Ezra Klein says that my stance on immigration is not realistic. It isn’t? I understand that there’s a large illegal immigrant population that has essentially become a part of our economy, but on the other hand I think it simply devalues the sacrifices of those who have waited in line to come here if you’re just going to wave a wand and reward those who have broken the rules - no matter how dire their circumstances.
If I’m someone in another country (like, say, Jamaica) who wants to come to America, this just communicates to me - come on over any way you can, never mind the laws, stay here for a while and you’ll be rewarded. It tells those who have the temerity to wait “in line” that they’re playing a suckers game for playing by the rules.
And best of all, we already have all the law enforcement officers we need to do the job. They’re all just standing around with nothing to do. It won’t cost a cent!
On top of that, once the word gets out that we sent a few home, all of the others will stop trying to come in!!
God, we’re such birdbrained lefties! The answer was so simple!
Oliver, I generally think you have a gifted eye for politics but you are not addressing this issue very robustly. There are 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. It just doesn’t matter whether we make them “wait in line” or not. They are here. You may wish to prevent them amnesty or any other kind of provisional status but that doesn’t change the fundamental fact that if they are “illegal,” they will remain invisible. We will catch some and return them to their home country, beit China or Mexico or Peru, but they will be replaced by new ones who equally seek out better opportunities for themselves and their families. Until you describe a policy prescription for what to do with those who are here, you are not staking out any political territory.
But that doesn’t actually address my question. You’re answering the charge of “it’s not justified.” That’s not one I levied. The question is, given that we’re proving totally unable to stop illegal immigration, what’s the best policy — as in what will have the best outcomes — to apply to the situation? On a fairness level, I agree with you. But pragmatism argues otherwise…
I didn’t take part in the previous thread on this topic, so forgive me if I retrace someone else’s steps.
Let’s assume your premise: no “magic wand” citizenship.
What becomes of the people who are already here illegally? I can see only two possibilities: 1) spend lots and lots of money to round them all up and send them home, or 2) leave them in their current status.
Which is your preference?
Who says we have to solve the problem of the 11 million first?
Let’s start tomorrow with the first person who sneaks in. Send him / her home. Let’s start checking expired visas — oldest first. Find him / her and send him / her home.
Repeat until done.
It’s your kind of thinking that is making this whole thing into quicksand.
“Let s start tomorrow with the first person who sneaks in. Send him / her home. …Repeat until done.”
But what happens when the person you send home comes back? You’re right back where you started — assuming you catch them the second time around. Higher and longer walls or putting the National Guard on the border is not going to stop someone from trying to get into this country. Where there’s a will, there’s a way and poverty can be a pretty strong motivator. Nothing that has so far been proposed represents a long term solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Just more of the same.
OK, I give up. You’re right. There is no solution. Let them keep on coming… My neighborhood’s already full. I don’t care.
Who cares if it’s illegal?
Who cares about their problems after they get here?
Who cares about the communities where they end up?
Certainly not you all - you’re just throwing in the towel. So, live with it…
I guess my problem is that I don’t view this issue with the same futility that I see in so much of the drug war, and have an admittedly simplistic view of it (that sadly is similar to Frank’s). If you are here illegally and found out, you get sent back home. If you employ someone who is illegal, you get fined/charged for aiding a criminal act. Frankly, the long term solution to the issue is helping make Mexico (and other countries) come up to speed as a nation so that there’s less of a reason for its citizens to leave. I view granting amnesty as rewarding a bad act, and that doesn’t really fix anything besides absolving guilt.
“I view granting amnesty as rewarding a bad act, and that doesn t really fix anything besides absolving guilt.”
It’s long past time to set aside the desire to play punishing Daddy — unless all you want to do is play to an insecure, reactionary political base. You’re right that amnesty alone for the people already here doesn’t fix anything but who’s proposing anything so simplisitc?
Factcheck laid out the most positive policy response in another thread including work visas that put new immigrants on a track to citizenship. If you told someone that if they worked in this country for seven years, learned English, passed a basic citizenship test and had a clean criminal record that they could earn citizenship you are giving these people a stake in the system. That would lead to less exploitation, less isolation and a greater likelihood that they will “play by the rules,” by which I mean, for instance, buying auto insurance (a number one complaint here in California). Simply punishing the people who are here now and building a bigger wall does none of that. It benefits no one, not us, not them.
US citizenship should not be valued simply because it’s hard to get, which does not mean it should be handed out to everyone who comes calling. People have to show a sincere desire to contribute positively to the system and the country as a whole. That should be the main criteria for citizenship, not whether or not a person can wait in line a long time. All manner of people with dubious intentions can exhibit patience. But if people show themselves willing to work and to contribute to society they should be able to become citizens.
“Once word gets out that we re actually enforcing the law, the number of people trying the illegal route will drop.”
How naive do have to be to be a conservative? Will someone please tell Save here about the ways of the world?
I’m guessing … catch them and send them back again? Once word gets out that we’re actually enforcing the law, the number of people trying the illegal route will drop.
