Eisenhower solution to illegal aliens

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now, some have suggested that laws against illegal aliens cann't be perfectly enforced, and that therefor no effort to enforce such laws should be made.

Well, George W. Bush has made it clear that he doesn't want to enforce laws against illegal aliens (good-hearted people in his parlance), but we once had a President who did:

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin (Christian Science Monitor 7/6)

WASHINGTON – George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.
Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
 
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint."

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."

Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.

During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."

There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

[opebo]

Haha! 'Operation Wetback'!!  CARLHAYDEN, you fascist, you certainly have a wonderful vision for the future - the 1950's.

[Dr. Cynic]

I agree with Opebo. CARLHAYDEN has never shut up about this issue, and he always provides these long, drawn-out "arguements" against immigration, but what he fails to realize is that more immigrants than not are harmless people! I believe if CARLHAYDEN wants to live in the era of Paranoia a.k.a. the 1950's, then he can go find Doc Brown, get in the DeLorean, and go back there!

Let me also continue by reminding CARLHAYDEN that unless he is a full-blooded Native American, which I highly doubt, then he is the grandson or great-grandson of immigrants! He should be just a little more open-minded on the issue, and not behave like the viscious bigot that he truly is!

Oh and CARL, I've noticed that no one around here really likes you, so either get the board out of your ass and act like a person, or shut up and LEAVE!

Most respectfully....

[Lunar]

I don't think it's that big of a deal that CARL constantly argues immigration.  It's one of the more important issues for him and he argues it well.  I've seen plenty of other people post a lot about single topics, and hell, I'm rather passionate about victimless crimes (sin instead rights violations gets the police  handcuffs).

Considering that a lot of presidents have been more effective than George W, I don't see why we wouldn't look towards the past.

As a slowly-throw-open-the-border advocate I actually am probably CARL's ideological opposite regarding illegal immigration too, so it's not like I'm standing up for someone on my side of the fence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if you don't like long posts, don't read them.  I doubt you read all of CARL's posts anyway, hah.  I personally don't like the "What Party Should I be in?" threads but I'm not going to tell everyone to shut up and leave.

Also, Carl's post is about illegal immigration.  I don't think he is arguing against ALL immigrants and I don't think his parents were illegal immigrants, making his hypocrisy sort of limited.

[nlm]

Let me also continue by reminding CARLHAYDEN that unless he is a full-blooded Native American, which I highly doubt, then he is the grandson or great-grandson of immigrants! He should be just a little more open-minded on the issue, and not behave like the viscious bigot that he truly is!

I believe Carl is talking about illegal immigrants, Not legal ones. There is a difference - you know. Plus, I'm wondering how you have concluded that posting a piece about Eisenhower is viscous?

Oh and CARL, I've noticed that no one around here really likes you, so either get the board out of your ass and act like a person, or shut up and LEAVE!

Speak for yourself. If this represents the best arguement you can make against Carl, well.......maybe you should save your breath, or agree to disagree, or something other than have a fit because somebody has a different opinion.

[NewFederalist]

Good posts Lunar and nlm. Fair and balanced!

[David S]

Too bad we don't have another Ike.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I don't think it's that big of a deal that CARL constantly argues immigration.  It's one of the more important issues for him and he argues it well.  I've seen plenty of other people post a lot about single topics, and hell, I'm rather passionate about victimless crimes (sin instead rights violations gets the police  handcuffs).

Considering that a lot of presidents have been more effective than George W, I don't see why we wouldn't look towards the past.

As a slowly-throw-open-the-border advocate I actually am probably CARL's ideological opposite regarding illegal immigration too, so it's not like I'm standing up for someone on my side of the fence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if you don't like long posts, don't read them.  I doubt you read all of CARL's posts anyway, hah.  I personally don't like the "What Party Should I be in?" threads but I'm not going to tell everyone to shut up and leave.

Also, Carl's post is about illegal immigration.  I don't think he is arguing against ALL immigrants and I don't think his parents were illegal immigrants, making his hypocrisy sort of limited.

Actually Lunar, I am in favor of increased legal immigration, especially among skilled occupations.

