks ago he was back in the county jail, charged with driving without a valid license. Although it is a felony to return to the United States after deportation, he was released on $500 bail.

He walked out nine hours after he was picked up.

It seems we don't have sufficient jail space to hold criminal wetbacks pending their deportation -- even when the charges are directly related to their immigration status.

It seems clear that one step needed is the adoption of a policy that either expeditites or eliminates hearings in such situations. Our policy needs to be that such deportations occur quickly and efficiently.

Load 'em up! Ship 'em back! Rawhide!

Posted by: Greg at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like another instance of the Mexican government acting to undermine American sovereignty.

Two Tucson-based immigrant-aid groups were expected to sign an agreement of hospitality with the Mexican government Tuesday evening.

Members of the Coalición de Derechos Humanos/Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras and the faith-based No More Deaths movement were scheduled to sign the document, along with Jesus Lopez Quiroz of Mexico's National Institute of Migration and Enrique Flores Lopez of Sonora's State Commission for the Care of Migrants.

No More Deaths members say the agreement will formally allow the U.S.-based organizations to provide food, water, footwear and basic medical care to migrants on the Mexican side of the international border.

No More Deaths, which provides food, water and medical assistance to illegal entrants in distress on the U.S. side, has a new program of providing aid to migrants returned by U.S. authorities to Mexican ports of entry at Nogales and Agua Prieta.

The Coalición de Derechos Humanos/Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras is a grass-roots organization that aims to promote respect for human and civil rights and fights what it calls the militarization of the southern border region.

When are we going to cut off aid to the Mexican government until it acts to stop, rather than assist, the violation of our border by its citizens? And will the American government take action against these groups that are clearly aiding and abetting the violation of American law?

Posted by: Greg at 08:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.