The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, April 07, 2006

Krauthammer calls for a wall

Charles Krauthammer is calling for a border wall to be built in a column entitled "First a Wall -- Then Amnesty". He eludes to the immigration debacle in Washington as Congress cannot seem to have to fortitude to do what needs to be done first - secure the border. He criticizes the notion of addressing the immigrant here first, then work on securing the border:
Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.

Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come.

Most people reading this would not find that hard to understand and that is the problem. Liberals do understand it very well and realize if they fight for the first, they can keep the cycle going. He goes on to say:
We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's phony.
The fact is that both the Democrats and Bush are looking at this issue from the standpoint of long term political strategy. For Democrats it is a much less risky plan on the surface and for the GOP it is a much more risky plan on the surface. Hispanics have historically voted Democrat as a majority, so it seems simple that the Dems would win this gambit by propogating the cycle. While I don't think Bush wants to propogate the cycle, he does not want to lose inroads into the Hispanic voting community by being too aggressive.

Both gambles could end up biting one side or the other. In order for Bush to succeed in his gamble the Hispanic community needs to continue its swift economic rise that has been happening for several years now. Poverty will always vote Democrat. One who is in poverty is likely not educated enough to see that massive socialism will keep them trapped in poverty. As Hispanics rise economically, more tend to vote GOP as they realize that the American dream is rooted in capitalism. Democrats on the other hand to succeed in their gamble must keep the Hispanic community from rising too much in the economic ladder. They will do this by massive socialist initiatives. So the economic future of Hispanics will determine the winner of the gamble of not securing the border.

On the surface I do not see Hispanic prosperity rising enough to offset rising "new voters" that lean Democrat. The next economic downturn could kill the momentum. Also, at some point there will be enough recognized voters (notice I did not say legal) to actually pass initiatives to grant Hispanic non-citizens the right to vote. It will start in California and the 9th circuit will support it.

The greatest risk for the Democrats is that very quickly they are going to alienate some of their long time supporters. First, the unions are going to begin turning on them. The unions have been critical of NAFTA, outsourcing and companies moving overseas for lower taxes and cheap labor. They simply cannot continue to ignore the fact that the same result happens when illegal immigrants come here: cheap labor and reduction in taxes costs. The net result is the same: union laborers suffer from job loss and suppressed wages. As I posted earlier, the AFL-CIO is already beginning to speak out on this very thing.

The second group the Democrats are at risk of alienating are Black Americans. Black Americans have been in the hip pocket of the Democrats for decades. It either has happened or soon will happen that the population of Hispanics grows higher than the Black population in the US. Democrats are already split in their attention between the two groups and it is only a matter of time before the Dems start obviously favoring Hispanics. Economically, illegal Hispanics are a threat to Blacks for the lower paying jobs and Hispanic entrepreneurs are a threat to Blacks looking to break from their historic poverty and participate in the American dream. The bottom line is that the Dems are at risk of losing the Black vote. The Black community and the unions would do themselves a favor by standing up now and demanding action.

Huge gambles here. I disagree that Bush needs to gamble, though. As the saying goes "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush". No pun intended. Politically a solidified energized base is stronger than a weakened, disgruntled base in order to "snag" a few votes from the other side. A wall on the border would supercharge the GOP base. I don't know of any other country that is so loose with their borders, unless it is a 3rd world country where nobody wants to go anyway. For economic and security reasons I have said before and say again, "Mr. Bush build up this wall!"

9 Comments:

  • At 11:03 AM, Anonymous r2w said…

    Very good post. The so-called comprehensive plan that Congress is probably about to pass just reminds me again that politicians on both sides of the isle are just not willing to do the right thing, but insist on doing what they think will continue to get them elected. It's time for conservatives to stop electing politicians and start electing statesmen who truly have conservative values and hold to them, no matter what they fear the ramifications will be.

     
  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    There are very few statesman. If pressed I would have difficulty naming one.

     
  • At 7:35 PM, Anonymous r2w said…

    John Kerry?
    Chuck Schumer?
    Cynthia McKinney?

     
  • At 11:04 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    You forgot to provide the warning to clear mouth of liquids before reading :)

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Come on. Let it all out. Why be scared to tell us how you really feel about non-whites? No doubt because you're "not a racist." You may not wear a white sheet or subscribe to the Aryan Nations newsletter, but this kind of naked demagoguery is standard from so-called Republicans and conservatives so I am not surprised. Institutionalized racism is what this is all about. While offering no proof of your theory, you posit that Democrats are invested in keeping blacks and Hispanics poor and uneducated because then they'll lean Democrat. Remarkable. What a flip-flop. How quickly you forget that Democrats are the party that regularly pushes for minority rights and advancement, which is often chastised by your side for it. The paranoia on display here thinking that this is a stealth voter-push for Democrats is pathological.

