Exposing the myths in the illegal immigration discussion.

In the ongoing arguments over illegal immigration and what to do about it there are a number of myths or assumptions which need to be exposed. Each of these myths are seldom talked about and they are key points which should not be conceded.

1) Illegal workers fill jobs that otherwise will not get done or will be to expensive for the employer. If all employers played from a level field where it was prohibitively expensive, perhaps even put the employer and their business at risk, if they hired illegal workers then market forces will be re-introduced. Presently there is an artificial labor market where legal workers are having their wages held low by the pressure of an illegal labor force willing to work for less. This also stifles innovation in the market place. If only legal workers were employed, employers will either pay the rates necessary to get the job done or they will find ways to automate those task.
2) We have to create a legal way for people to get here. This already exist in the form of present immigration quotas which are designed to manage the rate of entry and diversify those wanting to come here.
3) Those here illegally just want a better life. The United States it the most generous country and people on earth and we have always reached out to help less fortunate countries and people improve their situation. That does not make it incumbent on us to take those people in. It also does a disservice to those countries from which these people leave. If it is that bad they need to stay there or go back there and fight to improve their country.
4) We can’t send 11 million illegal immigrants back. We sent men to the moon. We fought global war against both Germany and Japan. We built the Panama Canal. We are the greatest democracy in the history of man. To suggest that something cannot be done is empty, all it takes is the will to act.
5) If your against illegal immigration you are a racist. The key to this discussion is the word illegal. I do not believe anyone is suggesting we should eliminate the existing immigration quotas. People are suggesting that we should enforce those quotas. To suggest that makes someone a racist is inflamatory and breaks down communication.
6) It is peoples right to come here. The United States of America is a sovereign nation whose citizens have rights and determine our laws. Non-citizens have none of the rights of citizenship, only basic human rights, and there is nothing to prevent us from enforcing our laws.

For additional reading on the subject I recommend The Hedgehog Blog, RealClearPolitics and The Center for Security Policy.


Hugh Hewitt coming to Denver.

Hugh Hewitt will be in Denver, at Borders across from Park Meadows Mall, signing Painting the Map Red and speaking Saturday, April 8th beginning at 12:30pm. This will be a great opportunity to show both Hugh and KNUS that Denver appreciates them.

KNUS AM 710 News and Talk has the information.

Citizenship under assault.

“Citizenship should be reserved for those who understand and are committed to American fundamental values, and who stand ready to follow in the footsteps of patriots. Anything less diminishes us and our precious gift of citizenship.”

So finishes Thomas Lifson discussing the threat illegal immigration poses to citizenship. The assault on citizenship is much broader however. There is pressure to confer citizenship rights on enemy combatants, both legal and illegal ones, particularly disturbing during time of war. There is a dilution of citizenship rights by judges looking to foreign law for guidance. Non-citizens, legal and illegal, are being treated to the same laws, rights and privileges as citizens. There are even certain citizens, called journalist, who are now granted super-citizenship exempting them from much of the responsibility of citizenship while granting them full rights and privileges.

Citizenship is under assault and it is time for Americans to defend what Mr. Lifson calls “our precious gift of citizenship.”

RealClearPolitics has the full story.

Thank you Christopher Hitchens.

“HH: When you say pro-war but on the other side, what do you mean, Christopher Hitchens?”

“CH: Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to as…in the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They’re not anti-war at all. For one thing, they’re not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they’ve declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway’s the same. Many of them are. They’re not really against the war. They’re not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name.”

What is the “right name” Mr. Hitchens? Because I like things simple I am supplying the following from Webster.com what Mr. Hitchens was either too gentlemanly or perhaps over assumptive to name:

Traitor: 1 : one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason

Betrayer: 1 : to lead astray; especially : SEDUCE 2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery 3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need 4 a : to reveal unintentionally b : SHOW, INDICATE c : to disclose in violation of confidence
intransitive senses : to prove false

Apostate: abandonment of a previous loyalty

Recreant: unfaithful to duty or allegiance

Quisling: Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis

Turncoat: one who switches to an opposing side or party; specifically : TRAITOR

Thank you Radio Blogger for providing the transcript and audio from the Hugh Hewitt radio program of March 22nd.

Three branches of government?

The Hedgehog Blog has an excellent post discussing Judicial Modesty. While enjoying his post I would suggest an additional conclusion, that legislative decisions may make better law than judicial decisions. When properly implemented our representative democracy has wonderful checks and balances that largely moderate the types of decisions The Hedgehog discusses here.

Perhaps if legislators made laws, judges determined the Constitutionality of those laws, and the executive enforced those laws we would have better, and fewer, laws on the books.

Thanks The Hedgehog Blog for the quality work you do.

Journalist: Subject to the law?

Tim Rutten of the LA Times has, to quote OKIE on the LAM, his “panties in a wad” because he has just realized that journalist are subject to US law. In a near panic he has asked “Does it matter to anyone outside the news media that, in papers filed in connection with its prosecution of two pro-Israel activists last month, the Justice Department actually argued that journalists who obtain or publish classified information are liable for prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917?”

To answer you Mr. Rutten, it does matter to some outside the media that National Secrets not be transmitted to potential future enemies of the United States. It matters that those secrets not be communicated to present enemies of the United States. It matters that anyone who transfers National Secrets during a time of war be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes Mr. Rutten, it matters a great deal.

Thank you OKIE on the LAM – In LA for a great post. Reading you illustrates “What’s got ol’ Tim’s panties in a wad.”

What happened to the Monroe Doctrine?

With “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was playing a “destabilizing” role in the region” it is dangerous to allow China to exploit that instability. We need to declare now our intention to enforce the Monroe Doctrine and not let the dragon get any further into our tent.

The Center for Security Policy had the story on China training Latin American military.