Power Line News

A prominent canard in the debate over illegal immigration is the claim that, should we begin to enforce our immigration laws, we would be faced wit

» View the article

postBot - 23 December 2007 09:48 PM

A prominent canard in the debate over illegal immigration is the claim that, should we begin to enforce our immigration laws, we would be faced wit

» View the article

Where’s the evidence this is happening? If they are undocumented how do “they"know the illegals are leaving? All the empty houses? AWOL’s at work? I am pretty sure 10 million plus people would would leave a large void even if were spread out.

This happens every year.

Ive worked for immigration on the southern border for 11 years now (going on 12) and this is normal. Illegals have such an easy time getting back and forth across the southern border that they have no trouble going home for the holidays. They also go home for funerals of loved ones, sick parents/family members, celebrations, and when seasonal work dries up.

We have most of our cases in February and March each year because of this. They all come back before Spring. Its just too easy to get across the Southern Border.

Which is why ive been for the fence, to slow them down.

We don’t need to remove most of the people from the United States. They remove themselves. We just need to keep them from coming back whenever they please.

Where’s the evidence this is happening?

Let me get this straight...there are people who argue that illegal border crossing are inelastic with respect to benefits?  So if you reduce the benefit (ie. imposing a non-zero change of getting detained) that people wll not alter there behavior?

To all but the perpetually clueless, the number of illegal aliens will go down if you increase the risk of punishment, or even, inconvience.

I’d be more impressed if the “pro” illegal immigrant advocates would just come out and say these people are refugees from countries that are economic and political disasters.  At least the focus could then be properly placed on the countries of orgin rather than putting this up as a “social justice” exercise.

New one: Pro ilegal alien advocates make a living by having this battle. If the battle ends their money dries up. How soon do you think they want this to end. Immigration lawyers are cleaning up and don’t want to close this door too soon they have a lot of money to make yet.

Calling all jentheneocons:

Consider yourself hoisted on your own canard.

Not that you would ever be convinced you are wrong on immigration...but keep flailing away on it.

trapeze - 24 December 2007 01:10 AM

Calling all jentheneocons:

Consider yourself hoisted on your own canard.

Not that you would ever be convinced you are wrong on immigration...but keep flailing away on it.

I’m still not as convinced about this “self-deport” theory as the PL guys.
They’ve been wrong before.
And it’s not a *real* solution to the problem, is it?
Or is the problem really not closing the borders?
Is the problem just that you and the rest of the Buchananites just want to get rid of a lot of Mexicans who you think are ruining your lives?

BTW, I didn’t counter your advocacy of the “self-deport” theory with a canard, a petard or anything else.
This is all in your imagination.
In fact, I don’t even remember it being a part of our “discussion” (in the Howard Kosell NFL meaning of the word).

Here’s another story from USA Today that says the same thing:

“People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors — they’re moving back to Mexico,” said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. “They don’t want to live in fear, in terror.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-22-immigration-leaving_N.htm?csp=15

Obviously an “immigrants-rights activist” is going to have a biased point of view and will probably paint the picture as being worse than it is, but every little bit counts.  We’ve been telling them and telling them and telling them that they’re not welcome here and it would appear that the message is finally starting to get across. 

P.S.  Note the usage of the word “terror” in the above quote.  Sheesh.

JentheNeoCon - 24 December 2007 01:48 AM

trapeze - 24 December 2007 01:10 AM

Calling all jentheneocons:

Consider yourself hoisted on your own canard.

Not that you would ever be convinced you are wrong on immigration...but keep flailing away on it.

I’m still not as convinced about this “self-deport” theory as the PL guys.
They’ve been wrong before.

The strawman striketh.

JentheNeoCon - 24 December 2007 01:48 AM

And it’s not a *real* solution to the problem, is it?

Of course it is.  Take off your “pro-illegal” blinders.  It is not unlike abstinence...it works every time it is tried. 

JentheNeoCon - 24 December 2007 01:48 AM

Or is the problem really not closing the borders?

The problem is not closing the borders and not enforcing existing immigration laws.  You know this but insist on pretending that it isn’t self-evident. 

JentheNeoCon - 24 December 2007 01:48 AM

Is the problem just that you and the rest of the Buchananites just want to get rid of a lot of Mexicans who you think are ruining your lives?

Ahh, the ad hominem attack.  You whip it out reflexively.  Again, you know that this discussion has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the illegals.  This is strictly about enforcing the law...a purely Republican principle.  Don’t like the law?  Change it.  Oh, wait...you and Lindsey Graham tried that this year and were soundly spanked...darn.

JentheNeoCon - 24 December 2007 01:48 AM

BTW, I didn’t counter your advocacy of the “self-deport” theory with a canard, a petard or anything else.
This is all in your imagination.
In fact, I don’t even remember it being a part of our “discussion” (in the Howard Kosell NFL meaning of the word).

Gosh, I hate having to explain a pun but if you insist on being dense about it I guess I am forced to do so.

If you refer back to the original PL article it says:

A prominent canard in the debate over illegal immigration is the claim that, should we begin to enforce our immigration laws, we would be faced with the prospect of deporting 10 million or more illegals--an impossible logistical task, according to many pro-illegal immigration commentators. The conservative response has always been that no such deportation would be necessary; that if we enforced our laws, illegals would return across the border the same way they came.

