Time Magazine's Article on Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

Time magazine's article, "Immigration: Why Amnesty Makes Sense" makes the argument that legalizing illegals makes sense for Beardstown (Illinois)--and for America. Step by step we'll look at the author's (Nathan Thornburgh) arguments and "facts".

"the estimated 12 million illegals are by their numbers undeportable". Thornburgh, like all propagandists, assumes only limited recourse to problems--deportation is not the only solution, there is a better way--employer enforcement. Also, it is not impossible to round up large numbers of aliens; not all of them would have to be rounded up. If the cozy climate that we have now allowing illegal aliens to work and move about freely was changed to an unfriendly one many illegal aliens would return to their countries on their own.

"They are too enmeshed in a healthy U.S. economy to be extracted" Again, by enforcing the immigration laws regarding illegal employers there would be little necessity to arrest and deport large numbers of illegal aliens.

Time spelled out the argument going around by amnesty proponents--that amnesty is not amnesty because of fines and the length of time that it would take to become citizens, etc.--and disagreed with the proponents; that in fact amnesty was in fact amnesty. Time it seems is all for amnesty.

"Real wages have been stagnant for nearly three decades". "The wages went from $11 to $7.50 an hour due to the meat packing plant's changing hands (from Oscar Meyer to Carghill). The town of Beardstown is pitching the fact that they have a large Hispanic population in order to attract more businesses to settle in the community." Well, there is the problem right there--communities colluding with big business--greed in action.

"Amnesty wont undermine the rule of law." Time contends that the immigration law should be changed making it a misdemeanor instead of a felony--their premise being that everyone is breaking the law; large numbers of employers and many illegal employees, which the numbers lessens the seriousness of the illegal acts. The "bandwagon" fallacy.

"If they (illegal aliens) were legalized--we could concentrate on serious criminals and terrorists crossing the border". Without enforcement of all the laws how can you tell the difference? The criminal and terrorist aren't going to file citizenship papers or let anyone know where they work or live. Another non sequitur argument. Without enforcement of the border you can;t know who is coming and going and without some "teeth" to the laws you have anarchy--like we have now. Regarding ID theft; Time states, "forgiving a crime may be the best way to establish law and order".

Besides the wrong definition of the word "amnesty" (amnesty comes from the root word amnesia, to forget) no other possibility for a solution for ID theft is given, such as social security law enforcement, cross referencing individuals to addresses, verifying documents, and enforcing existing immigration laws; just to name a few.

Time states: "Amnesty wont necessarily add to the Social Service burden". That the illegal aliens use the system now is our fault, because of our laws the illegals use emergency services to avoid being traced and that their illegal state, and low wages, preclude their having medical insurance. Time goes on further; "We infintilize undocumented workers by relegating them to second class status, and then chastise them for being dependent on the nanny state". This statement is a blatant trivialization of a serious problem of illegal aliens abusing an important and necessary service in our communities. What Time left out of the article is the fact that many medical facilities have been closed down due to having to treat large numbers of non-payers--many of these being illegal aliens. Amnesty, might in fact, add to this problem for the former illegals would be free to move about freely. Amnesty too may encourage more illegal aliens to enter the U.S., like the amnesty of 1986 did. No one has been able to refute the "slippery slope" of the 1986 precedent to my knowledge.

The personal story of Fernanda tries to elicit empathy but in my opinion only points out the selfishness of those who are here illegally--five years of free schooling at someone else's expense, the promise of a continued illegal presence in this country, using up resources many of us have fought and paid for.

"Amnesty doesn't have to spawn even more illegal immigration". Thornburgh would like you to believe economic factors alone are the only reason that illegals are forced to come here and not lax immigration laws--Time's argument seems to be that better tools for enforcement will guarantee that amnesties in the future will not be as large as this one; i.e. a national ID, real employer verification, high tech border controls will work to do that.

