Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Tancredo's Simple Solution To Illegal Immigration
Sometimes the simple solutions are the best. And this is one of those cases. No need for an immigration bill. No need to quibble about paying taxpayer dollars for health care for illegal immigrants, or school for their children, or for other services. Just a few simple steps, as Mark Z. Barabak writes in the LA Times about Tancredo's prescription for illegal immigration:

First, secure the borders, doing whatever it takes. Build a fence — or two or three — along the borders with Canada and Mexico. Station armed guards to block illegal entry. Then, go after businesses that hire illegal workers, hitting employers with massive fines and, if need be, criminal charges.

Also, bring criminal cases — aiding and abetting — against mayors and city council members who establish "sanctuary cities" that prevent city employees from cooperating with federal immigration agents. (Yes, that would have included Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani, back when he was mayor of New York.)

Once the jobs dry up, the estimated 12 million people in the country illegally — or 20 million, by Tancredo's count — will go home. No need for the jackboot immigration raids that are conjured up by his many critics.

"Attrition through enforcement," Tancredo called it, sipping green iced tea on a shady patio before opening his campaign office in Ames, home of Iowa State University. "If people cannot get the thing for which they came — a job — they go home."

Some look at the immigration issue and see a complicated and confounding tangle of interests and emotions. Not Tancredo.

"I have a solution," he told a Friday night crowd of about 100 at the Quality Inn in downtown Des Moines. "It's a radical one. Scary. Enormously controversial." Then he paused and spaced his words for effect. "It's called: Enforce … the … law."

I'm all for it.

Posted by aalkon at July 7, 2007 10:58 AM

Comments

That would work if all they came here for were jobs. They come for the free stuff. Free education (which also comes with free food for the kids). Free medical care and any other handouts they can get.

"We got hobby, it called breeding, welfare pay for baby feeding. You no like it you can go. Plenty room in Mexico."

Posted by: GirlAtheist at July 7, 2007 7:01 AM

"Free stuff?" But that is part of the enforcement!

If you are here illegally, then you do not exist. If you do not exist, you cannot get welfare, go to school, receive food stamps, apply for a driver's license, or indeed anything else.

If you're starving, and want help, you should of course get it - along with a one-way ticket on the next deportation bus.

The one legal change that would be good: infants born in the USA should not automatically be US citizens. One of the parents should have to be a citizen. This is the way most other countries do it, and it makes sense.

Posted by: bradley13 at July 7, 2007 7:17 AM

this is a overly simple solution from a simple mind. Tancredo has failed as a representative: he has ben unable to find a solution to immigration, to health care, to Iraq. All he seems to have accomplished during his term is to subvert the will of his electorate and sell his soul, if he has one, to the broadcasting industry. He is unworthy of the trust given him by the electorate of Colorado.

Posted by: hbledyard at July 7, 2007 8:22 AM

Why is enforcing the law not the solution? The burgeoning numbers of illegal immigrants in this country correspond to our lack of enforcement. Here's an excerpt from a piece about that by Mac Johnson at HumanEvents.com:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19293

The second root cause of today's predicament is the 1986 amnesty of illegal aliens. It was only after this amnesty that our illegal immigration problem mushroomed to its current proportions. In 1986, America had a relatively minor problem with illegal immigration, which we naively thought large at that time. The solution proposed then, identical to that proposed today, was to legalize the immigration criminals already in the country and then concentrate resources on preventing new illegal immigration. So a path to citizenship was granted to 3,000,000 illegal aliens.

Far from solving the problem, the amnesty caused the criminal flow across the border to increase. Today, we have somewhere between 15,000,000 and 30,000,000 illegal aliens living anonymously in our underground economy. Why? The promised enforcement of the border never followed the amnesty. And the amnesty itself sent out a message to all the Third World's poor: just get to America any way you can and they will let you stay. You can lie your way in, sneak your way in, bribe your way in, overstay a visa, or just walk across the border in broad daylight and America will make you legal, give you full benefits and declare you a citizen.

