In April my online debate about immigration with D.A. King, founder of The American Resistance,\u00a0attracted many readers, a stack of letters, and interest from other online publications.\u00a0 Now Mr. King and I are going to discuss the\u00a0border security and immigration reform\u00a0legislation proposed by, among others, Senator\u00a0John McCain and Senator Edward Kennedy.\u00a0 I support this legislation.\u00a0 Mr. King does not.<\/p>\n
George Thomas Clark – Since I opened the last debate, I ask you\u00a0to start this time.\u00a0 I will follow with a statement.\u00a0 Then we can move into rapid-fire exchanges.<\/p>\n
D.A. King – The idea that the recently proposed amnesty by any other name will somehow secure our borders is as preposterous as the idea that it will somehow return our nation to a rule of law. \u00a0Let\u2019s look at the title, for example… “The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005\u2026”Hmm…sounds familiar, maybe from 1986… \u201c\u00a0 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).<\/p>\n
We as a nation were told in 1986 that the “one time amnesty” would once and for all correct the errors made by not enforcing the immigration laws. \u00a0We were told that there would be severe employer sanctions and increased security on our borders.\u00a0 I can take the time to type the promises of the 2005 version offered up by “I wanna be President” McCain and Teddy Kennedy, but after reading the 1986 IRCA a few times, it gets pointless and repetitive.<\/p>\n
Before you begin to\u00a0repeat the “we are a nation of immigrants, jobs Americans will not do, looking for a better life, our system is broken”…yada yada – please, tell us why you believe, if you do, that if this proposal were made into law, in 20 years we would not\u00a0be burdened with another\u00a020 million illegal aliens.<\/p>\n
Are we to believe that by giving the illegals – and the employers –\u00a0exactly what they strive for by openly violating our laws, we will somehow discourage them from doing it again? \u00a0Again?<\/p>\n
Why is this different from 19 years ago?<\/p>\n
GTC – “Yada, yada,” sounds a lot like nada, nada.\u00a0 We better keep an eye on you.\u00a0 Spanish is edging into your vocabulary as well as your conscious being.\u00a0 And this is not unprecedented.\u00a0 After all, a few weeks ago you sent me a one word letter: “Gracias.”\u00a0 For all I know – since this is an online debate – you’re sitting at your computer, wearing a sombrero and singing along with your Vicente Fernandez album.<\/p>\n
Regarding the points in your opening statement, thank you for serving up some softballs.\u00a0 What’s the difference?\u00a0 There are many.<\/p>\n
First, the most essential difference\u00a0is that this is not an amnesty.\u00a0 That’s right.\u00a0 This is not a wave-the-magic-wand style gift as in 1986.\u00a0\u00a0Permanent residency must be earned through a long and difficult process.\u00a0\u00a0Undocumented workers would have to register for a temporary visa, valid for six years.\u00a0 They’d also\u00a0be required\u00a0to prove they have a solid work history and\u00a0a clean criminal record.\u00a0\u00a0Then they’d have to pay a $1,000 fine to join the guest worker program.\u00a0 Six years later, they’d pay another $1,000 fine, this time to obtain a green card proving legal permanent residence.<\/p>\n
A second difference is avoiding the myopia of the 1986 legislation\u00a0which granted amnesty for those here but failed to account for the nation’s future work force needs.\u00a0 Current legislation permits 400,000 new low-skill workers to enter the first year, and there would\u00a0be the option to expand.\u00a0 One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, noted that the\u00a0previous bill\u00a0“was out of date the day it was signed into law in 1986.”<\/p>\n
A third important difference is that, unlike in the old and inadequate bracero program,\u00a0guest workers would be allowed to change\u00a0jobs.\u00a0 And, as\u00a0I indicated, they would be allowed to stay.\u00a0 Their status would therefore be that of legal workers, which addresses your rule of law concerns.<\/p>\n
A\u00a0strong segue is thus made into a fourth key difference.\u00a0 Guest workers would be issued tamper proof identity cards.\u00a0 They’d be much easier to keep track of, and they would have no use for the current horde of criminals who forge\u00a0documents.<\/p>\n
That leads to a fifth essential difference, and it’s one of your favorite issues: employer accountability and interior enforcement.\u00a0 Now no employer – and I mean no employer – could\u00a0realistically claim he unknowingly hired an undocumented worker.\u00a0 Either his foreign workers have the tamper proof cards or they don’t.\u00a0 If they don’t, the employer could readily be proved in violation of the law.<\/p>\n
