|
Now that President Bush has put forward his proposal to give legal status to tens of millions of illegal immigrants -- sorry, "undocumented alien workers" -- who have broken America's immigration laws (an amnesty by any other name...), many other large groups of people who have performed "illegal" acts have lobbied Washington to have their crimes officially ignored. Next up on the list of such programs is America's vast numbers of car thieves, and legal status -- don't call it amnesty -- will be granted to them for the exact same reasons.
Of course, this does seem to send a message to people who have never stolen a car before that it's okay to steal cars, but the Administration doesn't seem overly concerned about that. Republican detractors of the "guest car registration" program, outraged on behalf of people who purchased their cars, claim that millions of new cars will be stolen because this bill removes any penalty for car theft. Democrats are against the program because it doesn't go far enough towards giving unregistered vehicle owners full and permanent legal registration for their vehicles. Future decriminalisation bills may include murderers and arsonists, both of whom can also claim to number in the millions and whose "crimes" can be considered important parts of the economy. |
| Virtus January 9, 2004 04:45 PM PST Awesome parallel. This is a really well put example of exactly what is wrong with Bush's immigration policy. | ||
| Richard Laycock January 10, 2004 02:58 PM PST I had my email to whitehouse.gov all ready to go when I heard a replay of GW's speech. I relented. He says he's going to close the borders to smuggler's and terrorists. That's the same thing Reagan said at the last Amnesty. He failed to get it done. I have to say though that GW has done pretty much everything he said he'd do. If it wasn't for Reagan's failure I believe most conservatives would simply believe Bush because of his track record. Most importantly the whole rant about the change of status "rewarding law breakers" by you or anyone else is totally unrealistic. How the heck do you envision the US deporting the 8,000,000 illegals? Do you seriously believe anyone will ever send in troops or the ATF or whomever to roundup millions of men, women and children and ship them out? The idea is absurd. IT AIN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. What Bush is doing is confronting the facts on the ground in the best way he sees possible. I don't like it either but I have to agree it's the best solution that could actually be implemented. Rich. | ||
| JM January 10, 2004 03:08 PM PST >I don't like it either but I have to >agree it's the best solution that >could actually be implemented. As long as the borders get tightened, I agree. If not, then this is just an open invitation to everyone to come on in. I don't much like the idea of giving the ones who've already broken our laws a pass, either. I didn't say they all have to be deported, but there should be some serious penalty for what they've done. And those who refuse to register by whatever time limit is given SHOULD be deported immediately on apprehension. | ||
| Arty P January 10, 2004 03:18 PM PST Hey from one blogforbush to another! - I followed your link from the site. I don't like to criticize Bush but I'm a bit troubled by this one too. Another thing I think is its a bit peculiar the idea that Mexicans are willing to do jobs that Americans arent. Did it ever occur to anyone that Mexicans dont actually WANT to pick fruit all day in the blazing sunshine but that they have to BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL, and cant get a nice office job! If they become legal they will want to work better jobs that Americans want as well and we'll get a whole other 10 million people in who'll have to do the rubbish ones. Also to Rich, no one is suggesting we can deport 10 million any more than anyone is suggesting we can catch every car theif. But the fact that you cant catch them all is not a reason to give up trying to catch (or deport) some of them! Or maybe in 5 years time if Osama is still on the run and the idea that we ever will get him becomes "unrealistic" we should just stop chasing him too? I don't understand how if backward Communist Russia was able to secure all its borders so effectively that our nation, light years ahead in every department is not! | ||
| JM January 10, 2004 03:28 PM PST >If they become legal they will >want to work better jobs that >Americans want as well That's true. That's why they'll only get a three-year work pass, and only for jobs that no American will fill in a certain time frame. Any kids they have while here, however, will be full citizens. That'll be a problem in a couple of decades. >I don't understand how if >backward Communist Russia was >able to secure all its borders so >effectively that our nation, light >years ahead in every department >is not! Well... there were two minor differences. 1. Their borders were designed to keep people IN. 2. They didn't worry about those pesky civil rights. Neither one should ever apply to us. :) | ||
| Kerry Dupont January 10, 2004 10:18 PM PST There are some interesting comments on this over at NRO (www.nationalreview.com) in The Corner, their blog spot. John Derbyshire brings up the point that: In the 1954 Operation Wetback (sorry, that's what it was called), the INS claimed to have sent 1,300,000 illegals back to Mexico using a force of only 700 officers. The figures have been disputed; but as a matter of sheer practicality, I do not believe that deporting eight million illegals with current resources is unthinkable. Whether it is POLITICALLY--which nowadays, of course, largely means "judicially"--possible is, I certainly agree, another matter. Still, conscientious commentators should not entertain false beliefs even about impossibilities, and to the best of my understanding the statement that we simply cannot physically deport eight million illegal aliens is false. But the real scandal here is not that we are failing to deport ALL illegal aliens, even supposing we could, but that we are failing to deport ANY. If you have cast-iron evidence that I am an illegal alien, and you take that evidence to your local immigration enforcement office, they will do nothing. We know this because enterprising citizens have been trying it out and logging their efforts on immigration-restrictionist web sites. If the authorities just did what they could, and deported those illegal aliens who came to their attention, the chilling effect would cause far larger numbers to drift back to their home countries. (Which is part of what happened in 1954.) Yet we do nothing. This is disgraceful. Traffic cops on the expressway don't catch any but a small proportion of speeders, but they catch enough to make the rest of us wary. | ||
| Kerry Dupont January 10, 2004 10:24 PM PST Rich-he says that he's going to close the borders to smugglers and terrorists? Just now we're going to do that? IMHO, the borders should be closed PERIOD until we get the people already here dealt with in one way or another. Should have been since Sept 11. And I live in another "border state" and we've had a lot of problems with this for the terrorist reason, not the illegal immigrant reason. Sorry, Joe, to take up your space, I'll blog about that on my own site! | ||
| JM January 10, 2004 10:34 PM PST The problem with closing the borders altogether is that way -- and I hate to repeat the phrase -- the terrorists win. I see no problem with LEGAL immigration, fingerprinting and photographing even visitors, and other reasonable precautions. But building walls to keep people out will never stop -- every time one terrorist gets lucky, we'll just build 'em higher, and it'll never be enough. No, ending State sponsorship of terrorism was the right way to go. We have to stop ILLEGAL immigration, though, and not by screwing around with semantics. | ||
| Kerry Dupont January 10, 2004 11:02 PM PST JM-I'm not talking about closing the borders forever, I'm talking about until the INS or whatever bureaucratic mess deals with it now, starts going through some paperwork on aliens already here. I'd just like us to get a handle on the people already in the country, then I'm happy to invite more in. I'm really not an isolationist, after all, my grandparents came here from Ireland. | ||
| Kerry Dupont January 10, 2004 11:04 PM PST And I don't think that ending "State sponsorship" was the wrong way to go at all, I just think that it is part of the big picture. | ||
| James October 31, 2005 08:11 AM PST Greate site. Thank you :) | ||
| Leave a Comment: |