Illegal immigration will never be contained until the message of 1986 is reversed. But that would mean getting serious about removing those who break into the country. Until we do that, the incentive will remain: just get here and you will never be made to leave. Indeed, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi are about to repeat the mistake and issue a second amnesty some five to 10 times as large as the first. Predictably, illegal immigration will continue and increase again when thus rewarded.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 7, 2007 9:33 AM

I do agree the burden should be on the employers.

Having never been an employer, I am concerned that attempts to place the burden more squarely on the employer will result in a national id card. I don't like the way SSN are abused as a defacto national id card, but one benefit of them is that with their easy ability to make fake ones, their lack of checksums and the like, at least they make for a really really crappy national id card.

I also think, perhaps it's just my love of James M. Cain's stories, that it should be easier for people to legally get day jobs. I don't know what causes homelessness or the way to end homelessness, but I do wish there were an easy way for people to get a perfectly legal day job.

Also consider the importance of day jobs to important cultural works like Bill Bixby's interpretation of the Hulk, and David Carradine's interpretation of Kwai Chang Caine.

I think the day job is critical to retaining American's ability to be free and mobile.

Posted by: jerry at July 7, 2007 10:30 AM

Dear hbledyard,

Sometimes simple minds are right, sometimes simple solutions work.

I overheard a conversation, by those in the know, that said one line of computer code in the Social Security database could check employer submitted SS numbers against a legal database.

"...he has ben unable to find a solution to immigration, to health care, to Iraq."

This seems like a simple minded criticism.

"All he seems to have accomplished during his term is to subvert the will of his electorate and sell his soul..."

This seems even more simple minded.

Posted by: doombuggy at July 7, 2007 10:37 AM

When I would do TV appearances for pay (haven't done many since Politically Incorrect and Dennis Miller went off the air), they'd ask for your passport or driver's license (which they'd photocopy) and you'd have to sign some statement saying you were a citizen (if memory serves me correctly).

I'm not opposed to all immigration, just the illegal kind. My former assistant, Lydia, who's Irish, and attended Oxford on scholarship, had to go through all these hoops to become legal (and she married an American), and some people shouldn't be given a fast track -- and certainly not because they broke the law.

And while I'm for letting in those few people who are political prisoners, etc., I'm also for applying national self-interest in who we let in: more scientists of any nationality and other who have special skills.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 7, 2007 10:41 AM

"All he seems to have accomplished during his term is to subvert the will of his electorate..."

From what I've read, the electorate isn't clamoring to pay the health care costs and all the rest for illegal immigrants. That's the reason some give for why the immigration bill didn't pass.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 7, 2007 10:47 AM

Tancredo is a tool and is wrong about just about everything else. But he's more right than wrong about illegal immigration. Protect the borders, enforce employment laws. That's basically what is needed here.

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 11:32 AM

While we're at it, why don't we set up traffic stops every ten blocks and DNA swab everyone? If we're going to invoke the police state, why go half way?

Posted by: Balzac at July 7, 2007 11:36 AM

While we're at it, why don't we set up traffic stops every ten blocks and DNA swab everyone?

Did anyone suggest getting rid of the 4th amendment? Nobody's advocating a police state, just a simple enforcement of existing laws.

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 11:46 AM

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Well....

"He is unworthy of the trust given him by the electorate of Colorado." -- Amy Alkon

....maybe from a Californian perspective. However, my former Congressman, I've moved out of Denver since, is 'spot on' with regards to immigration.

Or, has Orange County got itself out from under the threat bankruptcy since I heard it was facing such paying for illegal immigrant's education and health care needs?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I'm not opposed to immigration. Especially if Californians pay for it all.....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 11:50 AM

I agree with Mr Tancredo. It's about time we heard solutions coming from Washington. There is no need to debate anything, the debate was completed in 1986. Enforce the Law! And I will add Stop government hiring, services and healthcare after a 60-90 day warning! Stop sanctuary cities! Stop employers transporting ILLEGALS across the border. Let police do their "job". No one speak english during a stop, ask country of origin.Build the Fence!