One desperate need we have in the country is for qualified nurses.  Currently there are qualified nurses who would like to come to this country, but cann't because of limitations on the number of visas available.

What a lot of people have failed to note is there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration.

Also, I have tried to post factual items (identifying sources), whereas others seem in some instances to simply engage in name calling.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me also continue by reminding CARLHAYDEN that unless he is a full-blooded Native American, which I highly doubt, then he is the grandson or great-grandson of immigrants! He should be just a little more open-minded on the issue, and not behave like the viscious bigot that he truly is!

I believe Carl is talking about illegal immigrants, Not legal ones. There is a difference - you know. Plus, I'm wondering how you have concluded that posting a piece about Eisenhower is viscous?

Oh and CARL, I've noticed that no one around here really likes you, so either get the board out of your ass and act like a person, or shut up and LEAVE!

Speak for yourself. If this represents the best arguement you can make against Carl, well.......maybe you should save your breath, or agree to disagree, or something other than have a fit because somebody has a different opinion.

Thank you Nim.

It seems to me that those who engage in ad hominem attacks instead of providing factual data or logical insights are the ones with the problems.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Too bad we don't have another Ike.

I agree.

Isn't it intereting that the man who lead the armed forces in europe (excluding the Soviet forces) against the NAZIs and Facists enforced a policy for which others call "fascist."

[Lunar]

Actually Lunar, I am in favor of increased legal immigration, especially among skilled occupations.

One desperate need we have in the country is for qualified nurses.  Currently there are qualified nurses who would like to come to this country, but cann't because of limitations on the number of visas available.

What a lot of people have failed to note is there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration.

Also, I have tried to post factual items (identifying sources), whereas others seem in some instances to simply engage in name calling.

That's admirable if you indeed want to expand legal immigration.  I fear that a lot of anti-illegal activists are often motivated out of some form of xenophobia and thus often support immigration restrictions that limit skilled workers.

A county where the Lunar Party controlled congress would probably, at least, have an easy path to citizenship for anyone who had the equivalent of a masters degree from a reputable university.

Rapid strains on the economy can obviously knock things out of tilt, but other than that I have no opposition to immigration myself.  It would seem natural that legal immigration should be extended to the number of new workers the economy can support and then illegal immigration enforced.  I think it's obvious that specific business interests that profit from illegal immigration have excess money to influence politics and thus illegal immigration methods are not enforced.  That, and in general, politics involves a lot more rhetoric than substance.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually Lunar, I am in favor of increased legal immigration, especially among skilled occupations.

One desperate need we have in the country is for qualified nurses.  Currently there are qualified nurses who would like to come to this country, but cann't because of limitations on the number of visas available.

What a lot of people have failed to note is there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration.

Also, I have tried to post factual items (identifying sources), whereas others seem in some instances to simply engage in name calling.

That's admirable if you indeed want to expand legal immigration.  I fear that a lot of anti-illegal activists are often motivated out of some form of xenophobia and thus often support immigration restrictions that limit skilled workers.

A county where the Lunar Party controlled congress would probably, at least, have an easy path to citizenship for anyone who had the equivalent of a masters degree from a reputable university.

Rapid strains on the economy can obviously knock things out of tilt, but other than that I have no opposition to immigration myself.  It would seem natural that legal immigration should be extended to the number of new workers the economy can support and then illegal immigration enforced.  I think it's obvious that specific business interests that profit from illegal immigration have excess money to influence politics and thus illegal immigration methods are not enforced.  That, and in general, politics involves a lot more rhetoric than substance.

Well said.

I support increases in legal immigration while doing what is feasible to stop illegal immigration (I understand no system is perfect)..

The policy I support has been called 'a high wall with a wide gate.'

Now, there are two aspects regarding illegal immigration as it currently exists which harm both the United States and Mexico.

For too many black Americans, entry level jobs have been reduced in both availablity and compensation, with disasterous impact on this part of the American community.

For Mexico, exporting their citizens has been a safety valve which lets them continue in economic inefficency (especially government corruption).

