Here is a serious article about immigration reform on the other side of the issue, by Victor Davis Hanson in National Review Online. At first, I thought I would write a scathing reply. However, Victor Davis Hanson has some sensible things to say below.

‘It is easy for the Republican candidates to claim they are against amnesty, and, indeed, we all should be, given how the 1986 act only made the problem much worse.’[The Deportation Albatross?, NRO, January 7, 2008 ]

Indeed. However, VDH then asks a reasonable question

“And perhaps we can even come up with a general sense that those who just arrived here a year or two ago, or even three or four years ago, should be sent back home. But what about those who have been here for several years, have been gainfully employed, never been on public assistance and are free of criminal records? What are we to do with these?”

And

“Rounding up several million (8-9 perhaps of the 11-15 here) won’t be easy.”

Actually, you don’t need to. Take away the jobs and public services and they will mostly return home on their home. However, the US removed 1-2 million illegals back in the early 1950s under President Eisenhower. Only 1,075 federal agents were required. That doesn’t make mass deportation the right strategy. But logistics shouldn’t be the issue.

” I can just imagine some 60-year-olds in my home town, still at work in landscaping after 40 years, who have never been arrested, own homes, and haven’t a clue what Oaxaca looks like after 40 years, suddenly put on a bus back there.”

How about giving them Social Security benefits for their 40 years of labor and letting them return to Mexico? My guess is that a great many would regard this as a blessing. Social Security goes a lot further in Oaxaca that in California. Indeed, when I was a kid it was common to hear of Polish steel workers who retired back in Poland with the encouragement of their government (still under communism at the time). It was quite legal and the US SSA sent their checks to Poland.

“It is fine and good to talk of “attrition” by slowly and incrementally rounding up illegal aliens as they come in contact with government agencies and need various licenses, papers, statements, etc., but you are still talking about deporting millions, who are currently working and crime-free, rather promptly.”

Wow. VDH is showing remarkable confidence in the ability of the US government to conscientiously enforce laws that have been ignored for decades. Humor aside, the “attrition” strategy is mainly based on employer sanctions, not people being picked by the government and then deported.

The larger point is that if Amnesty was only meant for illegals who could show that they had lived honestly in the US for decades, it wouldn’t be controversial. The problem is that people like McCain pretend they only support Amnesty for people who have been hear 20 years, and then write legislation giving Amnesty to someone who has been here for 20 minutes

“The odd thing is that should illegal immigration cease at the border, the pool of illegals here, properly screened, would become static, and not be replenished, and, if the past is any guide, within a generation melt into the American pot.”

The problem is that illegals don’t just walk over the border in Arizona. They drive and fly over the border as well. Some use false documents to enter the US via a legal border crossing station. Other enter the US legally and just don’t leave. It is estimated that 40-50% of the illegal population entered the US legally. If the US gives Amnesty to any substantial fraction of the current illegals, the next wave of illegals will enter promptly.

However, even if the US was going to adopt an intense border control (only) strategy, it still would not make sense to “legalize” the illegals already here. First, because it would constitute a massive reward that would only attract more illegals. Second, because legalization would then enable to import tens of millions of family members with comparably serious social problems and of course, make even more use of public services. Ignoring the illegal population and letting fade away over a period of decades would make considerably more sense than giving them legal status.

“So it seems that while “amnesty” is a political death sentence, so is mass deportation-the only element of the immigration debate that would play into the hands of the Democrats who otherwise lose big on the issue.”

This is correct. Even in Ohio only 52% of voters supported mass deportation. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) polling data points in the same direction. There is no national commitment to mass deportation. The polling data shows strong opposition to illegal immigration and a general desire for the illegals to go home, but only moderate support for deportation. This is why most of the key immigration reform groups support “enforcement via attrition”.

The most significant item in this story (below), for us:

“One voter noted that [Ron] Paul was running hard-hitting ads that pledged a crackdown on illegal immigration. He suggested that the campaign promise would entail a beefed up federal bureaucracy and would be inconsistent with Paul’s philosophy of reduced government.

Paul said his plan would not mean more federal employees, but rather would bring home border guards now serving in Iraq.”[Snubbed by Fox, Paul holds own N.H. forum, By BENNETT ROTH, Houston Chronicle, Jan. 7, 2008 ]

This is a joke, based on the Teddy Bear Intifada:

Offended Muslim Syndrome & Self-Help Support Groups
“I have always been offended by rubber ducks,” says Mahmud Said of Portland, Oregon. “For a long time I felt stigmatized and inadequate, until one day I decided to write about it on an Internet forum. I received hundreds of heart-felt emails - from Morocco to Indonesia. It turns out that thousands of Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 35 have had traumatic experiences with rubber ducks.

“We started a support group that has grown to 10,000 members. Not only do we share horrifying rubber duck stories, we also try to increase public awareness by sabotaging the world supply of rubber ducks, setting fire to factories, abducting rubber duck distributors, and intimidating retailers. These are building blocks for our healthy future. With Allah as my witness, our public awareness campaign will soon result in a completely rubber-duck-free world.”