Posted by: reusha2000 at July 7, 2007 11:51 AM

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Apologies

The citation of how...

"He [Congressman Tancredo] is unworthy of the trust given him by the electorate of Colorado," was improperly attributed to you.

It was really hbledyard who said that.

I apologize for my error in search and attribution.

TO: hbledyard
RE: Orange County, Stuff & Such

Where do YOU live, buckie?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Measure once. Cut twice.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 12:04 PM

I think I remember one country which used ‘simple solutions’ some 60 years ago…

Posted by: Karl at July 7, 2007 12:16 PM

"While we're at it, why don't we set up traffic stops every ten blocks and DNA swab everyone? If we're going to invoke the police state, why go half way?"

"I think I remember one country which used ‘simple solutions’ some 60 years ago…"


How does pathetic comments such as these 2 qualify as a counter to many of the posts provided by contributors agreeing with Tancredo's views on illegal immigration? If you are going to waste our time... please expand your bumper sticker statements with some content.

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2007 12:43 PM

The '08 elections will be here before you know it. Make sure everyone you know is registered...if they think they heard us before we crashed their phone system, just wait until they see how angry we truly are.

WE are the Ultimate Authority and it's about time we started acting like it!

Posted by: Chris at July 7, 2007 12:48 PM

As I read your posts Chuck, I hear Captain James T. Kirk's voice in my head...

Posted by: eric at July 7, 2007 1:11 PM

Yes, Eric. The 'paunch' years, with the v-neck uniform.

He thinks we're printing these things out and filing them.

Posted by: Crid at July 7, 2007 1:14 PM

I was thinking of Scheisskopf of Catch 22.

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2007 1:29 PM

TO: eric
RE: Really???!??!

"As I read your posts Chuck, I hear Captain James T. Kirk's voice in my head..." -- eric

Well. I don't need the green slave girls and groupies. You can have em.

Or give them to Crid.

I think he needs them more than you do.

Personally?

I prefer an admixture of Picard and Worf.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Earth females are too fragile. -- LT Worf]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 1:38 PM

TO: Kid Crid
RE: Why Not?

"He thinks we're printing these things out and filing them." -- Kid Crid

I do....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Anyone wanna buy a databse?]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 1:39 PM

I think I remember one country which used ‘simple solutions’ some 60 years ago…

Absolutely ridiculous. Do you not understand the difference between stealing property of citizens and putting them in death camps and murdering them...and simply enforcing the law in our country, and not letting non-citizens have the privileges of citizens -- or become citizens -- as a reward for breaking the law?

You have to wonder, with the Jews and homosexuals killed by the Nazis, what we missed in terms of artists or scientific advancements.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 7, 2007 1:39 PM

TO: eric
RE: Proper Venue

"As I read your posts Chuck, I hear Captain James T. Kirk's voice in my head..." -- eric

Actually, I prefer Babylon 5 (years 1-4).

However, my Id, based on the on-line SciFi preference survey, came out favoring Star Gate I.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Id just doesn't matter! -- Bill Murray (paraphrased) in Meatballs]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 1:51 PM

Nowadays, having the proper political posture or consciousness is considered a proper form of argument.

I'm shocked that the the 'racist' comments have failed appeared on this post.

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2007 1:55 PM

TO: Joe
RE: Proper?

"Nowadays, having the proper political posture or consciousness is considered a proper form of argument." -- Joe

I guess you're of a philosophy that believes that political correctness drives all things in this Life.

Sounds like a 'personal problem'. Christians build their political philosophy on a Rock.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 2:46 PM

Amy, we should keep this guy around.

