June 24, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:But they're illegal
I find the argument that the problem with immigrants is illegal immigration pretty uncompelling. First of all, it's almost (not always) made by people who don't want to let those people (or equivalent numbers of their more law abiding compatriots) in legally, and react against any proposal to do so with exactly the vehemence that they complain about the illegal entry of illegal immigrants. The people making that argument may not be trying to be disingenuous, but ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: their real problem is that they don't want that many immigrants here, regardless of whether they entered legally or not.
And second of all, virtually no one who makes that argument is perfectly law abiding. Ever driven above the speed limit? Had a drink underage? Failed to declare the hundred bucks your friend gave you to tune up his engine? Jaywalked? Had sex with a sixteen year old when you were seventeen? Failed to separate your recyclables? Walked in the park after closing time? Smoked pot, or something stronger? Paid a worker to do something in your house or yard without giving them a 1099 or paying payroll taxes on their wages? Taken a pill that was prescribed to someone else? All of those are illegal; some of them are felonies. And I'll freely disclose that I've done a lot of them, although not which ones.
Breaking some laws--by, say, mugging an old lady for her social security check--is not only illegal but immoral. Other laws have neutral moral content. And breaking still other laws is morally required, as in when Nazi Germany ordered its citizens to turn Jews over to the concentration camp roundups (though I will not condemn those who failed, out of terror, to do so; who knows what I would have done at the mercy of Hitler's government.)
It is far from clear to me that being an illegal alien is a morally wrong, as opposed to legally wrong, act. It might even be a morally required act, if, say, your income is getting medical care and food for children back in Mexico who would otherwise died. But regardless of your opinion on the matter, you can't simply say "But they're illegal"; given that there is dispute about the moral status of our immigration laws, you first have to prove to your interlocutor's satisfaction that the law ought to exist. None of the people I've talked to who say that their problem is not the immigrants themselves, but their legal status, has even tried to prove that our immigration restrictions are just and right--which is strange, because those people generally want to make them even more draconian.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 24, 2007 5:36 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksYou're stating the obvious. "But they're illegal" is a polite way of saying "But they're Mexican". The correct response is to remind these well meaning but unintentional bigots of the benefits of Mexican labor in our economy. Inexpensive produce, construction labor, restaurant service and cooking, landscaping, etc.
Ironically, the "they're illegal" loudmouths are bringing about the best possible resolution to the immigration issue, which is simply keeping the status quo. Eventually, nobody will care too much about the illegality of it, just like nobody cares too much about speed limits, drug laws, drinking age, etc.
The correct response is to remind these well meaning but unintentional bigots of the benefits of Mexican labor in our economy. Inexpensive produce, construction labor, restaurant service and cooking, landscaping, etc.
But of course it's not immoral to want a large class of servile, noncitizen labor, and it's not racist to be okay with having it be segregated on racial lines.
That's right AT, it isn't immoral to want a large class of servile, noncitizen labor as long as the labor force is voluntary. No one forced Mexicans to come here. They know what they're getting into. These immigrants believe it's better to be illegal in America than to be legal in Mexico. When their children grow up they'll be American citizens and have a better life than their parents. That's the price they're willing to pay.
I'm as pro-immigrant as they come, but even I think that large-scale "temporary immigration", whether it be illegal or part of a guest worker problem, is a disastrous policy. America is not great because it's a country of immigrants, but great because it's a country of assimilated immigrants. Anyone who visits Europe, or sees the centuries-old unassimilated immigrant communities in the Mideast and SE Asia is aware of the problems.
I for one think that we should shut down illegal immigration entirely by fining employers who hire illegals (clearly easier than tracking down individual migrants), yet we should also increase the legal immigration quota so the net result is neutral.
The other problem with illegal immigration is that there are literally millions in Africa, E. Europe and Asia who would love the opportunity to move to America. I don't know what's fair about the current setup where we let a few of these people, having applied legally, trickle in, yet look the other way as millions cross the border illegally. How is this fair?
it's almost (not always) made by people who don't want to let those people (or equivalent numbers of their more law abiding compatriots) in legally
I find that most people who don't want to let those people in legally are willing to say so, and don't bother to pretend otherwise. The people who say that their problem is with only illegal immigration really do mean what they say, I think. Or do you assume that everyone who does not explicitly say, "I'm against illegal immigration but favor massive increases in legal immigration" have a hidden agenda?
Last I checked, issuance of 1099's is only required for (i) businesses (ii) making payments of over $600 in a year to (iii) non-corporations. It's not likely that the average reader has made any payments in the past year that require 1099s.
Illegal immigrants today have a lot in common with each other in addition to their having broken American immigration law, and *those* are things that bother people most - not the fact that they broke a law, per se. That's what people mean when they say they are specifically against *illegal* immigration - not that they believe that “illegal” = “terrible, unforgivable, must-be-opposed-at-all-costs.”
These things I refer to include
1. Being part of a massive wave of illegal immigrants.
2. Overwhelmingly coming from one small region of the world.
3. Having a common language, which is not English.
4. Being much more prone to not learning English than other immigrant groups.
5. Having much more in common with each other, historically and culturally, than they do with Americans.
6. Having not only minimal levels of education, but having a culture that almost anti-academic.
7. Having high levels of criminal activity.
8. Being of an ethnic group that has the among the highest rates of unemployment, incarceration, and illegitimacy, and among the lowest levels of education and income.
9. Being publically represented by people marching in huge numbers in the streets, waving foreign flags, *demanding* that we give them "their rights."
10. Being of part of a group of people who come predominantly from a country (Mexico) that has a colorable claim to a large portion of American territory, and that this notion is alive and well in the hearts of many Mexican people.
P.S. As for the claim that illegals come here so they can obtain "medical care and food for children back in Mexico who would otherwise died"...
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the vast majority of undocumented migrants from Mexico were gainfully employed before they left for the United States.
Couple things here: I prefer owning 1/320000000 or Yellowstone, rather than 1/500000000 of it. Maybe this is silly, but it's been awfully hard to get access to Yosemite lately.
But they're illegal can be a perfectly valid shorthand for, let's CHOOSE the people we allow in. Probably we need more Polish calculus teachers more than we need to have the pool of laborers waiting for day jobs doubled in size.
Trent Lott and Nancy Pelosi seem to think that they are the alpha and the omega of USA public life, and that if they both want something, it must be good. They think the distinction which matters is right versus left. They are wrong here: the distinction to be made is between people who mow their own lawns and people who have servants do it. So Trent and Nancy would rather have Tractable Juan do the work, than knows-his-rights Jermaine who may give them some lip and play a radio loud. And, absolutely, Juan is a more attractive employee, from the individual's point of view. But the social costs of allowing Trent and Nancy to throw Jermaine away are huge.
Is Jane dating an illegal Mexican immigrant these days? Because that's just about the only answer I can come up for her bizarre behaviour on this subject. "It's OK to be break immigration laws, because everybody breaks laws all the time! And you're a racist for even bringing it up!"
Geez.
That's right AT, it isn't immoral to want a large class of servile, noncitizen labor as long as the labor force is voluntary. No one forced Mexicans to come here. They know what they're getting into. These immigrants believe it's better to be illegal in America than to be legal in Mexico. When their children grow up they'll be American citizens and have a better life than their parents. That's the price they're willing to pay.
What cure said. And dave s. I'm not thrilled about exacerbating our 400 year-old race problem with a whole new one. I'm also glad that others are uncomfortable about the idea of replacing large segments of our working class with "guest workers." I think Athens and Rome tried something similar, and it didn't work out too well for them. Actually, I guess it worked out for some people. Do those of you on Jane's side like that you're on the same side as George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy?
Oh, and did Jane suggest that not being an illegal immigrant is the same as putting Jews in ovens? Holy !@#$% $()&^.
Well, I knew I didn't agree with many people on either side of the immigration debate, but I had no idea that I was the only person in America who wants to both tighten enforcement against illegal immigration and increase legal immigration.
I though that was a reasonable position because I know the benefits that immigrants bring to our country, but I'm concerned about having a southern border so porous that literally millions of people cross it illegally. And given the kinds of people who help them cross (i.e. real criminal gangs), I was concerned that they might be helping other people (e.g. terrorists) cross too.
But now, thanks to Megan's post, I have seen the light. I know I'm just an anti-Mexican bigot, who, because I have exceeded the speed limit in the past, has no right to an opinion on this or any other matter that involves the law.
Thanks for setting me straight Megan!
Jim
"None of the people I've talked to who say that their problem is not the immigrants themselves, but their legal status, has even tried to prove that our immigration restrictions are just and right" -Jane
Um, OK, why do I have to prove that the laws are just or right? There are immigration laws for most countries the world over, and some are more interesting than others, but I have not wanted or needed to matrix them to decide which is just or right. The legal drinking age in the US is 21. Is it just or right? I guess it depends on who you talk to, is it a requirement to be one or both of those things? How about tax laws, Just or Right? Just Right?
At this point you may know that I AM one of the ones who thinks legal status may BE the only important thing, while the laws are in need of tweaking. Immigration law is NEVER going to make everyone happy, unless there ARE NO LAWS. There is no requirement upon us as a society that we let everyone in. IF we set a rule, those that abide by it and fit the qulifications are allowed in. Those who do not, not. It isn't so hard. Our laws are not even that draconian, when compared to countries in the EU or even Mexico. In fact, the penalties in those countries for violations ARE far more draconian than ours. Only recently have the French decided that the child of an Immigrant is a French citizen [2000] where that has been true here for a long time, that doesn't seem to be that draconian...
What seems to be most objectionable in our laws is that we say a close family member [citizen] or employer must petition on your behalf... Mexico on the other hand makes it sound pretty straightforward:
http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm#ImmPermit
however you will see the words: "Once your application has been accepted" ... there are criteria to meet and so forth. There is NOTHING to say that they MUST accept you. Also these words:
"Can I be granted Mexican Citizenship?