    Your "wall" will be an enormous waste of money, and completely ineffectual. Wasting money will not strengthen true conservatives' support of Bush or his GOP. It will fire up his racist base, for sure, but it will do nothing for a real conservative who continues to watch America slip further and further into debt held by central Asian banks. Back on point. You want illegal immigration to come to a screeching halt? Find an illegal worker at a large corporation. This will not be difficult: brooms and mops are big clues. Then put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for violating the law against hiring illegal workers. No compromise. No community service. No fines in lieu of jail time. No parole. Prison. The corporate official who directly hired the illegal should also be imprisoned and, just to seal the deal, round up every suburban housewife and toss them in jail for a minimum two-year stretch for hiring a Mexican gardener. Similar actions on the nation's farms will also shut down the entire American agricultural output, but these are the consequences of getting illegal immigration under control. Doing so will remind Americans that the law says it is illegal to hire illegal workers and that anyone who hires one is responsible for verifying whether or not his or her papers are in order. If you get fooled and one slips by you, too bad, you go to jail anyway. With real enforcement in place, illegals will quickly find they have no jobs available to them. When there are no jobs for illegal workers, they do not come. Rejection of this solution is corporatist institutional racism on full display.

    Get that lazy, over-vacationed Bush into direct no-holds-barred talks with Vincente Fox and get the Mexican government to work on this too. This clown represents the United States and you laugh at the names Kerry and Schumer. At least they don't tell their government colleagues to go f*ck themselves on the Senate floor or unapologetically shoot people in the face.

     
  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Bill, welcome back.

    Your charge of racism is baseless. It has nothing to do with racism. I have no problem at all with carefully planned, diversely distributed immigration into the US from all over the world from every race. I do have a problem with illegal immigration and the fact that those who go the legal route from all over the world have to wait longer in line to get here because of illegal line jumpers. Ever been to an amusement park and waited in line for an hour only to have somebody cut in line ahead of you? Well this is the line for the American Dream which is more important than a roller coaster.

    While offering no proof of your theory, you posit that Democrats are invested in keeping blacks and Hispanics poor and uneducated because then they'll lean Democrat.

    No proof! Wherever the Dems policies are enacted in black and hispanic neighborhoods, the people remain poor. AND these neighborhoods continue to vote Democrat. What more proof do you want?

    How quickly you forget that Democrats are the party that regularly pushes for minority rights and advancement, which is often chastised by your side for it.

    Please show me proof of this advancement? Since the Great Society and billions of wealth transfer there has been zero advancement. Conservatives chastise policies that in the end leave the poor, poor. These policies need to be chastised.


    the wall

    I am all for the punishment of companies and individuals for hiring illegals. We do need to enforce current laws by punishment of employers and deportation of illegals using aggressive means to locate them. The fact is that where portions of a fence have been erected, crossing has been lowered.

    Don't give me this bunk of Bush needs to sit down with V. Fox. Fox is not interested in a solution and will not assist. Clinton had his chance at this as well and failed too.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Yep, back because I had to drop in to see what was rearing its head on this immigration debate, DeLay withering under the heat, and Libby squarely putting Bush as the Commander in Leaks. Lively stuff, but I see Katie Couric and Cynthia McKinney have rated more importantly for you.

    Reread your post and your response to me and say with a straight face that racism has nothing to do with it. Look at how you refer to blacks and hispanics in print, let alone how you think about them in the privacy of your own mind, and then travel around the blogs to see what lovely things are being said about Mexicans. It's not pretty. Listening to you, for native born Americans, the line to the American Dream runs through the scorching fields of 12 hour days harvesting the heartland, menial labor and scrubbing the toilets of the elite, where these illegals work. You're partly correct. The American Dream would not have been possible without slave labor whether it is back in Virginia in the 1600s or in California last week. Remember that a lot of pundits seem to refer to these jobs as the ones Americans don't want to do. But what does "the American Dream" mean anymore? It's definitely not the same as it was before. Been downsized lately while the corporate stocks and CEO packages get fatter? Know anyone who has? I do, and there are more and more stories all the time about this. You referred to unions before. They were created to secure decent wages and hours and raise Americans from that slave status. You seem to have little love for unions either.

    "No proof! Wherever the Dems policies are enacted in black and hispanic neighborhoods, the people remain poor. AND these neighborhoods continue to vote Democrat. What more proof do you want?"

    Please name one such neighborhood and the associated Dem policies enacted instead of thinking a blustery remark will suffice as proof.

    "Conservatives" could give a rats ass about poor people until they become uppity or useful as a stage prop (see Bush in New Orleans). "Conservatives" chastise advancement policies because they consider them to be "unfair" to white people, if not the most dreaded of all things: socialist.

    Minority advancement is documented in many many places, but here is a list of 50 top black executives from Fortune Magazine to give you somewhere to start researching the difference between today and 40 years ago, when black people still couldn't vote.

