Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Taking Our Country Back: From Whom?
Let’s assume, for fun, that Donald Trump’s supporters are thinking with their brains, not their viscera. If so, they will want to know that the issue he has lassoed for self-aggrandizement has been utterly demagogued. Trump is playing them for chumps.
A young woman was murdered by an illegal alien in a so-called “sanctuary city.” Awful, of course. San Francisco’s officials bear some of the blame for Kate Steinle’s death by declining to enforce the law.
But Trump has abused the trust of his audiences by suggesting that an illegal immigrant crime spree is the great threat to our nation. Trump admirers yearn to “take our country back.” From whom? From Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Al Sharpton, the New York Times, Jon Stewart, and Hillary Clinton? Or from Mexican illegals?
The United States is very much in decline, but the role of illegal immigration in that slide is negligible. Our lack of economic growth, our withdrawal from world leadership, the decline of work and the rise of dependency on government, law flouting by those in power, the degradation of our entertainment culture, rent-seeking by entrenched interests, the stultifying politicization of education (especially higher education) – to say nothing of the nuclearization and enrichment of the world’s worst terror state – those are the great challenges we face.
Obama’s flagrantly illegal waiver for illegals living here made everyone who values the rule of law see red. (The judiciary has thus far stayed the amnesty.) And yet, a little perspective is in order.
Illegal immigration is declining. Between 1990 and 2007, the number of illegal immigrants tripled. In 2000, an estimated 1.6 million illegals entered the United States. Since 2012, that number has dropped to about 400,000 (even accounting for the flood of underage migrants last year).
We’ve built fences along all but the most inaccessible areas along the border. Over the past decade we’ve spent $10.7 billion on fences, cameras, and other measures, including doubling the number of border patrol agents to 18,000. We’ve also spent billions on biometric identity management and other things, bringing the total expenditure for border control to $16.2 billion last year. Those truly serious about ending illegal immigration altogether must grapple with national identity cards. Another fence isn’t going to do it. Forty percent of illegals are visa overstays.
The population of illegals here is aging, which suggests that fewer young people are making the increasingly treacherous journey across the desert. Meanwhile, the dramatic drop in Mexico’s birth rate, from 7.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.4 today, suggests a problem that is on the way to solving itself. Demographers say that when the birth rate falls below 2, emigration stops. Other Central and South American nations are experiencing similar drops.
As for the epidemic of crime for which illegal aliens are said to be responsible – it’s a myth. Crime rates have declined as immigration has increased. Much has been said about the percentage of federal prisoners who are illegals and/or Hispanic. But federal prisoners represent only about 14 percent of total U.S. inmates, and according the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 7 percent of federal offenders are incarcerated for violent crimes (most violent crimes are state matters). As the Pew Research Center notes, the past two decades have seen a spike in the number of immigration-related crimes leading to federal prison sentences. These “unlawful reentry” convictions have changed the complexion of federal inmates. Whereas in 1992 Hispanics comprised 23 percent of federal inmates, that share has grown to 48 percent today.
Second- and third-generation Hispanics commit crimes at higher rates than non-Hispanic whites, but at lower rates than African Americans. As for the foreign-born, that is, first generation immigrants, for the most part, they keep their noses clean. The American Immigration Council records that “among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born.”
Having stoked rage about illegal immigrants, Mr. Trump now urges that after deporting 11 or 12 million people, he will “let the good ones come back,” force Mexico to pay for a “wall,” and “impound remittances” from “illegal wages.” A candidate for student council president of a third-rate high school could devise more serious solutions than those. But then, student council types tend to be in earnest. Trump is simply on the ultimate ego trip.
Published in General
Ms. Charen posts here and responds to a coterie. Perhaps an e-mail list is more her speed. I’ve responded to a few of these things, in different tones. MANY people directly targeted by her caustic and shrill disdain have responded and the answer is a uniform silence.
Well, one can only stoop so far, I suppose. It must be galling to have to issue “points for humor” to the plebes here who do manage to swim toward the beneficent light of an undervalued contributor, so I can see how meaningful discussion was asking too much.
And yes, I intend to speak of Ms. Charen rather than to her. It is her chosen method of discourse. Accepted! Believe me, it will help elevate the tone from simple but dubious imperatives.
“Trump admirers yearn to “take our country back.” From whom? From Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Al Sharpton, the New York Times, Jon Stewart, and Hillary Clinton? Or from Mexican illegals?”
All of the above. Nothing wrong with that.
Mona misses an important point, in that the flood of meso-American illegal aliens/illegal voters will profoundly affect the electoral map.
All of the above. Starting with the criminals.
Who here is voting for Trump when the time comes to vote for him in the primary in your particular state?
From what i recall of the Ricochet in house polls Trump isn’t someone people here like as either their first or second choice.
This is what I find strange about the Trumpnado. We have people everywhere on our side jumping to his defense and adulation, but can anyone actually think he will win any primary? He has become the avatar of conservative rage, but that means nothing functionally, until he actually wins something. It is all sound and furry until then to me.
