Immigrants all over the country are pouring into the streets to protest new proposals to restrict immigration. This took place as Congress debates various proposals on immigration. One of these proposals, by the way, would require that churches help only legal immigrants.
I’ve been following the immigration issue for 20 years, first as a reporter in Miami (which long ago became a majority immigrant city) and now as the friend of many immigrants and immigration lawyers.
Read on to get my take on the immigration issue.
1)In general, I support the McCain-Kennedy bill in the Senate, which would give about 12 million illegal immigrants amnesty, allow them to stay here after paying a fine and learning English. (Yes, I find it hard to believe I’m on the same side of this or any issue as Teddy Kennedy).
2)I would support the eventual building of a wall along the Mexican border only if it is accompanied by negotiations with the Mexican government that would involve a massive increase in legal immigration processing by border control agents inside Mexico. We would also need to allow many more legal immigrants from countries where there is a demand to come to the United States. In effect, I think we need to convince the Mexican government that we want immigrants but that they need to be processed legally.
3)As a general policy, I support any immigrant who wants to come to the United States coming here, but he or she must do so legally.
I can already anticipate the drumbeat of opposition. Before you send the nasty-grams, please consider this: the demographics of the world are changing quickly. Countries that have long sent us immigrants are going through a massive demographic shift. There simply will not be as many young people interested in coming to the United States 10-20 years from now as there is now. Countries like India and China that had massive poverty are now becoming prosperous. This means they will not need to send immigrants abroad.
In fact, in the near future there will be increasing competition for immigrants. The populations of Europe and Japan are declining, and countries that have historically had large population growths are on a downward turn. Spain, for example, is facing a population shortage and is attracting Latin American immigrants because it prefers them to Arab immigrants (they speak Spanish and are Christian rather than Muslim). Keep in mind that the United States still has a higher birth rate than Europe, but the birth rate is decreasing and our population may begin to level out or decrease without immigration.
Immigration is good for the United States. It brings in new blood anxious to start businesses and invest in the country. Immigrants are proud of being Americans and anxious to work.
There are legitimate concerns about English being spoken less and less among recent immigrants. We should promote English instruction. But keep in mind that even in Miami, a city with a majority Hispanic population and where Spanish is spoken just about everywhere, children are all instructed in school in English. The second generation becomes fluent in English and American culture.
To sum up, I am not alarmed about the immigrants coming to our shores. I am curious, however, about more details on the proposal to require churches to confirm immigrant status before helping out immigrants. Does anybody have details?
UPDATE: Check out this page, which has details on population growth by country worldwide. Most of the countries that send us immigrants today will begin losing population in a few decades. As mentioned above, immigrants will be a hot commodity.
Very well reasoned and articulate post, Geoff. I agree pretty much entirely. We’ve got to figure out a way to “go legal”.
the only point of yours i don’t agree w/ is the idea of building a fence along the entire length of the border. it would be very expensive, and imho wouldn’t do much to stem the tide of migration across the border. as long as the economies of mexico and central america are not able to provide reasonable opportunities to the majority of their populations the migration to north america will continue.
Interesting comments Geoff. And you posted before I was about to post on a related issue, albeit more tied to the church. (i.e. the issue of missionary visas and immigration reform) I’ll hold off for an other day though.
I’m surprised you’d take the above tact though. It seems to me that the primary issues right now is that Mexican immigrants are treated differently from all other immigrants. It’s basically trivial, if you are Mexican, to come in the US. While immigration trends in the future may change, the fact is that right now there are many, many Asians who’d love to move the US but can’t simply because they don’t have the options the Mexicans do.
I really think the Mexican government is amazingly hypocritical on this issue as well. I think they want all the immigration because it provides so much money coming back into Mexico. That is many Mexican immigrants, far from keeping the money circulating in the US ship it back home. Thus we, as a nation, lose that money. I’d have far less trouble with Mexican immigrants if they were actually immigrants. But they aren’t, as one can see from the protests over the weekend where so many Mexican flags were flown. There is no desire to assimilate or become American. And that makes it a very different situation, in my mind, from both other current immigrants as well as past waves of immigration.
Far too many want the benefits but not the responsibilities of becoming American.
Mike D, I would only favor a fence if we build it in coordination with Mexico. Illegal immigration to the United States is a problem for Mexico as well as the U.S. There are legitimate security concerns as well with having millions of people crossing your border at will. My idea is to 1)negotiate the issue with Mexico 2)Get Mexican cooperation on the fence 3)massively increase the processing of legal immigrants by border patrol and/or state department employees at dozens of border stations inside Mexico (basically everybody who wants to get in can get in after showing a valid passport and going through a security check) then 4)build the fence.
Today, Mexico and the rest of Latin America oppose the fence because no cooperation is taking place and we are emphasizing decreasing immigration, not increasing legality, which is the real issue.
Clark, let me respond to your issues.
1)I am in favor of letting any Asian who wants to come to the United States come as long as they come legally, just as I am in favor of letting any Mexican come. I would massively increase visas for legal immigrants from Asia and elsewhere (although we need to be careful with some countries for security reasons). This may seem like a scary prospect but over time fewer and fewer Asians will want to come as their economies continue to improve. Meanwhile, we need the immigrants.
2)See my #4 on how we can cooperate with Mexico on this issue.
3)Do you propose that Mexico stop the free movement of its own citizens, which is what Castro and Chavez do? Mexico is a democracy of a sort. If its people want to leave, well, the government should let them leave. If you look at the demographic figures, Mexico will have many fewer young people in a decade or so. I predict immigration will be a non-issue by then.
4)On assimilation, I live in the kingdom of non-assimilation, Miami, FL. Yes, the first generation does not assimilate, but the second generation definitely does. Having lived and breathed it for 20 years, this is simply a non-issue for me. Americans have always been afraid of non-assimilation. First, the Irish wouldn’t assimilate, then the Italians, then the Slavs, now the Latins. Of course they assimilate over time.
5)If they want to come here and work and then go home, so what? An employer has a need for an employee, and they fill the demand. We have virtually full employment in the country (4.8 percent nationwide). If we had 15 percent unemployment, this might be another discussion, but the reality is that lower wages are a benefit because they bring lower prices to consumers and generate a churn of more and more business. I’m not concerned about them sending money back home — they give their sweat to this country and they help the economy grow. More power to them.
As one who is much more accustomed to being on the same side as Teddy Kennedy, I am pleased to be on the same side as you, for once.
With regards to your (#4), I think the Mexican government is more proactive and is doing more than just allowing its citizens free movement.
Of course I also think that the reason Mexican workers feel the need to come to the United States is because the Mexican government is a royal mess. There is no reason why Mexico couldn’t have done what Pakistan, India and other countries have done via outsourcing. Yet the massive corruption and other problems in Mexico make working with that country difficult. Yes many Asian countries also have corruption – but by and large they don’t have the problems Mexico has.
I’d love Mexico to really look inward and see why they aren’t progressing economically better.
Regarding (5), the big worry I have is underqualified American workers. 30 years ago there were plenty of jobs for these people. But as the American economy moves more and more towards information processing, these people find fewer and fewer good paying jobs available. That’s partially because the large volume of immigrants push down the price not only of jobs Americans don’t want but also jobs Americans do want, such as construction. Add in the fact that many manufacturing jobs are now going overseas and it really becomes an issue.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not pushing for protectionism. However the fact is that the less educated and the less educatable will become more and more a lower class. That is the very trends in the world with regards to outsourcing, off shore manufacturing, and cheap illegal immigrant labor will lead to larger and larger class divides. I’m not saying blame the immigrants. I am saying that someone needs to ask what the solution to this problem is.
Geoff,
I fully agree with you. Not only are you a compassionate conservative, I think you are, as my daughter used to call me, a “bleeding heart” conservative.
Lemming, #6, it’s worth pointing out that Pres. Bush (whom Kennedy hates) generally is pro-immigrant and is more in favor of the McCain-Kennedy approach than the Frist anti-immigrant approach. In addition, my position is pretty much the position of the conservative, pro-business WSJ editorial board and many libertarians. There are many, many conservatives (probably a majority) who oppose the Bush, WSJ and my position, however, (read National Review, for example, and don’t even get me started on that nativist Pat Buchanan) and I just have to say I disagree strongly with them.
Clark, #7, I would say the best solution for low-skilled American workers is to help them become high-skilled American workers. The best way to do that is to let the market do its magic. If low-skilled work remains lower-paid, because there are lots of low-skilled workers, then that creates a huge incentive for people to educate themselves and learn new skills so they can earn more money. That’s exactly what we want — a marketplace that gives incentives for people to educated themselves and advance. If there is a scarcity of low-skilled workers, there is less incentive for them to advance.
As an immigration lawyer, I have the privelege of seeing the US immigration policy mess first-hand every day. I agree that there needs to be fundamental change in the system.
McCain and Kennedy and their supporters (count me in) would object to your calling their bill an amnesty. That’s red meat and a bloody shirt for the Tom Tancredo crowd. We all know that a $2,000 fine and a six year wait for forgiveness is close to an amnesty, but it’s not. It’s “earned legalization. (It is different from the 1982 amnesty, where you simply had to prove that you were here on a certain date, and you got the prize.)
I don’t think that a wall could be built high enough. So, don’t waste the money. And, don’t make us look like other wall-building regimes: the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact countries, North Korea, etc. I don’t want our nation to be in that group.
The only thing that will slow down Mexican immigration is greater political and economic opportunity in Mexico. This is where the Mexican government is at its worst. Maybe if enough Mexicans leave, a labor shortage will develop there and they’ll have to make changes. I’d prefer that change come before we reach that point. So we (the US) should be doing all we can to help open Mexico up to economic progress. If Singapore or Korea can do it, then why not Mexico?
All the “we don’t want a Quebec in the US” folks are overwrought. As you say, the assimilation–linguistically and culturally–is pretty complete in the second generation. And for those who insist that 1st generation immigrants become completely assimilated, I say: you try it. Go to Hungary, learn Hungarian, speak, eat and think like a native. It won’t happen.
On the other hand, I welcome the McCain-Kennedy approach to more language and civics instruction. It’s our common heritage of freedom and constitutional government that makes us American, not our common expanding waistlines and big cars and mindless entertainment, etc. We should do all we can to welcome those who come here, so they become Americans, not just resident aliens.
It is inevitable that there will be illegal immigration, unless we declare open borders. Given the demands on both sides of the border, it is critical that the legal immigration system provide a way for those demands to be met. Simply raising the barriers and hiring more border guards does nothing to reduce those demands, and instead invites employers and immigrants to break the law. It’s like trying to run 100 cfs of water through a pipe with a capacity of only 50 cfs. The excess will find a way. Better to have all those good hard-working people here and part of the system, than working off the books and living in the shadows.
Just to add, I think Glenn Reynolds lays out most of my concerns.
Geoff (#9), my concern is that not all workers are capable of being retrained.
Mark B, all good points. There are some indications the fence in San Diego has worked. But again, any fence needs to be built in cooperation with Mexico, and I don’t see that happening, so the fence is really a non-starter.
Mike D. RE: 2- Too expensive to build a wall? Not near as expensive as it is to adopt these people, put them on welfare, and provide for their every need for the rest of their lives. As a tax payer, I’d much rather see my hard-earned tax dollars spent on a way to help curb illegal immigration, rather than encourage and reward it by welcoming them under our welfare umbrella. And how exactly would a wall not help? As it is now they can simply walk right in. How would a secure physical barrier not help deter that?
Geoff:
Man, just as I’m starting to really like this blog site, you go an drop two words that repulse every fiber of my being- Kennedy and amnesty. I have a friend from Switzerland who has been working diligently for many years now. He’s learned English, studied U.S. history intensely, and deeply respects this country and it’s values. He yearns to become one of us and carry our flag as his own. Yet he’s still over there waiting for the paperwork to go thru. Yet any foreigner can simply waltz across our southern border and set up camp. Heck, we even built little kiosks to provide him with food and water on his journey. But that’s not all- he’s not expected to assimilate at all, learn English, understand our history, or even respect our country. He comes across proudly waving the flag of the country just abandoned, then demonstrates on our streets with no fear or retribution.
And while my friend works his tail off and waits to be invited, you want to go and grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens that blatantly and unabashedly ignore immigration protocal?
Ok, I know it’s not possible to deport 12 million plus people. And I know it’s popular belief that these “undocumented workers” do the jobs that Americans won’t. But amnesty? AMNESTY? How would that not be like a recommend checker at the temple. One guy puts in the work, pays his tithing, and lives the principles of the gospel to earn a legitimate recommend, while the other takes out a Sharpy marker and draws one up on the back of a grocery sack. Your amnesty suggestion is like the temple presidency finding out that there are non-members in the celestial room, but saying- “hey, as long as they’re here, let’s let them stay. We need people who are willing to do initiatory work anyway.”
I know that example is cartoonish (and slightly sacreligious), but it’s relevant. I hold this country’s ideals very dear to my heart. Other than the temple and my gospel covenants, that flag is the next most sacred to me. I’d much rather have the guy sitting next to me in the temple be a worthy member who earned his recommend and holds it sacred, rather than an unabashed imposter who knows and cares nothing about the church. Likewise I’d rather my immigrant neighbor be a legitimate citizen who respects my country, it’s laws and values, than an illegal alien who spits on them.
Here’s my solution:
1) Build the fence. You have to stop the bleeding before you can heal the wound. A nice big, barbed-wire-topped fence that at least looks daunting and will give potential borderhoppers cause for second thought. Install sensors in areas with the most traffic in order to track crossings that may occur over the fences. That gives us a count and time of day, so we can better enforce.
2) Register the illegals presently in the country. Give them temporary work visas so they can continue to do the jobs that I won’t (an argument I still don’t buy).
3) Pass an addendum to the long-standing rule that makes any baby born on American soil an automatic U.S. citizen. When a baby is born, check the citizenship status of the parents. If the mother is not here legally, the baby is not granted U.S. citizenship.
I’m all for immigration. I am the product of immigrants. But it needs to be done right. America will be a better place if it’s immigrants came here properly and respect this country’s laws and values. If all of Mexico comes up here. The U.S. will become, well, Mexico- reflected initially in population and culture, and eventually in leadership and government. I don’t know about you, but looking at the current state of that country, I’m not way excited about that prospect.
