Monday, November 28, 2011

David Frum Supports Romney's Immigration Stance

It's a crazy world. I agree with Right Wingnut and I disagree with Romney on an issue. David Frum disagrees with me. Actually, he doesn't know me, but anyway.

I think this is the best counter argument that I have read from the immigration restrictionists, so I thought I would post it here in the spirit of free debate. That, and I want to see if I can get Right Wingnut or Ohio Joe to agree with David Frum. Lol.
Gingrich had a good applause line about uprooting the illegal alien who has sunk 25-year roots in the country and has citizen children and grandchildren.

But how do you tell the difference between that person and between the illegal alien who has been present for 20 years? Or two years? Or two months? Gingrich proposes individualized hearings by citizen courts. But 12 million hearings? Really? Even if we could somehow complete a hearing an hour, you are talking about 1.5 million person-days, or 5,769 person-years.

And that's assuming the courts approved the concept, which they very well might not.

The idea is unworkable on its face. It would rapidly disintegrate into something very like blanket approvals of whole categories of illegals -- in other words, into some kind of qualified amnesty.
Hearings are the policy you endorse if your real goal is to find a way to represent amnesty as something other than amnesty.
...

Is there a better way? There is, and it's the way advocated by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

1: Enforce the immigration laws at the workplace, removing the magnet that draws new illegal workers and encouraging the existing illegal population to return home. Yes, that population includes people who have been present in the country for more than 20 years and won't return. It also includes people who have been in the country less than 20 months and might well return if they cannot find work in the U.S.

2: Pause to assess. See how much an enforcement-first policy reduces the illegal population. The best estimates suggest that the recession of 2008-2009 sent perhaps 1.7 million illegals back home.
A prolonged period of enforcement -- and the removal of the offer of early amnesty -- would likely reduce the illegal population even more.

3: Debate and decide on any future amnesty proposal after enforcement has taken effect, not before.
If any approach to immigration deserves to be described as "humane," it is the approach that begins with concern for the stagnating wages of American workers.

6 comments:

Slick-Willy said...

What do you disagree with Pablo? Do you believe it's a good idea to promise amnesty to certain groups of illegals based on their time here before the border has been secured?

I agree with Frum's reasoning. Politically, in the short run, it may be more savvy for Mitt to sway Latin votes by promising some level of amnesty (using other words of course). But that's bad policy for the country.

I personally believe we should allow many (if not most) of those here illegally (and not on the government dole) to stay. However, I think it irresponsible to make that promise before we've secured our border and shut down the illegal worker program.

FastFacts said...

Hey Pablo, sadly you are ignorant of Romney's immigration stance because you listen to the media instead of looking at the whole clip, any clip. He has misquoted so many times. He has actually been consistent on this since 1994 when running against Ted Kennedy, watch the debate on C-SPAN, it is there for all to see. What about the fact that he created the Arizona law in 2006.

Here is Romney's consistent stance on immigration through the years: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/projects/nov/stimulus/stimulus_forum.html

IGNORANCE IS BLISS FOR YOU, ISN'T IT

WCOS said...

I think Frum is right on this. You can't expect to evaluate each and every illegal immigrant in the country to decide if they can stay or go. The amount of court time and money that would consume would be ridiculous.

FastFacts said...

Did you see HotAir.com tried to pass this off as fact (that Romney supported amnesty) they were emailed by readers until they had to retract the deceptive clip about Romney and amnesty. They now have the whole clip and have denied that Romney wanted amnesty.

This comes to show that Romney does not want amnesty and again your ignorance is bliss???

Doug NYC GOP said...

Marco Rubiuo on Fox News tonight bacisally laid out the same immigration osition as Romney:

Secure the border firs

Set up a efficient LEGAL immigration plan

Get those here illegaly registered and to the BACK of the line BEFORE granting them any special, advantageous benefits.

Slick-Willy said...

Rubio is the man. He's probably a necessary VP to win the presidency. We'll need Florida and he can deliver it. Romney may need Rubio to gift him Florida in the primaries in fact. He should wait until after SC though in case Newt wins there and then hammer it hard.