Acquiring Mexican Citizenship is an involved process, and it is not easy to do. As a minimum, you must have been living in Mexico for 5 years (2 years under special circumstances) and have resident status."
All that really shows is that there is a process to immigrate to Mexico, and there is a similar process to immigrating to the US.
I don't see that Mexico has to prove it is Just or Right, any more than anyone else.
Their country has a right of Sovereignty, and so do we.
"Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself."
If you violate our sovereignty, we have a right to do something about that. The laws themselves have not changed much in many years, so this hullaballo seems to stem more from the way it isn't or can't be applied because of the permeability of our border, then that it is wrong to assert sovereignty.
As I have stated before, I don't particularly care what country they are from, they have to follow the rules to get here. If you feel that congress is incapable of making the changes needed in the laws, that is a whole 'nother question.
There is no dispute on the morality of our immigration laws that I know of. They apply to everyone equally. SO... would you care to show some more background on that?
It's just that there are few people from Indonesia willing to take a boat all the way over here and try to sneak in, so you don't hear much about illegal Indonesian Immigrants. You do hear about illegal immigrants from Mexico, because it is close enough to walk.
Would you be talking this way if we were an island nation? If you actually want to put your money where your mouth is, I challenge you to get a matrix of information on immigration to all the major countries, AND information on how many people are actually let in. I would also invite you to come to the southwest, along the ACTUAL border with Mexico, and find out first hand what the whole story is.
I'd be a lot more inclined to accept your moral drubbing if I had a belief that you had really done field research, had really collected the data, and interviewed real people. It is easy to make pronouncements from 2000+ miles away about things you have read in books.
I believe you'll find that the question is far more complex than you imagine, and while the answer may be easy, implementation might well be your life's work.
D
RMc:
Is Jane dating an illegal Mexican immigrant these days? Because that's just about the only answer I can come up for her bizarre behaviour on this subject.
No, the truth is much darker than that. She has discovered that if the pro-enforcement side wins this round, its next step will be to travel back in time to the 1850s to stop her Irish ancestors from immigrating, so that they will later be forced to jaywalk for Hitler.
The immigrant situation is being exacerbated by those who wail about the poor people in Mexico. Jesus, give me a break!!! If you want to see really poor people, go to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Zaire, Angola,etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...
I think about three more millions from these locaitons should descend on NYC because this is the 'true melting pot' for the US, and it would probably make life miserable for Miss Megan. The only way to really see what these people have to put up with is to go look at what they have to live for. In relative aspect, the Mexicans are living high on the hog. At the very least, Megan can see that the Irish aren't the only ones who've been shat upon when they first came over. I'm sure it would make the housing crunch a little more desperate, like it has here in Cali.
Yes, folks, there are several reasons why the flood should be spigoted down (I DIDN"T say bigoted, now!!:-). The illegality of it is one aspect, but the sheer numbers are the other. We don't really have time to wait 40-80 years for assimilation to take place. At the current influx of one major group of illegals coming across our border, we might as well merge with Mexico, and throw Canada in at the same time...
Wait a minute!!!!! IS THIS WHAT BUSH wants us to do!!! OMG, I can't believe I actually couldn't see this for the last six years!!!! What a freakin' Revelation!!! At least now those wicked evangelicals can be happy, with a True Revelation and all.
I find the argument that the problem with immigrants is illegal immigration pretty uncompelling. First of all, it's almost (not always) made by people who don't want to let those people (or equivalent numbers of their more law abiding compatriots) in legally, and react against any proposal to do so with exactly the vehemence that they complain about the illegal entry of illegal immigrants. The people making that argument may not be trying to be disingenuous, but ultimately, this is a pointless distraction: their real problem is that they don't want that many immigrants here, regardless of whether they entered legally or not.
See Jane.
See Jane jump.
Jump, Jane, jump.
Dick sees Jane jump shark.
-- The Adventures of Dick and Jane, Revised Ed. (c)2007
Seriously, this and your previous two posts on the topic are some of the most disappointing writing I've seen on this website. Whatever your enemies may say of you, it is NOT like you to dismiss a broad range of arguments against your position with a handwave and shoddy logical comparisons, then red-card anyone who might have points to make with those arguments as likely bigots. Which makes me wonder if all this is about something else.
Maybe you should stop pretending that your east coast upbringing -- where the bulk of the immigrants are already assimilated, the new ones arrive in much smaller numbers these days, and the poor can have their broader societal startup costs absorbed by a dense and fertile tax base -- gives you a proper perspective on what is occurring over here in the central western and southwestern states.
Here's a hint: it involves very large numbers of low-income persons who have no understanding of the social and legal framework they are entering, having come from a corrupt pseudo-authoritarian state with moderately severe social stratification, in which the elite class uses the northern border alternately as an overpressure valve to release millions of potential problems each year and a money repatriation channel to solve the problem of welfare to the underclass.
Yes, the immigrants assimilate eventually, but until then, they impose enormous social and political costs on the local communities, and their initial lack of legal framework understanding is not readily correctable or policeable by virtue of sheer volume. When they (or their children) finally make the transition, millions more first-gens have already replaced them.
You mentioned traffic laws as part of your shoddy moral equivalence argument. Know what one of the really common ones around here is? Driving without liability insurance (and often unlicensed besides). Moral equivalence that, if you dare. I've got a friend you can talk with about the >$5k he paid out of pocket to repair his T-boned car, because three first-gen Mexicans figured that if the key would start the truck, then it was okay to take it on public roads. Hard to say if they even understood what liability insurance is, or could afford it if they knew. It happens all the time, and that's just about the LEAST of the kinds of rule-of-law problems that occur because of the jarring differences between Mexico, and here.
I think JackWayne's rebuttal might be the best one.
But you have to admit, there are circles (such as talk radio) where the the argument really is just thinly veiled racism. Chris did a great job of exemplifying this:
"1. But there are so many of them.
2. And they're from Mexico.
3. And they talk Mexican!
...
8. And they're ethnically inclined to wicked whorish ways.
9. And there are so many of them!
10. Plus, they secretly want to seize the whole southwestern U.S. for Mexico."
Jim, Hei Lun Chan, and Jack Wayne are understandably aggrieved because they oppose legalizing illegal immigrants for other reasons. But guys, your side of the debate is being dominated by, um, other voices. Jane was writing about what they're saying.
Guys, you're kidding, right? I grew up on the pre-gentrification Upper West Side of New York. One third of my school was in old-style bilingual ed; i.e., they didn't speak English. Then there were the haitian kids who also didn't speak English, except that there wasn't a separate class for them, so they just looked aimless. Overall, I'd guess that more than half of my class were either first generation, or foreign born. Of all the charges that can be levelled at me, the accusation that I just don't understand what it's like to live somewhere with unassimilated immigrants is the most ludicrous. Permit me to suggest that you might be the ones who are, ahem, unfamiliar with local conditions elsewhere, and ignorant of your ignorance.
As for now, almost half of the population of New York City is foreign born. One third of the city's residents are on Medicaid, of which half or more, last time I looked, were immigrants. That's why I pay about 45% of my income to taxes; supporting social services for those immigrants. You may disagree with my assertions, but I am not speaking out of ignorance, or a blithe willingness to let others bear the burden of what I'm advocating. The kid who robbed my house last November was named Ruiz; I neither know nor care whether his parents entered the city legally.
I know that there are people who want to tighten up on illegal immigration, while expanding legal immigration; but c'mon, this is not the majority, or even a substantial minority, of the voices discussing the matter. I cannot open a window into men's souls, but neither polls nor public discourse support your assertion that this is some sort of happy median.
And no, I did not compare immigration to hiding jews from the Nazis; now you're just looking to be insulted. I used the example of hiding Jews from Nazis to clarify an important moral distinction; you couldn't possibly reasonably read it any other way.
Finally, Chris, other than the charge of not speaking English (although many of the early ones didn't), every single thing you've written could be levelled against the Irish. And Mexican kids, as the data shows, are learning English just like everyone else's kids. Second generation Mexican kids are barely more likely to speak fluent Spanish than the average American. Again, just like the Poles, the Italians, the Jews, yadda yadda. Sure, they could stay in the ghetto speaking Spanish, just like your ancestors could have. But they don't. For the same reason their parents didn't stay on the other side of the border: because the money and the fun are across the language line.
Why do I keep bringing up the Irish? Because they didn't destroy the country, did they? I mean, it's still a pretty good place to live? Doesn't look a whole lot like Ireland, right? And you can't pick out the Irish on the street because of their thick brogues and those funny striped stockings sticking out from under the too-short skirts their women wear? Assimilation happens. So far, I'm underwhelmed by the arguments that Mexicans are different. In theory, possibly true; in practice, Mexican immigration looks very much like previous waves.
And no, I did not compare immigration to hiding jews from the Nazis; now you're just looking to be insulted. I used the example of hiding Jews from Nazis to clarify an important moral distinction; you couldn't possibly reasonably read it any other way.
No, you didn't, but I read your arguments the way you read ours!
I like how people put words in my mouth. AT, did I ever say I wanted a guest worker program? Like you I believe a guest worker program would be a horrible idea.
I would like to respond to Chris's post (because he's the easiest to respond to) and point out that he responds exactly as Jane accuses people of responding to the immigration issue.
"[According to Chris the problem with Mexican immigration is:]
1. [Mexican immigrants are] part of a massive wave of illegal immigrants.
2. Overwhelmingly coming from one small region of the world.
3. Having a common language, which is not English."
As Jane points out, we've had previous waves of mass migrations and we've assimilated them all. The example she uses is Irish. I'd like to use the example of the Chinese. If we can assimilate those groups, why can't we assimilate these Mexicans?