I dislike the idea of amnesty for those who have entered this country illegally, as it seems to give an incentive for future illegal immigration.
I would much rather see a plan that allowed more immigrants in legally, while deporting those who have entered the country illegally. This is not a matter of being against immigrants — I’d have no objection to a plan that allowed one extra legal immigrant for every illegal immigrant deported. I’m just saying we should give priority to people who are willing to obey the law, rather than rewarding those who have broken it.
I believe you are wrong about the church only being able to help illegal immigrants.
Adam, thanks for clearing that up. Wouldn’t want to get that wrong…
My concern is that the more illegal immigrants there are in an area, the more likely people there believe they do “jobs no one else will do.” And in each case, the idea of “jobs no one else will do” gets defined up.
For example, I’m a skilled landscaper and lawn maintinece guy, thanks to my father’s business (which I still work on for some summers). I enjoy that job. In Texas, though, it is nigh impossible for me to get a job in that field because in Texas most people consider it a job “no one else will do” and companies can hire 5 illegals at less than the cost to hire a skilled worker like myself.
In essence, a job I might enjoy is basically cut off because I can’t compete with the high supply of unskilled workers who, by sheer numbers, provide a cheaper deal. And a job I enjoy and actually requires some skill is now considered a crappy job that “most people wouldn’t do.”
Mark B.
If the United States were to build a wall along our Southern border, the analogous situation would be Israel, which wants to keep terrorists out and regulate “guest workers” from the West Bank.
Comparing the wall with the Iron Curtain is duplicitous. We will be debating this issue until the wall is built. By the way, U.S. taxpayers are paying for most of Israel’s wall.
Why were there a sea of Mexican flags in the Los Angeles demonstration – despite the organizers to carry U.S. flags? Do the residents in the SouthWest have legitimate concerns about a loss of culture and soverignty?
I was typing a response to this post and the comments and somewhere along the way I found myself with a 1200-word piece, so I decided to post it on my blog instead. Anyway, I think a wall is silly and the “let’s make them all felons” idea is silly (though not as silly as the wall) and now I’m going back to studying.
(I will put this in, because I actually went and found a bunch of websites to find all these numbers):
As far as Israel is concerned, they have a) a border of 365 km (about 1/9th the size of our border with Mexico) that they want to fence in, and b) universal conscription with three-year terms of service for combat personnel (which, essentially is the group doing the patrolling: those called up choose either the IDF or the Border Police.) Every healthy man between 18 and 43 is officially in the IDF and can be called up at any time for active duty. Also, they’re dealing with an environment sufficiently hostile that sticking to the roads is the only sensible option for the overwhelming majority of travelers, and a population of terrorists who want to blow them up living next door. Moreover:
“During 1950-66, Israel spent an average of 9% of its GDP on defense. Defense expenditures increased dramatically after both the 1967 and 1973 wars. In 1996, the military budget reached 10.6% of GDP and represented about 21.5% of the total 1996 budget.”
I don’t think our situation is ever going to be analagous to Israel’s.
The difference between a proposed “Mexican” wall and the Iron Curtain is that in the latter case the oppressors built the wall to keep the oppressed in. If the “Mexican” wall were built, it would be for purposes of keeping the oppressed out.
The analogy with Israeli efforts to keep terrorists out is a red herring. The overwhelming majority of people entering the southern border are coming for freedom and economic opportunity. Tarring them all with the broad brush of “terrorist” is dishonest.
Nativists have been raising the same concerns that Tossman does in his last paragraph for the past 200 years. From the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790’s, to the Know-nothings of the 1840’s, the opponents of the immigration of southern and eastern Europeans, and, Heaven forfend!, Jews, at the turn of the 20th century, the Asian exclusion acts of the same period–all of them based on the same principle: if we let these people in, then America won’t be the same as it was before they came. Well, of course not. But then, it wasn’t the same after your ancestors arrived. If we really want to purify the nation, perhaps we should go back to the date at which it all turned south, and kick out everybody who has sullied the body politic since then.
It reminds me of the old Reorganized Church problem: when did Joseph become a fallen prophet? As history pushed the evidence for his teaching of plural marriage back ever earlier, the date of his “fall” had to be pushed back as well. I think it got to about 1831.
Same with our finding the date at which the immigrants started ruining the country. Good luck picking a date! (The natives might just agree on 1492.)
True Christianity knows no national boundaries. The Mexicans are the promised people, DNA doubts notwithstanding. They have as much right to jobs and benefits in the United States as I do.
Bob
Mark- So you’re telling me that you’re just as cool with illegal immigrants who don’t give a rat’s behind about your country as you are with an immigrant that worked their tail off to get here?
This isn’t a race thing. If there was a mass exodus of Canadians hopping our northern border, waving their Canadian flags and chanting about taking back their territory- I’d have the same problem. By all means, come here. Add your culture and mindset to our melting pot. But do it legally. And is it too much to ask you to learn English and respect our laws? If that is too much for you, I don’t want you here.
Bob- They DO NOT have as much right to jobs and benefits here as you do. You are a citizen. They are not. They have the option of becoming a citizen- at which point they will have as much right to these benefits. I can’t freaking believe I’m having this debate with other LDS folk! Are we not a law-abiding people? Do we not believe in doing things the right way? True Christianity knows no boundaries, but the country of the United States does- and so should my tax dollars.
Though it will undoubtedly be denied by all those holding an anti-immigration stance, at the very heart of nativism is not a belief in forcing all to do things “legally” but a fear (very often a racially inflected fear) of “impurity” — i.e. a nativist ideology thinks that, in reference to #23, not speaking English will somehow defile his idea of what an “American” ought to be. The fatal flaw in nativism is the baseless assumption that “citizenship” of any country is a natural state of existence rather than a fiction of law and custom (to quote Mark Twain). There is nothing inherently “American” about speaking English; in fact, there is nothing inherently “American” at all. To call something American (and, by extension, to call someone an American) is to use a very fluid, dynamic, and often arbitrary descriptor that ought to evolve as the context, culture, and demographic makeup of the group of people living in the (once again, completely arbitrary) borders of the nation do. What’s more, to fantasize about building a wall is akin to Howard Hughes locking himself in a room for months at a time out of an irrational germophobia–it presupposes that there is some purity to preserve. And, in reference to the comparison from #13, how does granting amnesty take anything away from you? The comparison to the temple recommend easily falls apart; after all, the Lord consistently tells us that what matters is what we do, not what others do. A better comparison would be to the toddler who has a prized toy but then gets upset when his playmate gets one, too, because the toddler always wants something with which to feel “better” than his friends. Nativism is just that–it’s a way to make the nativist feel more special by exclusion–of trying to draw lines of difference rather than trying to work together to help everyone’s lives improve.
If history can predict anything, it is that American citizenship is always evolving, and in fact needs to continue to evolve. We should help it evolve, yes, but not by appealing to draconian measures and hiding behind xenophobic cries of “legality.” Instead we need to help it evolve by appealing to the only thing that has a natural basis–humanity. Merely living in this country (or even paying taxes in this country, which many are so proud to do when it sets them apart from people from other countries but then are quick to complain about how awful taxation is when it comes to passing next year’s budget) doesn’t make you any more worthy of the responsiblities or privileges you want to deny others.
The history of countries with divided languages being successful is nil: Canada (Quebec); Belgium (Flemish/French), Brazil (Portuguese/German).
Switzerland with four official languages is the exception, due to strong canton autonomy. Indian states cannot communicate except by a second (English) language. Same with the Philippines (Tagalog).
There are gas station and store clerks in parts of the U.S. who cannot understand a word of English. Is this what we want to encourage?
95 percent of WorldNetDaily readers oppose granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
Frankly I’m a little surprised to see that I hold the minority view in this forum. Either that or nobody else is willing to speak up for fear of being labelled racist or xenophobic. Jarom, you presume that since I have given the issue of legality prominence in my argument, I’m nothing more than a toddler jealous that somebody else has my toy. You are quick to call me on my apparant judgement, yet you turn around and pass judgement on me.
Immigration legalities aside, I do think there is somewhat of a ‘purity’ to protect. Granted, the U.S. isn’t perfect. But I don’t think I need to take up space listing her decidedly honorable attributes. Part of this is culture. Until recent years, the U.S. experienced growth and diversity primarily through legal immigration by people who, if nothing else, at least showed the country the respect of taking the proper path here. I personally believe that attitude has contributed to an honorable society and made our country great. So yes, there is a certain purity to preserve.
Fast forward to now, where the vast majority of immigration comes illegally. Regardless of the reasons these people come here, I’ve never, NEVER met an illegal alien that has been respectful of this country. Look at those protests over the weekend. How many Mexican flags did you see? How many American?
Despite your intellectualized rhetoric about evolving citizenship and nativism, you fail to make a convincing argument that-
1) Uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants- unsympathetic to our country at best, hostile to it closer to the norm- into our country does no damage culturally.
2) My temple analogy is weak.
3) That my opposition to illegal immigration and my desire to plug the gap makes me racist, unchristlike, or xenophobic.
Italians, Puerto Ricans, Irish – they all fly their flag, even after coming here ‘legally’. This recent rhetoric that the Hispanic population in our country is disprespectful or hostile to our country is based on fear and racism – you say that you have ‘never’ met an illegal alien that was respectful to our country – that is because you define ‘respectful to our country’ as coming over here and becoming just like you – just abandoning their culture and lifestyle. This is actually entirely anti-american – we are the Great Melting Pot, a colorful mix of cultures and backgrounds all coming together with a commen goal of liberty and a better life. I find it repulsive and offensive and UNAMERICAN for you to suggest that immigration needs to be curbed or a wall erected so that the Hispanics don’t come and defile your culture.
The debate about immigration is one of economics and labor, partially security, and drug trafficking. Labor is an issue because we essentially have wage slavery occurring, and basic human and civil rights are being denied our brothers and sisters. Legality needs to be addressed so their rights can be protected. Unfortunatly, this ‘cheap labor’ is exactly what the politicians are trying to protect, with the rest of the politicians sounding like Tossman. No one is actually interested in protecting THEIR rights. Racism is very much alive and well in our country, and this is why I marched in the streets with my white tshirt (symbolizing PEACE, Tossman,not hostility) and yes, my Mexican flag.
Ah, when all else fails, play the race card.
I am not advocating a curb on immigration. Our melting pot is a great strength and I welcome that completely.
I am advocating a curb on illegal entry because of negative economic, socio-political, and legal impacts. I also maintain that it isn’t fair to inconsistently enforce immigration policy. Why do we make the rest of the world jump through the hoops while giving a pass to the southern border?
Here’s what I meant by unsympathetic and hostile. I lived for a while in southern Texas. As ward mission leader, I helped teach many illegal immigrants. Overwhelmingly their attitudes toward America ranged from apathy and ignorance to a blatant “we’re taking this country back†mindset. Very, very rarely did I meet an illegal immigrant who had a basic appreciation of our country’s sovereignty, history, or freedoms.
We have a lot of illegals here. I resented them for a long time because it seemed like they brought drugs with them and crime. There is a part of our town that they’ve made their own. They don’t learn the language.
But after working at Wal-mart, I like them better. also after going to Mexico and seeing how the people live there.
I don’t think they can be all bad. I suppose they’re like everyone else, some bad, a lot good, trapped in a bad situation.
I’m for helping them out now.
To suggest that someone who entered the country without inspection, or who stayed past the end of his authorized stay, does not “give a rat’s behind” about this country is nonsense.
That’s sort of like saying those who drive over the speed limit, or make changes to their homes without a building permit, or who buy products over the internet and then don’t pay state use taxes, or who are a little too agressive in calculating the deductions from income on their tax returns, or who “forget” to declare all those items purchased on their trip abroad, also don’t give a rat’s backside about this country. Where should we start the deportation line?
The fact is, as annegb notes, that the overwhelming number of people who come here are hard-working folk who love their families and are seeking a better life for their children. They probably love this country as much as the laws and policies (and the endless bureaucracy) permit them to, and they’d love to be able to participate fully in the economic and political life of the U.S.
Any proposal to send them all home would (1) drive those who remain even further underground, (2) result in huge disruption of families, since many who are here without documents have close relatives who are lawful permanent residents or US citizens, (3) result in even greater backlogs at the immigration courts–where a non-expedited case can take three or four years from Notice to Appear to final decision (to say nothing of appeals) or, on the alternative (if you don’t want to clog up those courts for decades) draconian measures–roundups and removal of generally law-abiding (ok, they came in across the border without a passport and they’re using a bogus social security card–not capital crimes, unless you’re Tommy the tank engine Tancredo) folk that would conjure up images of other forced relocations–the Jews to Assyria and Babylon, the Poles from what was eastern Poland at the end of WW2, and the Germans from East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania at the same time, and of the Jews again, from all of Europe under to Nazi domination to Poland.
The regularization of status of the 11,000,000 who might be eligible for a change if the Senate (and the House) pass the bill that the Judiciary Committee reported yesterday will take years. The removal of all those people would take even longer, and would be far uglier than most Americans (excepting Rep. Tancredo, of course) would countenance.
“I’ve never, NEVER met an illegal alien that has been respectful of this country.”
My experience is the complete opposite in interfacing with hundreds of undocumented workers (and their dependents) (generally in Church, missionary or school settings). Most, if not all, of the undocumented workers (and their children) I know would like to legalize their status and become citizens. They love and respect this country, and that is part of why they are here. I have never heard an undocumented worker (or child) whom I have met speak disrespectfully of the United States. I do not doubt there are some; I just have not met them.
Mark B,
Amen. There was one other forced relocation that I recall–actually it involved the United States–some religious group that was forced to leave the US for Mexico (where they became squatters), until the US “purchased” that part of Mexico in a contract of adhesion.
Um… who ever said anything about forced relocation?