    You give up on Bush so quickly, saying he would get nowhere with talks with Mexico. If Bush bloviated half as much about this or Saudi Arabia as he has about Iraq, he'd have some international credibility. As for Clinton on this issue, he supported NAFTA and he has my lifelong ire for that.

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    DeLay withering under the heat
    Have not seen much proof that his decision is based on anything other than strategically making sure his seat does not go to a Dem. When I see proof otherwise, I may comment on it if it interests me.

    Libby squarely putting Bush as the Commander in Leaks

    Two things here. First, the president has full authority to declassify classified material. Second, I could comment on CNN making fools of themselves claiming Bush authorized leaking Plames name. They later had to eat crow and make an on the air correction since that is not what Libby said. So far this is a non-story. Also, there were several comments on it elsewhere.

    Libs always like to comment on what I don't say. If I felt I could add anything to it, I would be more likely to comment on it. The libs will beat it to death over the weekend and it will be dead by the end of next week.

    Reread your post and your response to me and say with a straight face that racism has nothing to do with it. Look at how you refer to blacks and hispanics in print, let alone how you think about them in the privacy of your own mind, and then travel around the blogs to see what lovely things are being said about Mexicans. It's not pretty.

    You can't see my straight face, but racism has nothing to do with it. Read your own words. You are taking :

    - My post
    - My private thoughts that you somehow think you have access to
    - Words of other people

    And you are arguing against the conglomerate of those 3 things. I have friendships and working relationships with people of all races and I have no bigotry against any of them. Let's stick to what I say in my posts and leave others to defend their statements and leave the mind reading tricks to an expert.

    You seem to have little love for unions either.

    Been there, done that and you are right. I have no love for unions. They spend more time in the political arena and organized crime than doing what they were created and are being paid to do.

    Please name one such neighborhood and the associated Dem policies enacted instead of thinking a blustery remark will suffice as proof.

    I take it you have never been to Chicago, one of the Democrat bastions in the country and home to many impoverished blacks and hispanics.

    Minority advancement is documented in many many places
    Only when they stop suckling the socialist teat and plug into capitalism. Nothing in your list could be attributed to the Great Society.

    If Bush bloviated half as much about this or Saudi Arabia as he has about Iraq, he'd have some international credibility.

    International credibility is a joke. Name a few leaders of industrialized nations that you think have international credibility and I will take potshots into them. I am having real trouble thinking of one such leader deserving of international credibility, though I can think of a few the world has erroneously granted it.

     
  • At 8:26 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Have not seen much proof that his decision is based on anything other than strategically making sure his seat does not go to a Dem.

    If you read anything other than Newsmax or FOX you'd get some other perspectives on the world. DeLay bailed when yet another of his aides pleaded guilty to conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. He's had plenty of chances to be strategic, and this was not one of them. This was just calculated cowardice. He says he's confident he would win, but he's resigning. Where's the strength or conviction in that? There's still plenty of road to go before the DeLay story is done. We haven't even got to the trial yet.

    Declassifying information and leaking classified information are not the same thing. Don't play stupid. Libby is singing to save his ass because he likely resents being thrown under the bus by Bush and Co., just like Abramoff, and now everyone is scrambling for alibis. This is all far from dead, despite your wishes that it be so.

    Institutional racism is a fact of American life. I didn't claim to read your mind. I only asked you to look within and to not ignore the overt and discreet racism at play in this national debate. You derisively speak of blacks and hispanics as poor, uneducated, lacking drive or motivation, etc. There are plenty of destitute whites but you don't lump caucasions in the same way. That is the face of internalized racism.

    Chicago? Why not name Detroit or LA? You would just as easily recoil at any suggestion made that the poor illiterate whites of the South should be blamed on Republican policies. As I suspected, you made a baseless claim with no supporting facts, hoping not to be challenged on it.

    I've been to Chicago many many times, and I would hardly call it a "neighborhood." It's a city of 3 million people and despite your claim of a Democratic bastion, the Chicago Times threw it's support to Bush in 2004 and the city was split 60/40. Sorry, you lose. This just doesn't fly at all.

    The Great Society is very directly associated with that list of black executives because without the Great Society there would not have been:
    - the Voting Rights Act of 1965
    - HUD
    - VISTA
    - Job Corps
    - Upward Bound
    - Model Cities Program
    - Neighborhood Youth Corps
    - Head Start
    - Medicare/Medicaid
    All of these things have directly effected the minority populations of this country, and you would know this if you researched more about this thing you claim knowledge of, the Great Society.

    Right on cue, you talk of the poor sucking on the socialist teat, while you simultaneously support the Bush tax cuts, which are nothing more than welfare for the rich.

    The point of international credibility is not supposed to be a pissing match between us and them. America used to be the beacon of freedom and decency and statesmanship, but is now widely regarded as a rogue state, and that is tragic.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home