Everyone is talking about how he is bringing up issues and challenging the establishment. This is all hogwash. Trump is just making a scene, his most ardent public supporters on the right are media personalities whose rating and therefore salary is linked to eyeballs viewing them. Trump is a political prostitute, his media backers are political pimps, and the fans are just the deluded Johns who think they are getting “love”.
Legal and illegal, the percentage of immigrants in the US is higher than it’s been in around a century. Since then, a lot of things have changed.
The income tax (whose initial opponents were mocked for suggesting the tax might rise above the initial 4%) and the expansion of government it enabled, is one thing.
The loss of will to assimilate immigrants to American culture and mores is another.
Then there are the government Ponzi schemes: Social Security, which was meant not to pay much out because most people died before or soon after retiring, and Medicare.
Between entitlements, pensions, civil service, contracts crony and otherwise, income tax credits and so on, around half of the country makes much or all of its living directly or indirectly from government.
Worse, there is the growing power of an oligarchy with which most of the Republican candidates, to which virtually all of the Republican party organization at the national level are loyal.
Look at Mitch McConnell. He is a highly skilled politician, whose agenda includes lying to his caucus members to keep them from opposing him on the trade bill. So much for the Senate and debate.
McConnell’s latest is to roll over for Obama on the Iran nuclear pact. McConnell and his ilk have also long rolled over for the bipartisan effort to grow the Democrat client base in exchange for the perpetuation of a Republican place at the trough.
That’s from whom.
Ball- As always, I’m delighted to find an area where we agree. One of the most disappointing things about Ricochet is the large proportion of contributors who do not engage in the discussion of their posts. The whole point of Ricochet is that it’s a conversation. I don’t need Ricochet to read what Mona Charen has to say. I can find that at NR.
Trump’s proposal is that while the children may be citizens, the parents aren’t. So the parents must leave even if they have a citizen child. And presumably they will take their child with them.
The child is welcome to return at age 18.
I understand everyone’s issue with a lot of the OP. Sounds like the position of a lot of people that promote “fundemental reform” (aka. screw up worse) immigration reform. I agree with her point however that other issues are a greater challenge to the country right now. It won’t matter how many illegals are here if Iran levels a city with a nuke. The executive branch is currently dismantling the whole system by ignoring constitutional restraints. The data she points out does show that while it is an emotional issue that people identify with it may not be the crisis Trump/Ann are screaming about.
Even if it is, I have little hope that the Feds will make actual targeted reforms on immigration that will help things just like they didn’t do that with healthcare. Better to leave things alone than make things worse.
Next Comment.
All of that foreign policy stuff is just poo at the bottom of a very deep latrine if we lose this country. Our fight is here, now. Why is Iran about to get a nuke? Because Islamist sympathizers and Marxists have taken control of the United States.
Feel free to chase the stick, Spot. I’m mauling the guy who throws it.
You talk about “dismantling the whole system by ignoring constitutional restraints”. That’s exactly why immigration is such a powerful symbolic issue.
Leave things alone so we don’t make it worse? We’re not enforcing the laws we already have!
It doesn’t have to be a “crisis” in and of itself. Illegal Immigration is the most visible daily reminder that people have of the breakdown of the system we are supposed to be living under. People have been screaming for years for it to be fixed, and the political class ignores them. That’s why this is such a flashpoint.
That is the first place to start in dealing with illegal immigration. We need to keep the focus on the current lax enforcement of existing laws, such as the existence of sanctuary cities. Talking about mass deportation or amending birthright citizenship is not helpful to anyone except the Democrats. They made up the War on Women. We should not be providing them ammunition to concoct a War on Immigrants.
The American Action Forum released a study that estimates deporting all of the illegal immigrants currently residing in the US would cost 400-600 billion dollars. Mass deportation is not feasible. There is no way you would get a bill authorizing it through Congress. I want to hear immigration reform proposals that are in the realm of the possible. Hopefully the other GOP candidates will release alternatives soon.
I never denied that illegal immigration was a problem. I disagree with the CoulterTrump’s proposed solution.
A major part of the solution to illegal immigration ought to be more legal immigration. Laws should always be enforced to the extent resources allow.
Let’s make better laws and enforce them. If you want to finish the fence first, I’m fine with that.
In the mean time, let’s not turn into the anti-immigration party. In fact, that’s a better fit for the you-didn’t-build-that party.
As for a “classic ploy,” I’m not clever enough to use one.
Too modest. ;-)
I agree that if the laws are unenforceable they need to be changed to something that is.
The American Action Forum study referenced above is calculating the cost of enforcing existing laws, which would mean seeking out and deporting everyone who is here illegally. The population has gotten so large that the cost of enforcing the law as it is now written is prohibitively expensive. I would like the candidates to address that reality.
yes. this. ^
It is not as though this stuff has not been debated for decades. If the GOP wanted to do anyting about any of this, they’ve certainly had a chance. “We need to enforce the laws we have.” Correct. Also irrelevant. We’re not going to enforce them, and you must be new here if you think otherwise.