"4. Being much more prone to not learning English than other immigrant groups.
5. Having much more in common with each other, historically and culturally, than they do with Americans.
6. Having not only minimal levels of education, but having a culture that almost anti-academic."
Stereotypes, stereotypes, and stereotypes. My dad can barely speak English but he's a bought a house in one of the best neighborhoods in the country and he's assimilated pretty well. I speak and write English as well as a native-born person. We come from China, which is about as culturally and geographically far from America as anywhere else in the world. I'm using personal anecdotes which is a no-no, but my point is if America can assimilate waves of Chinese immigrants it should be able to assimilate Mexicans too.
#6 is almost racist. I know Mexicans dance the macarena but that doesn't mean they don't go to high school.
"7. Having high levels of criminal activity."
Blatantly untrue. Chris is confusing the group "illegal immigrants" with the group "hispanics who live in the US legally". Illegal immigrants are paradoxically among the most conscientious law-abiding people in the US. If they didn't abide by the law, they would get deported. That's a pretty big incentive to cross your T's and dot your I's when it comes to the law.
"8. Being of an ethnic group that has the among the highest rates of unemployment, incarceration, and illegitimacy, and among the lowest levels of education and income."
Ok Chris, are you saying we should keep Mexican immigrants out because they're part of an undesirable ethnic group? Isn't that by definition racism?
"9. Being publically represented by people marching in huge numbers in the streets, waving foreign flags, *demanding* that we give them "their rights."
I'd march too if my dad was getting deported because he got a speeding ticket. Have you been to and joined one of their marches? What rights are they demanding? What do they say at their marches? Can you answer any of these questions?
10. Being of part of a group of people who come predominantly from a country (Mexico) that has a colorable claim to a large portion of American territory, and that this notion is alive and well in the hearts of many Mexican people."
??????????????? How do you know what is in the heart of a Mexican person? Are you a Mexican yourself? Or perhaps you're telepathic and can read their minds? Native Americans also have a "colorable claim" to large portions of American territory. Should they be considered a threat to American sovereignty as well?
Perhaps Chris is just a straw man purposefully designed to prove Jane right. I don't know. But if most anti-immigrants think the way Chris does then Jane has been proven completely right in her immigration posts.
I find most open-borders "Libertarian" defenses of illegal immigration singularly uninformed.
The explosion of social services, the EITC (ie, Federalized welfare) and the massive taxation required for the SS benefits, Medicare, etc. unbelievably anti-Free Enterprise.
Milton Friedman said it best: you cannot have open borders in a Welfare State. Case closed.
Also read the shitty bill: it is without a doubt the worst piece of anti-citizen legislation proposed in my lifetime.
It literally makes American citizens second-class citizens in their own country.
Please stop the "but I know a wonderful Mexican" crap. It's not a race issue - its a legal, economic and constitutional one. And lets not forget the gigantic explosion of our present Welfare State.
I live half a mile from the border, in an 90% Hispanic community, often work (legally, of course) over the border in Juarez and find this sort of quasi-Liberal whiney condescension towards the Mexican people pathetic.
Just stick to the actual bill and its implications. I haven't heard a single proponent of the bill EVER describe and defend its parts in detail. It always devolves into some kind of witless. emotional ad hominem attack. Let's keep this discussion at some kind of rational, adult level.
As someone who is usually a huge fan, I have to say that this post seems way off base.
First of all, I guess I am one of the people you think are so rare: I favor massively increasing legal immigration and ending illegal immigration. I know a fair number of people who share this belief. I think you would be surprised how common this idea is among non-ideologues.
Second, even as someone who would prefer massive increases in immigration, I find it difficult to see how people can say that laws against illegal immigration do not have any moral importance. Surely very few people would think that we should really just let in everyone who wants to come. The massive changes such a policy would almost immediately cause in our society would probably swamp the benefits brought by increased immigration; even if they might not, it would be a huge risk to take.
So given that there must be some limits on immigration, surely laws against immigration have moral force. And furthermore if we want to change them, we should do so honestly. I would say that subterfuge like hampering enforcement should only be reserved for the most unjust laws.
I would like to give all the illegal immigrants already here the *wink wink* treatment. They'll never get the same legal status as Americans but they can't be deported either unless they commit a felony. If they have kids then their kids are US citizens.
In other words, I would like to keep the status quo. If the only political way to keep the status quo is tougher border enforcement then I'm willing to compromise. Tougher borders in return for an end to deportation. How does that sound?
Punishing businesses who hire illegal immigrants is plain stupid. Our food prices will triple; does anyone want that? Deporting immigrants just because they came here illegaly is also a plain stupid idea. It doesn't benefit anyone and it simply ruins lives.
What do you think of my proposal? Anyone?
I love it when people accuse others of arguing a certain way by arguing in the exact same way!
I openly admit I sometimes do this too. I recant. I'll try not to in the future. TexasJew, will you recant too?
I agree however there is too much emotion on this issue. Let's first clearly state our positions before we attack others.
I've already given my position above. I'm for maintaining the status quo, with a few changes (no more deportation in return for tougher border enforcement).
I don't believe we can have a successful guest worker program because I don't believe our government is competent enough to make one work. Increasing the cap on legal immigration won't help either because too many people want to immigrate to our country and we can't accommodate all of them with legal means. Hence I want to keep the status quo. With tougher enforcement and an end to deportation we can funnel the people who migrate here to only the most determined and desperate, and thus the most diligent once they get there. I want an end to deportation because it's a stupid vengeful policy that fails as deterrence, costs money, splits families, and doesn't bring any economic benefit.
I hope I've made my position clear. I would like to hear yours.
Of all the charges that can be levelled at me, the accusation that I just don't understand what it's like to live somewhere with unassimilated immigrants is the most ludicrous. Permit me to suggest that you might be the ones who are, ahem, unfamiliar with local conditions elsewhere, and ignorant of your ignorance.
And yet, you continue to bring up what would seem to be a case comprised of largely legal immigrants. Similarly, I have no problems with legal immigrant Mexicans -- enough hoops are placed in that process to make sure they understand something about what their responsibilities are. Where they go after that (hard work or hard time) is a matter of the same personal choices all of us make. Many of them have very open ideas of hospitality and bring along some mighty fine food ideas as well, and can be model citizens once they figure out what's actually going on.
But the illegals are a whole different ball of wax, and no, I'm not yet convinced we could feasibly handle legal Mexicans at the same net rate if border security were properly clamped down. The infrastructure to bring in millions of low-income people AND introduce them to the basics of responsible citizenship simply doesn't exist at this point.
Without that, you have a recipe for long-term conflict. And if my own epxeriences right here in the thick of it are any guide, a lot of attitudes that could be perceived as bigotry would dry up and die if the root of the problem -- rule-of-law flouting that begins with lax border enforcement and creeps outward from there -- were properly dealt with. Illegal immigration IS a problem with current Mexican immigration, and that is reflected in responsive attitudes thereto. It will continue to be a problem until the US decides to treat the Mexican border in like fashion as any other port of entry -- as opposed to current policy, which looks more like a collander. The lack of an ocean there makes it more difficult to do, but that doesn't mean our handling of it should be any different.
Zhong Lu, you really chap me with your 'throw it against the wall and see if it sticks' style of commentary.
I have been at the protest marches by Hispanics, primarily last year. At all of them they are DEMANDING the Right to stay in the USA. They DEMAND that they be made legal so they don't fear deportation. Also, one of the most vicious and loud groups had signs and made statements about all of the Anglos in the US (and Chinese, I might add) should leave the North American Continent, because it was really the property of Indians and those who had Indian ancestry.
These are not RIGHTS and DEMANDS that I believe are beneficial to the continued 'goodness' of the USA.
Zhong Lu:
No one forced Mexicans to come here. They know what they're getting into. These immigrants believe it's better to be illegal in America than to be legal in Mexico.
Deporting immigrants just because they came here illegaly is also a plain stupid idea. It doesn't benefit anyone and it simply ruins lives.
"All of them they are DEMANDING the Right to stay in the USA. They DEMAND that they be made legal so they don't fear deportation."
It all kind of makes sense doesn't it? If you were in their shoes, would you want to be deported? Or would you instead demand legal rights? Also, why do you believe the first two demands to be 'unbeneficial to the continued goodness of the USA?'
As to your third claim: that "vicious group" demanding we all give the US to them, was that a the majority or only a vocal minority? I admit that people like those you described exist, but aren't you just using them to make a straw man argument?
That's right AT, I believe those Mexican immigrants will stream into our country the moment they're given the chance. That's why I don't believe in open borders or guest worker programs. Once they get in, they're not going to leave. I'm willing to countenance tougher borders precisely for that reason, though I would prefer to keep the status quo on that issue because I believe that we've already made it difficult enough for them to get in.
I just said that the argumentation that they use is strictly ad hominem. I wasn't speaking of your position, but the public positions and attacks of of Trent Lott, Lindsay Graham, Michael Chertoff, John McCain, Linda Chavez, President Bush, and a number of Libertarian bloggers, who seem (at least to me) uninformed and strangely disinterested in the bill's actual components.
Where was I using an ad hominem attack? If so, I recant as a matter of ordinary civility.
The central interest of any legal system and national constitution is for the citizens of that nation.
The oft-mentioned "Splitting up families" is just a red herring, in any case. Just their being here often splits their families. Legalizing them in an amnesty deal such as this confers all the benefits that citizens receive. And much more.
I think the status quo is fine for Americans. We get their labor, they get money, send it home, and we are not responsible for supporting 10-15 million more additional family members (above the 12 million here) through our tax dollars and at tremendous social expense.