Tossman, I think you and I would agree on a lot of things, but I simply disagree almost completely with your take on the immigration issue. One of the reasons you are in a minority on this board is that the Bloggernacle tends to be more liberal than most LDS fora. I am usually a minority when espousing conservative views. But on this particular point I agree with the viewpoint of the WSJ editorial page and Pres Bush — immigrants are good for this country. There is no difference between Latin immigrants now and the past waves of immigrants we’ve had — slavs, Irish, Jews, Poles and on and on. The majority always was suspicious of the new immigrants and in each case, the majority was wrong, and the immigrants as a whole brought new entrepeneurial energy and investment into the country. I have met literally hundreds of immigrants (I live in Miami), and almost all of them have been grateful for this country, patriotic and anxious to work and pull their own weight. My experience is exactly the opposite of yours.
The history of countries with divided languages being successful is nil: Canada (Quebec); Belgium (Flemish/French), Brazil (Portuguese/German).
Thank you for this information. I will now update my list of failed nations as follows:
Cambodia
Albania
Haiti
Canada
Belgium
Brazil (who knew those Germans were such a menace?)
Tossman, you said your ideas were not racist. This statement:
Would prove otherwise – as you seem to have a problem with our Mexican bros & Sisters inparticular, as also highlighted in your previous comments:
The last comment inparticular highlights your racism. See, your happy about your Rich, white, european friend coming to America. He lives in a country and is privy to an education that makes obtaining a visa possible, despite(their are plenty of rich ones here legally) who come into our country seeking the same thing your Swiss friend does, by the only means avaible to them – their own two feet. A visa is not a possibility (requires money and literacy). You even suggested that we should deny these children of our Heavenly Father food and life-sustaining water.
Julie- wow. Where to begin with you? I’m always amused by people who self-righteosly preach tolerance and non-judgement- but who turn right around and do it themselves. Look at what you are inferring about me from just a few posts: That I’m white, rich, xenophobic, and racist. By your own standards how was your inference that I’m white and rich not racism? And thanks so much for the scripture quotes. You are so humble and helpful. I’m sure you will be blessed by so kindly correcting me.
Geoff- I see what you mean about the political leanings of posters here. This thread was my first foray into the bloggernacle. Apparently the diversity of ideas I bring to this forum are not welcome here. People like Julie, and, well pretty much everybody here are so eager to teach diversity and tolerance…until somebody disagrees with them. Then its RACISM!! XENOPHOBIA!!
I suppose it’s not doing me a whole lot of good to continue reiterating my arguments, but I will call you on one thing in your previous post, Geoff. Never have I said that immigrants aren’t good for this country.
One more thought. I have spent some time in southern Florida and would agree with you about the immigrant base there. They are very respectful of our country. Perhaps one’s own experiences paint the backdrop for their opinion on illegal immigration. Demographics are different depending on where you go.
I still maintain that a person who goes through the trouble of coming here legally, learning our language, and becoming a contributing member of society brings more to the table than one who walks in, uninvited and unabashed about it.
Re Tossman in 34. I don’t know that anyone in the restrictionist camp here said anything about forced relocation. But, as I suggested in my previous comment, forced relocation is the logical conclusion of the policies set forth in H.R. 4437, the ghastly bill passed by the House last December.
I would be interested in hearing how people think the process of sending 11,000,000 undocumented aliens home would work.
The legal way: Send them a Notice to Appear (that’s how cases get started in Immigration Court) and allow them to produce evidence showing that they in fact have the legal right to be here. Adding 11,000,000 cases to the dockets of the Immigration Courts across the country should add about 10 years to the waiting times at those courts. Forever.
A new legal (in a sort of House Judiciary Committee) way: Send them a notice to appear at the local CBP office. Tell them to bring their “bags and baggage” and their passports. If they don’t show up with a valid visa, I-94, or other evidence that they are in legal status now, take them to the airport/train station. If you hurry, you can keep the blasted lawyers out of the way until “they” are safely across the Rio Grande.
There are other possibilities, but they are at even greater odds with our nation’s fundamental principles than the nativist, anti-immigrant stance that so many are taking.
Mark- I agree the solution is not mass deportation. We’ve all but encouraged illegal immigration for so long that to turn on a dime and force them all out would be wrong. I agree that we need to regularize those who are here already- not make them citizens- but register them and legalize their presence.
It will take years to solve this problem- mainly because so many refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Since my ancestors came legally (the latest in the 1850’s and some more than 100 years before then), I can congratulate myself for not being the descendent of someone who came illegally. Of course, in 1853, all great-great-grandfather had to do was secure the funds for passage for himself, his wife and six children (presumably with the help of the Perpetual Emigration Fund), get on the boat at Liverpool, survive the eight weeks on the water to New Orleans, etc. etc.
They didn’t need a sponsor (whether a family member or employer).
The only waiting time was the time it took to amass the money needed to make the trip.
They didn’t even have to go through inspection at Ellis Island.
They didn’t have to learn a new language–just a funny way of speaking it.
Now, my “brothers” in Puebla don’t have that option. If they have no family here, that’s half the battle lost. Even if they do have family here, how about some waiting times: if your brother is an adult US Citizen, he can petition for you to get a green card. If he petitioned before August 1993, you can go to the US Consulate and apply now for your immigrant visa.
But, let’s take a closer relationship. Your wife. She has a green card, and petitions for you. In that case, the wait is only seven years. Heck, Jacob waited seven years for Rachel and then was double crossed and got Leah instead, so why can’t our hypothetical Mexican wait seven years to get together with his wife.
Or, how about dear old Mom. She has a green card, but can’t pass the English language to become a citizen. Learning languages is hard work, and it’s harder the older you get. So, Mom files for you. If she filed before February 1992, you can go to the US Consulate next month and start the application for your immigrant visa.
Finally, let’s say that you, a bright young college graduate, get recruited by an American company, to come work here. If they petition at the right time of the year (before the 65,000 annual cap is reached), you can come in soon and start working. But, if they want you permanently, they have to put you in line behind all the other applicants for employment-based green cards. If they started that process before May 1, 2001, you can apply for your green card this month. But, what if you want to change jobs? Too bad–doing that would put you at the back of the line, and the five-year waiting period begins again. Or, what if you’re an older graduate, and have some children with you. If they turn 21 before the waiting period ends, too bad. They’re on their own.
So, with all due respect for those who wait outside for the quotas to open up for them, they just don’t work. They don’t work for prospective immigrants, and they don’t work for businesses who want to hire people.
Finally, there is no reason to suggest that those who come without passports/visa/inspection at the border try any less hard to learn our language (remember, learning English is hard, especially when you start at 30 years old, and have to spend 12 hours a day, six days a week, working at some low-paying job to keep the wolf from the door) or to contribute to our society. Sit down at church one day and talk to someone in that situation, and, as Atticus Finch says, walk for a mile in his shoes. Don’t think of them as “them.” They’re Jose and Juan and Marta and Teresa. Our brothers and sisters.
Tossman: I agree. We do need to bring all those who are here out of the shadows, and give them a way to achieve legal status. The laws already exist to exclude criminals and terrorists–and those in the country who fall into those categories should be brought out of the shadows too, and shown the door.
I also think that you’re right that for too long there has been a tacit agreement among government, business and other leaders (with complicity by the Mexican government) to look the other way. On the other hand, making law is hard work–watching the Senate Judiciary Committee struggle in their markup session yesterday underscored that point (they’re generalists, not specialists, they rely on their staffs for advice, but that doesn’t help when they’re debating technical matters in the committee, etc.), and getting 100 fractious senators and 435 even more fractious representatives to agree (or even a majority of them) on anything is almost impossible.
Mark B- Good points in 41. I think this conversation has finally (and amazingly) entered the intellectual sphere.
The problem here is how it appears to middle America.
Another Julie can cry racism and xenophobia all she wants, but when people turn on the TV and see immigrants carrying Mexican flags and showing signs that say “This is stolen land and we want it back” or some such – well, as Mickey Kaus of kausfiles says, it’s more likely to create an anti-immigrant backlash than to help the cause.
Same with the name calling – I may not totally agree with Tossman, but I have yet to see anything he has said as out of bounds. Another Julie and others on this thread hurt their cause more than help it with the name calling and ad hominem arguments.
I’m a bishop. I share my building with a very large Spanish branch about to go ward. My oldest children served Spanish missions either in Mexico or on the border.
My on-the-border returned missionary son tells me of the incipient racism he saw in the Church on the Rio Grande as the anglo members complained bitterly over having to share their buildings with Hispanic folks who trashed and overused them. Plus, most of those members were illegal. In my own building, I can see how those complaints emerge. Most of the Hispanics who use our local chapel are illegals. After each of their three-hour blocks, or Tuesday nights, the building is trashed.
But I see something else here. The Hispanics use the building as a local community center; English classes as well as spiritual meetings. The branch baptizes five a month; my ward, in a fairly wealthy area of southern California, can barely muster two a year. The branch pulls in troubled gang youth and puts them in contact with experienced Hispanic leaders who really do change many lives. I see bolstered education, better English, better jobs, and better integration into southern Califonia society by reason of the Church. Plus, I very much value the association my ward has with the branch; when my members carp about the condition of the building, we teach them the principal of love and sacrifice and washing the feet of another, and just clean the building. I push my members to contribute to the girls camp and scout camp fund so the branch members can go.
And I really do believe, deep in my heart, that the Hispanics are descendants of Lehi and have the promise of the Book of Mormon that the Gentiles will nurture them to a point where they will, in the end, build the temple in Jackson County. DNA notwithstanding.
During my mission to Chicago, the Church reversed its position that one had to be legal to be a member, and then the floodgates opened and the branches filled with baptisms. I just don’t see national boundaries having anything at all to do with Gospel principles. To the extent our members believe otherwise, it is time to disabuse them of that notion.
As Church members, it is our duty to follow the law. But the Church does not require for temple worthiness legal status. It would be contrary to the Spirit to withhold welfare benefits based upon legal status.
Finally (the libertarian coming out in me, as a trained Friedman economist), barriers at the national borders are no better than tariffs. They impede social progress and economic growth. Mexico falters because of its corruption, not because of the skin color of its people. The United States succeeds because of its laws, its stability, and its employers; change the skin color and it isn’t going to make any difference.
Bob C.
Ivan Wolfe said: “Another Julie can cry racism and xenophobia all she wants, but when people turn on the TV and see immigrants carrying Mexican flags and showing signs that say “This is stolen land and we want it back” or some such – well, as Mickey Kaus of kausfiles says, it’s more likely to create an anti-immigrant backlash than to help the cause.”
Hmm. It is stolen land, actually, at least where I live. At least how De Voto describes the Mexican War in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, 1846: Year of Decision. Unless one adopts the view that “Manifest Destiny” was a God-given right, what right did the United States have in marching troops into Mexico City and forcing a treaty upon Mexico to cede California, Utah, New Mexico, etc.? I am the glad beneficiary today of that treaty, but, really?
Bob C.
So, Tossman, ARE you rich and white?
Compared to most of the rest of the world, I’m rich and white. And lucky, I think.
I wonder if some of this feeling is geographical, like people on the border are more prejudiced. Because when I lived in Long Beach, I was scared to death of Mexicans because they wer mean. The Mexican lady next door beat my mom up several times over nothing.
That can color your views.
It’s hard to look at life with an eternal perspective when you have to live day by day with the realities and the discomforts such a perspective can produce. I’m not saying it’s right to discriminate, but it’s hard not to, as well.
I still have changed my mind.
Bob C.:
If you go back far enough, nearly all land is stolen land.
Do you think carrying signs to that effect in protest marches makes voters want to support illegals, or deport them? My contention is that it’s a bad PR move. I wasn’t claiming the land wasn’t stolen (all land is, in the end), but that it’s a bad PR move and is certain to create backlash rather than support.
Bob- RE your statement “The United States succeeds because of its laws, its stability, and its employers.”
Right, so what happens to a country when its laws are trampled (i.e., immigration laws, lack of border enforcement), it’s stability is shaken (the security vulnerabilities inherant in an unsurveiled border), and its employers are immoral and dishonest (hiring illegals in order to pay them inhumane wages)? Doesn’t look good for the United States.
I’m not sure why so many of you keep going back to the issue of skin color. This has absolutely nothing to do with skin color. Please refer me to anywhere in my previous posts where I have mentioned or even alluded to skin color being a factor. Skin color has nothing to do with the fact that the increasing influx of illegal immigrants has had serious economic, legal, and security-related impacts.
Annegb- I am white, but far from rich. I grew up in a pretty rough neighborhood southern California. I moved around the country for a while and finally ended up in Salt Lake City. I spent my first 3 years here barely scraping by in an almost all-Latino neighborhood here. I was a minority where I grew up, and continued to be a minority here. I served as a stake clerk in a stake with a Spanish ward. I made many friends in my area and in this ward.
Thus it doesn’t sit well with me when somebody calls me a rich white racist. My arguments about illegal immigration have nothing to do with race or skin color. It just happens that the majority of illegal immigration takes place on the Mexican border.
Geoff:
I generally agree with the substance of your post. I highly doubt that most of these immigrants just end up on welfare and sucking up my tax dollars. Rather, they save me time and effort by providing a WILLING work force. Throughout history, there are always certain jobs that only immigrants are willing to touch as assimilated Americans become “too good” for those jobs or demand more money for doing those jobs than the market is able to support. That is not to say that immigrants become a sort of “second class” workforce, but that as they get their start in a new country they provide valuable services at affordable rates. In the meantime, the next generation gets educated and ready to supply jobs for a new generation of immigrant workers.
For me, it is hard to see how people could think differently about this issue, ESPECIALLY in the church, where we are our brothers’ keeper. That of course does not mean we just open the floodgates, and nobody here is suggesting that. It means that we find an ordered way to allow our brothers and sisters in other countries who so desire to enjoy the blessings of liberty the same way I do because of the immigration of my forefathers.
It means that we make our immigration policies match the demands of our markets. If our markets didn’t supply the demand for them, people would not be wanting to come here. But our markets have a demand for immigrant workers, and the point is that when they come they do better here than they could elsewhere in the world. Otherwise they would not come! I see no reason to deny them that privilege, and I highly doubt that doing so really threatens our jobs in any meaningful way because they take jobs that most Americans do not want anymore (at least in the first generation- in the second generation I can see many immigrants generating their own jobs and providing jobs for others to fill).
