Rudy Giuliani's cheap-shot at Mitt Romney in CNN/YouTube debate about illegal aliens working at his mansion proves to be bullseye instead and sharpens focus on illegal immigration.
Wherefore art thou, Common Sense, on the issue of illegal aliens? Fusillades between Giuliani and Romney in the CNN/YouTube debate over illegal immigration which initially appeared to shed more heat than light now appear to have shed more light than heat. Just ask Romney and his lawn-care contractor. See also PoliSat.Com/Three Amigos.htm.
The latest episode in the recent exchanges of political jabs between Rudy Giuiliani and Mitt Romney over employment of illegal aliens brings back into focus the virtually collective nature of political responsibility for a massive political and legal problems flowing from such activity. Although I personally favor Giuliani, I was disappointed by what I deemed his "cheap shot" at Romney about the prior incidents of employment of illegal aliens in work at Romney's mansion. Romney's response that -- none of us would expect a homeowner to investigate the citizen/resident status of workers employed by a reputable contractor employed by the homeowner-- made it obvious why Giuliani's jab at Romney appeared to be a "cheap shot." However, maybe it wasn't so "cheap" after all. According to the article linked above, Romney decided to give that contractor a "second chance." (FYI, in case it matters, I'm inclined to prefer Giuliani over anyone else seeking the nominatin for 2008, but I have no relationship to his, or to anyone else's, campaign.)
Having been forewarned by the prior practices of that contractor, Romney's effort to again seek refuge in his first defense rings hollow. One of the reasons that so many employers have willfully and knowingly employed illegal aliens is that they've come to understand that there is a de facto political entitlement to do so-- i.e., that not only will they always get a "second" chance but that they'll get "third," "fourth," chances etc, ad infinitum. Thus, if one were to assume that perhaps Giuliani's "opposition research" team knew about the soon-to-be-revealed deja vu at Romney's mansion, Giuliani's jab may not have been a "cheap shot" but rather more like hitting the nail on the head. (However, like most other political figures, Giuliana likewise played a role in the evolutionary, de facto political acceptance of employment of illegal aliens, but the issue today is the extent to which such politicians still support, rather than oppose, employment of illegal aliens. Few who currently "oppose" it and now "favor" strong border enforcement could honestly deny having "flip-flopped" from prior positions.)
Unequal protection of American citizens vis-a-vis illegal aliens is becoming the political legacy bequeathed to American citizens by American politicians through their indifference to, active toleration of, or intentional promotion of, widespread, blatant and increasing disregard and violation of our sovereignty over our borders-- especially our southern border. In what respects? I write about one, though there are more.
An American citizen creating or using a fraudulent Social Security identity is subject to criminal prosecution and incarceration. That there may be many Americans who have "gotten away" with such offenses is testament not to any political entitlement to do so but rather to the inadequacy of resources of the federal government to investigate and prosecute more such offenses. However, the political climate since the amnesty for illegal aliens granted during Reagan's presidency has accorded de facto immunity to illegal aliens committing the same offenses. Such de facto immunity has become a political entitlement. As everyone not having lived under a rock knows, there's plenty of guilt to go around.
The oversized collectivist wing of the current Democrat Party supports such political entitlement in the expectation of expanding its collectivist-minded political base through ultimate granting of citizenship as the reward for such fraud. The free-trade/free-market wings (there are more than one) of the Republican Party support such political entitlement for different reasons. Some do so in their misguided desire for free-trade and free markets to trump sovereignty. Some do so in their belief that people who enter this country illegally as refugees from economically impoverished and politically corrupt climates and who also are willing to work very hard to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps are likely (as have been people who enter to seek political asylum) to ultimately become excellent citizens who will exert political support for principles of free markets, free trade and liberty generally.