If you're going to cry, cry for the law-abiding taxpaying citizens of this country who will be losing trillions of dollars public funds for an uneducated, semi-skilled (at best) segment of the population who will have all the benefits of citizens, as well as additional tax and criminal felony amnesty. Just legalizing their status makes that all kick in. Due process, all the social welfare goodies - it comes out of the government like a giant cornucopia!
And that makes every lawful American citizen (and legal immigrant), who is required to pay for this (under very severe penalties, including probably splitting up THEIR families) and follow laws that these illegal interlopers do not, a second-class citizen the second that President Bush signs this travesty.
TexasJew, I'm glad you agree with me. Let's not legalize these illegal immigrants and instead leave them in limbo. I'm all for keeping the status quo with the illegal immigrants already here. That way we can benefit from their labor without having to give anything back in return.
Well, ok, maybe not entirely. We will give them citizenship for their children and freedom from the fear of deportation. I believe this is a fair trade. Else-wise they get pretty much nothing from the "welfare state." They don't get social security checks and they don't get welfare benefits. Is this a proposal you would agree with?
"the accusation that I just don't understand what it's like to live somewhere with unassimilated immigrants is the most ludicrous." -Jane
OK, Jane, play it straight. COULD any of those people simply walk back to their country? You are pretending they are not different, but they are very different. Somone else already pointed out that they are far more likely to be LEGAL immigrants, BECAUSE OF HOW HARD IT WAS TO GET HERE.
Many of the immigrants you are talking about in that are from Mexico are planning on making money, and then going back. They have no intent on staying, because in the long run it is also very expensive to live here.
I am not saying you've never dealt with immigrants, I'm saying this type of immigration is NOT LIKE the one you have dealt with. Until you go to an area of the US that deals with it directly every day, it may well not sway you. Fair enough. But you are telling me I don't know what I am talking about and I HAVE lived here most of my life [with a detour in Chicago].
The kinds of immigration we see from Mexico are unlike from other places, and somehow we need to deal with that, in a specific way. Assuming it will go like every other time is a recipe for having 24million illegal immigrants in 20 more years...
just like last time, 20 years ago.
So D what you're saying is we already have a guest-worker program in place? Do you have evidence to prove your point?
And TexasJew, I would like to continue our discussion. I agree that us honest taxpayers shouldn't pay for those filthy mongrels. Whenever I look at my tax sheet I cry, CRY at the taxes I pay and God forbid should any of those taxes go to those who came to our country ILLEGALLY.
I say, let those illegals live like the immigrants of the past, living twenty to a room with broken toilets and dirty stairwells. How DARE they come to our country ILLEGALLY. They get NONE of my money because that's MY money is what's important to ME. They can starve on the streets like abandoned dogs for all I care. As long as they WORK and keep our food prices low we can afford to ignore them. But the moment they touch my money, GOD HELP THEM.
But perhaps that's a bit harsh? In return we have to give them SOMETHING. Let's give them citizenship for their children. Let's give them freedom from deportation. That's what all the other immigrant groups who migrated here got. But otherwise, like immigrants in the past, they get NOTHING.
Is this what you would agree to TexasJew?
Zhong Lu:
Absolutely. I believe that the status quo is fine.
Deport some, seal up the borders more effectively, really go after the absconders who are now fugitive felons, and it will work out fine. Our legal system and constitution have not been compromised, citizenry is not something with a low price tag, and all's right with the world.
The only reason this bill is being pushed is because President Bush wants a "legacy"; whatever the hell that is. It's some Clintonian attempt to raise his speaker's fees. I think.
There's no real public support for this bill, except from a cynical and cash-rich business community, who wants cheap labor and legal amnesty for themselves for hiring these people in the first place.
The politicians are expecting payoffs from these fair-weather marketers, as seen on this week's "Fortune" suck-up cover story on Hillary Clinton. And the WSJ? Totally disingenuous on this issue, as if the tax costs and social damage will never wash over to the business community.
The fix is in, I believe, and it is a simple case of political corruption.
"So D what you're saying is we already have a guest-worker program in place? Do you have evidence to prove your point?" -Zhong Lu
well, lessee, there are supposed to be 12 million of them, How many people work for the INS? When you raid a big company that hires them, everyone freaks out because you might be separating a family or taking away a brother, and you've spent a ton of money to interdict 1600 whole people. Everyday the Colorado State Patrol pulls over vans and truck with 20-30 people in them, and says that it's astounding to think of how many they never see... And in many cities you don't have to ask far where to find a day laborer, that has no way to provide you with even a driver's lic.
I'd call that a defacto guest worker program, wouldn't you?
Is it just me, or doesn't any child born in a US territory, get automatic citizenship? Hasn't it been that way for a long time?
Ultimately we are quibbling. We will have to accept those that are already here, because logistically we can't send them back. What do we do to make it work next time? The idea that they will just keep coming regardless seem probable, really.
If you're going to cry, cry for the law-abiding taxpaying citizens of this country who will be losing trillions of dollars public funds for an uneducated, semi-skilled (at best) segment of the population who will have all the benefits of citizens, as well as additional tax and criminal felony amnesty
So? Their illegal status means that the Janes of the world have an endless supply of nannies and busboys and chicken feather pluckers. Your questioning her right to cheap labor is racist.
I'm wondering if the Hitler mention by the author was a sarcastic attempt at self-Godwinning (can that be done?). Anyway it came off in poor taste.
D:
The answer you're begging for is tougher borders. What I want is an end to deportation. Our positions and TexasJews's aren't all that different. We're just not very good at communicating it.
I need to sleep but it's been a pleasure talking to you two.
Jane Posted:I find the argument that the problem with immigrants is illegal immigration pretty uncompelling. First of all, it's almost (not always) made by people who don't want to let those people (or equivalent numbers of their more law abiding compatriots) in legally, and react against any proposal to do so with exactly the vehemence that they complain about the illegal entry of illegal immigrants.
What about the argument that the law deserves the presumption of the people's will. Clearly people people strongly disagree on this issue, how should we decide this policy issue? If you think its a moral issue, and that some immigrants have moral claim on immigrating to the US, how would that not be open boarders?
Secondly, any fair and open immigration system (ie not biased towards Latin Americans, either geographically or through family reunification) won't let more Latin Americans in. There are literally billions of poor in the world compared to ~110 million Mexicans. I don't see how you can argue that increasing legal immigration will decrease the supply of illegals. Especially if the guess workers/legal immigrants don't drive down wages (ie the illegals can still find an acceptably paying job)?
Would calling the illegal immigrants from Mexico 'Refugees' help? As in, people forced to flee deadly and heinous conditions? As in, fleeing a government that actively pushes her people to violate international law? And what are we doing to make Mexico treat her own people well, and to make Mexico pay for the damage those people have done to our economy?
Anyway, my main concern is that the refugees are susceptible to being exploited. Cannot speak English? They are at the mercy of translators who may bias what they interpret. Cannot report mugging, theft, rape, child abuse, job discrimination, vigilante violence, or unscrupulous employers (discrimination faced by every wave of immigrants)?
The legalization process accomplishes several things. It allots a period of time, supervised, to begin to attain competency in English, to begin to master the material Congress has legislated all citizens must know, including English, US history, and how government works. This process is intended to reduce the burden of immigrants on the US, but also to protect the immigrants from being abused by unscrupulous people.
The danger of isolated pockets of people unable to speak English, with incomplete understanding of the way things work in America, with a charismatic leader intent on acting against the interests of the US and controlling access to information is particularly frightening.
I have read that there is a system of bond servant/slavery operating out of China, that exploits the flood of undocumented aliens and refugees. Keep it legal to protect those involved.
Besides, if we invited the northern tier of Mexican states to secede from Mexico and join the US, our border fence would be much shorter.
"D:
The answer you're begging for is tougher borders. What I want is an end to deportation. Our positions and TexasJews's aren't all that different. We're just not very good at communicating it.
I need to sleep but it's been a pleasure talking to you two." Zhong Lu
Same to ya... Sleep, we actually sleep? oh yeah...
Actually I don't think a stronger boarder would work... I think making them not interested in coming would, but it may well be Mexican policy wroking against that. You should see how outraged they get when talking about deportations, as if they don't throw people in jail for 3 years for the same offence. If they bother to catch them. I don't think so much we are on different pages, but have different reasons for being on the same one. I can argue this and that about law, but I'm a pragmatist, doing something you have no hope in hell of implementing is stupid. Still if everything becomes a study in relativeism, then you are lost. We need to figure out how to make the borders work for the future, because just changing the amount we let in wont work on it's own. But you can ask Germany just how well the guest worker thing panned out, and what amount of rage the Turks feel about that, and that was all legal.
In the long run the only place immigration works well is where nobady has an incentive to move...
Jane Galt, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that one reason we shouldn’t worry about mass illegal immigration is because the Irish turned out to not have destroyed the country, contrary to the earlier fears of some. That doesn’t make sense to me. Since there was an immigrant group in the past that people worried would damage the country and they didn’t after all do too much damage, then whenever someone raises concerns about a current or future immigrant group, we can just point back to the Irish and say “hey, look, everything’ll turn out well like it did with them”? This is a lot like one of the arguments Peter Duesberg used to attack claims that HIV causes AIDS. He argued that no retrovirus that anyone had characterized previously behaved in a way that would lead to a disease like AIDS, and therefore the presence of HIV in AIDS patients must just be coincidental.
Zhong Lu, regarding my having gone to or joined one of the illegal immigration rallies – good question! I’m glad you asked it. I was in fact downtown during the “Gran Marcha.” My wife is Japanese and we go grocery shopping in Little Tokyo most Saturday afternoons. Lo and behold, that Saturday, there we were, amidst the sea of red, white and blue and green. No, we didn’t stop to ask any marchers what they were demanding, but I presume the ones holding Mexican flags weren’t demanding the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe, though, that they were demanding one of these 3 things: citizenship, permanent residence, or the right to travel across our border at will.