Posted by: Crid at July 7, 2007 3:02 PM

One company which has paid fines for employing illegals is Wal-Mart - which, of course, just passed its costs on to its customers, who do not notice due to volume dilution.

One thing I'd point out is a lie, often repeated: "Doing jobs Americans just won't do." These jobs are under-the-table, never advertised, while states look the other way - just like they did and do while subsidized tobacco put their citizens in the ground. We don't know what "Americans" would do because the jobs are restricted.

One thing to remember about this immigration bill nonsense: Mr. Bush was Governor when the town of El Cenizo, TX refused to obey the law regarding illegals. Look it up and see what happened.

Posted by: Radwaste at July 7, 2007 3:08 PM

Raddy, that's true, but Walmart probably passed the savings on, too.

Posted by: Crid at July 7, 2007 3:17 PM

TO: Kid Crid
RE: Hoooowwww Niiiiiicccceeee....

"Amy, we should keep this guy around." -- Kid Crid

See if you can find the joke....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Clue: Class reunion of southern belles.

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 3:19 PM

Ami,

Thank you for your attention to my post.

Of course our situation is somewhat different.


In Germany, SS, Gestapo, police and others with 99% support of the population did what? They “Enforce[d] … the … law”.
So, do you think 99% of the people of the great country were so evil? Or it was the law?..

The recent tancredo slogan was: “America is full”. What is next? “America for Americans” ? Sounds like nothing wrong about it, but very familiar…

Now, about immigration – there is no real way to immigrate legally to US: none – so about illegal immigration:

Do not be naïve, nobody is going to self-deport because of the job shortage: in most cases it is better to be here “under the bridge” than starving to death in the country one left.
So you will still need to round them up, build concentration camps(one congressman openly proposed this couple years ago), and so on…

About employers: yes, go ahead, crucify them, destroy what attract so many people – prosperity. They [employers] will do what market dictates, just look at Microsoft(I applause).

In most cases we are replacing death penalty for murderers with something else, but we are unwilling to do this with immigrants: deportation or death only!

Yes the solution is very simple: change the law, have a fresh start.

Sorry for the long post. I understand I cannot change any mind in your audience, Ami, so what the point?
Chuck, are you happy?

Karl
Atlanta

Posted by: Karl at July 7, 2007 3:38 PM

"They come for the free stuff. Free education (which also comes with free food for the kids). Free medical care and any other handouts they can get."

Good reason to get rid of all that stuff. Our homegrown moochers don't deserve it either.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at July 7, 2007 3:44 PM

Nope, just the national dialogue, Major Up Chuck. Your memos awfully sound familiar. Actually, they are just awful.

Another blessing of the 50 year Cold War build up. A retired gung ho type, who is first rate in bureaucratic paper osmosis. What are the odds?

All that tax payer money wasted on boring the contributors on Amy's site. Take that, Fidel Castro.

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2007 3:47 PM

Amy, your friend's human nature article made it to number one on Reddit.com

Posted by: Crid at July 7, 2007 3:55 PM

"Chuck, are you happy?" - I meant Joe, sorry Chuck.

Posted by: Karl at July 7, 2007 3:59 PM

TO: Karl
RE: Happy?

""Chuck, are you happy?" - I meant Joe, sorry Chuck." -- Karl

Whether you meant me or Joe....

....very much so.

Currently in the kitchen (the power plant of any household) working on making a great gravey out of the drippings of the herb and garlic roast chicken we offered up for the Mother-in-Law's b'day a few days ago...sipping martinis and listening to Shakatak, the Pointer Sisters (of the '90s).

It's a grand old house we've landed in here. And we're getting geared-up for some parties we have in mind.

