Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Immigration

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on April 24th, 2013 (All posts by )

    UPDATE: Mickey Kaus now has a column called Gang of 8 Fraud of the Day. Today’s is “Back Taxes.”

    Negotiators had to choose between a hard-line approach favored by Republicans, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), that would have required immigrants and employers to painstakingly piece together a tax history so the government could collect what is owed and a less burdensome option of focusing on people who already have a past-due bill with the Internal Revenue Service.

    Yup. No tax audits. Only if they already have an assessment is it pursued.

    Rubio’s published materials now often carefully say to-be-legalized immigrants would have to merely ”pay taxes” as opposed to pay “back taxes.” That hasn’t stopped the bogus “back tax” meme from being propagated during Rubio’s current round the clock Con-the-Cons tour.

    The Senate has served up another in Harry Reid’s menu of “Unanimous Consent” bills with no hearings and no amendments except those he approves. This is not how the Senate is supposed to work and is a large part of the reason that Congress has produced such bad legislation since 2008. Now, we have another massive bill which is being presented with minimal hearings and debate.

    The “Gang of Eight” has written this bill and it is supposed to be fast tracked with no argument. Marco Rubio has been pressing for approval and now Paul Ryan is aboard.

    In an interview last week with the Catholic television network EWTN, Ryan recalled his history at Kemp’s side and how they worked together to fight Proposition 187, a California ballot initiative that prevented non-citizens from using the state’s social services.

    One reason why immigration worked in this country for 150 years was the fact that immigrants were here to work and support themselves. There was no welfare for them. Prop 187 in California was passed with 60% of the vote and even had majorities in heavily Hispanic districts. It was ruled “unconstitutional” by the California Supreme Court and the decline of the “Golden State” has followed. His reasoning at the time ?

    “I actually campaigned with Jack Kemp against a thing called Prop 187,” Ryan told host Raymond Arroyo. He said they both worried that the proposal would burn Republicans within the immigrant community, and “make it so that Latino voters would not hear the other messages of empowerment.”

    Other Republicans seem convinced that Latino voters, unlike those after the 1986 amnesty, would flock to vote for Republicans out of gratitude for being made legal and eligible for welfare. Britain made a similar mistake but the Labour Party flooded the country with Muslim immigrants as a plan to dominate the Conservatives. It worked and Britain has not had a Conservative government since Margaret Thatcher. The present government is called a coalition of Conservative and Liberal but neither party would be recognizable to Winston Churchill or Lady Thatcher.

    Marco Rubio has been campaigning for this bill before it was presented. He has presented the bill as having far more conservative features than is believed by others.

    He brought up the legislation’s goal of apprehending 90% of illegal border crossers (in “high-risk” sectors)–alluding no less than four times in 17 minutes to its creation of a “border commission.” He used virtually identical language all four times:

    “If, in five years, the plan has not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension, the Department of Homeland Security … will lose control of the issue and it will be turned over to the border governors to finish the job …. which is not a Washington commission, made up of congressmen or bureaucrats.

    This, in fact, is not an honest expression of the bill’s provisions. Senator Schumer has been saying something quite different, even before the rollout of the bill last week.

    Unfortunately for Rubio, Washington Examiner’s Byron York read the actual bill and noticed that, if the goals are not met, the job of the commission is almost entirely advisory–to make “recommendations to the President, the Secretary, and Congress” on how to meet them. (See pages 16 and 17.) Specifically, the bill says the commission writes a report “setting forth specific recommendations,” sends it to the Government Accounting Office, and then goes out of business in 30 days. Nothing about taking over control, or the “issue,” or the policy or about finishing the job.

    This provision has been the subject of inflated claims by some supposed conservative radio talkers but the language of the bill does not inspire confidence.

    Thomas Sowell points out one major weakness in the bill.

