Illegal Immigration Foes Support Attrition – And Amnesty?

By Xelan Bonn

WASHINGTON, D.C. – July 6, 2007

In the fight against illegal immigration, the “anti-groups” posted a great victory by defeating the Senate’s immigration reform bill S.1639. And today, as they march forward in support of attrition plans (that seek to reduce and eliminate illegal immigration by stopping illegal employers), they are blindly marching in support of “pro-amnesty” and “pro-open borders” as ironic and amazing as that seems. How could that be?

To better understand this fact, let’s first delve into alternative solutions and examine some key aspects of politics and strategy.

Opponents in Congress have long lamented the question, “What do we do with the 12 million illegal aliens already here?” They ask that question as if there are no answers. As we will see, there are several solutions, some better than others.

Some politicians struggling with the immigration debate abhorred the idea of rounding up illegal aliens in mass enforcement hunts. They overlooked the fact that this has been very effective in the past. In 1954 President Eisenhower rounded up 80,000 illegal aliens and forced an estimated 750,000 to return home on their own—most illegal aliens feared being caught and jailed. The fact is, whatever the federal government intends to achieve, it generally achieves.

Currently, the federal government appears to want to achieve an “Amnesty” for all illegal aliens and keep this massive group of cheap and exploitative labor in the US at all costs. Meanwhile, opponents to illegal immigration are now supporting tougher enforcement of our immigration laws and pushing an “attrition” agenda.

Attrition is considered an alternative to mass hunting and round-up of illegal aliens, which works by cutting off the resources that draw and keep illegal aliens. If illegal aliens are unable to work, the thinking goes, then they will be forced to voluntarily leave the US. This sort of plan, if it worked, would be highly cost effective in many ways and makes a lot of sense on the surface.  However, a close examination reveals its folly.

The major drawbacks to Attrition plans are that:

1. Such plans require years to establish even marginal results as many employers of illegal aliens will continue to use black market hiring practices regardless of the laws (cash operations).
2. Besides not eliminating the illegal immigration crisis, this would also leave millions of people on US soil who have not been identified as either “benign” aliens or “potential terrorists aliens;” a critical piece of knowledge in the war on domestic terrorism is then lost—less than 20 terrorist took down the World Trade Center).
3. An attrition plan allows the entire issue of illegal immigration to linger in an unresolved state, allowing for more half-baked, piecemeal plans rather than approaching the subject decisively and singularly to make a final determination on the subject (and to set a clear national policy).
4. Attrition plans fail to provide humanitarian assistance to many illegal aliens who have used up their valuable resources merely to arrive here. It offers no alternative resource for returning illegal aliens back to their home country and giving them aid to sustain themselves for a time once they arrive back home.
5. Such plans negatively impact commerce, eroding tax bases (tax evasion), and allow illegal workers to keep American jobs while devaluing wages over prolonged periods until enforcement efforts can be increased.
6. Attrition aids domestic terrorism by prolonging the black market support functions (i.e. identity theft, etc.) that illegal aliens rely upon (as well as terrorists).
7. Such plans allow millions of  illegal alien criminals to remain unhindered or unknown to US law enforcement. Meanwhile, law enforcement resources themselves remain swamped due to having to deal with illegal aliens.
8. Attrition plans fail to provide for public health safety aspects, such as containment of unwanted and even deadly diseases that are being spread into the US population by uncontrolled immigration (people who bypass legal immigration health screenings).
9. Such plans fail to remove illegal aliens in a timely fashion to free up social services or health services for the US citizen or indigent.
10. Finally, attrition plans, while take years to unfold, continue to allow illegal aliens to siphon off major amounts of US, state, and local treasure, whether in the form of healthcare, welfare, or social services, Social Security, law enforcement, prison housing, and the list goes on ad nausea to the tune exceeding $200 billion annually (according the Operation Safe America report). 

Most importantly, such attrition plans are not plans at all. They fail to secure permanent legislation or removal of illegal aliens from US soil and leave the door wide open for further attempts at “amnesty schemes” as time passes—giving opponents multiple opportunities to ply legislation in the dark of night that secures “amnesty” for millions of criminal trespassers on US soil illegally. In short, such plans only aid “pro amnesty” proponents by giving them the time they need to rally new strategies and actions--like deliberating trying to confuse legal immigration with its criminal counterpart.

Pro-amnesty, pro-overpopulation groups and politicians are already plotting their next moves and currently they are supporting President Bush’s  “drag feet policy” when if comes to immigration law enforcement. These groups are eagerly awaiting an opportune time to slip in riders or midnight bills or other forms of less public legislation that will silently ensure “amnesty” to millions of illegal aliens. Further, if they must, they will await a new president that is equally friendly to "pro-amnesty" (Clinton, Obama, etc.) and then take up the “amnesty torch” after the elections and force opponents on the defensive ropes once again.

In the mean time, proponents are encouraging illegal aliens to document their dates of trespass on to US soil, times and places of work, and other life aspects toward securing naturalized citizenship under current immigration law loopholes--they have not given up by a long shot.

This time around, the pro-amnesty alliance was caught off guard and unprepared for the power of grassroots organizers, but next time around, with their vast power and resources in strong plot and working in unison, the “anti-alliance” groups may be hard-pressed to win (they have very little in resources or capabilities in comparison to the establishment and its big business supporters). For grassroots organizers, the next fight may be more akin to trying to fight an elephant with a twig. 

However, there are two possibilities that can make all the difference for the "anti-alliance": either add 40-60 million voters to the roles of those who will actively protest such "pro-amnesty" schemes and reassure Congress that the entire public sentiment (not just some in the grassroots community) is "anti-amnesty," or begin attacking with an offensive strategy--the former highly unlikely, the latter already underway.

The Safe America Act (SAA) is just such an offensive strategy tool. It goes beyond Attrition and achieves a total victory for the “anti-alliance” if it can be supported by enough Americans who can then pressure Congress to enact it into law. SAA is humanitarian yet also quickly clears America of all those who are on US soil illegally, allowing law enforcement to better focus its scarce resources on anti-terrorism, criminals, etc. (among many other benefits). 

SAA is the only proposal to date that is now circulating in certain sectors in the House that could eliminate, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration in the US--and do so before the 2008 election outcome. SAA is safe ground for the "anti-allegiance" and those who believe in the rule-of-law and the US Constitution. SAA is poison to the "pro-amnesty" "pro-anarchy" "pro-open borders" crowd.

As appealing and easy as attrition plans seem, “anti-amnesty” groups will have to come up with something much more stronger and decisive than simply waiting and hoping for a final victory in this political war--a war against a powerful foe who will come much more prepared, and with much more heavy artillery the next time around. Without an offensive strategy that keeps the current grassroots momentum intact and moving forward, and that seeks to resolve the limited issue of "illegal" immigration, the rule-of-law crowd will likely suffer a bitter final defeat in this critical war for the heart and sole of America.

For until we remove the criminal trespasser among us, identify (and track) all foreigners on US soil, secure our borders, and secure our nation's children from open door, open border access terrorism, we shall remain a people divided--those who support anarchy and extremist liberalism and unlawful actions like illegal immigration, or those who support our Constitution and the rule-of-law as well as self-rule determination and safety for all Americans. 

Read more about SAA at: http://www.patriotunion.org/reform.htm

##

Copyright PUA 2007. All Rights Reserved.