Your Lying Eyes

Dedicated to uncovering the truth that stands naked before your lying eyes.

E-mail Me

Twitter: yourlyingeyes

05 July 2006

How Ike Sent Them Scurrying Home

A terrific op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor about how Eisenhower turned away a flood of illegal immigrants in the early 50's in the face of entrenched business and political interests. He put a no-nonsense retired general to run the INS - someone who couldn't be intimidated by the likes of LBJ. And then the INS ran sweeps up and across the west, capturing illegal immigrants by the tens of thousands, which led to hundreds of thousands leaving voluntarily rather than be caught in a raid. And when they deported them, they sent them down into deepest Mexico - not just across the border. The 3 million illlegals were reduced to a handful - and all without any 'comprehensive' immigration reform. All it took was just a little bit of integrity on the part of the chief executive - yeah, I know, that's an awful lot to ask these days.

Also included is a sidebar with tips on curbing illegal immigration from former border patrol agents: "Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" (former agent) Edwards says.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This ain't gonna happen when establishment figures like Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, more or less warn of an economic catastrophe if we don't allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by cheap labor.

America would never trust Democrats to make this claim, just Republicans. Americans (still, I think) dont trust the Democrats on economics or security. If the Republican's scare-monger the nation on our NEED for illegals, the more likely they'll get a immigration plan much to their liking passeed in congress for El Presidente' Hand-puppitino el la Senoir Cheney to sign.


What really pisses me off when I hear of the gated-community-country-club-stockholding-class businesszillionaires debate immigration, they act as if we DONT CHANGE CURRENT law and ALLOW an increase from 19 million legals to 66 million legals (and dont even mention a real border fence), they act as if it is JUST HORRIBLE TO CONTEMPLATE NOT DOING THIS. As if some natural disaster will not be averted unless we change and allow those extra 45 million in and keep the border more or less open, it will be an economic disaster. Our current laws will lead to such a crisis. The horror, the plague, the great depression all over again. Quick, steer the Titanic away from that Iceberg!!!

Open the gates (Here comes Ledeen) Faster please! Faster please! Time is running out to save our economy. Lets bring in that third world country and their fifth grade educations and their gang-banger kids and their huge welfare needs and their high social service costs and their different, much lowerbrowed culture before our nation is ruined!!! Hurry, hurry!!! Faster please, before the people have a chance to vote!!!

MH

July 05, 2006 11:05 PM  
Anonymous jimbo said...

Ziel, your imagery is great. "...scurrying..." What, like ants? Oh yeah, and that Ike thing of yours.

July 06, 2006 6:05 AM  
Blogger ziel said...

I think I was envisioning something more like cops breaking up a party and kids scurrying home.

July 06, 2006 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Kurt, Portland Oregon said...

The difference with today is that Ike had character. Most people today, including our politicians, have no character.

July 06, 2006 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronald Reagan was the last president we had that I would trust in a foxhole if he said "hey man, I got your back, and will stick my neck out if give you cover-fire if you charge their line".

Not "read-my-lips" Bush.
I wont mention character in the same sentence with the last name of William Jefferson Blythe "Slick Willie __________".
Not WMD/(un)secure border Shrub or that five-deferrment sidekick of his either.

July 06, 2006 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Russell said...

People bring up Operation Wetback all the time to show that a large amount of deportation is possible, but all it proves is that it's physically possible today (and would probably be easier on that score today than it was 50 years ago).

The main difference between now and then is what is politically possible. Whether you think it's regrettable or laudatory, no majority of Americans would want to stomach instant news feeds of crying babies and mothers being put onto busses with armed guards in the background (and it's wholly immaterial to this media world, BTW, that the vast majority of illegals are transient young men who haven't been here that long). It's simply not in our national constitution at present, and it won't be for for a long time, if ever.

Wetback II is a pipedream guys. We need to focus on the possible.

Luckily, there are strong indicators that massive deportation might not be necessary. A real border barrier and employer enforcement, along with a few prominently conducted sweeps in selective areas, would probably cause a lot of self-deportation. This scenario, if not likely, is at least in the realm of the possible.

July 07, 2006 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Harlem said...

Not sure I agree with Russell.
Having lived in southern California, Georgia and Louisiana, I think something similar to Operation Wetback would be well received, though a more politically correct name, such as "Operation Taking Back Our Country" would be necessary for public consumption, and NPR.
I think there is a significant majority of Americans who want to see this country cleared of illegal immigrants. Some just hate the idea of foreigners living illegally on our soil and some believe there is a serious long term economic and/or security threat.
Just got back from southern California where I discussed this with several people (admittedly no "wetbacks") and they are all convinced that this ongoing illegal immigration is a short or long term threat to them. They cite the incredibly increasing health care and educational costs with no real way of tracking illegal immigrant contributions to same, financially. While it is often argued that these folks "pay taxes", there is little real evidence to support that, beyond sales tax.
There is no doubt that a mass deportation of current illegals and denial of entry to prospective illegals would change the economic structure in certain states or cities. We have to explore if that is a bad thing. Is it possible that illegals in California do so much of the $12 hour (in a "normal" economy - they work for much less) and below, a factor in the incredibly artificial southern California housing market? Some of your readers may remember spending a little time in a cute little semi-attached condo in Irvine several years ago. It was small. It is now on the market for $435K.
The next big domestic crisis this country faces is the real estate crash of CA & AZ. In these markets, they are offering no money down/50 year mortgages. Is it a coincidence that these are the most illegal immigrant infiltrated states? I think not. Illegal immigration has caused a false economy.
The reconfiguration of these economies may be painful but the longer we put it off by allowing the illegals to set the "bottom line" in labor, the worse it will be when the crash comes, unless Vincente Fox slips over the border and gets elected governor of Texas or California. They have health care, education & driver's licenses. Are voting rights far behind?

July 14, 2006 8:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home