Since canard rhymes with petard it was a pun that I could not resist foisting on you.  Of course, by not getting it you truly have hoisted yourself on your own petard.  Congratulations.

(and it’s Cosell, not Kosell)

sgrc2001 - 23 December 2007 10:06 PM

Where’s the evidence this is happening? If they are undocumented how do “they"know the illegals are leaving? All the empty houses? AWOL’s at work?

I’d say a drop in school enrollment for Hispanic children, and a decline in applications for social services and housing markets in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.  Antecdotal evidence could include people crossing the border with heavily-loaded vehicles and fewer day laborers hanging out at Home Depots.

sgrc2001 - 23 December 2007 10:06 PM

I am pretty sure 10 million plus people would would leave a large void even if were spread out.

That’s the advantage of attrition over deportation: it’s gradual and will have less impact on the labor force.

If they are going home permanently is is because they have been sending money and can now do so. If the jobs start to dry up they cant live here and send money home at the same time. So since the intent was to go back that’s what they will do given the right motivation.  NO JOBS.

I love how three times in 13 paragraphs they try to attribute this trend to a weaker economy as if the new employer sanction’s are not the real reason for this exodus. Let me remind you that the economy grew at 4.9% in the 3rd quater, we have had a record 51 weeks of employment growth and retail sales for November came in at a 3.5 year high of 1.1% which translates into a 13.2% annual growth rate. The revisionist are hard at work.

Then theirs this gem:

“They feel like they are not welcome here,” Garcia said. “They go to Minnesota, Atlanta, Nebraska, California.”

This contradicts their weaker economy argument and proves that employer sanctions and law enforcement efforts are the real reason these people are self deporting. Too which I say Adios Muchachos.

Titan if you are talking to me i am talking about pressure on employers and state laws like Arizona. I have been down this road so many time that i think every body know what i mean automatically. I will be more clear.

Actually, I don’t care why they are leaving, as long as they are.

However, I tend to agree that if the jobs dry up because the employers are penalized, they will leave.

The problem is going to be penalizing the employers. By this, I don’t mean the small Mom & Pop type businesses. I am talking about the Tyson Chickens of the world. They are a powerful group and many of our politicians depend on them financially and money is a powerful tool.

trapeze - 24 December 2007 03:57 AM

The strawman striketh.

It’s not using the strawman argument to have genuine scepticism about the premise of someone’s argument.

Of course it is.  Take off your “pro-illegal” blinders.  It is not unlike abstinence...it works every time it is tried. 

This is just silly!
It’s not like abstinence in the least.
“Self-deportation,” in this case, is a tiny solution to an as yet unresolved problem of massive illegal immigration.
It’s not comparable to the woes brought on by pre-marital sex or the ethical and moral issues involved.

The problem is not closing the borders and not enforcing existing immigration laws.  You know this but insist on pretending that it isn’t self-evident. 

Are there immigration laws?
You presuppose there are.
I venture that there are not, that’s it’s not illegal to be here per se.

Ahh, the ad hominem attack.  You whip it out reflexively.  Again, you know that this discussion has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the illegals.  This is strictly about enforcing the law...a purely Republican principle.  Don’t like the law?  Change it.  Oh, wait...you and Lindsey Graham tried that this year and were soundly spanked...darn.

You deserve an ad hominem, because your big beef--as you illustrate so well here--isn’t that the borders aren’t closed for security reasons, but that your primary focus is the undesirability of the illegals.
It’s not a Republican principle to enforce laws that don’t exist.
Nor is it a Conservative value to detest immigration to this country.
Lindsay Graham, John Kyl, John McCain and to a certain extent John Cornyn all stood behind the President’s immigration bill, good Republicans all.

Gosh, I hate having to explain a pun but if you insist on being dense about it I guess I am forced to do so.

If you refer back to the original PL article it says:

A prominent canard in the debate over illegal immigration is

Since canard rhymes with petard it was a pun that I could not resist foisting on you.  Of course, by not getting it you truly have hoisted yourself on your own petard.  Congratulations.

Gosh, I hate having to explain a pun to you, but a pun is a word that sounds exactly like another word but whose meaning and spelling is different and whose use in the place of the other word is humorous.
Your use of “canard” was a play on words, but it wasn’t a pun.
The article says this in the concluding paragraphs:

Moses Garcia, a U.S. citizen who came from Mexico 18 years ago and knew many of the families affected by the 2006 raid through his church and real estate work, said most of the workers have left to other states, not back to Mexico.

“They feel like they are not welcome here,” Garcia said. “They go to Minnesota, Atlanta, Nebraska, California.”

This isn’t self-deporting!
They’re just going to more illegal-friendly states.
It’s as I stated above: “Self-deportation” is not a real solution to the problem and never was.
I wish you could hear how moronic it really sounds and it doesn’t sound any less stupid when the PL guys say it. (Sorry, men, but there it is!)

john florida Posted:  Titan if you are talking to me i am talking about pressure on employers and state laws like Arizona. I have been down this road so many time that i think every body know what i mean automatically. I will be more clear.

No, I wanted to write that yesterday right after I read the article linked to Jonh’s article, they just hadn’t linked it to the forum yet.