The Guard are entirely unneeded.
All America has to do is round up illegal employers. Simple. Fine them, jail them, make EMPLOYERS obey present US law, and the illegal invasion will dry up *and* reverse itself. The real problem is not the worker, but the jack-ass employer.
Putting the Guard on the border is stupid until we've done the basics. It requires no new US law.
So, Ran, your proposal is to turn employers into immigration police upon pain of imprisonment because government is incapable of policing the nation's borders?
Posted at 2006-05-15 06:43:18 [PermaLink]Ran Hay: David Frum has a view with similarities to yours, plus a huge helping of cynicism:
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
"Mexican President Vicente Fox called to express concern over the prospect of militarization of the border, and Bush reassured him that it would be only a temporary measure to bolster overwhelmed Border Patrol agents, the White House said."
Interestingly, Bush has yet to complain to Fox about his militarization of the southern border. Mexican military personnel have crossed the border to shoot at guards trying to stop persons from entering the country illegally. And he has yet to address that the Mexican government acts to train people in crossing the border as well as assists them once they're here. My fear is that, as you said, this is only about the mid-term elections and not truly about addressing the issue.
Ran Hay makes a good point about illegals and those who employ them.
Blaming gov't for an inability to patrol the Mexican border ( 1,500 miles?) when the U.S. consacrates barely 200 troops to do the job misses the point.
Charging employers for KNOWINGLY breaking the law in no way amounts to thrusting them into the role of policeman.
They have a duty and a responsability to respect the labour rules and to reject the hiring of illegals.
The gov't has the role of patrolling the borders so as to ensure that the flow of migrants is stemmed.
And Mexico is hardly in a position to scream about racism or the militarisation of the border; they're a country composed of a small wealthy European elite that shovels its mestizo demographic probleme into America's backyard.
The ultimate solution is for Mexico to develope its economy so that the attraction of "El Norte" is diminished.
"The ultimate solution is for Mexico to develope its economy"
Good luck.
"Which begs the question as to why Bush is only getting around to it now, halfway through his second term in office."
With all fairness, Damian, it's not like he hasn't had other more pressing issues on his plate. And the low approval ratings are at least in part due to current poor handling of the issue, not to previous non-handling of it -- the polls are a symptom, not a cause.
Personally (and I'm a Canadian so "You know nothing about it" is a fair criticism), I think both measures are necessary. Crack down on the employers facilitating the lawbreaking, and beef up the security measures needed to prevent it.
But the idea of explaining a complex, multitask initiative goes over poorly to a media and a public conditioned to digest data in sound bites.
Preview of Monday night speech? El Presidente's oration in "Our First Mexican President." Illustrated. gringoman.com
Posted at 2006-05-15 12:04:10 [PermaLink]Forgetting Mexico for the moment, isn't calling out the National Guard for something like this a huge intrusion into the careers of the thousands of National Guardsmen and women? Isn't the purpose of the Guard, disasters and immediate threats? Assuming that their actual civie jobs aren't at risk (this doesn't sound like a weekend exercise) why would the Federal Gov't impose this kind of financial burden on the members? Surely the members would join the Regular Forces if they wanted to do this for a living...
Posted at 2006-05-15 13:19:47 [PermaLink]Getting tough on employers is probably a good idea, but it's likely the illegals that aren't employed that are the bigger problem.
Posted at 2006-05-15 13:49:08 [PermaLink]I find it interesting (and hypocritical) that Mexico is protesting this action. Isn’t Mexico doing the same thing along their border with Guatemala – and with much less restraint?
As Bruce said – good luck in developing their economy. I won’t be holding my breath waiting.
Bruce, yes. Exactly.
I came here legally. My employer dutifully checked my INS status and visa. I played by the rules and earned my citizenship honestly and honorably. My employer, a small NYC architectural firm, also followed the book.
Employers do have a duty to perform the law in this area. It is only right, and it is only fair to those of us who play by the rules.
