That Annoying Man Speaks Again

George Will takes time from baseball ruminations to opine about illegal immigration. I wish he'd go back to baseball. He starts out with a hypothetical proposition:

America, the only developed nation that shares a long -- 2,000-mile -- border with a Third World nation, could seal that border. East Germany showed how: walls, barbed wire, machine gun-toting border guards in towers, mine fields, large, irritable dogs. And we have modern technologies that East Germany never had: sophisticated sensors, unmanned surveillance drones, etc.

Anyone who's ever stood on the mountain peaks in Coronado National Monument, near Sierra Vista, AZ, and seen the grand sweep of the border, and understands just how little of it they are seeing, KNOWS, in a way no Potomac-bound pundit ever could, that no such wall is feasible. The only people who have ever tried such a thing, the Chinese, after squandering vast sums, failed completely in their efforts to keep the Mongols out. Even as a hypothetical idea, it falls flat on its face.

Regarding draconian measures, Will continues:

It is a melancholy fact that many of these may have to be employed along the U.S.-Mexican border. The alternatives are dangerous and disagreeable conditions for Americans residing near the border, and vigilantism. It is, however, important that Americans feel melancholy about taking such measures to frustrate immigration that usually is an entrepreneurial act: taking risks to get to America to do work most Americans spurn.

How "white" of you, George, to feel this noble melancholy! But then, here's George's bullet-point agenda:

But control belongs at the top of the agenda, for four reasons. First, control of borders is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into. Fourth, giving Americans a sense that borders are controlled is a prerequisite for calm consideration of what policy that control should serve.

Regarding point three, people are under the misapprehension that these rallies are being organized by illegal aliens. Some illegal aliens are protesting, to be sure, but most of the rally participants are legal citizens exercising their rights as citizens, as guaranteed under the Constitution, to assemble peacefully. This is not an entitlement mentality, unless the exercise of rights by all citizens who don't live in cloistered gated communities is an entitlement. And point four sounds like a veiled threat: leave us in peace, or else who knows what we'll do?!

Even Will recognizes there are limits to what is possible to solve illegal immigration problems. He embraces guest-worker programs, despite the risk of creating a second-tier of citizenship, much as Europe has experienced, to its chagrin:

Facts, a conservative (John Adams) said, are stubborn things, and regarding immigration, true conservatives take their bearings from facts such as those in the preceding paragraph. Conservatives should want, as the president proposes, a guest worker program to supply what the U.S. economy demands -- immigrant labor for entry-level jobs. Conservatives should favor a policy of encouraging unlimited immigration by educated people with math, engineering, technology or science skills that America's education system is not sufficiently supplying.

Why just these skills? After all, the H1-B program was first initiated to help with the entry of foreign fashion models into the U.S. for extended work contracts. Only later, was it expanded for techical workers.

Will does recognize some of the dangers regarding illegal immigration:

And conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society's crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France. The House-passed bill, making it a felony to be in the country illegally, would make 11 million people permanently ineligible for legal status. To what end?

But then, Will gets all teary about George Bush's wretched Social Security scheme:

The president, who has not hoarded his political capital, spent some trying to get the nation to face facts about the bleak future of an unreformed Social Security system. Concerning which: In 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree; today there are 3.1. By 2030, when all 77 million baby boomers will have left the work force, there will be only 2.2.

Earth to Will: in 1940, Social Security was barely five years old. Very few workers had paid into the system and were collecting benefits. If looking for a proper comparison to the good old days, why not use 1960 figures, after the system had had time to mature? Then, it would become clear that today's system, rather than having a bleak future, has instead quite a cheery future, at least in comparison to the Dickensian nightmare conservatives had all planned out for us.

Just go back to baseball, you exasperating pundit!