What's your point?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life IS 'good'!]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 4:07 PM

TO: Joe
RE: Memos and Familiarity

"Nope, just the national dialogue, Major Up Chuck. Your memos awfully sound familiar. Actually, they are just awful." -- Joe

Sounds like a 'personal problem'. Learn to cope.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Otherwise, you're no different than [Kid] Crid.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 4:34 PM

Chuck, the last military hedgehog we had around here quoted long passages of Jack Nicholson movies a couple of times and then went home. He didn't have that whole Christian thing going, nor was he obssessed with memoranda. So he seemed more lucid.

We miss the big lug.

Posted by: Crid at July 7, 2007 4:47 PM

Fair question, Karl. Happy, but combative in nature.

Cleaning a shisha for some friends coming over later for a complimentary smoke before going out for drinks. Listening to Head Over Heels by Tears for Fears. Don't you miss it when TFF ruled FM radio?

Somebody texting in a memo format on a message board, who is a devout Christian with X years in the service. Probably memorized the lines of Colonel Jessup from a Few Good Men, has the nerve to say that I have personality problems? Well, at least I'm in good company.

Did I miss any other clichés, Audie? Could you do me one small favor? March to the nearest lake and halt when your cap floats to the surface.

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2007 5:05 PM

Meeee-yow.

Love this place.

Also, right about tff.


"I wanted to be with you alone..."

Posted by: Crid at July 7, 2007 6:17 PM

Karl wrote:

"In Germany, SS, Gestapo, police and others with 99% support of the population did what? They “Enforce[d] … the … law”."

I'd say this is faulty moral equivalency.

"The recent tancredo slogan was: “America is full”."

Okay, so we're not full now. Will you tell us when we are?

"...in most cases it is better to be here “under the bridge” than starving to death in the country one left."

Something seems wrong here. Most people don't starve to death in their home countries.

"About employers: yes, go ahead, crucify them, destroy what attract so many people – prosperity."

I'm not convinced this is the trade-off. The current and long term social costs of our large number of low wage, low skilled illegal immigrants may not outweigh their contribution.

"I understand I cannot change any mind in your audience, Ami,..."

Don't set "changing minds" as your goal. That's a bit lofty. Think of it as advancing the debate.

Posted by: doombuggy at July 7, 2007 6:41 PM

Everyone's wants to go after Wal-Mart and big agriculture for hiring illegals, but what do you suppose would happen if they started arresting the suburbanites who pick up day laborers outside Home Depot?

Posted by: Rex Little at July 7, 2007 7:35 PM

Tancredo and Paul seem to be the only candidates doing any thinking on this.

Posted by: Scott at July 7, 2007 10:01 PM

Arrest? Give them a fine that will hurt their payroll for 6 months. Then they will think twice and hire those 'idiot' cousins within their families. The free market won't collapse when crooked home contractors go out of business. The ones that will survive through proper fiscal management and delegating work details to their legal employees.

What are we going to do with a large population of unskilled labor? Especially with the advent of automation in technology? One of my uncles placed a large investment in a company that is developing precision farming equipment. This particular kind of tech will replace an average of 150 farm laborers with 6.

Japan understands this notion perfectly. They have an ever increasing senior population with one of the lowest birthrates in the world. Instead of importing immigrants to do the semi and unskilled tasks they will rely on automation.

Mexico and the other Central American nations need to deal with their own problems, instead of dumping them onto the US. Also, how would the world react if the USA decided to dump its rural and urban poor onto another nation, like Canada? They have national healthcare and a more generous welfare system.

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2007 10:14 PM

How about a $10000 reward for every illegal immigrant you know or can find.

Posted by: Tubbystein at July 7, 2007 11:43 PM

> Don't set "changing minds"
> as your goal. That's a bit
> lofty. Think of it as advancing
> the debate.

Cool

Posted by: Crid at July 8, 2007 3:13 AM

Joe said it well.

Mechanization is the path to prosperity. The cotton industry was forced to mechanize with the labor shortages after WWII. Today it is one of the more productive ag sectors, and more productive than at any time in its history.