In summary, the Time article by Nathan Thornburgh (June 18, 2007) does not hide the fact that they are in favor of amnesty--in fact they call the legislation amnesty--however the article is nothing more than bad propaganda--full of non sequiturs, generalizations, emotional appeals, and weak facts. No one has good numbers; the only real numbers are the arrests at the borders. The changing face of America is obvious, hispanic neighborhoods sprouting up everywhere, Spanish speaking news tations, and more and more employers offering lower and lower wages. Sometimes you don't need numbers.

Is It Amnesty?

George Bush and others have said the proposed immigration is not amnesty because it requires a fine being paid and a long wait before they will be considered for citizenship. However, after legalization, which comes almost immediately, the fine and wait will soon be considered a hardship and a small fine, if any, will be imposed instead, and the time will be shortened considerably. Besides the fine and time issue the mere act of legalizing illegal aliens is in effect amnesty for the definition does not stipulate requirements; only that crimes be forgotten. A legal term, not a moral, or ethical one.
Why do I think that the fine and time will be ignored? Because that has been the pattern that has existed since 1986--requirements and legislation enforcing the 1986 law was ignored, circumvented, and every other dodge known to man employed to allow more cheap labor to work and stay in this country. Actions speak louder than words and our governments actions speak out loudly that their are forces at work undermining the working middle class of the U.S.
The main goals of this administration regarding immigration legislation is to legalize illegal aliens residing, and those who will come later, in this country; the legalization of these illegal aliens will in turn "legalize" thousands of employers; letting them off the hook from persecution--all the while providing them with cheap labor legally. This dodge is not being pointed out as of yet--legalizing illegal employers; meat packers, farming, fast food outlets, department stores, gas stations, manufacturers of all kinds, and the list goes on.
After the main goal is achieved, legalizing illegal aliens, the fence, border guards, employer enforcement, fines, background checks, and non-forge able IDs will be unenforced, and like the 1986 bill, will be forgotten--until, in the near future, we have some 30 million illegal aliens in this country. By then it will be too late to enforce anything because our heritage will have been ground under foot by aliens who have little interest in U.S. history.
This administration has a track record of not following through with promises made--look at New Orleans--George Bush made emotional speeches promising a quick response to help rebuild. That didn't happen, just like the many other promises he has made.
Our government can't be trusted. That is a fact and no one we vote for seems to get the message--we the people are the ones to be represented--not moneyed special interests.

Immigration Fines--More Slight of Hand?

George Bush just made a statement about moving the Immigration legislation ahead by implementing $5000 in fines, which would "pay" for a fence and employer enforcement etc. What would really happen is that the government would go ahead and legalize the millions of illegal residents, and that would let illegal employers off the hook. What with allowing more guest workers in, the result would be no enforcement would take place at all. The fence would take time to build, and that would allow time to not build it; and after amnesty takes place immigration would be ignored for ten years or more--long after Kennedy retires. To get around the $5000 fine the illegal aliens would be able to put down a small payment and maybe pay the rest over a long period of time, if at all. It is all a scam, again, on the American taxpayer. Another dodge to break the back of American labor in this country.
Amnesty advocates real goal is to legalize illegal aliens by hook and crook, using any dodge at their disposal and their real intention is obvious--no enforcement, no fence. Otherwise the existing laws would be being enforced to their limits. Amnesty would lead to future anarchy and a destruction of our sovereignty--something we are trying to protect overseas but not at home. Something we have been willing to spend trillions of dollars to protect overseas but not at home.
Talk about schizophrenia!

Failed Immigration Legislation

Some blame the Right Wing for scuttling Immigration Legislation but in truth the effort was just another scam on the American people perpetrated by dishonest and greedy legislators and their backers. I'm about as middle of the road as you can get and I am dead against Amnesty or anything that is near it.

