Thursday, April 27, 2006

Catch and release nonsense

Writing about the recent IFCO crackdown, John O'Sullivan points out that most of the illegal aliens apprehended were promptly released:

For even before Chertoff had spoken (but not before blogger Michelle Malkin had predicted it), four-fifths of the illegals arrested had been . . . released.

Two hundred and seventy-five of them were deported. The rest were sent away in return for a promise to return for a court hearing. Many, probably most, will disappear. And since the government's computers were "down," their brush with immigration enforcement may not even be officially recorded. They are home dry -
well, dry anyway.
Obviously the migrants won't return for trial. The hypocrisy is staggering. Only a few weeks ago, Chertoff spoke of how hollow catch-and-release is:
"If we catch them and release them ... we suggest to people that if they can get across the border they are home free and safe from being returned. We want to send a very different message," Chertoff told reporters.
This followed news that 39,000 illegal Chinese immigrants are to be repatriated. We can effectively extradite tens of thousands of migrants halfway around the world to a communist society we putatively object to, but the most we can muster when it comes to the big amnesty PR push (if ever Bush was to get tough this would be the time) is a paltry 275. Booting the Chinese is more expensive in per capita freight, but the opportunity costs involved reveal the real deadweight. The median income for Mexican males in the US: $20,814. For Chinese males: $40,423 (both from 2000). Mexicans using public assistance: 6.8%. Chinese: 3.5%. Mexico's estimated IQ: 87. China's: 100. Inanity.

Meanwhile, President Bush constructed an impervious argument against deportation rendering its stultified supporters useless:
"Massive deportation of the people here is not going to work," Bush said as a Congress divided over immigration returned from a two-week recess. "It's just not going to work."
Well I'm convinced.

Of course it would work. It's working for 39,000 Chinese. It worked for 275 in a couple of days. If history is any indicator, the number forcefully removed would be dwarfed by the number leaving of their own volition:

The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos,qv had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began.
The numbers are difficult to substantiate, but the general trend is clear. For every one forced out another seven or eight will leave voluntarily. If we use that ratio with a daily deportation of 275 during working days (Mon-Fri only), 600,000 or so illegal immigrants would go home each year. Punitive fines, a wall, and militarization of the border would augment this estimate.

Perhaps you think it will work, but that it will Gestapo-like, leaving a sordid taste in your mouth. But there's no need for home raids or the interrogation of good Samaritans. Simply removing illegals who are caught breaking another law (using phony social security numbers, being cited for traffic violations, failing to report income, etc) would do the trick.

Bush's ability to make a cogent argument parallels his ability to act clandestinely, as an aide for one of the Senators present at a meeting in which Bush endorsed their amnesty proposal reveals:
An aide to one participant said that Bush told the senators that he could go no further publicly than his veiled support for the Senate bill because to do so would anger House Republicans.
Bush doesn't care about his constituency. He's willing to sell the Republican Party down the river on an incredibly idiotic strategy that is sure to fail. Republicans are not going to win over Hispanics. As Republican pols shift left, the Democrats will move in tandem with them. Increasing revenue is not good if the marginal output of each unit is negative. The Republican Party should instead aim for white working class natives who are being hammered by unskilled immigration and who are uncomfortable with the Democratic Party's continual movement to the left on other social issues. They'd probably pick up a bit of the black vote in the process.

Maybe there's some reason to be optimistic. IFCO is still embarrassed and several managers face fines potentially stretching into the millions of dollars. The public has seen how expeditiously 275 migrants can be deported. The longer it takes for the Senate to send a bill back to the House the more likely it is that House members will remain tenacious as November binds them closely to the public.

(Immigration)

7 comments:

JSBolton said...

It's actually worse on the comparison you use; not including dependents makes Mexican incomes look closer to the national average than they actually are. 'Average family income per person by race', hispanic origin, etc., shows latinos at half that of the majority(12k). Compare this to the news that per student public school expenditures have now gone over $10,000! What tax rate on 12k covers 10k? OK, there are ONLY 10+ mllion children of foreign born in public schools; so it's less than one in two, only 5k in many cases. But, don't be fooled by reported medians of full time year round workers; these are NOT typical of illegals or foreign born for that matter. The charitable assumptions can destroy your world.

crush41 said...

John,

Well, I was anticipating the charge that the illegal Chinese immigrants are not representative of the Chinese American population on the whole, which is certainly true.

The same census file shows a median income of the Mexican born at $13,020, the Chinese at $25,038. We could also include high school graduation rate: 29% and 70%. Or unemployment rate: 5.7% and 2.6%.

That every metric shows the Chinese to be more meritorious yet they are still removed while the rampaging Hispanic waving a Mexican flag in the street is capitulated to must be the primary sticking point.

faq said...

