Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Nasty note to WSJ on immigration

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:38:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com> Subject: Illegal immigration To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, Chicago Tuesday, July 11, 2006 Editors The Wall Street Journal Your Monday, July 10, 2006, editorial says "...immigration .... the subject on which we get the most critical mail by far, no doubt reflecting this split on the right." There's plenty of doubt about this reflection - more likely a reaction to the pathetic arguments supporting illegal immigration coming from the nation's otherwise top newspaper. Your immediate support for this position is referring to similar positions of "... 33 prominent conservatives...." One of the only two you name is GOP Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp. We sure know what a prominent Conservative Jack Kemp is - Al Gore told us so in the first 1996 Vice Presidential debate (and Jack lapped it up like the wishy-washy conservative that he is.) And of course, you can't claim conservative without mentioning St. Conservative himself, the poor Gipper, hardly cold in the grave. President Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, giving amnesty (without quotes!) to three million illegal immigrants, but tying it to recognition of the top reason for illegal immigration: ready hiring of illegal immigrants by American business, smallest to the largest. This recognition included a hefty $10,000 fine for the hire of each such illegal innigrant.
This penalty has been carried out so little that the total fines collected last year would barely buy a single house in even the most run down American housing market. You can quote books of Reagan speeches, but I don't think you'll convince anyone that President Reagan had the slightest premenition that the major American newspaper would propose, 20 years later, what you are proposing now.
Your most egregious argument is equating an artificially created "free market in human beings", with the obviously real free market in goods and services. This position would make the original temple money-changers cringe.
Then you admit to "... problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert..." but blythly blame these 'problems(!)' on "... too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas" and then say the solution is "...more legal ways to enter the country."
In a June 19, 2006 National Review article, Mark Steyn (keep an eye on this guy - from the quantity of high quality material he writes, he's fast becoming a one man WSJ) writes: "...there are already 79 different visas offered by U.S. immigration, including 20 guest worker programs" adding "...take the president and the Senate at their word on the overwhelming need for a 21st program." Mark can add the WSJ to that list.
And of course, you want a "...multiyear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here- -provided that they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English and paying taxes.
"Living crime free" sounds like the old "every dog gets his first bite free" - we'll forget that first little no-no about breaking federal immigration laws, but that's it! Be nice! And learn English? What happens to them if they don't learn English? Will they be deported?
As wage-earners, they have no obligation to 'pay taxes.' Every penny of any taxes they owe must come from their employer's bank account. If that money doesn't show up in the US treasury, the employer goes to jail, never the employee.
But what's this? A WSJ editorial on immigration, and no plaintive cry of "We can't deport 12 million people." I suppose you've already read Mark Krikorian's article, also refered to in the National Review, pointing out that 400,000 illegals are being legitimized every year on their own (deporting themselves, being deported, being legalized, and dying.) But of course they get lost in those three million coming in illeglly every year. Seal that border, and start enforcing those Simpson-Mazolli illegal employer fines, and this problem will solve itself.
It's bad enough that an organization with your much deserved reputation for clear thinking would take the illegal immigration position you do, but the flimsyness of your arguments supporting that position is depressing. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com

No comments: