Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Mr. Proft and Mr. Schakowsky Agree: De Facto Amnesty for Illegals

It was a wild Sunday on WLS talk radio. I put on the Sony Walkman to drown out the ambient noise in Legion Park while trying to read Alvah Simon's riveting account of his solo adventures in the Arctic.

But the banter on both Tom Roeser's "Political Shootout" and on Dan Proft's virgin solo foray into radio talk turned to Arizona and the illegal alien question.

I didn't get much reading done.

What was most disturbing was an identical assertion made by extreme leftist, Bob Creamer (Cong. Jan Schakowsky's convicted felon husband) and ostensible conservative, Proft.

They both repeatedly and quite casually said, "There is no way we are going to be able to deport the 11 million illegal aliens already here."

This is the new shibboleth being propounded by both leftists who lust after a new lumpenproletariat voting bloc and Chamber of Commerce types who crave their next cheap labor fix.

But it's not true.

We can deport substantial numbers of the illegal alien squatters and can effect self deportation of most of the rest.

I'm not talking about draconian measures like President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" which rounded up illegals en masse and bused them back home.

But serious enforcement of existing law (including ongoing deportation) and comprehensive removal of employment and social service possibilities could readily effect removal of those who have effectively ignored our sovereign laws.

When the magnets which attract and keep illegal populations here disappear many will self-deport.

This has happened before in our history. During the darkest days of the Great Depression, tens of thousands of persons who had recently legally immigrated to the USA, faced with bleak job prospects and minimal government assistance, simply packed up and headed home.

According to the political scientist Leuchtenburg, during the dark depression years of 1930-31, the numbers of recent immigrants boarding ships for a return to Europe averaged 5,000 a month.

3,000 American immigrants actually even took up the Soviet Russian government's offer of jobs and resettlement in the workers' utopia. Seems they had full employment in the gulag state.

We have no reason to believe that self-deportation would not correspondingly occur today if all incentives to stay were eliminated. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argue that as many as 50 percent of illegals would leave voluntarily if the government were to initiate an aggressive deportation policy.

When conservative Proft and leftist, Creamer, blithely assert that deportation is impossible, they are simply paving the way for yet another mass amnesty by asserting the impracticality of any alternative.

Amnesty as with the word amnesia is from the classical Greek word for 'forget.'

Either way you cut it, if you believe that deportation is impractical as with Proft or undesirable as with Creamer, you are advocating an amnesty -- that we just forget that they came illegally.

Proft may envision some scheme whereby the illegal invaders may have to pay a tax and perhaps, pretend to learn English. And Creamer may just want to legalize them all and register them to vote tomorrow, but by conceding the inevitability of their continued presence -- by refusing to consider serious enforcement and removal of incentives to stay -- they're both advocating amnesty. They're both telling us to just forget about the fact that our laws have been broken wholesale and our borders and sovereignty as a nation trampeled.

A vote on amnesty for illegal aliens is unlikely in this, an election year. The American people are overwhelmingly against it.

But if it's somehow rammed through in the future, it could well have the most societally disruptive and disasterous consequences to have been experienced in this country since the period 1861-65.


  1. Excellent screed. Unfortunately for you, nothing of what you screech provides an accurate depiction of either my views or the conversation on the Arizona law (which I support) that we had on WLS airwaves this past Sunday night.

    To your point, it was an Ike-style "Operation Wetback" that I was describing as impractical. You must have been too busy concocting this nefarious connect to actually open your ears.

    You apparently also missed the entire discussion about Reagan and Peter Robinson's column about his old boss.

    Finally, a cursory Google search will inform you that as both a candidate for Governor and a commentator I have consistently advocated for reforms that would encourage self-deportation of folks here illegally who aren't interested in being productive/self-sufficient including a complete redetermination of IL's Medicaid rolls to remove persons that should not have access to state Medicaid coverage (such as persons here illegally). Projected savings to the state of somewhere between $500-$750M. I am also a proponent of e-verify and an opponent of extending benefits that should be reserved to US citizens and legal residents such as in-state tuition for post-secondary (something IL currently offers to the children of persons here illegally).

    And, along with the long line of false assertions you make in your post about my views, Sunday night was not my "virgin solo foray into radio talk".

    I gather from your poorly researched post that facts are not welcome here but I figured I'd point a few out all the same.

    Happy ranting,

    Dan Proft

    P.S. Thanks for the clever photo. I look pretty good with a mustache. Okay, I'll consider it.

  2. Sorry for the factual inaccuracy, Dan, was it your 2nd or 3rd time flying solo in the old slot of the famous Nate Clay?
    Did your parents' friends Don and Roma arrange for the gig? I noticed that Roma's insufferable Healthy Trinity ads aired in that uncharacteristic slot. Nice of them to help out.

    As for your long standing support for serious immigration control, seems you were making quite other noises when pulling down the big bucks flacking for the pristine government of heavily Latino Cicero.

    But you did repeatedly emphasize "there's no way we can deport all 11 million -- and that is the leftist tack to try and anaesthetize the electorate to the notion of amnesty. I don't recall you specifying that we should continue and step up deportation efforts in a manner somehow short of Eisenhower's.

    As for the Reagan-Robinson reference, you took a stray quote from RR saying that he didn't want to so restrict immigration as to cause crops to rot in the fields -- that was a general and very minor reference to the guest worker provision of the '86 bill -- and you said that some conservatives might be made uncomfortable by the quote.

    Could have been Mr. Schakowsky talking.

    And if you're such a great born-again immigration control advocate, why are you endorsing Mark Kirk, who flees at the very mention of immigration control? And if you are opposed to in-state tuition for illegal aliens, why have you endorsed Bill Brady for Gov., who was a co-sponsor of that very bill?

    As for the handlebar mustache -- why not? and I'm sure one of your old colleagues in Cicero will be readily able to dig up a sombrero for you as well.

  3. The railing against business strikes me a dubious version of Leftism dressed up as Conservatism.

    Since the horror of a business trying make a profit is just too much for some "Conservatives".

    How about the legion of homeowners who use undocumented immigrants to do landscaping, babysitting, restauranting, and a long list of other labor intensive jobs?


  4. JB, when corporations flaunt the laws by actively seeking and hiring illegal aliens, they are, in effect, the leftist looking for a free handout from the taxpayers. In most cases, they are not providing health care to their minimum or sub-minimum wage employees. If their worker breaks an arm, that's picked up by the taxpayers who pay for Stroger hospital. These corporations don't pay for the education of the 3.3 children that the average illegal alien woman bears -- the taxpayers do.

    As such, the employers of illegal aliens are major welfare recipients -- and welfare cheats. True, a genuine free market would allow any labor from anywhere in the world to just flow here and drive wages to whatever level. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of living in a new sweatshp economy.

    Conservatism requires maintenance of traditional mores, customs, national identity, and language. The fast buck artists who hire illegal aliens undermine all of this.

    Real conservatives and thoughtful libertarians have no business embracing candidates who take cash from the National Restaurant Association and Chamber of Commerce related PACs as those groups have sided with the illegal alien lobby against the interests of working Americans.

    As for those who engage landscapers and servants who are illegal, they're every bit as guilty -- and usually they're hypocrites who rail against the societal effects of the immigration invasion, while enabling it on the sly.


Comments invited, however anonymous commentors had better deal directly with the issues raised and avoid ad hominem drivel. As for Teachers' Union seminar writers -- forget about it.