North Coast Online

Well, By Gosh, It Can Be Done

Solving the problem of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants isn't at all a new phenomenon. President Eisenhower dealt with it successfully more than a half century ago.

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

It wasn't a popular political move in all quarters.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

Read the whole thing.  It's not as impossible a task as we've been led to believe.  Once the illegal tide has been stopped, we can decide how to assimilate the illegals already here and set up sensible regulations for those who wish to enter.

I'd be find with unlimited immigration as long as entrants to the country applied, went through a background check, had a sponsor and couldn't become eligible for welfare, food stamps or free health care until they become citizens.  There's no good reason I can think of, though, to just let every half-assed, underdeveloped, tin-pot country to use us as a dumping ground for their excess poor.

Wouldn't give them much incentive to improve, would it?

Technology Marches On

Illegal immigration from Mexico wouldn't be nearly the problem it is if the Mexican government weren't so damned eager to help its own citizens leave.

Illegal immigrants planning to cross the desert and enter the US on foot are to be given hand-held satellite devices by the Mexican authorities to ensure they arrive safely

Those who get lost or fall sick during the dangerous four-day crossing will be able to activate the device, to alert frontier police on both sides of the border.

The satellite tracking service will require would-be illegals to register their intentions before setting off — a paradoxical move, given that secrecy is necessary for success — but Mexican authorities are predicting that about 200,000 devices will be handed out when the project is launched formally in the coming year.

But, Craig.  Are you saying that Mexico should try and stop its citizens from leaving their country?  Wouldn't that make it just like Cuba where citizens need permission to leave?  No, not at all. Even the U.S. doesn't allow us to simply barge into Canada, for example.  If we're caught doing that, we'd be subject to serious problems.

We're completely free to visit Canada as long as we pass through a border-inspection station, show some ID and state how long we'll be there.  I'm all for Mexicans visiting the U.S. and I'm not terribly worried about Mexicans immigrating to the U.S. -- as long as they do it legally.  And when their own government's helping them leave illegally, we've got a big mess on our hands.

Ethnic Profiling - Media Style

OK, I've accepted the fact that Senator George Allen may have ended his political career by calling a Democrat operative, macaca. But this just smells of an attempted media smear.

Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, whose re-election campaign is pressing for tighter immigration controls, referred to his house painter as "a nice little Guatemalan man" and suggested that worker as well as employees of a roofing company he hired might be in the country illegally.

"The other day, the little fella who does our maintenance work around the house, he's from Guatemala, and I said, 'Could I see your green card?'" Burns said at a June meeting recorded by Democrats. "And Hugo says, 'No.' I said, 'Oh gosh.'"

He called the guy "little" and claims he wanted to verify his citizenship.  Sorry, not racist -- actually quite sensible these days.

What's Good For The Goose . . .

Via the Econopundit.

Consider the following proposed amendments to the US constitution:

First, disallowance of immigrant participation in US political affairs. This incluces a ban on participation in demonstrations and other public expression of political opinion.

Second, an "Americans first" employment policy, native born Americans having priority over foreigners for all positions in which status of citizenship is not deemed "indispensable."

Third, a ban on all immigrant or naturalized citizens' service as (a) federal elected officials, (b) members of the cabinet, or (c) justices of the Supreme Court.

Fourth, a ban on immigrant service in the clergy.

Fifth, a ban on immigrant ownership of land or aquisition of any rights to natural resources.

Sixth, authorization of private individuals to make citizen's arrests of any individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Seventh, unconditional right of federal officials -- whenever they deem such action appropriate -- to deport immediately and without due process any noncitizen.

So, what do you think of these?  Are you opposed?  Upset?

Well stop for a second.  Actually, nobody's proposing these as ammendments to the U.S. Constitution -- they are, rather, firmly established features of the Mexican Constitution.

It Ain't About "Hispanics"

Jonathan at Chicago Boyz brings up a good point.  Why have the immigrant protests been limited to the West?

Miami blogger Robert comments on a thoughtful Miami Herald column by Fred Grimm:

Grimm suggests the reason may be because many immigrants here are content with their special status, particularly Cubans and Central Americans. He has a point, although I wouldn't say all Cubans are content with the wet foot/dry foot policy. Haitians certainly aren't happy with their status, but you still didn't see them protest en masse.

It's certainly not because there are a lack of illegals here.

I suspect the main reason is something Grimm didn't address: lack of resentment for the United States of America.

We also haven't seen Puerto Ricans joining their supposed Hispanic brothers, have we?  But since Puerto Ricans are American citizens to start with, then I guess they don't have a perro in this fight.

Of course Hispanics is a catch-all term (designed by Americans who are obsessed with race politics) for anyone who speaks Spanish as his native language but who doesn't come from Spain.  Most "Anglos" don't have the faintest understanding of Latin American culture and the rivalry that exists among the nations down there.  It would likely come as a shock to many to learn that Mexicans look down their noses at Puerto Ricans and that sentiments on the island aren't that favorable towards Mexicans either.

The immigration debate we're having now isn't so much about "Hispanics" as it's about Mexicans; and we'd be wise to separate the two.