busboys canard: Page 1
Radio host Mark Levin is potentially a supporter of Marco Rubio's plan to legalize millions of illegal aliens. You need to help make sure that Levin opposes amnesty.
The audio below is from an interview Levin did with Rubio on January 23, 2012. After several minutes of Rubio saying nothing new regarding his amnesty plan, Levin finally chimes in around the 8 minute mark:
Former George W Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson continues to be an attack toy poodle for the Bush family, this time offering "A test of Arizona's political character" in the Washington Post (link). I'm going to outsource most of this to Byron York (link) and fill in some of the gaps.
Gerson starts with no less than two hoary talking points in one paragraph:
[Chaos on the border] is an argument for effective border enforcement. It is also an argument for a guest-worker program that permits an orderly, regulated flow of temporary, migrant laborers, allowing border authorities to focus on more urgent crimes than those resulting from the desire to provide for one's family.
The law forbids the use of race or ethnicity as the "sole" basis for questioning. So what are the other telltale indicators? ...Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law, looked flustered when asked during a news conference the obvious question of how illegal immigrants might be identified... Yet Brewer has ordered Arizona police to be trained in the warning signs of illegality -- signs that she cannot describe. There is a reason no Arizona official has publicly detailed these standards -- because the descriptions would sound like racial stereotyping. And probably would be.
Bear in mind that the preceding appears in an article promoting border enforcement, which would be done by the Border Patrol and other agencies such as ICE. Those and similar groups have decades of experience at being able to tell illegal aliens from citizens and legal immigrants and visitors, and all without the legal armagedon that Gerson concern trolls about. No doubt there will be a few cases of local yahoo cops crossing the line, but with the proper guidelines and training - something that Brewer is developing - that can be mitigated.
Washed-up TV comic Drew Carey is now working on a joint venture with the pseudo-libertarians at Reason Magazine . In various video segments he presents the "libertarian" view of things, and the latest is called "The Cost of Securing Our Southern Border" (reason.tv/video/show/434.html). Like everyone else, I didn't bother to watch it, but I feel safe in asserting that there are many things he forgot to mention.
But, you already knew that. Barack Obama offers an editorial entitled "Enforce tighter border, employer verifications" (link):
While I understand the passions -- and legitimate differences -- on both sides of this difficult issue, we must restore civility and reason to the conversation.
Translation: "my opponents are gun-toting anti-immigrant racists". And, "as irrational as it seems, what I propose is the rational approach."
First, we must reinforce our borders to deter the more than 2,000 immigrants who cross them illegally each day. Most of these aspiring laborers risk death in the desert to come here illegally, and they are diverting our attention from those trying to enter to do us harm.
That's the same thing Bush and Chertoff have said at least a few times. The use of "aspiring laborers" is a minor variation of the Busboys Canard as used by Tamar Jacoby, David Brooks, the WSJ, and on down the line.
We also have to ensure that employers are hiring only legal workers. That's why I've worked with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Democratic Sen. Max Baucus to make it significantly more difficult -- if not impossible -- for employers to hire workers who are here illegally, including the more than 40 percent who came legally and overstayed their visa... This will require a mandatory electronic system that enables employers to verify the legal status of their employees within days of hiring them.
If that just uses SSNs, that might be acceptable. If however it involves a biometric national ID card, that probably wouldn't be. More on that later...
Second, we must require the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, including more than 300,000 in North Carolina, to step out of the shadows and onto a path that includes the ability to earn citizenship by demonstrating a sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.
Bolding added; see Possible Democratic Party immigration "reform" charade: "offer legalization" to become "require". At least he's got his talking points in order!
While it's unrealistic to deport them, illegal entry cannot go unpunished. That's why we must require them to pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line for citizenship behind those who came here legally.
Unfortunately, there's no "back of the line", since the line is constantly being replenished. Not only would granting amnesty greatly impact those now in the line or who want to get in the line in the normal fashion, it would either take five to ten years to do all the background checks or they'd be extremely sloppily done.
We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and we must reconcile those traditions. It's time to move beyond our broken politics and achieve real progress on immigration reform, not just for the sake of passing a bill, and not as a favor to immigrants, but so that we can finally address the concerns of the American people, and make real the hopes of all those who want nothing more than a chance at the American Dream.
Certainly, many want the "American Dream". Others just want to earn money. And, their leaders have shown time and again that they have other goals in mind.
Tamar Jacoby becomes a caricature of herself (again), offering "Stop chasing that busboy" (via this). That's part of an online debate with Mark Krikorian of CIS.