At this time,\u00a0it is\u00a0helpful to\u00a0emphasize that all of the above measures could help to create a national awareness that employers must cooperate, and it would be politically and psychologically feasible to fine them, or worse, if they don’t obey the law.\u00a0\u00a0That certainly contradicts your claim above that\u00a0this bill gives “the employers exactly what they strive for by openly violating our laws.”<\/p>\n
DAK – As I said, typing in the promises of the amnesty that is not an amnesty of 2005 is repetitive, pointless and reminiscent of the last one. Thanks for confirming my thought. The same ironclad promises of enforcement and “it can’t fail” procedures for employer verification and sanctions\u00a0(not to mention border security) were made in 1986.<\/p>\n
GTC – I have clearly stated – as you insisted – the differences between the 1986 amnesty and the immigration reform bill of 2005.\u00a0 This isn’t an “amnesty” because people acknowledge wrongdoing by paying fines and taking part in a six-year\u00a0temporary residency program\u00a0\u00a0 Only then would they obtain their Green Cards and thus the potential to someday become citizens.\u00a0 In 1986, the amnesty was spontaneously granted.<\/p>\n
DAK – Know this: this amnesty is being pushed by those who make the rules in this country –\u00a0the same group that will benefit most by its approval…business<\/em>. \u00a0If you refuse to recognize that the “magic wand” is being waved over business interests, will erase all liability and let that group’s last 19 years of the felonious and profitable violation of our rule of law go unpunished,\u00a0then I submit that\u00a0you are being less than honest with yourself.<\/p>\n Simply put: the amnesty is not only for the illegal aliens. It is also\u00a0for the now nervous and\u00a0threatened employers.<\/em><\/p>\n GTC – I assure you I’m not being dishonest with myself.\u00a0 You may find it naive, but I believe that the current legislation is\u00a0absolutely serious – as are many citizens of this nation – about reforming the way people enter the country and are hired after they arrive.\u00a0 The fact that we’re legislatively doing something again after 19 years is not bad; it’s life.\u00a0 There are no permanent solutions to any problem from personal health\u00a0to hunger to international peace.\u00a0 Everything requires\u00a0maintenance and modernizing.<\/p>\n Additionally, it is naive for you\u00a0to (evidently) call for the apprehension, prosecution and punishment of employers\u00a0for the “last 19 years of felonious and profitable violation of our rule of law.”\u00a0 We know there has been a de facto legalization of their hiring practices.\u00a0 It would be inappropriate, as well as impossible, to hammer them now.\u00a0 What we can do, what we’re in the process of doing, is setting up a system wherein regulation is a popularly understood concept and one that will be enforced.<\/p>\n DAK – I am sure that we all find it interesting that you describe what was promised to be a “one-time” amnesty in 1986 as being “myopic.” \u00a0I just today\u00a0read that unemployment in my home state of Georgia has increased. Without an endless supply of illegal labor, willing to work for less than American wages, that would not be the case. I would regard it as “myopic” and irrational to insist otherwise.<\/p>\n GTC –\u00a0It is nothing less than myopic – in fact, it is preposterous – for anyone to pretend that the United States will not continue to have low-skill labor needs that will be filled by willing workers from economically less fortunate lands.<\/p>\n DAK – Somebody, maybe yourself, please, tell us about unemployment going down and wages going up in America because of our importing labor from Mexico and the rest of the\u00a0Third World.<\/p>\n GTC – Historically, unemployment has been cyclical.\u00a0 I don’t know what the current rate is in Georgia but in the future there will be times when that rate is higher and times when it is lower, probably more of the latter.\u00a0 There’s that echo again \u2013 my eternal optimism and belief in the competence of democratic nations, particularly those as well-established and ambitious and energetic as ours.<\/p>\n DAK – Regarding the “tamper proof” cards…the first thing that the illegal alien lobby tells me when I show them any or all of my own three<\/em> Matricula Consular IDs is that my having them only proves that “any document can be forged.\u201d \u00a0(It should be noted here that one cannot open an account to rent a DVD at Blockbuster, or obtain a Mexican voters ID in Mexico<\/em> with the Mexican Matricula Consular, but in this country, in a war on terror, they are used to board airliners full of jet fuel and people every day.)<\/p>\n I can buy a current generation “tamper proof” Green Card tomorrow for $100.00.<\/p>\n GTC – It used to be easy for underage drinkers to tamper with their driver’s licenses in order to appear older.