    It is already known that a significant percentage of the immigrants from some countries go on welfare, while practically none from some other countries do. Some children from some countries are eager students in school and, even when they come here knowing little or no English, they go on to master the language better than many native-born Americans do. But other children from other countries drag down educational standards and create many other problems in school, as well as forming gangs that ruin whole neighborhoods with their vandalism and violence and cost many lives. Are we to shut our eyes to such differences and just lump all immigrants together, as if we were talking about abstract people in an abstract world?

    This goes right to the issues that Prop 187 addressed in California and why it was hated by the political left and the business lobbies.

    Above all, we need to look at immigration laws in terms of how they affect the American people and the American culture that gives us a level of prosperity that has long been among the highest in the world. Americans, after all, are not a separate race but people from many racial and ethnic backgrounds. Yet most Americans have a higher standard of living than other people of the same racial or ethnic background in their respective ancestral home countries. That is even more true for black Americans than for white Americans.

    This is what Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan ignore.

    Why is the Boston Massacre not an issue in immigration reform ?

    let us briefly look at the mythical self-radicalized lone-wolf terrorist. There have been 19 documented foiled terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. The vast majority of the suspects were born and raised in America and radicalized here long before some of them sought training and assistance from foreign jihadists. Nor were they radicalized on the Internet. In virtually every case, they embraced Islamism in American mosques and Islamic centers under the control of radical Wahhabi, salafi, or Muslim Brotherhood imams, some of whom turned out to be wannabe jihadists themselves. This unfortunate reality is neither a coincidence nor an aberration.

    For despite the fact that most American Muslims are well integrated and economically successful, much of the Muslim establishment in this country has been controlled by radical Islamists ever since the Muslim Brotherhood made its first appearance in America with the founding of the Muslim Student Association in 1963.

    Moderate mosques in this country have been marginalized by those funded by Saudi Wahhabi extremists and many are run by immigrant imams.

    U.S. Border Patrol agents captured a radical Muslim cleric attempting to sneak into the United States across the California-Mexican border this morning.

    Said Jaziri was discovered hiding in a Mexican registered BMW. The terrorism supporting cleric has been banned from France and Canada, as well as the United States, police sources told the Law Enforcement Examiner.

    Jaziri, who gained notoriety when he ordered his followers to “execute” the controversial Danish cartoonist who drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was arrested, as was the BMW’s driver Kenneth Robert Lawler.

    Jaziri, 44, had been deported from Canada to Tunisia in 2007 after Canadian immigration officials discovered that he had fabricated statements on his refugee application. Prior to that he had been imprisoned in France on terrorism-related charges.

    This is reminiscent of the radical “blind sheik” who masterminded the 1993 WTC bombing.

    It is time to think about terrorism and immigration, especially illegal immigration. Even if Michelle Obama visits a student on a terrorist watch list in the hospital.

    “The First Lady visited with patients, their families and hospital staff at Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital,” the White House spokesperson emailed. When we asked about the visit again now that alleged photos have surfaced, we were again pointed to the general pool report noting Obama’s visit to the hospitals.

    The Republicans have a history of double talk and unfulfilled promises on the immigration issue. The 1986 amnesty was supposed to be followed by strict border enforcement. That never happened. That is why we have another 11 million illegals today. In 2007, another border enforcement bill was passed but the Democrats gutted it after they took over Congress. There is plenty of history on this topic but Republicans seem determined to forget it.

     

    10 Responses to “Immigration”

    1. djf Says:

      I think Republicans like Rubio and Ryan are looking forward to lucrative careers as lobbyists or ornaments to investment banks after another decade or so of pretending to be contenders for national power. Not even Rubio can be stupid enough to believe that the Republicans will be competitive for control of the White HOuse or either house of Congress once the full impact of this bill is felt.

    2. Bill Brandt Says:

      The 1986 Bill was supposed to have employer sanctions, too but it was never done. Congress was going to enact them as soon as the bill passed. If I am not mistaken then Rep McCain (first year in Congress?) voted for this – and now it appears he learned nothing.