[Nym90]

I agree with what Carl has said. Illegal immigration hurts the economy by driving down wages and increasing crime (both among the immigrants themselves and among those who are already US citizens, due to the lower wages), while legal immigration helps it by providing a higher level of skilled workers in areas that are in desperate need of them.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nym,

I have been trying to understand any possible rational basis for supporting the Senate bill, but have yet to find one which is based on a sound factual basis.

Dibble has urged me to try to understand the though processes of the supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens, and I sincerely have.

So far all I have come up with is that some posters have been convinced (probably by the liberal media) that opposition to amnesty is somehow 'racist' or 'fascist' or 'neonazi.'

Do you, or can anyone else provide factually accurate basis for supporting amnesty?

[opebo]

I agree with what Carl has said. Illegal immigration hurts the economy by driving down wages and increasing crime (both among the immigrants themselves and among those who are already US citizens, due to the lower wages), while legal immigration helps it by providing a higher level of skilled workers in areas that are in desperate need of them.

So punish the perpetrators (the employers), not the victims (the immigrants), Nym90.  Illegal immigration could be greatly reduced if those who employed them were executed, imprisoned, or perhaps exiled to Mexico after confiscation of their properties.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Or we extend US rule over mexican states. Basically keep snapping up a mexian statre every month or os until they decide to stop all illegal immigration north.

[Nym90]

I agree with what Carl has said. Illegal immigration hurts the economy by driving down wages and increasing crime (both among the immigrants themselves and among those who are already US citizens, due to the lower wages), while legal immigration helps it by providing a higher level of skilled workers in areas that are in desperate need of them.

So punish the perpetrators (the employers), not the victims (the immigrants), Nym90.  Illegal immigration could be greatly reduced if those who employed them were executed, imprisoned, or perhaps exiled to Mexico after confiscation of their properties.

I do support strong punishment of employers, as I do feel this is the most effective way to counter the problem. I wouldn't support as strong of punishments as you list here, however.

[Nym90]

Nym,

I have been trying to understand any possible rational basis for supporting the Senate bill, but have yet to find one which is based on a sound factual basis.

Dibble has urged me to try to understand the though processes of the supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens, and I sincerely have.

So far all I have come up with is that some posters have been convinced (probably by the liberal media) that opposition to amnesty is somehow 'racist' or 'fascist' or 'neonazi.'

Do you, or can anyone else provide factually accurate basis for supporting amnesty?

Well, the only logical thing I can really think of is that it might cost more to fix the problem (as increased enforcement obviously does require great short term expenditure) than it would be worth, although I don't agree that would be true in the long run.

Beyond that, obviously corporate America has very little incentive to want a solution, as they benefit greatly in the short term from lowering wages. I think that's the primary motivation behind the President's policy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nym,

I have been trying to understand any possible rational basis for supporting the Senate bill, but have yet to find one which is based on a sound factual basis.

Dibble has urged me to try to understand the though processes of the supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens, and I sincerely have.

So far all I have come up with is that some posters have been convinced (probably by the liberal media) that opposition to amnesty is somehow 'racist' or 'fascist' or 'neonazi.'

Do you, or can anyone else provide factually accurate basis for supporting amnesty?

Well, the only logical thing I can really think of is that it might cost more to fix the problem (as increased enforcement obviously does require great short term expenditure) than it would be worth, although I don't agree that would be true in the long run.

Beyond that, obviously corporate America has very little incentive to want a solution, as they benefit greatly in the short term from lowering wages. I think that's the primary motivation behind the President's policy.

Thanks.

As to the cost of the operation, it all depends upon how it is structured.  while building the barrier will cost money, there are a number of cost savings methods which can be used in constrution.

Actually, the combination of employer enforcement and removal of governmental benefits will have the greatest impact, with comparatively little costs (let employers know they have a real risk of real sanctions, and they will rush to comply).

While I agree with you that corporate interests are funding the support for amnesty, in all honesty, my sources tell me that George W. Bush is really goofy on this subject.

[opebo]

...corporate interests are funding the support for amnesty, in all honesty, my sources tell me that George W. Bush is really goofy on this subject.

CARLHEYDAN, you silly ass, George W. Bush always, invariably supports the positions chosen for him by and beneficial to corporate interests.  How can you call his position on this issue 'goofy' when it is completely predictable and totally congruous with his entire political life?