There are two parties in DC and neither of them wants anything to do with enforcing the law. One of them is lying, and they’re not doing it in my name any more.
I heard him say on TV just a few minutes ago that he “wonders” if the 14th amendment actually makes citizens of children of immigrants, that this hasn’t really been tested in court. He’d like to think they are not.
His position isn’t entirely crazy, because the intention of the amendment’s drafters was to ensure that the freed slaves were citizens, and it was not intended to include the children of illegal immigrants. On the other hand, there is the plain text of the amendment, which says “all persons born…in the United States are citizens…”
His position may not be crazy, depending on which constitutional scholar you read on the subject, but it is a losing political position for the GOP.
Perhaps instead of calculating the cost of sending agents to detain and repatriate illegal aliens to their home countries, we might consider the cost of enforcing employment laws and the cost of not releasing detained criminals into the United States. If the illegal aliens know that they will actually pay consequences for their actions, they will leave on their own.
I agree with much of what Mona says. I think that the immigration issue is not the only or the most important issue facing the country today, and it would be a huge (there’s that word again) mistake to elect a president on that one issue alone.
But it is a big issue. There is the crime, and the cost, and the slow erosion of so many communities where immigrants have run rampant. The macro statistics don’t tell the story of what is happening in certain communities in California and elsewhere in which too many immigrants have overwhelmed social services and changed the nature of the community, and not for the better.
Mostly, my own objection to the presence of more than 10 million such people in our country illegally (I have no objection to legal immigrants) is the pandering to the Latino vote that has become a permanent fixture of our politics.
Who thought he’d live long enough to see the president of the United States invite representatives of illegal alien pressure groups to meet him in the White House? Who thought we’d see the Supreme Court tell a state that it could not require a voter to prove he was a citizen, that they have to take his word for it? That we could not find the political will to force our cities to follow federal law?
You kinda skipped the best part.
Regardless of the logic of the law, the Supreme Court has shown that it will expand the meaning of the 14th Amendment in order to reach whatever touchy-feely ruling Justice Kennedy wants.
I think that would also be useful information to have when it comes to dealing with this issue. I still would not expect most illegal immigrants to leave of their volition, especially if they have lived here long term and have had children here.
There is a term that describes your ellipsis in the last sentence; it’s called Dowdification. Someone linked to Mark Levin’s appearance on the Hannity program earlier to answer this question. He can explain why your understanding is not dispositive.
As for Mona’s argument, I just don’t want my country to turn into a Latin-American country. The world has enough of those already.
I want the United States to remain a federal republic based on the common law and rights of free Englishmen. The presence of 100 million destitute Latin-Americans in the United States will make such a republic impossible to maintain.
By the same process that turns conservative bastions such as Vermont into socialist states, unchecked immigration from corrupt socialist nations will turn the United States into a caudillo state.
I want this:
Not this:
I want to take America back from the socialists before it is too late.
Here is a report from the Heritage Foundation on the fiscal costs of amnesty:
That is a hefty price tag, spread out over 50 years. It also seems to assume that every immigrant will always be a recipient of government benefits.
That is true. The more information, the better. But instead of looking at the cost of deporting 11million people, it would be best to see the cost of deporting one person and evaluating how those costs might be reduced through the economy of scale or through reforms.
Also, I think a better strategy than deportation is detention for 18 months followed by deportation. Make it so that the illegals who stay really want to stay.
Dowdification is selective quoting to change the meaning of a statement from what was actually meant. That was not my intention or result.
The amendment has plain language that makes citizens of all persons born in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction. A person here illegally is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, Mark Levin notwithstanding. If he were not, the United States could not haul him into court or make him pay a tax or a fine. Contrary to Mr. Levin, having jurisdiction over someone does not mean that they owe you allegiance. It means that the person has sufficient contact with the United States to give the United States power over him.
That said, I’m all for deporting their illegal parents.
All of this “but they have children” stuff is just getting your bluff called. “I will make my way into your country illegally and live there. I will have children and put them in your schools and access all of your social services, enjoy your rule of law, participate in your, how-do-you-say, BBQs. And I bet you won’t do a thing about it. I’ll bet that when the time comes, there will be so many like me, each with a heart-rending tale, replete with tears, that you will just give over. Heh.”
That would be a deterrent. Would you propose having it apply to only new arrivals?
Some years ago a liberal friend of mine was arguing with me over my position that the Supreme Court is never so illegitimate as when it interprets the Constitution or a statute to mean something different from its plain meaning. He asked me if I could identify some rule where applying the plain meaning would lead to a result I would really hate, but that I would have to support that interpretation because it was the plain meaning. The 14th Amendment citizenship clause sprang immediately to mind.