Further, there would be little need for heavy and expensive border patrols IF the market for illegal jobs dried up. By your argument, the Gov't is to blame for dope addicts because the DEA hasn't sealed the border. It's an inappropriate, a posteriori argument at best.
Look, illegals are, the vast majority, people I WANT HERE, LEGALLY, because they want to work hard and achieve something. Employers are also breaking the law, Bruce, and for them I have little sympathy.
"But the idea of explaining a complex, multitask initiative goes over poorly to a media and a public conditioned to digest data in sound bites."
So, the answer is to do something half-assed that won't accomplish the goal because people can't handle complex answers to complex problems? That kind of poll-driven, public opinion thinking is exactly what got us into the quagmire of Iraq.
"That kind of poll-driven, public opinion thinking is exactly what got us into the quagmire of Iraq."
Well, almost. The quagmires weren't rebuilt until the US Army Corps of Engineers did the ground work with the hydraulics and dams, and yes, they had to sink a lot of poles to restore some. Today the Shi'a have their marshes restored in many areas: Areas that had been drained and denuded by Saddam in a viscious attempt at anti-Shi'a cultural genocide. Amazing, really, we gave them a swamp and they *thanked* us for it. Boggles the mind.
Odd, just today, that the Iraqis have charged the bastard with specific murders of hundreds of those Shi'a... Men, women, children. Yeah, the court case rolls on. Such a quagmire.
Ran, you and I have very different ideas about the role of an employer. To me, an employer is someone who hires me to do a job. It is not a Lord - Vassal arrangement and he is not responsible for what I do when I am not on the job or how I came to be in this country.
If the government is concerned about those matters then the government can use appropriate law enforcement mechanisms to enforce the law. I have no desire to see private employers forced into a role properly relegated to the constabulary.
During GWB's presidency an annual average of 850,000 Mexicans and others have entered the country illegally. Set that number against his rhetoric tonight.
Posted at 2006-05-15 19:43:38 [PermaLink]Bruce, I respectfully disagree.
In that case, checking the identity and insurance of the guy who hit your car is a police matter. Defending your daughter or wife when some thug breaks into her room or car, likewise. ID'ing the slob who shows up at the polls claiming to be your neighbor.
It's not a Lord-Vassal thing at all. To the contrary, an awful lot of illegals are indeed "owned" by unscrupulous employers who hire and then threaten to turn them over. Enforcing the rules protects both parties.
Why should the enforcement mechanisms be used only against illegal aliens, and not the illegal employer?
Eternal vigilance (and action) is the price we pay for NOT having a police state. If that puts employers on the spot for hiring illegal aliens, tough bananas. Better the employer filter for long-term stability in advance than to have the cops show up and yank key staff members.
Anyway, it's great to disagree with you, finally!
Ran and Bruce; Can. Rev. tried to do basically what you guys are disagreeing about. It addressed their concerns about our 'underground economy'. They tried to (are trying to) force contractors to identify EVERY sub trade dealt with in a business year; they have to be identified by name, business # (essentially GST #) and address...and EXACTLY how much money changed hands. They are all reported in a form designed specifically for the pupose...none of this "have the info available if we decide to audit you" stuff.
It creates a major pain in the ass for legit contractors and DOES NOTHING (like the gun registry and unregistered firearms) to stop dedicated Income Tax evaders.
A small contractor can simply deal exclusively in cash...in and out. In fact, it forces those guys into dedicated tax evasion instead of just avoiding GST payments. Brilliant strategy.
I think we're arguing apples and oranges. I didn't say it is okay for employers to break the law in terms of not paying taxes, etc. My position is that it should not be the obligation of the employer to determine whether or not I am in the country illegally. That crosses the line between a mutual contractual relationship and law enforcement. If I provide a social security number that allows him to properly withhold and pay taxes that should be sufficient.
An employer who breaks the law in terms of underpaying or maltreating workers should be punished regardless of the immigrant status of the employees.