Zhong Lu... I'm with you. The best resolution to the immigration issue is so resolution, status quo. The immigration bill is a more acceptable way of doing something than any of the anti-immigrationists will ever come up with.
Jane, without the Irish, there would be no great shows on NBC like The Black Donnelys for NBC execs to cancel. And that would be more of a shame than them canceling it.
Finally, we live in a dangerous world. Don't you think it is better to effectively take Mexico to our side than to let them sit there and eternally dwarfed by us and become sympathetic to any of the silly ideologies in the world, whether they be African genocide, Islamic fanaticism, Chinese pseudo-Capitalism, etc.? Given Latin America's penchant for dictators (Noriega, Castro, Ortega, Chavez, etc.), how bad would it be if our neighbor directly south went that route? Hint: much worse than anyone even imagines things are now, no matter how paranoid their imagination. Being friendly with Mexico and its people may indeed carry a high price, but it is a price we have to pay. End of debate.
"Besides, if we invited the northern tier of Mexican states to secede from Mexico and join the US, our border fence would be much shorter."
Sorry, Brad, but you haven't met the 'modern Mexican' evidently. They live and work in the USA, go to colleges at the instate tuition rate, even if only here 2 months, they go to sports events and boo the US flag, the national anthem and our national representative teams; they often take welfare to raise their family income 32,000 USD per year, minimum; THEN they spit on the American flag, burn it and say many anti-American things about the country that is 'hosting' them.
Mexicans aren't interested in joining the USA, to think otherwise indicates a level of delusion that perhaps many in the East or NW have. Being on the front-line gives you a completely different perspective.
Yes, individually, there are really good people who work hard and contribute. But even they are usually susceptible to the small, but extremely vocal activists who are calling for Reconquista of the SW, at least, and the entire US, if possible. This is not new, it's been moving this way since the 1970's.
Guys, you're kidding, right?
Nope. You're taking a pounding from your own readers, who are as loyal as any group of readers as I've ever seen on a blog. But not this time. You've all but accused us of being ignorant racists, and that ain't right.
You're wrong, Megan. Wrong. Time to own up, and maybe tell us what this attitude of yours is really all about.
Morally wrong? Hmmm... how about ethically wrong?
Part of our behavior is predicated on not only adhering to the laws within the Nation but, by way of the Nation State system, adhering to the agreements between Nations and respecting National Sovereignty. Thus, I do decry those offering low wages to *entice* folks to break three sets of laws, and I also decry those doing that breaking. These are: 1) Their own laws with regard to affairs with other Nations either via Treaty or via the respect of Nation State Sovereignty in which the affairs of each Nation are Sovereign within the bounds of that Nation,
2) The laws of the Nation they are entering unless there are NO laws in that Nation for such. In the pre-1920 era that so many 'open borders' folks want to get to, the US Congress did, indeed, set mandates that each and every immigrant undergo physical inspection and quarantine. In that lovely era the government had the much, much harder job of weeding out the 3-4% that were undesirable due to criminal activity or contagious diseases. It was still *done* and respected by those seeking immigration.
3)International Law - The Treaties between Nations for commerce and interaction of populations as well as the underlying rationale for Sovereign Nation States. Those understandings date back as far as 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia and is the underpinning of the modern Nation State system.
To knowingly and willingly violate those three sets of laws is putting those engaged in such, not only the individuals wanting that but those enticing them and transporting them to avoid lawful institutions, are international scofflaws. By doing those things they weaken the Sovereignty of Nations to have internal control and external reciprocity between Nation States. A number of Nations that are the origin of illegal aliens have quite repressive and harsh laws on same, enforce *those* and put deep and long lasting and discriminatory restrictions on those that immigrate, legally, to their Nation.
I did not elect companies and foreign individuals to set the immigration policy of my Nation nor do I want my representatives in Government, to whom I have granted that power as part of the compact to have a Nation, to be a rubber stamp for such things done in non-compliance with the law. Both the National Law and any Treaties between this Nation and other Nations and the respect for such things as National boundaries that is the common heritage of the Nation State system.
Yes, I have a deep and abiding problem with those taking such actions, both on the encouragement side and on the actual movement and transfer side. Any proposition to let non-Nation State actors set the policy of Nations without accord to the laws within Nations and between Nations weakens that entire system of Nation States. It is not a moral question, but an ethical one of self-survival depending upon that system so that Nations may have separate governance, bias and outlook. I do not mind individuals using drugs for self-stimulation so long as they don't then endanger others by their actions... but if you go after the foundation OF Nation States in your actions or inaction. I have a severe problem with that.
But then, that is me, I happen to like liberty and freedom founded within the Nation State system and upheld by individuals to accord respect to each other in different Nations and abide by the decisions of those Nations for themselves and hold those Nations accountable for their actions via diplomacy and warfare.
Jane wrote:
"I find the argument that the problem with immigrants is illegal immigration pretty uncompelling."
If we had no welfare benefits, I'd agree with you. But we do, so I don't.
On top of all of which, the reason I insist there must be no amnesty, no open borders--which whatever you're thinking is the consequence of what you claim to want--why whenever they are encountered by government they should be deported with alacrity, and why employers of the illegals should be fined and jailed...
...this is because of the 300 million people who are in America, 10% are illegal, so their opinion shouldn't count, only 14% actually think the immigration laws should be unenforced, and 76% of the people in America--that's 84% of the people whose opinion should count--do not want this bill or anything like it passed.
It is within the bounds of the Constitution for the government to control immigration, an overwhelmingly large fraction of the population wants it, and it is vital that the governing elites be brought to heel on this issue.
Frankly, if they succeed in this amnesty bill, they will feel themselves free to extend their writ at least that far over the objections of the public in other things whenever they think they really, really need to.
And we will find they decide they really, really need to more and more often, the more they are let to succeed.
I have little trouble with the immigrants being largely Mexican, I'd be less happy--as a facet of demographics--with such an influx of Social Democrats, a la Sweden.
Your assumptions are overly facile at the best, and I think disengenouous in places, and I think you in any case miss the real issue here.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
There don't seem to be too many comments from people like me, a first-generation immigrant who is English speaking with a Ph.D. It took me years and a lot of legal expenses for me to get my coveted green card, without earning one illegal dollar.
I guess I was just a fool.
Living here in Central Texas, I can attest to the fact that the Mexicans have contributed to our society in many positive ways. Negative ways also, but that isn't much different from the negative impact of many native US citizens.
My feeling, however, is that we are putting the cart before the horse. If Congress wants me to support any immigration bill (which is ridiculous because there are already immigration laws on the books which are obviously not being fully enforced), then they need to make border security the first step. But they've already addressed that in a previous bill, haven't they? Where are the results? Where is the payoff?
I want a secure border before anything else. Prove to me that you can secure our southern border. Give it a few years. Show me results. Then we'll talk about those who are already here due to years of poor enforcement. Don't start talking about blanket solutions to the problem of a porous border until you've plugged the leak.
Once you've shown a positive impact in border security and enforcement, then we'll talk about the solution to those who have already arrived. Otherwise, I have no faith in anything that is proposed. None. Zilch. Nada.
A post by AT:
And no, I did not compare immigration to hiding jews from the Nazis; now you're just looking to be insulted. I used the example of hiding Jews from Nazis to clarify an important moral distinction; you couldn't possibly reasonably read it any other way.No, you didn't, but I read your arguments the way you read ours!
Zing!!!
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
The first right of a nation is deciding who can be a member of it.
Heh, I was waiting for this "MM loses it" post.
It is far from clear to me that being an illegal alien is a morally wrong, as opposed to legally wrong, act.
Jane, is cutting in front of someone in line a morally wrong act? That's what "undocumented workers" are doing to the many people who are trying to come here and following the rules.
RMc, I love all you guys, but your response, like many here, doesn't actually have anything to do with the bit you quoted. I was responding to those who accused me of being an out-of-touch elitist who didn't really understand what it was like to live in an area with a lot of illegals/unassimilated immigrants, which is ludicrous. Your response to my factual assertion is, basically, "You hurt my feelings".
The arguments being deployed about the special non-assimilibility of Mexicans are in some cases racist--arguing that Mexicans have some special genetic or cultural heritage that makes them uniquely undesireable--and in some cases based on faulty data either about the history of American immigration, or about the current activities of Mexicans, who seem to be assimilating pretty much right on schedule. I'm not accusing you of being racist; I'm saying that these arguments get made because Mexicans have been stuck in a different mental basket from "Whites"--and yes, this happened to previous waves too, including lots, like Irish (!) and Italians that we currently class as white. It's not really about skin colour, per se; in America (but not in England), Indians and Pakistanis are in the "white" basket, as are east asians. It's about sheer immigrant mass. Almost no one worried about the massive numbers of illegal Irish immigrants who dominated several New York neighbourhoods for decades; they had been written into our minds as "us" rather than "them".
I think the broader class of people against immigrants aren't racist, but they do care specially about hispanic immigrants. It's a pain in the ass living near people with a different culture, especially if you previously lived in a monoculture. Also, when people are visibly different, it's easy to single out what they do. So when a Mexican kid robs your house, he's a symptom of Mexican criminality; when a white kid does the same, he's just a bad kid. Every immigrant group ever has been noticed as specially annoying, and usually, thought to have uniquely criminal tendencies--even the Germans, Scottish, and Jews, who because they refused to obligingly get arrested for brawling, instead got labeled as corporate thieves who would take your money through sharp business practices.