You know I agree with you. But perhaps the GOP's strategy is not as futile as you say. Looking at demographic data by states it looks like whites vote more heavily Republican the less white the state is. If Republicans pick up minority votes and get a larger portion of the white vote as they squeeze it, it might not be so bad from a puretly partisan perspective.

Tobias said...

Crush,

Good article here. The ultimate political problem on the immigration issue isn't the illegals, however, it's the ultra-high numbers of legals who come in every year through chain migration clauses, well over 1 million, as they've been discussing on some of the other blogs.

Even if we put up a high-tech super gee-whiz fence to reduce illegal immigration, we won't be able to save our country, since far too many illegals are streaming in and whites are fast on our way to minority status in any case. The US white birth rate is already dangerously low and fast-dropping, as crowding and increasing difficulty in living wages due to high immigration (high as well as low-skilled) makes in increasingly impractical for white couples to start families. We're now down to 1.5 TFR overall, and in some states white TFR is down almost to 1.0.

In many schools, especially in states like California, you'll have to visit dozens of classrooms before finding a white student in there-- the future for states like California in Illinois is as anti-white, essentially third world bastions. As others have said, there's not much point in sticking around in such states if you're white, you have very little political power that's shrinking further, you're subject to overcrowding, your taxes are high, your economic potential is low, and the neigborhoods are crumbling around you. The US is probably headed for economic collapse and civil war in about 25 years or so, unless the quotas for legals are reduced down to the low six figures very quickly.

Anonymous said...

What Tobias posted has some merit, except for the civil war prediction.


My own projection for what will happen in the United States is very sad. Since BOTH party establishments favor what is happening, and most people dont vote in primaries, we will get open-borders types as presidents from here on out, despite the will of whites and blacks. Those without college educations will be forced into very lower classes. Trailer parks will be expanding, apartments will see lifetime renters who never have enough money for a house, and birthrates for the poor will remain under three per female. The poor here will simply not have enough money to have big families, so the gated-communitiy corporate wealthy will not be really threatened by them politically.

Schools will be kept lousy by the teachers unions more or less secretly supported by the elite classes so their offspring do not face intelligent, educated competition for jobs in corporate America.

In short, we are headed for an upstairs/downstairs society. The hatred non-whites will feel for wealthy whites will be palpable however as the years pass. One might look to India to get a feel how the pay check-to-pay check masses fell about the aristocracy there. Left parties may win and redistribute income, to the howls of talk radio, the countries cultural climate may devolve further to the gutter than it already is, but the masses will still be stuck with outrageously expensive housing/rental costs that will keep them working fifty hour weeks, thus too busy to challenge the status quo too much.

The media/political elite will weild even more power than they do now. Whether thirty years down the line they choose to have us genuflect and cede our autonomy to the UN will be interesting to see. Im betting they will if the the UN promises more redistribution of wealth.

So lets review....more ethnic hatred, more poverty, more gated communities, more discrepancy in wages, more disparity...........................I hope the cheap labor is worth it.

crush41 said...

Tobias,

I agree with you that legal immigration should be reformed. Family reunification needs to be scrapped and humanitarianism needs to be severely restricted. Employment only accounts for about an eighth of immigrants granted permanent residency (check out this rather depressing graph).

We need a merit immigration and a way to insure the likelihood that net assets stay here. A pet idea is a deposit system--a sort of citizenship downpayment--that is required of the merited foreigners granted residency. Mandate a $50,000 deposit that vests over ten years ($5,000 back a year). Chain migration is damaging on so many levels--it largely brings in dependents, not producers, it acts as a bulwark against assimilation, it decreases the chances of economic improvement in the host countries, etc. Ditto birthright citizenship.

Still, I want to be realistic, and we have an opportunity to put a real dent in illegal immigration, which is overwhelmingly comprised of low-IQ, uneducated, and poor Hispanics. Legal immigration growth has probably already been surpassed by illegal immigration growth (1,000,000 for legals, and probably something higher than that for illegals). The winds are blowing in our favor. We are not going to gain anything from overplaying our hand at this point.

crush41 said...

Anon,

You write "more ethnic hatred, more poverty, more gated communities, more discrepancy in wages, more disparity..." Of course you are right. And the open border types assure of that when the argument they make for unfettered multiculturalism is that it is a good in itself.

It is easy to see why Democrats favor underclass immigration. Working class and underclass minorities are going to favor robin hood economics. High population density (.67 inverse correlation with Bush vote), wealth disparity (median as a percentage of mean correlates with the Bush vote at .39), and educational disparity (.69 statistically significant correlation with Kerry vote as defined by the population of the state that has a bachelor's and beyond or less than a HS diploma) all correlate with the Democratic vote as shown in the parentheses.

Why the Republican Party practicing hara-kiri is the real question.