Posted by: doombuggy at July 8, 2007 8:34 AM

I'm all for:

1. Fining businesses who hire illegals
2. Fining homeowners who hire illegals
3. Cash rewards for reporting the hiring of illegals
4. Mechanization to cut the need for labor

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 8, 2007 10:16 AM

My solution to the illegal immigration issue:
1) legalize pot and tax it. Frees up money from the war on drugs and provides another source of revenue
2) Buy Mexico and make it a territory or a state or something. If they want to be americans anyway .....
3) Then we take over Canada before they can get drop on us (The way they hover up there makes me all nervous)
4) Then set up a three tier system for health care and government involvement using existing infrastucture. Want socialized healthcare and willing to pay high taxes? Go to North-United States (Previously Canada). Want anything your money can buy with very little government regulation (pesky FDA and all that)? Go to South-US (previously Mexico)
5) Ta-da! I have solved the healthcare crisis and the illegal immigration problem. Kudos to me! (Now how do I solve the Middle East conflict?)

(Please note that my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek)

Posted by: Elle at July 8, 2007 4:19 PM

You know, I think the real motivation behind Godwin's Law is not so much to keep debate above a certain level of maturity as it is to keep certain people from looking STOOPID. Because, apparently, the temptation to compare that that you don't like to Hitler/the Nazis/Fascism is just irresistable, and most of the time it comes across like a 14-year-old yelling that his parents are Nazis because they expect him to follow the rules.

Yes, Nazis were all for following laws. Do you know why Nazi and other fascist regimes tend to take hold? Because, when people feel chronically insecure about their safety and security, they become willing to trade liberty and justice for security. Scoff at laws at your peril, my good citizen, because history has shown that societies that cannot hold to some sort of laws are societies that decay.

No one - NO ONE - is talking about commiting genocide. Or about a master race - if Amy has said she'd be fine with illegal immigrants from France but opposed to legal ones from Mexico, I've missed that. Or about concentration camps. Or about needing living room, or annexing the Sudentenland, or the joys of mustaches. People are talking about the best ways to enforce laws that are ON THE BOOKS. They are also talking about the best ways to ensure that the U.S. can monitor and control the flow of people who wish to come here to live, vote and receive benefits from the state - a right that all functioning nations exercised, last I checked.

Don't like the laws? Fine! Go write your Congressperson. Go run for Congress. Start a blog. Write a book. Hire a plane and skywrite, "IMMIGRATION ROCKS!" But fer Freya's sake, do SOMETHING besides coming onto a site and making yourself look like an idiot by comparing those who would enforce longstanding immigration laws to Nazis and police state-wannabes. Because you seem profoundly idiotic when you do so.

For the record: Enthusiastically in support of legal immigration, and of increasing the number of people who can immigrate legally (while drastically reducing the paperwork and tsuris for those going through the legal process). All for enforcing laws. All for building a fence at the border. Not all for ending the everyone-born-here-is-a-citizen thing, if only to avoid situations like ones in certain Europeans countries where third and fourth generations born in the country still don't have citizenship. We're an artificial state theoretically capable of absorbing and incorporating all non-destructive, non-moronic ideas and styles, and we're all the better for it; I think the idea that all you need to do is to be born here to be a citizen fits with that nicely. Who cares about your ancestors? The United States is about what *you* do. So, I disagree with some others here, such as the woman running this site. Note how I managed to do so without casting aspersions of would-be tyranny her way? It can be done, I promise.

Posted by: marion at July 9, 2007 2:01 AM

People think I'm weird when I say I like Tancredo. His pork record is spectacular and he's more thoughtful and honest than any candidate other than Ron Paul (honorable mention to Gravel, if only because of his campaign advertisements).

However, I don't give a damn about Mexicans. The illegal Mexican immigrants came here illegally because:
a) the legal immigration apparatus is a real senseless pain in the ass to negotiate (legal immigrants face frequent harassment by Homeland security, usually relating to documents that Homeland security somehow manages to lose for the eighth time) and
b) they knew that the INS (now DHS) wouldn't do anything to them if they came here illegally.

