Opinion
Ebin immigration stance unrealistic
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
American voters have never voted in favor of a policy permitting illegal immigrant to stay in this country. Up until the House vote in November 2005 the majorities in both houses of Congress and the last two presidents have neglected their duty to adequately enforce immigration laws — including fines against employers of illegal aliens. The reasons for this are overwhelmingly not idealistic. A lot of businesses want cheap labor (as Jason Ebin ("Sensenbrenner wrong on immigration" 3/27/06) alludes to with the words "cost-effective"), unions see an opportunity to organize members, politicians see campaign contributions from both sources — and potential votes in the future if an amnesty is, again, granted. The result is an illegal immigrant population estimated at no less than 11,000,000 people.
These businesses did not scour the country looking for Americans to do the work. They certainly didn't think to raise wages or improve working conditions. Why bother? Even if Americans would not do the work: 1) how essential is the work? 2) if it is essential, why not institute a draft rather than building our false prosperity on the backs of cheap labor?
Taken to its logical conclusion, Mr. Ebin thinks that the answer to most of the world's problems would be to let many millions if not billions of people immigrate to the U.S. All they need to do qualify is be "born into a country with few opportunities and limited freedoms." Overpopulation in relation to finite resources is one the reasons people need to move. Not only do birth rates not need to go down in those countries, but I'm sure that Mr. Ebin can explain to us why our resources are infinite here and we can absorb all these people.
Border control is implied in the definition of the word "nation." No other "advanced" nation in the world permits massive illegal immigration. In 1993, George Kennan wrote: "The problem of employment at the lower more physical level of the economic process is a serious weakness and possibly a fatal one in any national society … The acceptance of this sort of dependence on labor imported from outside is … evidence of a lack of will, in a sense, a lack of confidence in itself."
Chuck Litweiler
Madison
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Very well put Chuck. I was wondering if anyone else understood that we have immigration laws so that they can be enforced.
Debate is heating up about this issue at
http://badgersays.blogspot.com/
alright, let's just deport all the immigrants... that means hispanics, Asians, whites, Africans, you all gotta go. At least finally Native Americans will get their land back.
"alright, let's just deport all the immigrants"
Just the ones that broke the law. Just the ones that have illegally entered the USA since the last amnesty in 1986.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 offered amnesty and legal status to illegal immigrants already in the United States, or most of them. Having cleared the decks with this provision, the law sought to discourage future illegal entry by imposing penalties on employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
But foreigners saw in the 1986 act an invitation, not a deterrent.
***
Anti-immigrant: Even smart journalists fall for this phrase when describing those who want to end illegal immigration. Of course, the US is a nation of immigrants, and needs a steady flow. But a nation without borders is not a nation, and its immigration quotas are meaningless. An anti-illegal-immigrant stance is not an anti-immigrant one.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0329/p08s02-comv.html?s=itm
The comment to deport all immigrants has no relevance and is just a comment put into the heads of liberals by the media. Your arugments could be taken more seriously if you actually thought about what you were saying instead of just repeating it.
No one is making an argument that all immigration is illegal they are saying that we should enforce laws against ILLEGAL immigration. When people came over from the European countries they were doing it legally, many Mexicans coming into the U.S. are doing it ILLEGALLY and that is why there is a problem.
http://badgersays.blogspot.com/
ILLEGAL immigrants are criminals by definition. You break the law, you should be punished. End of story.