Right, so what happens to a country when its laws are trampled (i.e., immigration laws, lack of border enforcement), it’s stability is shaken (the security vulnerabilities inherant in an unsurveiled border), and its employers are immoral and dishonest (hiring illegals in order to pay them inhumane wages)? Doesn’t look good for the United States.
Tossman- the point is to legalize this stuff so that it’s NOT illegal anymore. Laws that don’t accommodate reality need to be amended so that they do. Point in case- our current immigration laws. Open the doors legally, and open them wide. And I see no reason not to grant amnesty to those already contributing to our society, but with the warning that, given the open door policies, illegal immigration will be pursued with more of a vengeance than ever.
Jordan- RE: “That of course does not mean we just open the floodgates, and nobody here is suggesting that.”
Could have fooled me.
Jordan,
Thanks. I agree.
I agree with Ivan,
The attack on Tossman has been disproportionate and not very well thought-out. I did not consider any of his comments that started all this to be “out of line.”
Besides, these little personal battles are starting to get a little tiresome. If you’ve been around the bloggernacle a while, you already know the script by heart.
“Blogger X” (who espouses some conservative talking point): [insert whatever argument you want here]
“Blogger Y” (usually liberal and longtimer): “that view is off-base because of A, B, and C.
Blogger X: “no it isn’t because, etc. etc.”
Blogger Y: “I can’t believe you’d think that blah, blah, blah”
Blogger X: “Well I can’t see how anyone could rationally see otherwise”
Y: “Well that’s just primitive/bigoted/racist/unChristian because …”
X: “You liberals ALWAYS are so judgemental of anyone who disagrees with you”
Y: “You reactionary white males are SO oblivious to how pea-brained your ideas are …”
X: “Well, I can see that the bloggernacle has already made up its mind … [insert optional Biblical injuction for Christlike behavior]
Y: [rousing defense of why Y is not being unChristlike and perhaps a counter-punch accusing X of being un-Christlike]
X: “Obviously I’m not welcome here …”
Y: “Obviously, you just came here TROLLING for attention, go take your Rush Limbaugh talking points somewhere else”
X: [at this point X may be steamed-up enough to say something that gets his post deleted, at which point, he accuses the moderators of taking Y’s side in a thread that also ends up deleted, after which, he leaves the bloggernacle in bitterness]
Y plays role of “voice crying in the wilderness” and X plays the role of “lone voice of reason that everyone is picking on.” It really is tiresome. Why don’t we just skip it and refocus this on issues again?
Oh, and by the way Tossman, welcome to the bloggernacle.
Thanks Seth- good anlysis. You crack me up!
Seth R. for post of the month!
Tossman saith: “Right, so what happens to a country when its laws are trampled (i.e., immigration laws, lack of border enforcement), it’s stability is shaken (the security vulnerabilities inherant in an unsurveiled border), and its employers are immoral and dishonest (hiring illegals in order to pay them inhumane wages)? Doesn’t look good for the United States.”
With two exceptions, your concerns are inherent in the immigration laws; i.e., laws are trampled because illegal immigration is going on; employers are dishonest because they are hiring illegals. With amnesty (which RONALD REAGAN did) or a guest worker program, laws don’t get trampled and employers aren’t making illegal hires. BTW, I am one of those illegal employers, I admit. (Housecleaners and gardeners.) And, I pay the market.
Security? In California’s most secure prisons, we can’t keep drugs and weapons out, nor keep gang inmates from directing crime to their homeboys on the outside. Do you really think that improved border protection at Mexico will keep the really bad guys out? I don’t think so. With my own eyes I witnessed a cocaine (well, lots of retangular white burlap bales in unmarked beater vans) transhipping operation underway in a campground ten miles south of the Canadian border involving a hundred people; I had to flee for my life when they spotted me and gave chase.
And employers abusing employees with illegal wages? That will be reduced once the employees become legal.
The most sensible U.S. policy here is to help Mexico with its development. Development is freedom. Enlist Mexico as our ally, not our enemy, in economic development. Reduce the economic incentives of migration.
Bob C
“BTW, I am one of those illegal employers, I admit. (Housecleaners and gardeners.)”
So now you admit that your personal opinion on illegal immigration (which you initially based on your sons’ experiences) is biased by the fact that helps your bottom line. A harsh accusation, perhaps. But it certainly looks that way. Remind me, bishop, of that question in the temple recommend interview about honesty?
Sorry, I may be a hardliner and I don’t mean to pass judgement or rile anybody up. I’m just slightly shocked that you’re almost bragging about it.
I agree, we need to help Mexico develop an incorrupt government an a stable economy. But that’s only one part of the solution
Tossman, you’re new to the Bloggernacle, and I like you and want you to stay here, but there is a rule we have here that we don’t question somebody else’s righteousness. I think you should retract your comment to Bob C and apologize for it.
There are varied levels of compliance to different laws. Have you never broken the speed limit or jay-walked? Of course you have. Immigration laws today are seen by many as similar to those kinds of laws, and there are legitimate arguments that civil disobedience against immigration laws is justified. And before you go quoting the D&C, think about the Church’s stance on polygamy in the 19th century, which was clearly illegal. There are legitimate theological justifications for civil disobedience in some cases, and a strong argument can be made that immigration laws call for civil disobedience.
Having said that, I am in favor of legal immigration first and am anxious for immigrants to either become legal residents over time or decide to leave. That’s why I support the policies I do.
Geoff- rereading my latest post, I realize it is inappropriate. For the record, though, I’d much rather somebody question my righteousness than insult my beliefs- be they religious or political. My rigtousness is neither dependent on nor affected by the trivial intenet insults. I guess that’s just me.
Bob- I apologize. I didn’t expect to have my first post here attacked from all sides and I didn’t expect to have my feathers ruffled all day. I normally wouldn’t have attacked you, and I shouldn’t have today. I take it back and ask your forgiveness.
I have been sincerely trying to understand the views of yours and Geoffs on this issue. I’m a pretty open-minded guy, which is why I’m here. But I honestly can’t seem to wrap my brain or my heart around your view. I probably never will, but please know that I have tried.
Geoff –
while Tossman needed to be called on that, it seems odd you’ve called only him on it. Many commentators on this thread have called into question the righteousness of those who (for lack of a better term) are on the “anti-illegal immigrant” side of the fence. Is it because you agree with them and don’t agree with Tossman that you feel the need to censure only him, rather than also issue a general call to all commentators to be very careful?
Ivan, you make a valid point. Tossman, my call should have been general and not specifically aimed at you. For example, re-reading this thread, I am appalled that people have implied you are racist when you never mentioned race (and I have to say the tendency these days to find racism behind every comment with which they disagree is unseemly). Your apology to Bob was honorable. I hope we can tone down this discussion and concentrate on the issues at hand. Seth R makes a good point about how these debates often proceed, and there is much to learn there.
Tossman, read this article in the CSM. Especially read the Bible references by Sen. Brownback, who is one of the more conservative senators in the Senate. I agree wholeheartedly with Sen. Brownback’s support, which is that we will be judged about how we treat the “least of these.” An attitude purely of enforcement and kicking out illegals (the Tancredo position) just doesn’t seem right to me. This article also explains how you can be a conservative and support immigration.
I have some sympathy for Tossman, despite being closer to Geoff’s position.
However, as I keep saying: This kind of stunt does not help the cause and instead (somewhat justifiably) feeds anti-immigration fever. We can talk about how the second and third generations are assimilated all we want, but when voters see this kind of thing, it gives the impression of immigrants being actively hostile to the host country.
“This article also explains how you can be a conservative and support immigration.”
Ah, but will it tell me how to be a conservative and support illegal immigration? 😉
I’ll check it out and get back to you.
Ivan, thanks for having my back, even if our views on the matter differ.
Geoff- A few things. First, I read the CSM article. I have said before that I think there should be some kind of system of regularization for the illegal immigrants. I’m familiar with those verses in the Bible. I also understand the Book of Mormon examples (think the anti-nephi lehis). It is, of course, wise to take Christ’s teachings to heart. But Christ also taught about prudence and wisdom. In this particular case, there are economic, social, and security concerns to take into account. This means that loving our neighbor must be done in a prudent manner that minimizes the risks. God wants me to give my spare change to the beggar on the street, but he doesn’t want me to get mugged in the process.
Now, to some of breaking of laws you mentioned in 60. Call me crazy, but comparing employing illegal immigrants (and consequently failing to declare them on your taxes- you can’t tell me people who employ illegals properly indicate that in their taxes) to speeding is apples to oranges. Speeding will get me a ticket, illegal employment policies and tax fraud will get me thrown in jail. If somebody can honestly compare jay-walking to employing illegal employment policies, they are the king of all rationalization! As for polygamy, God ordered it and officially sanctioned it by direct prophetic revelation and official church policy. Please direct me to the conference talk or ensign article that officially sanctions illegal immigration and the economic exploitation of it.
One other thing I’m not understanding. It’s natural to come to America with a proud sense of heritage of your home country. Undoubtedly most immigrants to this country come here for better economic opportunities. They want to live the ‘American Dream’ (interestingly, even as an ‘all-powerful,’ ‘rich’ white American, I have yet to taste this dream). In Mexico’s case, a corrupt and inept government and a horrible economy has caused millions of people to pay coyotes outrageous sums and risk their lives to come to America. So I find it ironic that they come here proud as punch of the country they just deserted. I’m sure I’m missing something here. And I’m sure you’re all anxious to tell me.
So…I never actually called Tossman rich, but said that his loyal support of immigration of rich white europeans (his swiss friend) and his disgust towards Mexican immigrants to whom certain opportunities for ‘legal’ immigration are not available, and who he said were making our country impure, was racist. And I do not retract that comment. In fact, most racist people in this country are white, though NOT rich, and their racism stems from bitterness towards those whom they feel are stealing jobs away from them. Many white people feel they somehow deserve those jobs first, and the black and mexican people should have second priority. Then they call it concern for security or other some such smoke screen. You can see the exact same thing being played out in France right now. Its all a matter of Pride.
Tossman, you need to let go of the flags. Flags are meaningless. They are just pieces of cloth, ok? Why do Mexican immigrants fly Mexican flags? Because they are proud of their heritage, and the flag of that country is one visual way to express thier Mexican heritage. They are outsiders that often feel unwelcome and “alien” in our country (have you ever lived in another country, Tossman?) and they band together under commen culture and heritage. In certain areas of the country you will a great number of Canadian flags, Norwegian flags, Italian, Irish, Cuban, Dominican…you name it. Many of them, like those protesting, are American and have been in this country for decades. But they are proud of their heritage. Mexico, just like the United States, is not just its government, it is its people, and that is what they, and I, am proud of.
The people we employ to do our landscaping or clean our houses are doing the only work they CAN in this country – they aren’t using false documents to get a job at Kroger, and we aren’t paying them slave wages, so good is actually being done.
Also, sitting in certain seats on a bus, or entering through the wrong door, or using the wrong drinking fountain would also get certain individuals thrown in jail in the fifties, but I am sure we are all grateful they were willing to break those laws…
Another Julie- I have lived in another country. I served my mission in Ukraine. I entered that country legally. I learned the language of that country and studied its culture. I obeyed their laws and gave deference to their socio-political culture. I did not fly an American flag in my window. I did not demand free government services.
And I think I’ll end my response to you here. I’m tempted to say something inappropriate, and I don’t want to be excommunicated from the bloggernacle. But by all means, feel free to continue labelling me a racist (and now African-Americans). I can’t wait to see who you have me hating in your next post!
Please keep going, Another Julie. Your making my point better than I ever could.
Those advocating amnesty (or guest workers without penalty) appear to be practicing “elitism”, according to Tony Blankley in the Washington Times:
#67 – I think you may have misunderstood some things about the reason that immigrants come to America, and that is not mainly to be American, but to have a better standard of living and America provides that for them. It does not mean they want the American way of living from a cultural point of view. Mexicans are a good example of this, they want a better standard of living, come to America to get that and at the same time want to have their Mexican culture preserved. Miami is a good example of this with Cubans, or Toronto with it’s large Italian population, provide a good standard of living and yet keep cultural norms in tact. Another similar idea is Muslims in the UK that want to live ‘Sharia’ law, but in the UK.
The hard part of all of this is not the legal argument against immigration and that there needs to be something done about illegals, but instead what do you then do with all those that are here already illegally? Do you grandfather in something that makes their presence legal, or deport them all because they have broken the law, or put them in prison because deportation is too costly and too big to accomplish? Neither of those 2 last ideas will work because of the logistics. Do you stop employers from employing them, or fine them for doing so? Could but is that really going to stop the problem going forward which is nothing more than perceived protectionism of American interests in America — a good but controversial thing in terms of absolutes! Perhaps the core problem rests with employers who employ them because I am sure that employing illegals is an active and not a passive thing in that they are not just unaware of the illegality of the situation when they do it. Perhaps a solution to this is a strict, but leaglized, policy on illegals hiring in the future, where you could legalize the number of illegals to a certain limit and for a certain period of time and for specific types of work. Not sure, but it is worth more thought how to resolve this without a hard line starting ‘Now!’
Geoff, you cracked me up. Were you serious? Let me go read further. We question each others righteousness all the time. Maybe not in specific ways.
Tossman, I get scolded, but it’s for bad language. When I get in Seth’s (hilarious) description of our arguments, I usually deteriorate into calling names in rage. I even try to use euphemisms and if I were in the same room with the person, it would go to blows, which doesn’t that make you feel sorry for my husband? We fight over everything. Like what day next Tuesday is. Is it the 4th of April or the 11th? That can get really hairy.
I lived, like I said, in so cal as a kid and had bad experiences with Mexicans. I’ve actually been called a racist on the blog, but it wasn’t in an insulting way and possibly true, but I’m not sure if it is or not.
However, I still think there has to be a middle ground here. Like everything.
Geoff, tsk, tsk, a little hard. Are you the Geoff who is singing at my funeral?
I am quite certain that my ancestors didn’t improve the overall economy of the US when they came here. My great-great grandfather (the first in my paternal line to immigrate) was so poor that he and his wife had to “loan out” some of their children, rather like apprentices, to live with (and work for) other families because they didn’t have enough to feed them. My great grandfather was so badly mistreated by one family (in Salt Lake Valley in the 1850’s or early 60’s–guess their religion!) that he ran away from them and walked home 20 miles or so, just to avoid the mistreatment.