    3. Jonathan Says:

      The 1986 bill failed at its stated purpose but left us with more rules, bureaucracy and deadweight costs and less freedom, not to mention the perverse incentives created by the amnesty. It was the origin of the current requirement that job applicants prove their citizenship or legal residency. The current bill, if enacted, would be worse. Rubio deserves to have his political career destroyed for enabling this political Trojan Horse. Ryan is a fool if he goes along with it.

    4. Grurray Says:

      The bill has provisions for guest worker programs, but it includes strict wage controls that will require a new regulatory regime to monitor it. It’s not going to attract a flood of new low wage illegal immigrants because labor costs will increase due to the cost of compliance.

      The flow of immigrants from Mexico has already reversed because their economy is booming. This bill will only hasten that trend. The ones that remain will continue their assimilation.

      The amnesty provisions are so strict that I can’t imagine it would bring many illegals in from the cold.

      So if the purpose of the bill is to give the appearance that Republicans have moderated their position to attract more immigrant voters then in that sense Rubio wins. Otherwise, this is another case of the government fighting the last war.

      This is probably not just about Latinos. For the past few years now, more immigrants from Asia have come over than from Mexico. Obama took the Asian vote by 11% in 2012.

    5. djf Says:

      On a note related to Grurray’s comment above, the Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

    6. Grurray Says:

      Here’s why the immigration bill helps Republicans with Latinos.

      It’s already proven that it’s real effects will further restrict new immigration (and severely bloat already swollen bureaucracies, but that’s another can of worms).

      The wage effect of new immigration isn’t bad for native born workers, but it is bad for immigrants who have been here awhile:

      http://www.cato.org/blog/how-does-immigration-impact-wages

      In the long run their economic lot will improve, and they will form businesses and develop enterprises as all other immigrant groups have. Most are Catholic and have large families, hardly the bailiwick of the Democratic party.

      However, the big problem with periods of low immigration:

      “..capital adjusts quicker to increased labor abundance and immigrants are more complementary”

      When labor costs go up, capital is just as quick to flow to innovations that reduce labor such as the automation revolution we’re seeing now.

      The whole economic system is driven by people and how they move and act, not the other way around. Government policies & incentives control nothing, but are only reactionary complements to the already existing trend.

    7. djf Says:

      Yep, to meet the high-tech challenges of the 21st century global economy, the US needs to enhance its population with a dozen or two million more unskilled, uneducated, non-English-speaking, highly fertile peons, who have high teenage and out-of-wedlock birth rates and low rates of stable family formation. Plus we need to let in all of their family members who haven’t gotten here yet, including the nonworking elderly and disabled. And then the family members of those family members. Good thinking, batman!

    8. Bill Waddell Says:

      No need to wonder why the proponents of the immigration bills brand the opponents as motivated more by racism than any serious concerns …. just read Djf and see where they get their ammunition:

      “the US needs to enhance its population with a dozen or two million more unskilled, uneducated, non-English-speaking, highly fertile peons, who have high teenage and out-of-wedlock birth rates and low rates of stable family formation. Plus we need to let in all of their family members who haven’t gotten here yet, including the nonworking elderly and disabled. And then the family members of those family members.”

    9. Grurray Says:

      Yes, funny, I laughed at that.

      Please re-read what I wrote. It was needed, and now it’s done.

      Actually, now that I look at the numbers, about a decade of illiterate peon peasants is probably the optimum.
      It was ten years from amnesty in ’86 to welfare reform in ’96 & unprecedented prosperity (and reduced crime rates nationwide). Any more than that and the early wave of émigrés start to get dragged down.

    10. djf Says:

      Why is it “racism” to be concerned about the nature of the vast majority of the millions of immigrants the “reform” bill will legalize and bring into the country? Needless to say, there are millions of skilled, educated and accomplished people in Mexico – but somehow I doubt that these are the people who have entered the US illegally or plan to do so to find a job picking fruit, in a restaurant or hotel, or in construction. Apparently, though, we’re not supposed to notice this or be concerned about it.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.