\u00a0 The new licenses – certainly in California – now make that much more difficult.\u00a0 The issue you raise is primarily a technological one, and it is certainly important to use all the scientific tricks to make cards that\u00a0criminals cannot replicate.\u00a0 The sponsors of current immigration reform believe making a tamper proof ID is possible.\u00a0\u00a0Your Matricula cards are clearly not as well made as the new tamper proof ID cards need to be.<\/p>\n DAK – Why are we to believe that if such a card can be put into use that the same government, backed by the same business interests, would enforce the new laws any more diligently than they do the existing laws…given to us by the last amnesty? \u00a0Again, the promise of employer sanctions is an echo of 1986.<\/p>\n GTC – Failure in 1986 does not foredoom us to eternal failure.\u00a0 Current legislation is much stronger and more explicit regarding enforcement.\u00a0 I’ll quote an encouraging passage from a synopsis of Title IV: “Enforcement – Creates a new electronic work authorization system that will ultimately replace the paper-based, fraud-prone I-9 system…”\u00a0 At this time, I can’t prove that will be the case.\u00a0 And you can’t prove that it won’t.\u00a0 I believe them.\u00a0 Politicians who let the voters down should be voted out of office.\u00a0 Employers who violate new laws should be prosecuted.<\/p>\n DAK – Why are people, including yourself, so willing to sell American laws and then a path to\u00a0American citizenship for $2,000?\u00a0 If the amnesty proposal were to be approved, look for the “fines” to become a discriminatory violation of “human rights” that should be thrown out as “racist” when the illegal alien lobby gets its hands on the issue.<\/p>\n Maybe an amnesty for not paying the fines would be a big seller on Capitol Hill?<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n GTC – Let’s now state, then, that the $2,000 fines are not discriminatory and are nonnegotiable, and anyone refusing to pay doesn’t get to join the program.\u00a0 The money is more\u00a0a\u00a0declaration of seriousness, and a\u00a0tool of enforcement, than\u00a0your insinuation of an\u00a0unseemly sell-out of “American laws and then a path to American citizenship.”<\/p>\n Immigrants, aliens, whatever you want to call them – they’re going to come.\u00a0 New legislation gives us a chance – where none now exists – to better control\u00a0and monitor this influx.<\/p>\n DAK \u2013 We<\/em> <\/em>have laws at present that are designed to control and monitor the<\/em> <\/em>\u201cinflux\u201d\u2026they are being ignored.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n As for your comments on my use of the word “gracias”…I also\u00a0say VIVA LA MIGRA!… to make a point. \u00a0In what language do you think the amnesty of 2020 would be proposed?<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n GTC – My goodness, at your current lightning rate of Spanish acquisition, we’ll doubtless be holding our next debate in that esteemed Romantic language.\u00a0 Regarding the 2020 amnesty language, I predict that it will be in English, and you will be the one to render the Spanish language translation.<\/p>\n And I do have a serious point, one raised earlier.\u00a0 There are no permanent solutions to anything in life.\u00a0 Eating now will not forever absolve\u00a0anyone of the need to address hunger later.<\/p>\n DAK – One more thing…please tell us exactly how\u00a0our forgiving the crimes of the illegals and the employers is going to secure our borders? \u00a0Or does\u00a0your “magic wand” apply here too? \u00a0Wouldn’t it be logical that illegal labor would come to take the jobs that the new (presto -chango!) Americans “will not do”?<\/p>\n There is that echo again.<\/p>\n GTC – First, let’s be realistic and acknowledge that trying to secure our borders in the sense you mean – i.e. making them airtight – is not possible.\u00a0 Trying to stop all\u00a0immigration is like trying to stop all rain.\u00a0 We are talking about a powerful intrinsic attraction – the United States will for a long time continue to be a place people want to come.\u00a0 And when those next to us are poor, many of them\u00a0are going to devise ways to enter the country.\u00a0\u00a0 And, yes, many in this country will make it possible for them to do so.<\/p>\n I’m not implying that you have this militaristic fantasy but some who hold your positions do have it, and I want to dispel it:\u00a0the United States is never going to station\u00a0scores of thousands (or more) troops along the border with Mexico.\u00a0 Accept it or not,\u00a0these two countries have a shared future, and Mexicans will not be entering\u00a0this country unless there are jobs and people anxious to provide them.<\/p>\n It has also often been suggested, quite reasonably, that the United States could dramatically lessen the economic need of Mexicans to leave their homeland by investing in the economic development of the\u00a0poorest Mexican states.