The economic arguments ultimately come down to one basic premise: selfishness. We like what we have here, and don’t want to share it with others, be they Mexicans or Chinese or Indians or Western Europeans.
Well, I don’t want the economy going to hell in a handbasket, and I don’t want our country to lose sight of the principles on which it was established. But, I have a hard time coming up with a neutral principle on which to build the argument that “I was born here and therefore deserve to be here, and you weren’t, so you don’t.”
And now for something completely different: I don’t put much stock in polls, since the phrasing of questions can skew the answers whichever way the questioner wants. And, even if the polls are right, I applaud the senators and congressmen who will do the right thing, rather than the politically expedient.
When on earth did I label African-Americans racist? You amaze me, really. You did not respond to anything I said in any of my posts, except for this one glaringly false statement.
So, if we denied these Mexican immigrants human rights or made it illegal to fly Mexican flags, would you tolerate their presence? Are you a proponant of capitalism? Maybe we should just let the ‘market’ even things out…
This whole thread and this whole week have been completely deppressing. I listen to talk radio and cry, I read what fellow members of the church feel about the people to whom blessings are promised in the BOM (and how they want to assist our corrupt govt in denying them those blessings) and I cry. If members of the church, those with a knowledge of the gospel, feel this way what hope is there. I don’t think I”ll be coming back here.
A government untouchable by the people,
Run by the corporations of the world
Enslaving mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters
Profits put before people
Equal force, equal reaction
Equal suppression, equal intimidations
Equal prosecution, equal propaganda,
Equal rebellion
No one flag flies over the multi-national company.
No allegiance to the board’s homeland, fellow citizens, the flag born of their country.
As the brainwashed nationalists move,
To shed their blood on battle fields.
War profiteering rich watch their stocks reap high yields.
We’re tearing down the borders!
We’re fighting for the rights of freedom!
No patriotic pledge from multi-national companies.
Only a commitment to lock away equality and steal away all freedom from the poorest of the poor.
So that the boardroom can insure
their stockholders profits are higher in return.
Stand United, Stand Peaceful!
One people, one struggle.
The union, of free thinking,
Colors don’t, Mean liberty.
True capitalism is NOT compatible with anti-immigration laws.
Another Julie- I didn’t accuse you of labelling African Americans as racist. It was you who informed me of my racism toward them. Re-read your post and tell me how I was supposed to interpret your statement about ‘blacks and latinos.’
I think the main difference in our views on this is our personal interpretations of the importance of legal immigration. The laws are clearly in need of reform. But they are still the laws. And no matter how many scriptures you quote me and how many references you make to BoM promised rights, there is a strong part of me that cries foul at the blase attitude of many here that have absolutely no problem ignoring immigration laws.
Should I just go out and break any law that isn’t convenient for me? I totally don’t like paying taxes. I always end up owing, which kills my family budget around tax time. Can’t I just say “screw taxes this year. I need to feed my family.” Then when the IRS catches up to me I suppose I would be obligated to take to the streets in protest, right? What right does the government have to enforce its laws? Silly government.
Laws aren’t perfect, but until they’re changed by elected representatives- they’re still laws. And they’re important. I agree they’re screwed up, but there has to be an order to things. We can’t make every policy decision based totally on emotion. Put down your damn protest sign and devote some energy to coming up with a feasible solution that adresses the problems on all sides.
Now Mark- I was born here and I deserve to be here. If you were born in Ivory Coast and come here legally- well you deserve to be here too. You sneak across our border- I don’t care where you’re from- you don’t deserve to be here. But, you turn around and come back properly, you now have every right that I have. This isn’t rocket science.
I am for reforming current immigration policy to provide an equal chance for immigrants from all countries to come here legally.
Tossman: “Deserve” is a matter of positive law, not of natural right. I was using it in the latter sense, and I think that you’re using it in the former. Looked at in those two different lights, I believe that we’re both right. The laws of the United States say you and I deserve to be here, and some guy born in Ivory Coast does not. I don’t think that natural law sees any rights arising simply because of the accident of one’s birth.
To more mundane issues: one of the problems with the current system, a clear example of the law of unintended consequences in full bloom, is the bars on re-entry for people who have accrued unlawful presence in the US. 180 days of unlawful presence results in a 3-year bar on reentry; a year of unlawful presence increases that bar to 10 years. So, people come here, find out that because they overstayed their visa they would be barred on coming back for 10 years, and they go underground, and stay forever.
Mark- agreed and good points. Natural law is indeed valid.
However, I think whereas the issue of illegal immigration affects the U.S. primarily in areas under government umbrellas, it should be addressed primarily based on positive law.
Roy Wright said: True capitalism is NOT compatible with anti-immigration laws
Amartya Sen’s “Development as Freedom” is a pretty persuasive book to me. Whereas as Marx saw capitalism as oppressive and enslaving, Sen does a pretty good job of demonstrating that expansion leads to “the real freedoms that people enjoy” (an excerpt from amazon.com).
If that is true, immigration restrictions are an impediment to development and economic expansion. Restrictions not only hurt the kept out, but the folks doing the keeping out. China is going to bury us economically if we keep labor out.
Bob C.
“Clark, #7, I would say the best solution for low-skilled American workers is to help them become high-skilled American workers. The best way to do that is to let the market do its magic. If low-skilled work remains lower-paid, because there are lots of low-skilled workers, then that creates a huge incentive for people to educate themselves and learn new skills so they can earn more money. That’s exactly what we want — a marketplace that gives incentives for people to educated themselves and advance. If there is a scarcity of low-skilled workers, there is less incentive for them to advance.”
I think this is utopian, like Clark Goble. Take IQ, for example–it turns out that a goodly percentage of the native-born population is pretty stupid, and it also turns out that being pretty stupid has a serious impact on one’s abilities to learn new, high skills. Such people are much, much more likely to be in the low skills labor market than others. But it also turns out that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, disproportionately compete in the low skills labor market. The low skills laborers who are already here don’t get new training, they get poorer.
There’s a lot of debate among economists whether immigration has an overall positive or negative impact on the economy. What is clear is that elites like the people who read this blog are much more likely to benefit: the wages of people they employ get driven down (like the cheap gardening and housecleaning for the Bishop a few comments up) while they face relatively minor increased competition themselves for employment. People who are already not doing very well in the knowledge economy, on the other hand, have their wages driven downwards. Lets not kid ourselves that the result of immigration is to make the poor better off.
On the contrary, I think the idea is quite realistic.
What you call “utopian” is really the essence of “Free Trade”; and that is the only natural order of things for mankind. Many of the “immigration problems” in this thread would not exist had we not abandoned genuine free trade and substituted them with the ideals of socialism.
In a genuine free market, even stupid people will have the satisfaction of trade. What you neglect in all of these is the aspect of “human action”. Some people will do things that give them satisfaction which to you may seem absurd. For example, a kid in India may prefer to sweat 16 hours making Nike balls if the other option is prostitution. But then again, someone here might prefer prostitution rather than a job at McDonalds. As long as people are not forced to sweatshops or prostitution, their choices should be taken as something that is meaningful to them.
Being stupid may hurt one’s chances of improving his life, but nothing hurts the stupid more than curtailing his freedom to trade. And this is what govt is all about – it’s all about restricting trade. See the guy who advocated for letting the market dictate how low-skill workers aim for advanced training and education? Unfortunately, he’s also the same guy who supports the idea of building a wall between the US and Mexico.
Free trade cannot co-exist with the concept of building walls to restrict the forces of supply and demand. These are mutually exclusive ideas. People who attempt to rationalize completely opposite concepts in their heads eventually become insane, just like the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
In a genuine “Free Market”, there’s no such thing as a disproportionate competition. Each competitor will play the game according to his advantages. Remember, a free market abhors the inefficient. It rewards those who can make use of their time and skills more productively.
Let me share an experience of mine when I once worked at a call center in Utah county:
I once did troubleshooting by phone for a big computer company. Many of my colleagues were college undergrads. Some are not even in college at all. My immediate supervisor then just finished an Associates Degree in something I can’t recall. I would not really call this a low skill job, but looking at the people there as a whole, they’d fit fine working at Carl’s Jr.
We had counterparts in India, and none of them were hired unless they had finished a Bachelors Degree. Some even had Masters Degree. All of them had worked in some professional career before taking a call center job. Apparently, in India, a call center job is not in the same level as work in McDonalds. I was sure that if a collective IQ test were done between us here and them, they would trounce us hands down. More than that, they were so polite.
At that time, I thought our call center was doomed to close, and our jobs ready for shipment to India. But our jobs were saved by no other than the American customer himself. You see, while those Indians were sharp and really up to their game, they had a problem speaking English. Actually, they didn’t have that problem because I can understand them fine. It’s the American ear that could not understand their English. That’s why when our customers call, and they hear an Indian accent on the other line, they either hang-up and dial again, or request for an “English-speaking” tech support. When our management noticed this phenomena happening on the phone lines, they knew that they cannot ship our jobs out.
At the end of the day, what saved our jobs is not skills, but home-grown talent. We had something that our customers demanded that the guys in India could not deliver. It was not even a level-playing field. But we were more efficient because we could communicate with our customer in a way that saved his time and money. That’s how the free market rewarded us.
Immigration, as the result of economic forces at play, will eventually make life better for the whole of the market. People will immigrate by hook or by crook if it means improving their lot in life. No wall will ever stop them. The only people who will be left behind are those who are inefficient. If you’re serious about improving the lot of the poor, then you must help the market regain and preserve its freedom. Any restriction or obstacle that distorts free market forces must be dismantled and removed.
There is no better way to start this than to call for the abolition of the minimum wage law. This is the most anti-poor of any law. Many poor and unskilled workers that could be hired are not being hired by businesses because of this law. Many businesses that could be opened do not open because of it. Hence, the economy is inefficient and everyone in it suffers the burden of inefficiency.
Curelom, you sound suspiciously Austrian. I thought I was the only Austro-Mormon in town.
Okay, I only got to 37 and I can’t take anymore of reading this. First of all, I’d like to address the legality issue. The 12th article of faith states:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
I take this to mean that it is not at all unreasonable to expect other people to obey, honor, and sustain the law. If you enter this country illegaly you are not showing obedience or honor to the law, and you are certainly not sustaining it, you are undermining it.
This said, the magic number is 12 million undocumented illegal aliens in the United States, some from Mexico, many from other countries; let’s not forget people who have overstayed their student or vistor visas. It seems to me that it is in our country’s best interest to get this problem under control. Amnesty is not the answer, although I’m not clear that is what the McCain / Kennedy bill is suggesting. If you are here illegally you have broken the law and should be punished in the same way that anyone else who breaks the law is punished. Speeders are fined and given points against their driver’s liscense, it seems that our representatives have chosen a $2000 fine. That works for me. Now, document those 12 million people. If they have criminal records deport them. Keep the hardworking people who wish to become part of America. After 6 years or whatever the proposed time is, if they have continued working, paying taxes, contributing to society, learned basic English, etc then allow them to take the test for citizenship. This allows them the opportunity of becoming US citizens.
Open up more guest worker passes, and begin enforcing the immigration laws. If you enter illegally you get deported. I believe this entails being unable to ever become a US citizen as well, though the board immigration lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong. Allow guest works a path for citizenship as well.
I commiserate with Tossman who has a friend from Switzerland who is trying to become a US citizen. I work with many people from different countries who are either working on the citizenship or spent years in getting it. (China, Taiwan, Cyprus, Ireland, etc.) These people are respecting and obeying our laws, we need to expect the same from ALL potential immigrants.
Finally, I would like to address two posts in particular.
Jarom, post 24 said:
The boundaries of nations are not arbitrary, do you remember the first Gulf War? Saddam Hussein would have loved the idea that the boundaries of countries are arbitrary. They may have been arbitrarily decided but they are decidedly fixed now. Furthermore, one might suggest that there is a lot that is inherently “American” about speaking English, 400 years of history come to mind. Since Jamestown and the Mayflower English has been the dominate language of the country that has become The United States of America. Our founding documents and all our laws are written in English. Through the immigration of large numbers of Germans, Poles, Irish, Italians, Chinese, and other nationalities English has stayed the language in the United States. I see no logical reason for that to change for spanish speaking immigrants.
Second
Another Julie Post 37:
Another Julie. I think you owe Tossman an apology. Perhaps you did later in the posts (though I scanned and didn’t see any). I am frankly appalled that you would misrepresent what he said and then insinuate that he is a racist. You do not know his inner motivations, and having read the same posts you did I did not see any racism being exhibited. His desire for his “white, european” friend coming to America has nothing to do with him being white or european and everything to do with his friend going about becoming a citizen LEGALLY. Using the same innuendo that you did against Tossman I can call you a racist, you would merely be a racist against white europeans instead of latins as you said he was. He stated flat out, “Why do we make the rest of the world jump through the hoops while giving a pass to the southern border?” He wants a level playing field for everyone trying to immigrate. He wants everyone to do it legally. This is as far from racist as you can get.
In pointing out the water and food stations along the way he is indicating that instead of enforcing our immigration laws and border security we are enabling people to break the law by making it easier and safer for them to enter the country illegally, this is inherently contradictory to obey the laws of the land.
Welcome aboard, mate! How does it feel to float on a sea of statists?
Wow, I didn’t think the debate here ever got so heated! I have a few things to say on this matter. My father immigrated to the US from South Africa. I have various family members still there, some of whom would like to come here. I consider myself very blessed that my father met my mother here and I was born in this country. I can tell you that my father is very glad to be here, and my sense of patriotism came from him. I still have a great appreciation for my African heritage, but I also love this country and this church.
As kind of an outsider looking at this immigration thing, I see it the same way Tosman and Doug D do. Giving illegal immigrants a pass would be to put them at the front of the line. I do not see how this is fair. I’m sorry, but I do sense a certain contempt for this country by most illegal immigrants I’ve met. I came across this comicthis morning that sums up my feelings on this really well.
What’s legal is sometimes immoral; and what’s moral is sometimes illegal.
Legality is only for lawyers.