Most people who are against immigration, I suspect, have a clear vision of what America would be like without immigrants. There wouldn't be nearly so many poor people, so it would be aesthetically more pleasing. Social services would be ever so much cheaper. Low income workers would make more. You wouldn't see slightly dirty day laborers, short men with bad skin and teeth, lined up on grungy street corners. You wouldn't have to deal with waiters or shopkeepers who don't speak English. It would look, in short, a lot like the 1950's in America. And most of those people liked the 1950's in America--hell, its the new paradise lost for half the right and the left, these days.
Of course, we'd lose a huge amount too, starting with a huge jump in the prices of goods and services we consume. I know everyone is under the impression that I'm just trying to get a cheap nanny, but all the restaurant meals you eat, all the produce you buy at Safeway, half the construction you consume in the form of housing or home repairs, every hotel you ever stayed in, etc, comes courtesy of a large staff of new immigrants, may of them illegal. Yes, Americans would do those jobs at higher wages--but guess who's paying those wages? Depending on the location, you might not notice it in your hotel bill, but you'd definitely notice it when your restaurant bill doubled, it took you eighteen weeks to get your roof repaired, and lettuce comes five dollars a head. Labour is the largest cost in many of those products.
I'm sorry you're insulted, and I have no reason to think that you're a racist. But I'm not backing down on this; the assertion that Mexicans are different from previous groups is factually challenged; and the visible otherness of Mexicans encourages sloppy thinking about the question. Without factual proof that Mexicans are failing to assimilate, I think people who want to drastically reduce immigration have to meet the moral challenge of saying why your ancestors should have been allowed the opportunity to come here, but current generations of immigrants don't deserve the same shot. I mean, you don't have to; it's not like anyone cares what I think. But I kind of think that having all of us been born, in the richest country in the world, as a result of previous waves of immigration, we have a moral duty to pay it forward.
But I'm not backing down on this; the assertion that Mexicans are different from previous groups is factually challenged; and the visible otherness of Mexicans encourages sloppy thinking about the question.
Fine, don't back down from the irrelevant point.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
I'm afraid I must disagree with the premise that illegal immigration lacks a clear element of immorality. Stealing, the taking of that belonging to another without his or her consent, and fraud, deception made for personal gain, are generally recognized as morally as well as legally wrong, and illegal immigration often, perhaps always, involves both.
In some cases, such as when an indigent illegal immigrants take social services to which they are not entitled, the theft is straightforward. An illegal immigrants failure to pay to the government the costs associated with legal immigration is fraudulent. So is when an illegal fails to pay taxes that others are obliged to pay in order to conceal their illegal status, and are either stealing the services funded by the tax dollars or are defrauding the public by forcing other taxpayers to carry the burden. And all illegal immigrants are, in effect, stealing the opportunity and associated benefits of immigration to which a legal immigrant was properly entitled by jumping ahead of the line.
And I don't think we can white-wash the moral element by imagining scenarios in which stealing or fraud is morally required, because you don't know what the rightful owner was going to do with the money here. It becomes a rhetorical game. How much of the money taken fraudulently by illegal immigrants would have funded medical care and food for needy children here in the United States? What kind of racist would suggest that Mexican children are better than children here?? Etc. That's why when we introduce the legal element, we don't let people decide for themselves when it's okay to steal things that don't belong to them based on their personal judgment of who has a greater need.
We should also ask ourselves how much worse is medical care and the plight of children in Mexico because the Mexican government can release political pressure across the northern border instead of confronting its own corruption, and better meeting the needs of its people? How much less crime and violence would there be there if our open border did not so enable the growth and prosperity of Mexican drug cartels? How much more foreign investment would there be in Mexico if US companies had to go there to benefit from Mexican labor rates, instead of taking advantage of illegal immigrants here?
I am both a supporter and a personal beneficiary of legal immigration. I'm not in favor of draconian immigration restrictions--and, by the way, I haven't seen any credible argument that our current restrictions are in any way draconian. As for motivation, it's hard to say how much of the insistence, seen here in some comments and elsewhere, that opposition to illegal immigration is racial is itself racist, how much is good, old fashioned demagoguery, and how much is simple ignorance. But it appears to be an ugly combination of the three.
I think that most people are losing sight of the original post, which was to say that they are not coming to grips with the original assertion that illegal immigration is not a moral wrong. I would suggest that it can be under certain circumstances. I have yet to see a moral defense of the albanian decision to flood into and eventually seize Kosovo.
I would say that the albanians did the serbs not only a legal wrong in the post WW II years but also a moral one, assisted by the Yugoslav government. This is of more than academic interest because we possibly might see a similar development between Russia and the PRC in a few decades over resource rich Siberia.
Yes, Americans would do those jobs at higher wages--but guess who's paying those wages?
If you haven't noticed Jane, we're signing on to pay those prices and those wages.
Why are you evidently okay with the government not acknowledging and obeying the 76% of us who either think the immigration bill is a bad idea, or think it is disastrous for the gov't to be allowed to ignore that 76%?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
I was watching a Discovery Channel documentary the other night called "Things Not To Do When You're In a Hole." Glenn Reynolds recommended it.
Melk,
"I guess I was just a fool."
Yep, you're just the sort of uppity America-loving would-be patriot that Lott and McArdle despise. Go back home and let the America-hating, capitalism-hating illegals take over. If you were too stupid to game the system and get your free welfare bennies, too bad for you.
/elitist jackboot-to-the human face forever rant off
There are three problems.
The first problem is that a failure to generally enforce the laws is immoral because it is unfair. We agree to live together under a set of rules. It is not fair if only some people have to follow the rules. No system is perfect and requiring perfect enforcement is unrealistic, but that is no reason to abandon regulation altogether.
The second problem is that Ms. Galt wants someone to mow her lawn more cheaply than than American citizens will mow it. Ms. Galt suggests that indigent citizens give up their right to employment in favor of illegals. Giving charity is good. Stealing from poor citizens to give charity to illegals and then preening over it is disgusting.
Yaakov,
"The first problem is that a failure to generally enforce the laws is immoral because it is unfair."
Boo hoo, you're just now figuring out that life is unfair? Fairness can go hang when political elites are concerned. You will grovel at the feet of your betters and like it, mister.
"The second problem is that Ms. Galt wants someone to mow her lawn more cheaply than than American citizens will mow it."
Ha! A classically bigoted response against a poor innocent group of racist, collectivist American-hating wage-breaking lumpenproletarians!
When do you put on your sheet and burn your cross?
/sarcasm off
Well, here's a pretty simply moral issue -- we're letting in, and possibly granting amnesty, to people who are part of violent gangs, have long rap sheets, and various other negative attributes.
I have no problem allowing more legal immigrants in, and I think we're making it too much of a hassle for your average individual to get across the border legally. But I don't think we should proudly let in everyone that wants to cross the border -- not only are there economic issues with a few million people sending money out of country, but there happen to be bad people out there (and, in all honesty, we have more than enough in our land as it is).
"But I don't think we should proudly let in everyone that wants to cross the border"
Racist! The Bush administration has jacked up the price of visas and naturalization to keep undesirable libertarian-minded immigrant filth out, but, of course, you're evil and anti-immigrant for making these claims.
"Well, here's a pretty simply moral issue -- we're letting in, and possibly granting amnesty, to people who are part of violent gangs, have long rap sheets, and various other negative attributes"
How dare you, you bigot! They are doing the crimes Americans won't do!
> that indigent citizens give up their right to employment in favor of illegals
One country to have a "right to employment" ensconced in the constitution was... well, the former Soviet Union of course!
Could not resist that one.
The only reason you don't see the moral dilemma, Ms McArdle, is that you probably aren't involved in the quagmire that is current immigration policy.
I'm sponsoring my husband to become a green card holder. We have done everything required by USCIS, and have endured every screwup they've pulled for over 2 1/2 years. We have paid out thousands of dollars that could have gone to a honeymoon we'll never enjoy. And still....no green card, because USCIS is understaffed. So is the FBI section that handles background checks. My husband is part of that backlog that ranges anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 names, depending on who you talk to.
So, yeah, I got a personal, moral problem with someone who is coming here, not following the rules, and is going to get their freakin' green card ahead of my husband.
So what if they have family members that need their income? Our little boy needs his father's health insurance, dental insurance, etc. Unless, of course, you're willing to pay for all that with welfare payments, since I can't work full-time right now? Any hands to volunteer to do that?
If you can give me one good reason why someone who doesn't pay their fair share of taxes and breaks the rules to get here should go ahead of my husband, who is paying taxes and every other stupid fee the USCIS is charging, I'd sure like to hear it.
Your facetious argument that anyone who has ever broken any rule can't judge someone else floors me. By that reasoning, we can't have murder trials, because none of us are without sin. Please.
And don't give me this crap that Mexicans can't figure out the rules. Hell, every time we go into a USCIS office, he's practically the only one there who doesn't speak Spanish (I do)! Plenty of Mexicans can and are doing it legally, and, dare I say it, if you think they can't, YOU'RE the racist.
Jane Galt wrote: " ... I think people who want to drastically reduce immigration have to meet the moral challenge of saying why your ancestors should have been allowed the opportunity to come here, but current generations of immigrants don't deserve the same shot. ..."
Jane, When your ancestors (and mine) came here, a hundred years ago, America still had huge amounts of open, unpopulated territory. Arizona and New Mexico weren't even States yet. I think that Oklahoma was still a territory also. Now, the whole country is horribly over-populated, even out here in fly-over country.
The other issue that you are not addressing is the fact that we already have a huge, under-utilized pool of economically disadvantaged CITIZENS who could be performing unskilled labor instead of collecting Welfare. Why import even more unskilled people?