The dishonest arguments are: you can't round up 12 million aliens and ship them home; and to do so would cost billions of dollars, and forcing people back over the borders would split families up and would be inhumane, you can't enforce ID programs now without biometric IDs, it isn't the job of employers to enforce verification of their employees. All of these are bogus arguments. Most aliens would return on their own if and when employers would be required to follow the existing laws about hiring employees. If an employee is born other than in the U.S., speaks very little English, doesn't have a valid work history, doesn't know U.S. history I would think an employer would question the validity of green cards and social security numbers. I don't see how families could be split up if they were returned to their own countries or they decided to go back because of lack of employment. And IDs are easy to check. A phone call to social security is all that is necessary--simple questions of birth date, place of birth, the year the card was given out, how many persons are using the card etc. would soon find a person out. All that info is readily available and the social security administration should be checking for fraud, which should be taking care of the problem of aliens and others from using bogus social security numbers and IDs.
It is obvious that the legislators trying to perpetrate this scam on the American people have been doing so unethically--by trying to legislate without conferences, in such a short time so as to avoid debate, is grounds for being voted out next time around--or by recall much sooner.
Our government is broke and that means that if any sort of crisis happens we are ripe for revolution or worse, fascism. We are already suffering from radical conservatism, controlled by corporations and big time religion. It is not the first time corporations and religion had such power over politics. It is never a pretty picture. Fortunately most of the time the pendulum swings back, but with difficulty.

Republican Debate June 2007

God, Flag, and Country! A real patriotic orgy. Typical of the Republican mindset. Most of the ten were groveling before God to impress everyone of their devotion to spiritualism. Illegal immigration was much better debated than what the Democrats did. Tancredo is the only one who really understands the social implications of both illegal and legal immigration. I don't understand the need for Americans to open up our country to millions of people based on the myth that this country is a Nation of immigrants. Not entirely, the Indians haven't gone away--yet; though immigration equals each year the population of Indians in this country, which numbers about 2 million. Yes the majority of Americans are descendants of immigrants but unless you ignore Indians you can't say that the country is entirely descended from immigrants.
Was I impressed by any one of them, that one of them is Presidential? Not really. I see a lot of eager Presidential want to be's, pandering to their base, with pseudo solutions to all our problems.

The June 2007Democrat Debate

Ho hum. Nothing new. The Iraq war took up much of the discussion, followed by health care and taxes on the "rich". The one tie-breaking issue, illegal immigration and amnesty, got very little discussion and their response was disappointing--their logic was non-existent; such as, "you can't put 12 million on buses at the point of a gun". As if that were the only way to solve the problem. Take away their jobs and they would move back on their own--maybe at their own expense. Jobs, for the most of them, are what keeps them here so that would seem the logical means of getting rid of them. They don't belong here, they have no legal right to be here.
What is not being mentioned about amnesty is that you have to multiply the numbers by at least three; to cover family members. That means at 12 million you are talking about 36 million immigrants by the time the dust settles.
The solutions, as given by the candidates, were merely "solve the problems by solving the problems, with the means drawn out of the ether. The answers were more or less "safe". I doubt if I vote Democratic this go around; unless the Republicans have a worse showing than the Democrats, which is a possibility--like Guilani talking about "assault pistols.

Separation of Church and State Controversy

Nothing I can say will persuade those who have already have made up their minds but maybe there are a few sitting astride a fence who might find an opinion useful.
Wikipedia has a good article on the subject with some sources which I found useful. Notably our founding father's views on the subject tend to support the view that the First Amendment does hold that there is a Separation of Church and State. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote letters stating that such was the case. The Supreme Court upheld that view both in 1878 and 1947.
Aside from the legalities; common sense, logic, and history would cry out for Separation even if there were no First Amendment implicitly stating such. Throughout American history, up until recently, Churches supported such a Separation; it prevented religious views contrary to their own from being "enforced" through the State's powers. Wikipedia pointed out that the Catholic Church states in their Syllabus of Errors, number 55, that there should be a separation of the State from the Church. What goes one way logically should go the other--meaning that Religion should not interfere with the State and its operation. The church's purview is with morals and ethics. Nothing about the illegal alien issue really cries out for redress by the church. Any issues of maltreatment lies with illegal aliens putting themselves in a situation that places them in lawful and societal jeopardy. They are responsible for their own actions, like everyone else. Mexican, and other's, problems are those State's to solve and should not fall on the U.S. to solve.
I doubt if Mexico would put up with thousands of U.S. citizens ignoring their borders and sovereignty. That they expect the U.S. to ignore sovereignty while they jealously guard their own is the height of hypocrisy.