If all subjects were to obey this 100%, no one would attempt to overthrow or secede from an immoral govt. Even Moses’s act of liberating the Israelites from Pharaoh will have to be frowned upon.
Human experience shows us that sometimes obeying man-made laws is not only unreasonable, but downright immoral.
Controlling immigration will ultimately fail because the whole immigration system under the federal govt is an abnormality, an aberration of nature. It goes against common sense and the “natural order”.
Remember, the economic forces of the market (supply and demand) are just as real as the forces in physics. If you try to suppress supply when there is a huge demand, you’re doomed to fail.
The system of passports and visas had been abolished when it completely broke down with the explosion of tourism in mid-19th century Europe. This was largely brought about by the advent of the railroad system. BUT UNFORTUNATELY… this was reintroduced in World War I as a “temporary measure” to control the movement of refugees from war-torn villages and towns. The world has never known genuine “peace” ever since WWI, and these passports and visas became permanent war instruments of controlling man’s need to move and travel.
But then, these instruments are an abnormality in nature, therefore they are doomed to fail. That they are failing again today is clearly seen in the way the immigration system is being undermined by those “illegal aliens”. Didn’t it ever occur to you that criminals with enough resources and contacts can obtain the necessary documents to make themselves “legal”?
The immigration system does not filter out criminals. It only filters out those who do not have the means to bribe their way in.
Those people are indirectly helping undermine an inhuman system of controls established by power-hungry politicians bent on maintaining a perpetual atmosphere of war between nations. That’s the awful truth. One day, when the whole system collapses, you might actually regret not having given them food and water.
Nice to know there are at least a couple people who agree with me. Hilarious cartoon, Aaron! Hits the nail right on the head.
It seems to me that the pro-illegal immigration argument is based on 4 pillars-
1) That people of Latino origin have some inate, Book of Mormon-guaranteed right to inhabit North America as they see fit- regardless of sovereignty, law, or the natural rights of other potential immigrants.
2) That illegal immigrants are actually instrumental in this country’s success- that illegal immigration has decidedly positive cultural, political, and economic impacts on our society; that this country would be in a world of hurt if not for the generosity of these gallant people.
3) That current immigration laws are immoral, and therefore ok to ignore.
4) That anybody who thinks otherwise is a nativist, racist, facist, unchristlike pig.
I have addressed each of these issues in previous posts. They are absurd claims, each of them.
What’s irking me now is the argument that natural law should be honored by positive law. Think of an example of a poor person stealing. I’m hungry, I need to feed my family, and somehow I’ve gotten to the point where I cannot feasibly do this legally. So I go into a store and swipe a few essentials.
Natural right might say I am entitled to do this- or at least that I’m not entirely wrong in doing so. But the system that produced and governs the product I’m stealing is not bound by natural law. It couldn’t exist if it were. Is the store owner wrong to stop you or call the police, even if he sympathizes with your plight? Would the police be wrong to arrest you? If you happened to be of a different nationality than the police or the store owner, does that make them racist?
I sympathize with the plight of my latino brothers who want to come here for better opportunities. Laws can be amended and changed to equalize immigration across the board. But when I see the protest marches of late – defacing posters of President Bush (who is on their side, actually), burning American flags, wearing t-shirts bearing Aztlan emblems, and holding signs reading “THIS IS STOLEN LAND” and “STOP THE NAZIS”- My sympathy levels are exponentially decreasing.
Curelom, you don’t happen to have a blog, do you? I’ve been checking out the world of Mormon blogs for the past month or two, but have had a hard time finding any with political views at all similar to mine (ie, not statist). I’ve considered starting a blog of my own, but I don’t think I could do enough writing by myself to make it interesting.
Curelom
Not to put too fine a point on it, we are not speaking of laws generically here, we are discussing US immigration law. If you are implying that US immigration law is immoral and unjust then let’s discuss that. If you are implying that the US government needs to be seceded from or overthrown, then discuss that issue. However, if you are to suggest either of these by a method other than the above innuendo, you will need to explain why people are sneaking in to this country illegally if it is so immoral and corrupt. Furthermore, man does have a natural right to overthrow a repressive government, this is called revolution when it is done by the people governed. If it is done by people not governed by that government it is called invasion. (See the cause of Gulf War I, or for that matter see the US invasion of Iraq a few years ago as evidence of this).
This assumes that man moving freely across any boundaries is a natural right and law, which it isn’t. Kings and countries have always claimed sovereignity over the land they have perceived as theirs, limiting who can live there. Furthermore you neglect the economic impact of first world countries opening their borders to all comers and having to include them in their welfare states (healthcare, welfare, etc.) You will need to provide more evidence before I buy in to the idea that the removal of immigration laws is a good idea.
The only way your proposal would work would be to remove the sovereignity of all nations and place the world under a one world government; I for one would not want to live in that sort of world, I get little enough voice as 1 in 300 million in the United States now, being 1 in 6 billion would be far worse.
Doug D, and our growing chorus of immigration critics, I think those of us who consider ourselves “pro-immigration” believe that current immigration laws are nonsensical. If you have ever known anybody trying to become a legal immigrant to this country, you would understand that the process can take more than a decade and does not fit with the market realities of the global economy. Everybody wants immigrants to be legal, but the issue is how to make them legal. If Mexican immigrants could go to a modern-day Ellis Island in northern Mexico and be processed in a week, virtually all of them would do that. But the reality is that it is nearly impossible to enter legally because of quotas and post-9/11 crackdowns and on and on.
So, there are three possible solutions: 1)Turn our country into a police state where you arrest all the illegals and expel them (Tancredo more or less) and build unilateral walls to keep them out 2)massively, and I mean massively, increase legal immigration and 3)continue more or less the existing paradigm. I am in favor of 2), but it will cost billions. 1) is not realistic and will never be accepted by the American public. I´d like to see a lot less complaining about immigrants and a lot more discussion of realistic solutions (Tossman, to his credit, did discuss solutions, but I don´t think they are realistic).
I am a bit disappointed to see posters completely ignore the demographic arguments I put forth in the original post. Does anybody realize that much of the health of the US economy is directly related to continuing population growth, and that there will be severe affects on the economy of shutting down immigration?
Geoff-
Once again, I don’t think I’ve heard anybody- anybody on this thread advocate shutting down immigration. Come on, man- we’re fellow right-leaners, you and I. We may not agree on this issue but I think we would on many others. So let’s cut the crap here. Let’s get rid of the strawmen. Please don’t misrepresent my arguement.
I’m not referring to your initial demographic arguments because I agree with them! The question was never ‘should we shut down immigration’, but ‘what do we do to make it fair, legal, and healthy.’
I agree the laws are non-sensical. My buddy in Switzerland understands this quite well. Encouraging the breaking of the laws is- IMO, not questioning anybody’s righteousness or anything- irresponsible and immoral. We need to change the laws, not simply ignore them.
Another thing to think about. What happens (demographically, culturally, economically) when you take a nation and inject a huge amount of just one group into it very rapidly?
Let’s just
take them overlend them a helping hand.Tossman, just to be clear, I didn’t accuse you or anybody else of supporting my choice #1 in the post #90. My point is that I don’t think half-measures will work. You discussed possible solutions way, way up there on this thread, but my point is that they are half-measures and won’t solve the situation medium-term. I would categorize your solutions as just continuing the existing paradigm. In the medium-term (next 5-10 years), either we 1) completely shut down the borders or 2)we open ourselves up to massive Ellis Island-style LEGAL immigration with thousands of new INS employees helping usher in LEGAL immigrants along the Mexican border or 3)we continue more or less the existing paradigm. My point was that your solution is part of solution 3), which is not a solution, just a continuation of the same policies with a bit of tweaking here and there.
I personally favor #2, which involves spending billions and working closely with the Mexican government. The more I think about it, the more sense this makes.
Geoff B,
I did offer a plan, please read post 83. It largely agreed with your second option, which appears to be the only viable option at this point. That said, I have a few objections to things people have suggested in the past (here or other places). I am adamantly opposed to rewarding people for breaking the law, which is what amensty / citizenship for those illegals who are here would do. I don’t think that Mexican immigrants should be given an easier pass than immigrants from elsewhere just because they share a common border with the United States. If we are going to simplify immigration procedures it should be for everyone. My final condition for loosened immigration is that they must work, pay taxes, and contribute to the country. We need citizens that will contribute to making this country great, not citizens that will further tax our welfare state. Before someone calls me a racist all of these comments are meant to be applied to immigrants of all races, colors, creeds, and national origins. I think the playing field should be level for everyone.
I will echo Tossman’s sentiments on the demographics issue. I have not discussed demographics because it is apparent to me that population growth is in fact tied closely with economic growth. We currently average 2.09 children born per woman in the United States. A quick calculation tells me that given our low infant mortality this is sufficient to insure replacement of our population plus a little. Furthermore, we will accept approximately 1 million immigrants this year. (Info courtesy of the CIA Factbook.) We have not gotten to the point in the country where there is no more room for people, so population control is not necessarily a problem.
Tossman brings up an interesting issue regarding the injection of large numbers of immigrants from one group in to the country. Assimilation takes longer when large blocks of immigrants congregate together. We have had large blocks of immigration in the past, such as the Irish during the potato famine (when some of my relatives came over). That said they were not numbered in the tens of millions and tended to sway only local not national politics. Furthermore, their voices tended to be repressed politically for the first generation through persecution to a degree that does not happen today. These factors contributed to their assimilation in to American society as Americans. I believe this is the idea behind quotas. America was meant to be a melting pot of cultures, not a bowl full of chunks of different cultures. While I fully support people’s rights to rejoice in their heritage (aka mulitculturalism) I think we shoot ourselves in the foot when we fail to realize we are all Americans first and foremost.
I doubt you will ever find one. Mormonism as currently practiced seems to have a strange inclination towards statism, especially in Utah. But if you’re truly convinced that the statist philosophy is a moral abomination, then by all means, pioneer that blog.
I’m no writer myself, and I’m still in the process of dismantling the statist bricks in my mind. But if you need help, just holler…
“Illegal aliens” bypass immigration laws not because your country is immoral and corrupt. You don’t seem to see a difference between a country and its system of govt. Nor do you seem to tell the difference between the people and its govt. Perhaps when you start to distinguish the difference between the two, you will one day understand why they break your laws in order to come here.
In other words, you agree that the Southern States were morally right in attempting to secede from the Union under Lincoln. That Lincoln was morally wrong in waging war to prevent secession.
The reason I bring this matter up is that many of the problems created by the central govt (including immigration) would not exist had the Southern States been allowed to determine their destiny.
If the powers to resolve immigration issues were given to the individual states, then those states who welcome immigrants will do as they please, and those who don’t want immigrants will do as they please. If Lincoln had respected state rights, we won’t have a dysfunctional immigration system as we currently have it.
You may want to dig deeper on the history of passports and visas. The system of passports had broken down and was abandoned in Europe by mid-19th century. Millions of people were actually travelling across borders without any govt control. It was also a time of great economic development for many countries. But this freedom to travel all ended in World War I.
These things actually happened in history, and you probably know nothing about them. Someday, someone in the future might actually write about our day and claim similar ideas that you’re saying, such as that govts owned the internet, and that they controlled all the communications that went through its emails, chatrooms, websites, etc., that nobody could say anything that the govt didn’t approve of.
If you can read the writing on the wall, “The State” apparatus is losing its legitimacy as a form of govt fit to govern people. Economic forces are slowly eroding and breaking up the whole concept. There are forces of decentralization going on that’s beyond the control of any central govt to curb.
If you want to talk of a “One World Govt” look no further than the US govt. This is the only govt in the world that has hundreds of military bases stretched all across the globe, projecting its imperial power. Not even the garrisons of the Roman Empire in the height of its glory would compare. And yet, 3 years after invading Iraq, America could hardly enforce its political will on the Iraqi insurgents. Why heck, it can’t even convince the ordinary Iraqi to vote for its chosen candidates during the Iraqi elections. And now, Americans (except here in Utah) have changed their minds about the occupation and are beginning to loathe it. The empire is doomed.
Democracy as you know it is likewise doomed to fail. Your statement above is its proof.
Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly are you defining “statism?”
Curelom- dang, aren’t you ever the optimist!
If there ever is a one-world government (which I pray never happens), I’d rather it be run by America and a few of our democratic allies.
By the way, I don’t think the goal is to “enforce our political will” on the insurgents in Iraq. I think we simply want to kill them.
Spending billions is a clever idea, but who’s going to foot the bill?
Since our country is presently drowning in debt trying to pay for the costs of the Afghan and Iraq Wars, I’d assume it’s not going to be our generation who’d pay.
And if not us, then it’s going to be our descendants. But then, how can you know that they will not find your idea oppressive and worth repudiating? You cannot.
You must have heard the sage advice that people should live within their means, saving some for a rainy day, and avoiding unnecessary debt. And yet, this idea of yours will have to be paid by people yet unborn, with money they haven’t even earned, and without any guarantee that they will actually like it.
Just curious, but HOW does it make sense to you?
Curelom,
Take a deep breathe and look at the glass of water, I promise it’s half full. :o)
I am very well aware of the difference between a country, its people, and its system of government. I am also well aware of why people want to come to the US, legal or otherwise. My questions were pointed at your implications that the US government is corrupt and in need of being overthrown. While I will agree it is far from ideal, I do not think it has shifted far enough from its roots as a representative republic that it requires forcible overthrow. I believe that it can still be fixed from within; but then again I think the glass is half full most of the time too.
Nothing I said would indicate that I believe such, nor do I. I do belive that people have a right to overthrow their government when it becomes a tryanny. I do not believe that was the case for the United States in the 1860s when the South seceded from the Union. I do think we might hold similar opinions about the downside to increased federalism in the United States over the years. The part of the Constitution that reserves all otherwise not enumerated powers to the States has been largely ignored and I think creates some of the problems of today. Many of our social issues would be more easily solved on the state level than the federal level. I do not believe that immigration would fall under a State’s rights power according to the Constitution, but I would have to go back and check to be sure.