I am an American citizen by birth but I have been an immigrant in two other countries, first in Canada, where I moved after marrying my wife, and now in Switzerland, where I moved in connection with my work. Actually, I'm not really a "Swiss immigrant" as such, since I have a special status as an employee of an international organization, but I am here more or less permanently, with all that implies in terms of learning the language, sending my kids to french-speaking schools, etc. The point is, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to being an immigrant and making a home in new country. And honestly, in my experience nobody is more upset about illegal immigration than LEGAL immigrants. They are forced to jump through all kinds of hoops and are generally treated abominably both before and after arrival in the US. As for deportation, legal immigrants are the only group that authorities have no qualms about sending back to their home countries. If a computer programmer from Pakistan finds himself (or herself) out of a job because the company he worked for went out of business he can expect to be told to leave the country ASAP. And if he's got kids whose schooling will be disrupted, tough. Of course they don't have to send out the cops to forcibly put him on a plane since they know he will obey the deportation order because he wants to maintain his legal status. (I would be treated the same way here in Switzerland if I lost my job, and I would also obey). Now I have nothing against Mexican immigrants, but if faced with a choice between granting citizenship to my hypothetical computer programmer and an unskilled manual laborer from Mexico, I will chose the former every time.
As for my experience in Canada, believe me, we don't want to create another Quebec in the southwestern US. (And I say this as someone who used to live in Montreal and who loves Quebec.)
Personally, I think it's immoral to stop the reconquista of our Southwest. After all, the Mexicans originally owned it in the 19th century. They're the natives, not us!
To start with, the fiscal drain of illegal aliens, much less legal ones, isn't that big. They do pay taxes; often, they give fake social security numbers, which means they're actually subsidising our old people.
Second of all, the illegals who come here aren't "cutting in line". They aren't eligible to join the end of the line; most people who have a shot of getting here legally wait to do so. But our immigration policy is set up so that most people who want to come here have absolutely no chance of ever getting a visa, because they don't have a near relative to sponsor them. There's no queue for those people to join. Would I come here anyway, if it were me? I don't know; I've never been poor.
John W., there are many problems in the low-wage labour market. But immigrants have a very small effect on low-skilled wages, which could be (and is) easily made up with a slight increase in the EITC.
We certainly do not have a large reserve of workers who could take the jobs illegals won't do; labour force participation rates are very high for an industrialised country, with most people out of the labour force either old, young (children and students), or mothers of small children. Some of those jobs would get done at higher wages; many others wouldn't be done at all. There is a reason, for example, that dry cleaners and small urban groceries are almost all owned by immigrants with large families; it is nearly impossible to find people who will pay enough for their shirts to cover a workforce at minimum wage. And the increase in low-skilled wages would be at least partially offset by the increase in prices of goods, especially agricultural ones, that they consume.
Of course, the real problem is that we aren't discussing immigration at all; we are using it as a means of indirectly disputing a much more fundamental issue.
Megan's post can be summarized thusly: We of the Elite have DISPOSED on the subject, and you gaptoothed redneck trailer trash can just step'n fetchit. A good chunk of the elitism that allows her to hand down the TRVTH ex-punditra derives from the fact she has a good income and a relatively high social position, and considers those attributes the result of Natural Law.
Down here in flyover country where the real gaptoothed redneck trailer trash live -- me, my neighbors, friends, and relatives -- there is very little active resentment of the illegals themselves. The prevailing attitude toward them is resignation coupled with grudging admiration; nothing is going to be done so you might as well go with the flow, and the very real effort they put in to get here is a pretty good predictor of willingness to actually work instead of sitting on their butts. Learning enough Spanish to communicate on the level of "dig a ditch from here to there" isn't all that much trouble.
The resentment is toward the attitude Megan evinces, and it is real, bitter, and growing. Doublewides do not pay for themselves, neither dually pickups nor Glock 10mms are free, and when people who have established positions, with nice brick houses in good neighborhoods (or their equivalent for those who prefer city living) blithely inform us that having twelve million scabs to keep our wages down to what they would prefer to pay, with a near-guarantee of another twelve million or more in the future, is a good thing, it isn't well received.
Regards,
Ric
Second of all, the illegals who come here aren't "cutting in line". ,/blockquote>If they get an amnesty, they certainly have.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
I wonder how Ms. McArdle would react if I stole her food and, if caught, claimed that 1) stealing is not always "morally wrong"; and b) that the laws on stealing are illogical.
I suspect she'd say, "the law is the law", ignore my philosophical musings, and demand my prosecution.
Ric Locke, if this isn't an entirely too sharp parody, please go to the main page and read what I just wrote about red-state/blue state. For the record, I live in a cheap apartment with my sister, in an area crammed with immigrants. While I'm certainly not poor, I make about what a lower-middle-class person in my areas lives on; journalists don't get a great pay scale.
If the issue is having the wealthy help out those affected by immigration, I agree! Higher EITC for everyone! Is that a workable compromise?
Bruce, as pointed out on an earlier thread, the child of recent immigrants stole not my food, but about $10,000 worth of inherited jewelry last November. My reaction was not to worry about this country's immigration policy. Any more than when the nice illegal aliens helped me fix my overheated car on a Chicago highway in 2000. The net costs and benefits of immigration are diffuse, but they certainly don't all run in one direction.
"To start with, the fiscal drain of illegal aliens, much less legal ones, isn't that big. They do pay taxes; often, they give fake social security numbers, which means they're actually subsidising our old people."
Let me also add that illegal immigrants (and especially their offspring) are not a drain on our health care & education resources in any way.
It is not true that hospitals in southern and central CA are closing. Nor is it true that the inter-ethnic marriage rates between recently arrived Latino immigrants has been declining.
And prominent politicians like Cruz Bustamante & Antonio Villaraigosa who belonged to MEChA, which has the slogan "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing.", do not (in fact) exist.
There's nothing to worry about here...just undocumented Americans doing the jobs that racist bigots won't do. Move along!
RMc, your last comment, and the subsequent follow up, were deleted because they were way out of line. If by "can't take the heat" you mean that I don't allow people to come onto a site that I pay to host and call me a childless bitch who doesn't understand how real people, the ones with fertile wombs, feel, then yes, I can't take the heat. If you want to say those kinds of things to people, then you should go find the kind of person who likes to quietly endure vicious personal attacks.
I sent you an email about it; if the email address you gave works, then you should check the account. If it doesn't work, there's not much I can do other than what I did.
Why is it that for so many people, the argument isn't about immigrants, but about me? Despite all evidence to the contrary, readers continue to assert that I am some disconnected elitist who doesn't know what it's like to a) be poor b) compete in a field with way too many workers or c) live around a lot of immigrants. Is immigration just a proxy war for some civil conflict between red and blue? Because frankly, I don't belong to either camp.
Megan, the difference here is that I'm not pontificating based on theoretical considerations of ethics, morals, and the like. I am reporting facts on the ground.
I'm unemployed; when I had a job it was more or less equivalent to what you describe. I live in north Texas, west of the DFW metroplex, on a small place best described as an extended Jeff Foxworthy joke. One of my neighbors runs a sewer and septic tank installation and maintenance service, and maintains a village of rent houses his workers can live in (not nearly cheap enough to qualify him as a slumlord); another does concrete work -- slabs and other foundations, drainage regulation, etc. Yet another (a third-generation descendant of Mexican immigrants) owns earthmoving and land-maintance machinery and makes his living digging stock tanks and clearing mesquite scrub. The guy who keeps his horse on my place drives a truck moving oilfield equipment from place to place; his wife works as a laborer making oil filters five feet high and three in diameter for pipelines. Immigrants, illegal and otherwise, are as much a part of my and my neighbors' existence as barbed-wire fences.
I am telling you what I hear and see daily in the environment I live and work in. If you truly can't see the elitism, bordering on bigotry, that informs your attitude and expressed opinion, you are exacerbating the problem rather than contributing to the solution.
Regards,
Ric
"Megan, the difference here is that I'm not pontificating based on theoretical considerations of ethics, morals, and the like. I am reporting facts on the ground."
Ric, you are whistling an aria to the deaf here. Legal immigrants and pre-1924 open (pre-welfare-state) immigrants were self-selected for pro-capitalist, pro-American individuals who weren't rent-seeking bawl-babies. (up to 40% of the pre-1924 Italian immigrants here returned to Italy when they couldn't hack American life)
McArdle doesn't get this because she doesn't -want- to get it.
To start with, the fiscal drain of illegal aliens, much less legal ones, isn't that big.
Really? I think the fiscal drain of illegal aliens is largely unknown, given that we have only estimates of the number of illegals here, and the underground nature of the population combined with political controversy makes objective, trustworthy data difficult to come by.
they give fake social security numbers
That would be the fraud part of the immorality...
which means they're actually subsidising our old people.
Not necessarily, since a legal immigrant could be paying those taxes instead, and might well be paying higher taxes, given the higher average income level of legal immigrants.
Second of all, the illegals who come here aren't "cutting in line". They aren't eligible to join the end of the line
I guess we just disagree on this point. As I see it, if you force your way through the door ahead of people who are in line, you've cut in line, and the fact that you weren't entitled to be in the line to begin with only makes it worse.
...our immigration policy is set up so that most people who want to come here have absolutely no chance of ever getting a visa, because they don't have a near relative to sponsor them.Some of those jobs would get done at higher wages; many others wouldn't be done at all.
I don't think that would happen. Instead, the labor shortage would drive labor rates up to some degree, and drive incentives to increase productivity. Then, to the extent that positions still weren't filled, and/or taxpayers balked at higher prices, it would create political pressure for increased legal immigration to fill those lower skilled jobs. Immigration policy could then be changed as needed, so that many of the people who previously had no chance of ever getting a visa would have their chance. But their entry would then be with the consent of the governed, under conditions that better safeguard both sovereignty and national security, and a consequence of deliberate decision, which could be moderated as necessary in the future, and for which politicians could be applauded or held accountable, as appropriate.