For those who haven't been following along, the "busboy canard" is a stock talking point from the massive immigration/pro-illegal immigration crowd. The argument is that our border guards should chasing terrorists and such, and chasing busboys, gardeners, greenskeepers, and the like distracts them from that mission.
I've already dealt with one of her "arguments":
It was all but impossible to enforce Prohibition.
Now, let's deal with another:
But the most effective way to get control of illegal immigration isn't on the border; it's in the workplace. It's about ensuring that every available job - every job for which an employer can't find an American worker - is filled by a legal immigrant. Because once we do that - once illegal immigrants can't find work in the U.S. - there will be little or no incentive for them to make the long, difficult trip from their home countries.
Obviously, those same companies that employ illegal aliens in order to achieve a lower cost for labor will play similar tricks if all they have available are legal workers. For instance, many current H-1B scams involve placing ads with an impossible list of requirements, then, after no "qualified" citizens can be found, doing what the company wanted to do in the first place: hire a lower-wage and/or more compliant foreign worker.
And, even with that there's no guarantee whatsoever that illegal aliens couldn't find work in the U.S. There are plenty of crooked employers (and banks) around, and they have a tremendous amount of influence. If Bush won't enforce the laws now, what makes anyone think a future Bush clone would enforce them at that time?
Note also that the "guest" worker schemes from the various Senate bill had only a limited number of visas; a greater demand would equal a greater chance for future illegal immigration, and that would be allowed and enabled by those same forces that are currently allowing and enabling it.
Comprehensive immigration reform, he said, would allow U.S. law enforcement to "focus more on the people that we don't want in the country under any circumstances, namely the criminals and the dangerous folks."He's saying that there are two types of illegal immigration: the bad kind, and the acceptable kind. Due to all the constantly-noted negatives, neither kind are acceptable: political corruption, political influence for Mexico inside the U.S., increased crime, increased costs, and on and on. Chertoff doesn't see it that way. And, of course, his job is to prevent both kinds. His job is not to blackmail the U.S. into accepting a massive amnesty.
"Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he's not looking for drug dealers or drug loads," Chertoff said.
And, if Bush and now Chertoff had done their jobs, there would be no need for any sort of prioritorization: most of those "future housekeepers and landscapers" wouldn't consider trying to cross the border.
As for the "housekeepers" bit, I can almost hear Tamar Jacoby or one of the other cheap labor promoters say the same thing. In fact, they have: this is a standard talking point I refer to as the "busboys canard". Tamar Jacoby, Bush, the Wall Street Journal, David Brooks, and John Fund have all said something very similar, and Rudy Guiliani joined in just recently.
Chertoff is corrupt and incompetent; if Bush weren't the same, Chertoff would have been replaced long ago.
The WSJ comments on the recent Swift & Co. immigration raids in "Not Very Swift". As could be expected, they oppose the raids. Let's look at a couple of their statements to see where their priorities lie.
Immigration restrictionists would have us believe that harassing businesses like Swift, the world's second-largest beef and pork processor, helps make America safer. But so far the Swift raids haven't uncovered any al Qaeda cells, merely a bunch of hard-working people trying to feed their families. The operation involved more than 1,000 federal agents in six states. And of Swift's 15,000 or so employees, a grand total of 144 have been charged to date with misidentifying themselves to get hired.
Obviously, enforcing our laws isn't "harassing" and, while their operations were temporarily disrupted, only their workers were arrested and deported with the company itself so far escaping legal action. And, of course, those "hard-workers" don't work in isolation. Their presence fuels political corruption, they send money back home to Mexico and prop up that company's oligarchy, and so on and on. And, those who were using American's identities weren't just "misidentifying" themselves; they were obviously having a negative impact on the WSJ's fellow citizens (not that that means much to them). The Wall Street Journal also fails to note that wherever you have illegal alien workers, you also have those who come to prey on them, such as the paramilitary Central American gang members arrested last year in Marshalltown, Iowa.
Put another way, 1,000 federal agents that could have been focused on potential terrorists or other dangerous threats were instead focused on a meatpacking company that hires thousands of willing unskilled workers and pays them more than twice the minimum wage with full health benefits after six months. How's that for government efficiency?
Obviously, the WSJ is ignoring such things as those wages being much lower than they were before companies like Swift were allowed to employ illegal aliens, as well as all the subsidies that those workers are receiving from U.S. citizens such as mandatory educations for their children. And, there are plenty of willing Americans that are lining up out the door to take those jobs. The WSJ is obviously not thinking of them and would probably support child labor if they could get away with it.