Economic and political realists know that free-trade places unskilled American labor at an accelerating disadvantage but that trade-barriers place all American labor at an accelerating disadvantage. Thus, for virtually opposite reasons, the free-market/free-traders and their ideological adversaries (the collectivists) have exerted their influence to create, expand and perpetuate a de facto political entitlement for employment of illegal aliens.
I favor free markets and free trade. I still support NAFTA. One of the expected goals of NAFTA was to help create a rising middle class in Mexico expected to acquire the economic and political clout to gradually reduce the widespread economic and political corruption which has characterized so much of Mexico's history. However, two decades of America's de facto political entitlement for employment of illegal aliens has produced the opposite result. The lure of both freedom and opportunities for economic advancement has produced an unholy marriage between criminal/corrupt elements and millions of decent Mexicans willing to work very hard to advance themselves economically and ultimately acquire citizenship status in a society not characterized by massive economic/political corruption. Although the tendency of many such illegal aliens working in the United States to send large portions of their earnings to their families and/or relatives in Mexico has become a huges source of "revenue" for Mexico, this process has deprived Mexico of the political benefits of the presence and political influence of millions of its hardest-working citizens.
But it's not NAFTA that's to blame for this manifestation of the law of unintended consequences. Instead, it's the two decades of de facto political entitlement for employment of illegal aliens. This is bad not only for America but also for Mexico for several reasons. Too many of the illegal aliens working here (in their hopes to ultimately become citizens) remain economic, emotional and political hostages to the corrupt process and people who brought them here. Too may of our free-market/free-trade supporters of employment "entitlement" for illegal aliens are blind to the reality that such process is not merely importing "work ethic" into America but also a mindset tacitly accepting corruption as suitable, substitute means for lawful means. Too many collectivists supporting such entitlement are blind to the fact that substantial numbers of such illegal aliens share the goal of the Reconquista movement, which expects to have acquired sufficient demographic clout by the mid-Twenty-First Century (if not sooner) to spark as successful secessionist movement in large portions of our southern border states.
What is (are) the solution(s)? Effective border enforcement alone may not be sufficient, but it is, without doubt, necessary as a first step. I pay little attention to proponents of illegal-alien employment whose narcissistic vanity prompts them to characterize opponents of same as "bigots" or xenophobes in order to view themselves as "caring" and "humanitarian." It's such obvious hogwash. But I don't think it's in our country's interests to impose blanket disqualification from citizenship on all illegal aliens any more than to grant blanket amnesty. I think there's a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, but the first step must be enforcement. Otherwises, the Romneys of the world (i.e., most Americans-- we all bear some responsbility for having allowed politicians to create this de facto political entitlement) will continue giving "contractors" a "second, third, fourth, fifth," chance etc. ad infinitum, and, before we know it, the southwest will have beocme AztLand if not a route for terrorists attacks far sooner.
Jim is a proud descendant of 18th Century criminal exiles from England who swam to the Outer Banks when the British ship taking them to a Georgia penal colony sank in a storm near Cape Hatteras. Having the prescience to prevent their descendants from becoming "TarHeels," they immediately migrated to Virginia, where, within just a few generations they worked their way up into poverty. Jim's grandfather was the first in the family tree to see the distant horizons, but his career was cut short by severe injuries he sustained when a cousin cut down the tree.
After a brief stint in the Amry (ours) following graduation from law school, he began his legal career in the state bureaucracy but was never able to break into the federal bureaucracy. Several years later, he entered the private practice of law and co-founded a small law publishing company. Later, finding the publishing of small laws unstimulating and finding his private practice too private to be lucrative, he began writing political satire/commentary. His greatest vice is taking himself too seriously.
Although he regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education courses to lawyers, he's too-often available through he Rubber Chicken Speakers Bureau to speak on politics, satire, etc., at luncheons, dinners, root canals, funerals, etc. His speaking fees are so outrageously high they border on criminal price-gouging, but as a free-market advocate, he defends his fees on the higher moral ground of charging whatever the traffic will bear. For more information (surely more than one would want or need), go to www.PoliSat.Com.