\u00a0 This could be done at a fraction of the cost of fighting a war in Iraq where no active terrorists loomed before the invasion but where they now multiply daily to combat what many Iraqis – including those in the lamentable Iraqi army – see an iron fist of occupation.<\/p>\n By improving Mexico economically, the United States would not only be reducing the number of people who come here but also creating more affluent markets\u00a0for its products.\u00a0 That’s planning.\u00a0 That’s cooperation.\u00a0 That makes sense.<\/p>\n DAK –\u00a0Employers who violate new<\/em> laws \u201cshould be prosecuted\u201d?\u00a0 Why should (or would) employers who violate \u201cnew laws\u201d be prosecuted if the same group is already not<\/em> being prosecuted by the same government who gave us IRCA \u201986 for violating existing<\/em> laws?\u00a0See the circle here?<\/p>\n GTC – We’re talking about new rules and perceptions, and therefore a new circle.<\/p>\n DAK \u2013 And the war in Iraq? \u00a0What? \u00a0Since you brought it up, it has far less to do with this conversation than does our domestic \u201cWar on Terror\u201d\u2026 You are in a large minority if you believe that we as nation can continue to leave our borders less secure than most cattle pastures and not suffer.\u00a0 When a foreign nation sends millions of its people to and plants its flag in another, while insisting that its culture and language be observed \u2013 it is staging an invasion and colonization.<\/p>\n Ask Mario Obledo, a founding member of MALDEF: \u201cCalifornia will become a Hispanic state, anybody who does not like it should go back to Europe.”\u00a0 He does not say to where Black Americans should return if they \u201cdon\u2019t like it.”<\/p>\n GTC – As you know, I teach English as a Second Language for adults.\u00a0 And I am in a position to guarantee you those millions you refer to are vigorously studying and working to acquire a new language and culture.\u00a0 I’ve seen this daily for many years.<\/p>\n And I do not believe \u201cthat we as a nation\u201d should \u201ccontinue to leave our borders less secure than most cattle pastures.\u201d\u00a0 One of the key goals of the new legislation is to improve enforcement \u2013 thus the tamper proof ID\u2019s, employer accountability, and strengthening of the border.\u00a0 And most importantly, immigrants would have more options to avoid illegal behavior.<\/p>\n When making the above statement, Mario Obledo was defecating from the mouth.\u00a0 And what came out is of no relevance to the future of California.<\/p>\n DAK – Illegal immigration is more than poor Mexicans wanting to mow our lawns for low cash wages.\u00a0 The illegal crossing of our borders is not \u201crain\u201d \u2013 and it is by no means inevitable.<\/p>\n Saying that the strongest nation in the world cannot secure its borders is a fairly lazy and inaccurate excuse for wanting to look noble while watching as others do the politically incorrect job of observing that we are<\/em> being colonized and Balkanized by Mexico.<\/p>\n GTC \u2013 If you\u2019re in the large majority, I\u2019m surprised you feel your position is \u201cpolitically incorrect.\u201d<\/p>\n This isn’t an issue of military power, if that’s what you’re implying by strength.\u00a0 Many problems do not have military solutions, or any other short- or even intermediate-term remedies.\u00a0 This new legislation would put all of us, including immigrants, in a better and more realistic position.\u00a0 But there are no panaceas.<\/p>\n DAK – Again, amnesties – and this is one – do not promote the rule of law, and they do not stop illegal immigration. \u00a0Ignoring that proven fact again would be national suicide.<\/p>\n No, gracias.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n GTC – De nada. I mean,\u00a0you’re welcome.<\/p>\n But I’m sorry that such a thoughtful and sincere man equates illegal immigration with\u00a0national suicide.\u00a0 It is nothing of the sort.\u00a0 It is, rather, a \u201cproven fact\u201d that poor people come here to better themselves, and they succeed.\u00a0 Assimilating millions of immigrants is sometimes painful and difficult, but in the history of this nation it has worked out quite well.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In April my online debate about immigration with D.A. King, founder of The American Resistance,\u00a0attracted many readers, a stack of letters, and interest from other online publications.\u00a0 Now Mr. King and I are going to discuss the\u00a0border security and immigration reform\u00a0legislation proposed by, among others, Senator\u00a0John McCain and Senator Edward Kennedy.\u00a0 I support this legislation.\u00a0…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[105,101,33],"tags":[],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n