"To start with, the fiscal drain of illegal aliens, much less legal ones, isn't that big. They do pay taxes; often, they give fake social security numbers, which means they're actually subsidising our old people."
Er, they pay payroll taxes, for some jobs. Unless they're going out of their way to wave their first felony in the IRS's face, they're probably not paying much in April. In many cases, they work under the table and thus don't even take care of payroll taxes.
"Why is it that for so many people, the argument isn't about immigrants, but about me?" i think its because you are unapologetically in-your-face pro-immigrant with the very little caveats & the worst part is you are white- people can handle ethnic indians(gandhi/dothead var.)like me and mexicans being vehemently pro-immigrant but not someone like you- & if you have any sympathy at all for people making $6/hr and not be mean-spirited or cold-hearted ofcourse you are a liberal as well!
Listening to these cognitive elite clowns opine on immigration is hilarious.
Megan is an animal, just like everybody else. She is locked into the animalistic status game like everybody else. Views on immigration have become, in an evolutionary genetic sense, an indicator of status. I drive a quirky Mini Cooper? Genetic code for 'I'm high status. I may not be well off, but I'm better than all the proles.' I like immigration? Genetic code for 'I'm high status' again.
Megan is an animal, I see right through her, as should everybody. Life is a status game, and contrary to popular opinion is more so for women. Men want wealth and status, but only as a means of attracting women. Women want status in and of itself, for competing with other women. When Jane comes out in favor of mass immigration its the internet equivilent of keeping up with the Jones'. Pathetic, but understandable.
Gattsuru, given the wages they work at, they should be getting money back in April. Which, as you point out, they don't, because many are afraid to file returns.
David, you put my faith in markets, technology, *and* government to change. You believe that markets clear instantly, all markets in the united states could be selling goods at the same price without labour, yet mysteriously choose not to; also, that the political process works so perfectly that at the first sign of labour shortage, Americans will immediately allow in all the workers they need. Strange, then, that the markets for economic and political solutions have not already produced this desireable state of affairs.
I wonder how Ms. McArdle would react if I stole her food and, if caught, claimed that 1) stealing is not always "morally wrong"; and b) that the laws on stealing are illogical.Surely it would be better to steal her television, if she has one, and perhaps her computer. It wouldn't necessarily be immoral if doing it supported old people. Okay, my parents, I mean.
OMG, you're kidding, right? "I'm against immigration because I'm low status" is an . . . interesting argument, but not one I'd ever make. I thought it was just supposed to be elitist blue staters who thought they were superior to the red states; are you saying you agree?
Well, Sri, if you hate legal immigration so much, why did you come here in the first place? You need to go back to India and work hard so that you can open up the border to Pakistan and let the poor people there have some economic opportunities.
After all, national borders are evil...
Re: faith in markets, technology, and government.
Trust me, I share your skepticism. I expect markets to clear slowly, for the political process to be infuriating, and for politicians to be often incompetent, frequently irresponsible, and always self-serving. Change on any issue, when it comes, is slow, inefficient, and exceedingly painful.
But like the old saw goes, democracy is the worst form of government except all the other ones. Markets, technology, and government are far from perfect, but from what I've seen, they're the best tools we've got. Independent of the merits of immigration, legal or illegal, or the original question of morality, I think the consequences of letting our elected officials ratify rampant lawlessness sets a very bad example, and creates a terrible incentive structure that has implications far beyond the immigration debate. From my perspective, you are essentially advocating that we choose one bad policy now because we fear we will get bad policy later. I would rather fight the fight, and demand better policy whenever we can get it.
Please, z, Sri probably isn't even Indian. For one thing, I haven't seen many Indians running around with red dots on their foreheads like he/she/it mentions, and his/her/its English is horrible. The Indians I know have flawless English, and wouldn't think of posting anything with that many grammatical flaws.
Jane Galt wrote: " ... Why is it that for so many people, the argument isn't about immigrants, but about me? ..."
Let me try to answer that, but I will phrase my words carefully, so as not to suffer the same fate as poor old "RMc" [ grin ]:
If I recall correctly, you started this series of threads by stating (or at least by implying) that anybody who opposes massive immigration of unskilled workers is, ipso facto, a racist redneck who hates Mexicans because they " ... have brown skin, breed like cockroaches, and speak Spanish..."
Now, obviously, some small percentage of the readers who responded do indeed fit that "racist redneck" model, but most of us do not. I for one, pointed out in a previous post that I'm married to a Mexican, my children were born there, and Spanish was their first language; I think that my wife and kids would probably be very surprised to learn that I 'hate Mexicans.'
And yet, I do believe that allowing massive, uncontrolled, immigration by hordes of unskilled people is going to cause all kinds of long-term economic, social, cultural, & environmental problems for this country. And lots of other responders have also tried to express rational objections to your position.
But the replies that we have gotten from you and from your supporters pretty much boil down to "because I said so," and " 'Shut up!' she explained." .... OK, OK, so I'm exaggerating a little bit, but not much. ....
And then in one of your recent posts this morning you seemed to be saying that all the problems will go away if we just tweak the Tax Code a little bit. For the sake of our children's future, I sure hope you're right. Actually, come to think of it, I probably have less reason to worry about the future than most folks: My children have dual citizenship, so if & when America goes up in flames, they will be able to flee back to Mexico.
P.S.: Changing the subject, Why would a Libertarian be opposed to dual citizenship? Being a dual citizen makes one less of a slave to the government, because if the government of one country gets too out-of-hand, you can always vote with your feet and move to the other country. Sort of like Federalism.
Many illegals work in illegal employment. For me, this is the _real_ problem: unlike the "employment model" that many assume illegals work in, from what I've seen most illegals are paid under the table, with no taxes withheld, no SS paid, and no other employee regulations followed by their employers. Such employers _only_ hire illegals, since illegals can be fired without problems while an American hired under such situations would likely complain to the authorities.
There are doubtless many illegals who work for big companies who can't afford to risk doing this sort of thing, but there are vast numbers of small businesses which do employ illegals under the table.
Also, in my experience, many illegals aren't actually paid that badly as wages go. The big savings to the employer is in avoiding FICA, unemployment insurance, and other payroll overhead - and being able to hand out green cash instead of having to deal with formal payroll. Since these employers often are dodging other taxes as well, this is a good thing for them.
I suppose one could argue that this is a "libertarian reaction" to too much regulation, and this argument would carry a lot of weight. But the answer isn't encouraging systemic corruption, which this is, but doing the heavy lifting to change the laws so it's easier to hire people at the bottom of the salary scale, not to create a parallel worker pool that exists outside the laws and regulations regarding employment.
"Please, z, Sri probably isn't even Indian."
this is hilarious - trust me i'm as brown as they come tho I don't get the presumption behind z asking me to 'go back' - but as poor as india is, she does have a lot of 'illegal' bangladeshi immigrants(ex-pakistanis) coming across to find work and they can't even be singled out for harassment like mexicans bcos they blend in well - and some of them have actually blown up trains giving hindu right wing nutjobs cover to go after every moslem. her border across the himalayas are famous for the terrorist infiltration that happens when the winter sets in per samuel hunt.; & i dont remember saying i hate legal immigration but i'll think about visiting the border when i get to kathmandu this fall
"but as poor as india is, she does have a lot of 'illegal' bangladeshi immigrants(ex-pakistanis) coming across to find work"
Exactly, that's why you need to abolish your borders and let them all in, since its all about economics and not cultural or religious conflict.
Brilliant post Jane! It needed to be said. The refusal to acknowledge that it is possible for something to be illegal but not morally wrong (could be a moral imperative, could be morally nuetral, could be morally wrong) is one of the most annoying things the anti-immigration people do. There is a valid argument that we shouldn't let vast numbers of people into our country whose politics is radically different from our own, or who don't really care about becoming American, but this argument can't really get the airing it needs because of the "but they're illegal" crowd. They don't realize that they serve as a straw man for open border advocates to knock down.
Chris: According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the vast majority of undocumented migrants from Mexico were gainfully employed before they left for the United States.
Chris, pretend for a moment that your family didn't have enough money to pay for school or even eat and the family decided to send someone up north to find a job to send money back. Given the stakes involved, who would your family choose to go up north and compete in the American underground job market; the family member with less job skills and is in and out of jobs or the family member who has a job because he has some proven marketable skill?
Jane you're obsessed, OBSESSED with status, it's pathetic.
"you need to abolish your borders and let them all in, since its all about economics and not cultural or religious conflict."
i'm not sure why you are vesting me with the right to open up india's borders but i have no problem reintegrating india w/pakistan/bangladesh and even afghanisthan. i'm still trying to grapple with why we are discussing india's borders after i disclosed my ethnicity - is it because there's a parallel between the histories of india & USA regarding their millenial long/centuries long history of migration/assimilation or are you still confused like columbus?
I don't allow people to come onto a site that I pay to host and call me a childless bitch who doesn't understand how real people, the ones with fertile wombs, feel, then yes, I can't take the heat.
Nowhere did I call you anything resembling "a childless bitch who doesn't understand how real people, the ones with fertile wombs, feel". I mean, please. Projecting much, Megan?
Why is it that for so many people, the argument isn't about immigrants, but about me?
Because people get a tad ticked-off when you call them racists, just because they disagree with you on immigration policy.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, readers continue to assert that I am some disconnected elitist who doesn't know what it's like to a) be poor b) compete in a field with way too many workers or c) live around a lot of immigrants.
Oh, come off it. You're a journalist, not a waitress. You like in Mahattan, not El Paso. You write a freakin' weblog! This "I'm one of the huddled masses, too, dammit!" routine of yours is pretty sad to watch.