Illegal Immigration Redux

Now that the Dems are reclaiming control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, count on them to move hard on perpetuating the immigration scam first set in motion by the Clintonistas over a decade ago. Its primary purpose is to assure the spread of guaranteed Democrat-for-life Congressional districts to as many counties and as many states as is possible. But its pernicious effects—drug dealing, crime, gangsterism, poverty, and the refusal by increasingly large immigrant groups to accept American culture and laws—are entirely ignored by the party that is most famous for feeling entitled to do what's necessary to assure its continued power in the decades ahead.

We repeat our position here: we have zero problem with immigration, just as long as it is legal and as long as our country's immigration laws are observed by the immigrants themselves as well as by prospective employers—the latter of whom have surreptitiously encouraged continuing illegal immigration as a means toward paying sub-scale wages. (Which leads to our continuing puzzlement as to why the unions support this, as it serves to depress the wages of its own members.)

Problem is, the Dems will want to let in another huge wave of illegals while providing amnesty—yet again—for the roughly 12 million who are already here. Such continuing cave-ins, where the "solution" is amnesty as well as passing the buck, have led to a complete disregard of our immigration laws. Which in turn, will inevitably lead people to conclude that other laws can be selectively flouted with impunity.

Whilst trying to catch up on our reading on this topic, we ran across an excellent piece by Steven Malanga in the Summer 2006 edition of the always-excellent City Journal. Malanga does a good wrap on this issue here, presenting real alternatives to the Democrats' reflexive acceptance of the illegals:

If we do not legalize them, what can we do with 11 million illegals? Ship them back home? Their presence here is a fait accompli, the argument goes, and only legalization can bring them above ground, where they can assimilate. But that argument assumes that we have only two choices: to decriminalize or deport. But what happened after the first great migration suggests a third way: to end the economic incentives that keep them here. We could prompt a great remigration home if, first off, state and local governments in jurisdictions like New York and California would stop using their vast resources to aid illegal immigrants. Second, the federal government can take the tougher approach that it failed to take after the 1986 act. It can require employers to verify Social Security numbers and immigration status before hiring, so that we bar illegals from many jobs. It can deport those caught here. And it can refuse to give those who remain the same benefits as U.S. citizens. Such tough measures do work: as a recent Center for Immigration Studies report points out, when the federal government began deporting illegal Muslims after 9/11, many more illegals who knew they were likely to face more scrutiny voluntarily returned home.

Malanga nails it on the head. (Be sure to read the rest of his article via our link.) We have been falsely (and cleverly) presented with only two choices: decriminalize or deport. But Malanga correctly hones in on the real answer, which is eliminating economic incentives prompting a continuation of illegal immigration.

It will be interesting to see how this issue develops in the next Congress. The current House's tough measures in this regard were not only reviled by the Democrats. They were not supported by the Bush Administration either, which tried to play dodge-ball with the issue. So only the border fence was implemented. (And even that will be under active attack from the Dems when the next Congress convenes in 2007.)

If patriotic and open-minded American citizens, nearly all of whom are descended from immigrants themselves, no longer have control of their own towns, cities, states, and borders, not to mention their laws and traditions, who does? It's a question that needs to be answered forcefully and soon.