In regard to economic forces slowly eroding the legitimacy of the state, I think I’ve heard this somewhere before. Marx and Engels come to mind, predicting that the workers of the world would overthrow the democratic and totalitarian regimes that kept them repressed, resulting in a worldwide worker’s paradise. Oddly enough, the economic and social forces that were supposed to cause that to happen have failed to do so. We have certainly seen a large bump in technology in the last 25-30 years that has allowed easier communication and trade between countries. Furthermore, it has made it easier for companies to do business in multiple countries and has generally shifted the economic landscape of the world. I would be interest to hear what “writing on the wall” you see that indicates that governments of countries will begin to dissolve anytime soon. Do you preceive them being replaced by smaller governments or much larger ones?
And what per se do you believe will replace democracy? Technically speaking there is not a democratic country in the world today (that I know of), most people refer to representative republics with near universal sufferage as democracies, though they are not. The United States being a leading example of this. My disillusionment at times with my voice in government has to do with federalism and representation. The democratic portion (universal sufferage) of the US’s government is what gives me my voice to begin with; were democracy to disappear, it is not apparent that I would have a political voice with which to complain.
To the statists,
I am also curious about how you are using the term statist. I looked to verify my understanding of the word, and here is what I found.
statist
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy. (courtesty of dictionary.com)
That seemed pretty clear cut to me. Then I took a peek at wikipedia.org, which said:
Statism is a term used in a variety of disciplines (economics, sociology, education policy etc) to describe a system that involves a significant interventionist role for the state in economic or social affairs. In social sciences it can also refer to the mere existence of states, particularly in relation to discussions of nationalism, modernity and globalization. Anarchists also often use the word in this sense. In economics, the term “statism” refers to any economy where the state plans or coordinates the economy, or the advocacy of such a system. Merriam-Webster defines statism as: “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.”
Now, from the way statism has been batted around in here, I take it to mean people believe it to be prevalent. My interpretation of it would be communist / heavily socialist governments, which plan and / or mandate production of goods and services. Furthermore, repressive totalitarian regimes may well fall under this concept since they often significantly meddle in social affairs. To what degree does the government need to be hands off in social and economic affairs to not come under condemnation?
From dictionary.com:
STATISM = “The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.”
But what we really have is:
“The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over everything.”
To put it in slogan form, it is “Faith in the State”, hence “statism”
Let me give some examples of this philosophy at work:
Statist problem #1: There are too many Irish drunks in this country
Statist solution: Let’s ask the govt (“The State”) to ban alcoholic drinks.
Statist problem #2: There are too many drug addicts in this country
Statist solution: Let’s ask the govt to wage a “War against Drugs”, make drug addicts criminals.
Statist problem #3: There are too many illegal aliens in this country.
Statist solution: Let’s ask the govt to wage a “War against Illegal Aliens”, make illegal aliens criminals.
Statist solution ala Geoff B: Let the govt spend billions building “The Wall”
Statist solution ala Tossmann: Let the govt change the immigration laws. Until they’re changed, those who break them are criminals.
Statist problem #4: There are too many fat people in this country.
Statist solution: Let’s ask the govt to wage a “War against Obesity”, make fat people criminals.
Statist problem #5: There are too many stupid people in this country.
Statist solution: Let’s ask the govt to wage a “War against Stupidity”, make stupid people criminals.
Statist problem #6: There are too many criminals in this country
Statist solution: Let the govt wage “War against Crime” and build more prisons.
The list of problems can go on and on, but you should see the pattern and philosophy at work.
I am. You don’t know how fun it is watching statists scratch their heads while they drown in the very problems they created.
Let’s take that scenario to its logical conclusion: Let’s suppose that there is a one-world democratic govt where each human being is entitled to one vote. What would be the most likely outcome?
– Most likely, the Muslims will outvote the Christians on any issue.
– Most likely, the poor peoples of China and India will decide that they will have a “fair share” of the wealth of the rich Europeans and Americans.
– Most likely, it will still be a world perpetually at war with its “insurgents” ala Iraq and Afghanistan.
If ever it is run by America, it will not be the same “America” as you know it. Just look at Iraq as America runs that country:
– Iraq, under Saddam never had gasoline shortages. But when America overthrew Saddam and took control of the Oil Ministry, for the first time in its history, it had gasoline shortages.
– Iraq under Saddam was relatively peaceful, people can conduct their daily affairs without worry about being robbed or kidnapped in broad daylight. But when America overthrew Saddam, there was massive chaos and looting in Baghdad. Now, they have to live daily with suicide bombers and vigilantes.
– Iraq under Saddam had dissenters tortured in Abu Ghraib. No change under America.
– Iraq under Saddam never had elections, but now that they had it under America, the elections simply were a step closer towards civil war.
– And since the elections under America empowered the Shiites, Christians who have become the Shiite targets of persecution are now fleeing to Jordan and Syria by the thousands. Saddam’s ex-foreign minister was a practicing Christian.
We want to kill them? Whose “we”? I never wanted a war in Iraq. Did you?
Let’s be more precise with the language: Our govt, “The State”, wants to kill them.
Let’s remember, the insurgency in Iraq is mostly carried out by the Sunnis. And just recently, Condoleeza Rice visited Iraq and held a dialogue with some of the political heads of the Sunnis. The reality is, there are much, much more Sunnis willing to bomb Americans than the 130,000 troops we have deployed there. There’s no way we can kill them all, the way we couldn’t kill all the Vietcongs in the Vietnam War.
War is nothing more but one of the many political tools used to achieve political ends. In fact, war is the use of military force to achieve political ends. The fact that Rice went to visit the Sunnis for some dialogue is pretty much an indication that the war tool has already failed to achieve the political goal.
And that, my friend, is a cause for celebration by true freedom-loving people everywhere, ie, the anti-statists, the anarcho-libertarians, the true enemies of “The State”.
Rest assured, where you see a glass that’s half-full, I see one that’s bone-dry…:-)
I don’t recall saying anything specific about overthrowing the US govt. But in case you’re wondering, I do however advocate everyone to sit back, relax, and watch it collapse under the weight of its own bumbling incompetence and stupidity.
A lot of people like you believe that it can be fixed, and have tried fixing it in the past. But interestingly, the more they fix it, the more it becomes dysfunctional. For every solution on a given issue, a problem is created somewhere else. Did it ever occur to you that the problem may be systemic and not endemic?
This “half-full/half-empty glass” analogy makes me curious: You’re not a moral relativist, are you?
Which is why I said that no one can “believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, etc…” 100% of the time. Otherwise, no one would attempt to overthrow or secede from a tyranny.
On this I politely beg to differ. Remember, it was the “free and independent” states that decided to form a union. It was a voluntary act on their part. Therefore, they can voluntarily withdraw themselves if they find the union damaging their best interests.
That was how the Southern States saw it. Lincoln had taken steps that were designed to suffocate or cripple their economy. That’s why they decided that they no longer wanted to be part of the Union. Lincoln had no legal or moral right to force anyone to a union anymore than a husband has any legal or moral right to force a wife that wants to divorce him. And so to prevent secession, Lincoln simply ignored the Constitution.
Whatever powers that are not explicitly given to the federal govt is assumed to belong to the “free and individual” states. That’s the whole intent of the Constitution. New York, California, or Texas would have different immigration issues than Utah, Idaho, or Montana. There’s no reason having a dictatorial federal govt deciding what’s best for everyone.
The Marxist-Leninist ideology would be the prime example of Statism at its best (or worst, depending on your POV).
When I speak of economic forces eroding the state’s legitimacy, I speak of “free” market forces. Does anyone use politics to force illegal aliens to disregard our immigration laws and cross our borders? As far as I know, they do this voluntarily for purely economic reasons. That’s how the economics of “free” market forces undermine the politics of the State’s immigration system.
In 1989, no one thought that the great USSR would fragment into 13 different republics. Today, nobody believes that the USA could fragment into maybe 50 different countries. Look no further than our own country. Here’s two attempts that may soon snowball under the right conditions:
The Second Republic of Vermont
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/
Free Buffalo NY
http://www.freebuffalo.org/
Let’s add to that the uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens through the borders already undermining the system.
And then take a look at our Imperial stormtroopers currently pinned down in Iraq, dying the death of a thousand cuts. While Katrina drowned New Orleans, they could do nothing but watch.
It’s a breathtaking scene…
They will be replaced by fragments.
Democracy has been tried in both ancient Greece and Rome. Both became tyrannies. Our democracy died about 85 years after it was first established. That’s when Lincoln decided to trample the Constitution in order to prevent free Americans from being free.
We’ve been a tyranny for a long, long time. Some people though think that our tyranny is more humane than other tyrannies. But that’s simply comparing bad from worse. America as we have it now is a far, far cry from the America that our founding fathers envisioned it. We ought to be comparing ourselves now from what they wanted us to become. But it seems that Bush is happy having Saddam as a moral standard.
Don’t worry so much about losing your right to vote in an election.
What you should worry about is losing your right from warrantless arrest. Because if the govt can arrest you for no reason at all, then all your rights to speech, to vote, to associate with other people, they’ll all be gone.
Hundreds of years before this land became free in 1776, the writ of Habeas Corpus has been the foundational law of even monarchies. As early as 1305, this principle has been invoked to protect people from the awesome powers of govt.
Unfortunately, this tyranny under Bush has succeeded in violating the writ with the existence of GITMO and Abu Ghraib. And the sad thing is, the military that claims to be the protector of the people’s freedom is at the forefront in stealing this very right.
It’s really sad. Once the State gets power, there’s no turning it back. That’s why I hope the whole State system collapses soon.
Curelom,
Interesting post. A few comments.
People “like me” have tried to fix the government before, and believe it or not they’ve actually been somewhat successful. I doubt that I qualify under your definition of “anti-statists, the anarcho-libertarians”, but I am big believer in less government and more individual responsibility. When people “like me” have tried to fix government in the past it has generally resulted in less government regulation and interference.
Nope, not today. :o) I believe in right and wrong, good and evil, etc. I do not think it is a relative concept.
Could you cite the passage in the US Constitution that gives any state the authority to remove itself from the union? As a free citizen in the United States you can enter in to contracts which may not be desolved afterwards even if you wish them to be. For example, if you join the military, you’re stuck for your term of service; you can’t just secede your way out. This was a cause of a lot of debate at the time the south seceded from the Union. There was a lot of debate over whether or not they could legally do that. Lincoln and many other Unionist believed that they did not have the power to secede from union; while many people from the south saw it your way, and believed they could. Truthfully, to this day I’m not sure the legal issue has been decided beyond the fact that the civil war was waged to ensure that the precedent was not set.
Article I, Section 8: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
So the federal government has explicit Constitutional authority to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, to determine what criteria must be met by foreign citizens in order to become citizens of the United States. I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, but I’m willing to bet that is where the power to create Immigration laws is derived from.
I’d like to take a second to address the freebuffalo.org site and the vermontrepbulic.org site. First, the freebuffalo.org site is not advocating removal from the union, or so it would appear from the brief look I took at the site. They are advocating returning more power to local government and removing power from the federal and state levels of government so that local government can be more responsive to problems in smaller areas.
The vermontrepbulic.org site does advocate seceding from the union; however, the number of political wackos in Vermont per capita far exceeds that of nearly any other state (so far they have 1,128 signers including Adolf Hitler in Berlin Germany). Having lived in the Green Mountain state for the better part of 8 years now, I can tell you that there are always crazy liberal movements going on. This particular one you cited does not look all that terribly large and I’m willing to be that the folks considering it have not stopped to think about the economic repercussions of attempting to go it alone as a country with just over 600,000 people. On the upside, if Vermont became its own country the legalize marijunia party might actually get a seat or two in congress. (No kidding they run on the ticket every election year).
I can’t remember who said it, nor can I remember the direct quote, not that either matter. Someone stated that the flaw in democracy comes when a democracy becomes wealthy and the people realize they can vote themselves benefits. People start looking for more government, and they want the government to fix all their problems for them because they can’t be bothered.
Alma 10:19 “Yea, well did Mosiah say, who was our last king, when he was about to deliver up the kingdom, having no one to confer it upon, causing that this people should be governed by their own voices—yea, well did he say that if the time should come that the voice of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for destruction.”
I believe that looking to the government for the answer to all our problems, and looking to the government as a nursemaid to watch over us is the beginning of this condition.
We always have the Second Ammendment; and when it becomes apparent that we are being ruled under a tyranny and large groups of people are being oppressed, then Thomas Jefferson’s famous words will again have merit “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
You may want to look and see that not all of our laws apply to foreign nationals, and so the majority of people detained in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo do not qualify for protection under US civil and criminal courts. Even the Geneva Convention does not suggest that captured enemy combantants (uniformed or otherwise) should gain access to the occupier’s civil law system.
This is who qualifies for protection under the Geneva Convention (you’ll notice that un-uniformed combatants are not covered you must have a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”.) The Geneva Convention is intended to protect civilians from having combatants intermix with them as much as it is designed to protect combatants themselves.
If you don’t qualify as a combatant, as many of these capture prisoners without uniforms or insignia are, then here is what the Geneva Convention says about your legal options:
So we should actually be trying these people by Iraqi law, in particular the law that existed prior to our occupation, or the law under Saddam Hussein. Unless of course they were fighting US troops when captured and not wearing uniforms or insignia, in which case they have no protections under international law (the Geneva Convention), and from my reading of the Constitution no protections under US law. Perhaps Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are looking better, where the prisoners are considered mistreating because dogs are allowed to bark at them, and bit at them (without actually biting them). Saddam probably only used hamsters. :O)
Thanks for your insightful response, as well as for your patience in carrying on with this intellectually stimulating discussion:
In that case, let me extend my sincerest congratulations, even if I’m completely ignorant of the circumstances behind your success.
Unfortunately, the federal govt growth and spending has completely gone out of control under Bush. By comparison, Clinton’s administration would actually appear conservative. And I’m no Clinton admirer. To me, it’s obvious that the State is a ruthless wild vine that’s grown beyond control. You may have successfully cut off some branches that you were assigned to cut, but you may not have been able to cut those that were beyond your reach.
I think the more accurate question should be: “Does the Constitution explicitly forbid any State from removing itself from the Union?”
The Constitution prohibits certain acts by the individual states, for example, invading another state within the union. (See Clauses 1-3 of Article 1 Section 10 for other specific prohibitions).
