On Illegal Immigration

It's just a topical cornucopia today.

So, also big on the national stage at the moment is "Immigration Reform" which we all know is code for "amnesty."  Apparently, some Republicans (including Marco Rubio.  Awesome), think that catering to Democrats on this issue will somehow win them votes with Hispanic voters.  I'm not exactly sure how that's supposed to work.

First off, there's the fact that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  They're not quite to the Black Community numbers, but a vast majority.  Indeed, it is considered "impressive" that Rick Perry pulls nearly 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  Think about that for a minute.

Secondly, the only people who benefit from amnesty (I don't care what they call it, that's what it is- own it Republicans) are Democrats (who get more voters on a better than 7 : 3 basis) and illegal immigrants.  These immigrants are often poor, usually on multiple forms of Government (that is: tax-payer provided) assistance, and generally not the kind of crowd that is normally going to vote Republican (that is: to have their "free" stuff taken away).

Third, it royally screws over legal immigrants.  For those who have already completed the process, it makes a mockery of the trouble they went through to follow our laws.  For those completing the process now, it says "hey, why bother?  We don't care about our laws, why should you?"  Even those who decide to stick it out are going to be negatively affected as ICE is overwhelmed with paperwork related to enforcing whatever new amnesty is passed.

And what will Republicans get?  Nothing.  Zip.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  Enforcement?  If you're granting Amnesty, what is there to enforce?  Oh, you want me to believe we'll suddenly start enforcing it for any "new" illegal aliens?  You'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.

Now, one of the rhetorical devices Liberals will use to defend amnesty is this line: "What do you want?  We can't deport them all!"

This line gets used so often that it needs to be carefully reviewed.  There are three ways that illegal aliens could be deported.  The method preferred by the enforcement crowd is self deportation.  We believe that if we enforce the laws (more on that in a minute), and stop claiming they should be eligible for tax-payer funded benefits like Social Security, Medicaid, and TANF, that most of them would leave on their own.  They might go home; they might go somewhere else.  Either way they would no longer be here as a drain on our social services.

The second method, and the one Liberals accuse us of supporting is "mass deportations."  Now, this tricky because it could mean one of two things.  What they mean when they say it, though they may not be willing to admit it, is the idea of mass mobilization of LEO in a systematic manner, kicking down doors, throwing smoke grenades, and generally terrorizing the "poor" illegals.  Then anyone who could not prove their citizenship or legal status would be deported.

This is important, because no one is actually advocating that.  It's not on the table.  It's a particularly weak straw-man.

The third method, (and liberals will try to claim that this is "mass deportation" as well- thus trying to confuse the matter) is deportation of illegals as they are identified through other means.  If one is caught driving without a license, or through some other contact with law enforcement, deport them.  The reason Liberals claim this is "the same" as mass deportation is that "it would be deportation on a massive scale."  See?  "Massive scale" = "mass deportation."  QED.

Or not.  To say that it would be "the same" as the more generally accepted definition of "mass deportations" is the same as saying that we have "mass drunk driving enforcement" because there are a lot of drunk driving cases.  Absolutely not.  With the exception of "Driver Checkpoints" (which I believe are unconstitutional), cops are not specifically seeking out drunk drivers, but when they find them they don't hesitate to fine or jail them.  And we don't hesitate, if they plead not-guilty, to try them in a court of law.  The same would be true of immigration.  No one, except possibly ICE agents (whose job it is anyway) would be looking specifically for illegal aliens.  When they are found, however, we should not hesitate to start deportation proceedings.

Which brings us back to the "enforce the law" point.  Yes, we understand that enforcing the law will necessarily result in deportation on a massive scale- either through self deportations or through deportation proceedings or (more likely) some combination of both.  I won't say that it is "the point," but it's definitely a side benefit.  These people are here illegally.  I'm supposed to care if they experience some inconvenience when we enforce the law?  Why?

So let's start with that, first, huh?  Take any form of amnesty off the table.  In fact, take any legislation off the table.  The laws are already written.  We don't need more.  We simply need to enforce the laws that exist.  There's no need for "Immigration Reform."  What is needed is "Customs and Border Enforcement Reform."