Anyone who's ever found themselves in a position in which they employed legal immigrants on work Visas knows "a" to be true. Anyone who has ever worked in law enforcement knows "b" to be true.

Both factors are caused only by the incompetence of the federal government. The Feds made border hopping the legal equivalent of jaywalking, not the Mexicans.

That having been said, I don't want to place our national security in the hands of the Mexican Federales; I distrust the ability of Mexican officials to keep Visas out of the hands of nutty Muslims more than I distrust the ability of American officials to do the same.

Here's my three part immigration plan. It doesn't require any laws.

1) Build a fence at the Southern and Northern Borders, manned by the National Guard. The Guardsmen down south should be happy to deal with Mexicans after four years of dealing with Iraqis. The Guardsmen up North can visit Canada for some gambling on their days off. Beats bomb-dodging in Baghdad.

2) Issue Visas and ID cards to all would-be immigrants who can prove that they are not Muslim.

3) Revoke the Visa and deport any immigrant who commits a crime or partakes in any public assistance (such as welfare or publicly funded hospital fees).

Some people might accuse step "2" of being racist. I'd remind them that "Islam" is not a race. It's a religion, but more importantly, it is a political philosophy that is incompatible with that of Natural Law. When Madrassas start teaching John Locke (regardless of what race they teach), we can talk about changing step 2.

And, of course, I have no idea what to do with the immigrants who are here now. But then again, neither does anyone else.

Tancredo's plan shows just enough understanding of the market that it could work.

I remain unconvinced that Michelle Malkin's "shove 'em all in a clown car" plan would be in any way doable, but she's welcome to try.

Posted by: Steve W at July 11, 2007 4:04 PM


The comprehensive immigration bill was a con. What it provided was a full hiring hall of cheap labor for emmployers, ie illegal immigrants, agri workers, guest workers, H2B visas etc. They stuck in a couple of measures about immigration reform for show (with no intention of implementing them),

There was nothing in there for Americans except loss of jobs, and a huge tax increase to pay for the illegals, now legals social security etc.

What happened when the 1,200 employees of the meat packing company were taken away by ICE? A line of Americans applying for the jobs.

What happened in Colorado when they passed a get tough on employers law and the farmers were saying they could not get in their crops? They did a deal with the local minimum security prision, where volunteer prisioners ( who got paid) got the jobs. Hmmmm.

What we need is a criminal investigation to find out why our leader ( and which ones ) decided not to enforce the law. There is a rumor that Bushies re working on a North American Union project - like Europe, but instead with Canada, USA and Mexico, where there would be no borders. Does this explain it?

Posted by: BettyBB at July 13, 2007 2:40 PM

wowwwwwwwwwww build more fences and that would keep them out of the country.......that funny cuz apparent we already have a lot fences but they are still coming in mass.they sure need to work more on that one.

Posted by: sisi at July 19, 2007 12:12 PM

Ok obviously most of you simply see these people in welfare lines and packing your groceries. I live with an illegal. He didnt come here for free anything. He and his younger sister were starving to death. Where a lot of these ppl are from are places infested with poverty crime and disease. Most of them come here for safety, health and yes education. So why do we treat them like they are scum. Meet one talk to one hear thier story yo'd be ashamed for being so hard on them. The reason most of our illegal frineds choose to migrate here illigally is because the gov't makes it nearly impossible for those with low income to arrive here. Live for a day in thier shoes with a starving younger sibling or dying mother and you working in a job that can barely buy clean water for a day. Heartless ppl usually dont get it. You think they just hop on abus and get here? No, they risk thier lives to find a better world for thier families. God forgive you all with clsed-minds.

Posted by: jess at July 23, 2007 9:48 AM

Leave a comment