But the 10th Amendment (ratified in 1791, before Lincoln’s war) states this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Since there is no specific prohibition against a State’s withdrawal from the Union, then that power is assumed to belong to the State. As a matter of fact, being one of the biggest states when the Constitution was ratified, Virginia made sure that this right was not simply assumed. The people of Virginia ensured that this right was actually written down before they joined the Union:
“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…”
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratva.htm
The Constitution specifically prohibited States from invading other states. Lincoln had no problem with this prohibition. He simply ignored it and invaded the Southern States. Again, the Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession, and he had no problem with that either. He simply ignored it and killed those who seceded.
Many former presidents of this country got away with wholesale murder simply by ignoring the Constitution.
Neither am I a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer, and that should explain why I have no interest in being bogged down with legalities.
But what if aliens don’t want to become citizens, or to go through the citizenship process? Should American employers hire non-citizens, most especially illegal aliens? Should we criminalize employers and aliens who violate labor laws related to immigration issues?
The Constitution is silent on labor-immigration issues, although it says that Congress has the right “to regulate commerce”. But is this a license to practice economic central-planning by govt? I don’t think so. That’s why I believe that labor-immigration issues are best handled by the individual states according to their specific needs.
At present, the debate on “illegal aliens” is really an economic issue. There is a tremendous demand for labor that illegal aliens can deliver for which American employers are willing to violate existing laws. Current economic realities have made the laws irrelevant. Using political tools such as the govt power of legislation to address an economic problem is bound to create problems instead of solving them. I see parallels of this during the Prohibition Era.
Remember, Prohibition was enacted to address a social problem. Conservative Americans saw that there were too many drunks in the country. Hence, they lobbied the govt to prohibit the sale and distribution of alcoholic drinks. And they succeeded in making alcohol illegal.
But this created problems that were never foreseen. Since the demand for alcohol never diminished when it became illegal, the traders and buyers simply went underground. Because it was illegal, the risk involved in trading made it more expensive. And because it became expensive, those who successfully sold it made a fortune, thus attracting more traders to the game. Not long after, criminals organized themselves and became very rich in trading the contraband. Prohibition gave birth to the Mafia.
The govt can build a wall to separate us and Mexico. It can enact tougher laws and criminalize illegal aliens. But without reducing the demand, the cost of smuggling these aliens will only rise, and make many human smugglers richer. With that, they will attract more smugglers into the game, and create more criminals than the govt can handle.
When the advocates of Prohibition finally realized that they were losing the battle to the criminals, they decided to abolish it. But the Mafia remained many, many years after its abolition. The failure of Prohibition should show why the use of politics to address a non-political problem is doomed to fail. Today, we have statists urging the govt to use its political tools in addressing an economic issue. Like Prohibition, it will produce unintended consequences that will ultimately consign it to failure.
That’s quite funny. But then again, what seems crazy and insane today might actually be normal tomorrow. I’m sure that in 1776, many thought that revolting against Britain was crazy, but today we celebrate the 4th of July as normal Americans.
Still, those advocating for the Second Republic of Vermont are just one of the many termites eating away at the foundational idea of “The State”. Some have made themselves official, some have not. Just like termites, we really don’t know how many they are, and sometimes their effect cannot be felt until some substantial damage has already occured. Has the State been damaged badly? I think it has.
You have given me a very comprehensive response on this point. If I were to answer, I would risk straying from the original topic about immigration. I believe this topic can be better addressed on a new thread. If you still want to pursue this, then by all means I’ll give you the pleasure of starting that thread.
Having said that, the only reason I brought up GITMO and Abu Ghraib is to show that these torture prisons are a sign that our nation has already become a tyranny. Your reply indicates that those “enemy combatants” are indeed in legal limbo, and therefore that implies that our govt can torture them as it pleases.
I’d really like to believe that you’re not a moral relativist but I find the above comment to be rather disturbing.
A military tribunal tried and found Pvt Lynddie England guilty of subjecting Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib to degrading and inhuman acts, something that our Constitution and military doctrine forbids. Others like her have also been tried and sentenced.
A former Brigadier-General named David Irvine, who taught prisoner interrogation tactics for 18 years in the Sixth Army Intelligence school, wrote an article that criticized the use of torture in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere:
“Why Torture Doesn’t Work”
http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/
There is also a site dedicated to documenting the abuses done to those Iraqis. It has links to findings of torture by the Red Cross and other human rights organizations:
Torture of Iraqi POWs: Because We Respect Human Rights
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/torture_pow.html
And this is my concern:
How can you see a simple case of dogs barking at Iraqi prisoners where:
– a military tribunal found Pvt England and her colleagues guilty of torture?
– a former intelligence officer specializing in interrogation saw torture?
– others like the Red Cross and human rights organizations saw torture?
This isn’t a simple case where you see a glass “half-full” and I see one that’s “half-empty”. Clearly, this is a case where you see one that’s half-full, and others like me see one that’s bone-dry.
Curelom,
I find your quote from Virginia very interesting. I’ve never really looked in to what prevents states from suceding from the union, or other smaller or larger localities for that matter. I doubt many state constitutions expressly prohibit towns from suceding from the state. In fact, several towns have here in Vermont, they have switched over and become part of New Hampshire, proving that being the highest taxed state per capita in the US has its downsides.
I am not a moral relativist, but that also does not mean that we subscribe to the same morals. The comment was meant in jest to indicate that what Americans call torture when an American does it is often considered par for the course when someone else does. I recently read a story about a Sgt. Smith who was convicted and sentenced to seven or eight years for “torture” in Abu Ghraib. Now maybe the article I read didn’t cover all the details, but the only solid information they gave for this man’s offenses was allowing his dog to bark at and lunge at prisoners (making the prisoners think the dog was going to bite them, but pulling the dog up short.) It was stated that he did this for his own amusement. Is it torture? No. Does this man deserve a disciplinary note on his record? Yes, because prisoners are not meant to be their for the guards enjoyment; if it was done as part of the questioning process I don’t see where this is a problem, the prisoner was not harmed. Does Sgt. Smith deserve 7 or 8 years in prison for this? No. I find it offensive that people get so worked up over this, but terrorists cutting a bound captive’s head off with a knife barely raises any ire. I’m not suggesting that their actions are justification for torture, but I am suggesting that what most American liberals in the media consider torture is not in fact torture. Make more sense?
Okay, back to the immigration issue. I disagree fundamentally that states should have individual control over immigration, unless you are going to allow states to police their borders between each other. The reason I say this is as follows. Let’s say that Utah has need of cheap labor, so they allow immigrants to come in and work. In order to enter Utah however, you must demonstrate that you are employable, have no criminal record, and are healthy (no chronic diseases or communicable diseases). Now, let’s say that Nevada also needs cheap labor. They allow immigration as well; however, to enter Nevada you need only show up. Nevada figures that economics will fully dictate how many people enter its state. They don’t check for criminal records, employability, or disease. So people enter Nevada and discover that there are no jobs. What do they do? They certainly don’t go back to their home country. They cross the borders from Nevada to Utah looking for work. Now Utah has immigrants that are there legally from their perspective, and immigrants who have entered from Nevada that would not legally be allowed in Utah. Now each state has a border to police instead of the country which has just two.
Ellis Island comes to mind here. When you landed at Ellis Island you didn’t just fill out some paperwork and walk in to the country. You had to pass a physical exam to demonstrate that you were healthy, and I believe you also had to provide some kind of proof that you were not a criminal. Granted many people could fake the criminal history proof, it’s not like Ellis Island was a revolving door; people were turned away.
For this reason I think that the states together would have to decide what to do about immigration. This might mean that each state can choose how many immigrants they allow to enter their state each year, but that together they decide on the criteria for entry. Given the current political structure this means that the federal government would be left making the rules for entry, while the states determined the total number of people to enter the country.
Immigration is a wonderful thing, it’s how most of us got here. In the past there was always criteria for enterance (which was enforced) and I believe that needs to be the case today. As long as unemployment is low, I don’t see a problem with letting as many immigrants in as the market will bear. But it is only reasonable that we expect people to meet certain criteria to enter. Ellis Island gave preference to people with professional backgrounds (doctors, engineers, etc) because they would readily be able to find work and contribute to the growth of the country. They also allowed many laborers in to help keep the country growing. Do you believe this approach was fundamentally flawed?
Doug says “In the past there was [sic] always criteria for entrance”.
This just isn’t true. The first laws regulating immigration into the US were passed in the decade after the Civil War.
So, for all of my ancestors, the only question was: do you have enough money to pay your passage?
Mark,
Do I recall correctly that some of the post-Civil War immigration laws were directed at Mormon polygamists?
Mark B.
If you read my whole paragraph, from which you quote, you will notice that when I referred to the past I directed the reader to the time period when Ellis Island was in operation.
If we were to split hairs, it could be pointed out that while the first exclusionary act was created in 1875 a reporting rule was adopted in 1819. The reporting rule required ships captains and others to keep and submit a manifest of immigrants entering the United States. This was largely for the protection of ship passengers, though the lists of immigrants was sent to local Collector of Customs, then to the Secretary of State, and finally reported to Congress (as required by the law). Prior to this, in 1796 and again in 1799 Congress passed laws directing federal officials to respect and aid in enforcing the states quarantine laws. So if a ship full of immigrants showed up ill they were not allowed in the country until they had been quarantined. So there were at least two criteria that your forefathers (and many of mine) had to meet before entering the US: they had to be healthy enough to not warrant a quarantine, and they had to give their name to the ships captain to be reported to the US government. A few of my ancestors went through no US law when they immigrated, but that is because they got here before the US existed as a country.
David H,
In 1891 polygamists were explicit excluded from entry to the United States as immigrants.
New York and Rhode Island both have similar wordings when they ratified the Constitution.
A casual reading of the Federalist Papers should show the fears that the States had prior to joining the Union. Their biggest fear was a federal govt that would usurp powers and diminish the sovereignty of the individual states. Such a strong central govt came into being under Lincoln. Today, we are living their fears.
It is no surprise then that Karl Marx was a huge Lincoln fan, and that Hitler incorporated Lincoln’s ideas on the non-existence of state rights in his book Mein Kampf.
It is no surprise also that neoconservatives (whose ideological father is Leo Strauss, the proponent of the “Noble Lie”), who are the main advocates of the quagmire in Iraq, find a useful idol in Lincoln.
Not really. The late Col. David Hackworth, most decorated soldier in Vietnam, helped break the Abu Ghraib torture scandals (see his websites http://www.sftt.org and http://www.hackworth.com). I don’t think he’ll qualify as a “liberal in the media” according to your description. Neither would Maj. Antonio Taguba whom Hackworth first sent the infamous photos of the scandal, who would later detail the kind of brutal acts involved in his findings.
The Taguba Report
http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf
And you know why? Because they are terrorists, we are not. They’re uncivilized barbarians. It’s not that hard to explain why they cut heads off.
But our troops are not supposed to engage in torture because we’re supposed to be civilized Christians. The fact that they did offends right-leaning, military people like Hackworth. The fact that they did should also offend you. In any conflict, we are supposed to always have the moral high ground. That’s American military doctrine inherited from centuries-old European traditions of warfare. But as I’ve said, the Bush administration seems to be content to be just one notch above Saddam.
Which means that each state will have to lose more of its sovereignty (if there is any left remaining) and let the federal govt lord it over all.
The fact that we have an immigration crisis is solely the work of the federal govt. After all, for the last 100 years or so, the federal govt alone has been the sole authority in legislating and enforcing immigration laws. If it’s any consolation at all, a more centrally-planned immigration system will predictably give us more of the same.
Yes it was fundamentally flawed, for the simple reason that it involved the concept of “The State” to make it run.
The State is that institution that has the monopoly of violence over a group of people in a given geographical area. For the state to govern effectively, the right to commit violence cannot be shared with others because violence is what the state is all about. Force or violent coercion is what gives it meaning and purpose.
The State justifies its reason for existence by sponsoring chaos and disorder, and then suppressing that chaos and disorder by means of violence. But it does not completely eradicate the cause of the disorder, for otherwise, it will no longer have a reason to exist. The State thrives on fear and terror.
The current immigration crisis is actually good for the State because it justifies its existence. Fears that illegal aliens will steal local jobs forces one group of statists to invoke govt powers to curb illegal immigration. Yet when the illegal aliens came by the thousands to protest the govt’s actions, another group of statists feared that we cannot afford to alienate so many people. Whichever way the fear works itself, the State will always end as the winner.
The other alternate for the State is the natural order of men characterized by peaceful cooperation with each other, and based on the recognition that division of labor results in higher productivity. In other words, a social order that arranges its activities accordingly with the natural forces of a market economy.
Based on your example, where Utah has more stringent immigration requirements than Nevada, what happens if they actually satisfy whatever’s required in Utah? Will they not be allowed to enter?
Assuming that Nevada is more lenient in its requirements, then chances are, even illegals in Utah might want to move to Nevada. People are like electric currents, they want to take the path of least resistance.
The availability of jobs is not the only consideration in a market-driven immigration system. Business owners will have to consider whether the presence of a foreign worker will enhance or create problems for his work environment. Since the foreigner will have to reside somewhere, real-estate owners will have to consider whether the presence of a foreigner in their property will enhance or lower the desirability of their properties. While such considerations may be practical, I doubt that they are ever part of the many “special interests” that lobby for influence in the current immigration system.
There is a rather long article (about 4,800 words) that discusses these ideas from a libertarian point of view. If you’re not intimidated by long articles, you might find this worth reading:
Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe3.html
Interestingly, if there’s a movie that deals with the themes of secession, the state, and immigration, it will have to be “Gangs of New York”. It’s an era film that deals with conflicts between native-born Americans and Irish immigrants during Lincoln’s war against the South. The high point of the film would be the New York Draft Riots that resulted when Lincoln enforced conscription in the city as a way of providing warm bodies for his immoral war. No gang could have caused such chaos and destruction than what an institution like the State had done at that time.
I don’t be aware of you, but I’ve been awaiting this day for almost couple of years. There is a wide range of good news out generally there: AFSCME and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee committing to loans to fuel their particular attack ads; Barney Frank lending himself $200, 000. despite the presence of their own money they don’t know when to prevent spending, why should we expect they’ll do any better with ours?