This is not a joke: “The Sarcastic Lost Dog Flier of Hate”

A poster was put up near a Somali-owned store in Lewiston, Maine. It says a dog named Mohammed has been lost, and that the dog is not good with children and cannot be trusted. The Somali community in Lewiston is upset …and now the rest of the community is swinging into action too, against this possible hate crime.

A mildly obnoxious teasing poster is a possible hate crime? Well, remember that Lewiston, Maine is the home of the notorious Ham Steak of Hate: the placement of a bag containing a ham steak on a table in a middle school where a group of Muslim students was sitting was investigated as a hate crime. So if there is any place in the United States where a poster of a dog can get traction as a hate crime, it’s Lewiston.

Fun fact about Lewiston, Maine: as of 2003, at 3 percent of Lewiston’s population, Somalians received 46 percent of its welfare payments. The above is a true story, backed by angry sputterings from Lewiston clergy, including a priest, a rabbi, and a nun. [City leaders decry slander By Bonnie Washuk , Lewiston Sun-Journal January 5, 2008] I repeat, it’s not a joke.If it wre a priest, a rabbi, a nun, and a rubber duck, that would be a joke.

Anyhow, more on offended Muslim syndrome:

Symptoms of Offended Muslim Syndrome (OMS)

• Irritability, agitation, anxiety at the sight of women who are not fully covered
• Prolonged rage or unexplained killing sprees
• Significant changes in immigration patterns
• Brooding about the past glory of the Caliphate
• Decreased effectiveness and minimal work productivity
• Difficulty in understanding new information without a trial lawyer
• Feelings of despair or hopelessness about the existence of Israel
• Recurring thoughts of death to the infidels

OK, joke or reality? Quick, now! The answer is both–but it’s from the joke site. You won’t be seeing it in the New York Times anytime soon.

Joe Klein wrote below that “Hillary Clinton had an extensive answer on the number of buses and law enforcement officials–tens of thousands–who would be needed to get the job done at one of her rallies today.” I couldn’t find that specific rally quote, but I found an example of Hillary saying the same thing a couple of weeks ago.

Here’s Hillary talking about the impossibility of deporting illegals:

On the volatile issue of immigration, Clinton called for secure borders but steered clear of the moral debate over deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants by simply calling it impractical. “It would take at least $2 billion dollars over five years, it would take tens of thousands of new federal law enforcement officials, it would take a convoy of 200,000 buses 17 miles long to actually deport them,” she said.[Hillary Clinton on image-softening tour BY LETTA TAYLER , Newsday.com, December 20, 2007]

For about the nineteenth time, this is nonsense. It didn’t take a convoy that size to get them into the US in the first place, did it? That’s because they didn’t all come on the same day.

One and a half million teenagers manage to travel every March for Spring Break, with the no more encouragement than two-for-one drinks, sunshine, and a number of movies featuring girls in bikinis. If they can do that, and they frequently make it to Cancun, then why can’t these hardworking illegals manage it with a little encouragement?

Romney may not be ideal on immigration, but he was better than McCain or Giuliani in the New Hampshire debate–Joe Klein writes in Time Magazine’s “Swampland” blog:

And then, in the emotional heart of the debate–the illegal immigration section–Mitt Romney, loathsome as always on this issue, had both McCain and Giuliani totally on the defensive about the definition of amnesty. Romney’s argument that a $500 fine wasn’t amnesty is ridiculous. What sort of hoops does he want the illegals to jump? Does he want all 12 million in prison? Does he want to deport them–and, if so, how? (Hillary Clinton had an extensive answer on the number of buses and law enforcement officials–tens of thousands–who would be needed to get the job done at one of her rallies today.)McCain’s Lost Weekend - Swampland - TIME

Klein has it backwards–Romney’s argument was that McCains’s plan to let illegals pay $5,000 (not $500) was equivalent to amnesty.

MR. ROMNEY: No, no, no, no. I get a chance to respond to this. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don’t call it amnesty. What I say is — and you just described what most people would say is a form of amnesty. Yeah, they pay $5,000, their background is checked, they have to learn English. But your view is everybody who’s come here illegally, today, other than criminals, would be allowed when they speak English and get $5,000 payment and they get a background check, they’re allowed to stay forever.

SEN. MCCAIN: Look –

MR. ROMNEY: That’s your plan, and that plan, in my view, is not appropriate. Those people should be invited to get in line outside the country with everybody else who wants to come here. But they should not be given a special right to stay here[Debate Transcript]

Furthermore, Joe Klein doesn’t seem to be happy with the Republican at a focus group he attended:

I”m not sure this was a representative group of Republicans. They seemed pretty conservative. And they…Just. Loved. Romney. Most of those who came in undecided had switched to Mitt by the end of the show. They just adored his position on illegal immigration (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be “humane.”)

Let me explain what “humane” means in liberal-speak–it means letting people get away with murder. McCain really doesn’t care about the victims of illegal immigration, any more than the ACLU cares about the victims of crime. He wants to be humane to the illegals. That’s why the dials plummeted, not because Republicans are inhumane, but because they don’t like betrayal, and that’s what they can expect from Humane McCain.