Forcing employers to pay them the same as legal citizens would help dry up the flow, as would fining the employers of illegal workers.
Somehow I have always doubted that those concerned with devalueing the sacrifices of those who have waited in line were, honestly, concerned with the feelings of those waiting in line .
Well, I’ve known or had friends of my family who have had to wait in line, I don’t like the idea of them being cut in front of.
I believe that is the policy which we have had in effect for years now & . working well ?
I guess I’m arguing for the status quo. It isn’t perfect, but I think any other option rewards bad behavior or turns us into fortress America.
Somehow I have always doubted that those concerned with “devalueing the sacrifices of those who have waited in line” were, honestly, concerned with the feelings of those “waiting in line”.
As for :”If you are here illegally and found out, you get sent back home. If you employ someone who is illegal, you get fined/charged for aiding a criminal act.” - I believe that is the policy which we have had in effect for years now …. working well ?
“So scrap it …”
Who is suggesting that we scrap the current systme of border enforcement and replace it with nothing?
I think there are two problems related but separate.
The first is how to stop illegal immigration from getting worse. I gave my two cents worth in the previous thread. http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/03/26/immigration/#comment-28392
The second is what to do with the millions who are here. This is a more difficult problem. I certainly don’t like the idea of rounding them all up and kicking them out. Eleven million is the number being bandied about. Rounding up eleven million poor people, figuring out who is and who is not illegal, making sure no American Citizens are caught up in the dragnet, and deporting the lot of them is not my idea of the behavior of the Land of the Free.”!
That kind of action would be so prone to both abuse and simple human error that it really is not an option. I mean talk about a bureaucratic nightmare.
I would be in favor of stiff penalties (perhaps including some jail time) for anyone who employs an illegal. Perhaps that is the direction to address the problem of those already here. If we address those who are demanding low-wage illegals as employees we could dry up the supply.
Whatever way we do address the issue of those already here will not be perfect.
I would be in favor of some limited amnesty for those who have been in the country for 10 (continuous) years without so much as a speeding ticket.
As I said it is two problems. The first one is relatively easy to solve, the second is the conundrum.
I believe that is the policy which we have had in effect for years now & . working well ?
So scrap it, replacing it with nothing?
Working better?
Okay, let’s get this straight. Yes, sneaking across the border the United States to work without a visa is against the law. But coming to this country to work hardly qualifies as “bad behavior.” It’s totally understandable behavior. What would you do if you we’re trapped in grinding poverty in a corrupt country that bordered the richest nation on earth? It isn’t a tough choice.
If you want to talk about immigration, please, leave your inner scold at home.
You’re probably one of those folks who gets confused every time someone writes a story about how the crime rate has dropped at the same time that prison population increases.
Are you saying that in the case of immigration, the rules of cause and effect are suspended?
Save –
Cause and effect? How’s that worked out with the war on drugs? Or do we no longer have a drug problem in this country?
The people who are coming across the border now face arrest, deportation and worse. Many of the them are literally risking their lives to come here. You cannot arrest everyone who crosses the border so simply “enforcing the law” will not deter most immigrants. Do you think deportation or even jail time would dissuade someone facing a future of permanent poverty?
Good stuff by all. Eleven million additional American workers who are paying taxes and into social security may not be a bad thing. The 3 - 4 to 1 ratio of worker to retiree would be closer realized. That being said, and not trying to be Tancredo-lite, I also fully understand Oliver’s point. People from another country that become legal citizens in this country have a sense of pride, exactly like many of our ancestors did when they arrived at Ellis Island or San Francisco. Learning English and learning the Constitution at the same time seems like a daunting task to me. I have a friend who recently became naturalized, learning the civics stuff - ( Many of us Americans, present company excepted, of course could probably use a little brushing up on some of these same civics lessons. As a matter of fact the White House might really want to brush up on the section of checks and balances. ) was something he was really proud of. Are illegals an affront to those that have gone through all the required hoops for citizenship? So why bother doing it right, huh?
One of the real, ugly dangers here though is that there are extreme elements that wish to jump into this, and have already, I’m sure. Like the Stormfront crowd. Look, this is a real problem and it has to be addressed. It’s a tough climate for American workers and for some Americans, tnot all, the undocumeted workers really do lower wages. Despite the fact that the vast majority of undocumented workers are extremely hard working, decent people, illegal immigration also allows criminals in. I could never fault anyone for trying to improve their lot. I’ve worked with these men and women, the values I saw are the same that are supposedly valued here. Hardworking, and honest. Think about this though - for a blue collar worker, skilled, to go from $22 - $25 an hour to $10 to $15 an hour is not without consequence, no college for his/her kids, so much for the mortgage, what daycare? - and probably a causes a considerable amount of resentment from that worker. Illegal workers can do that, too. And if we’re really being honest, this needs to be addressed to. It’s also being used by an issue for some that have a less than honorable motive. I’ve seen quite a few good ideas on the previous posts, this is complicated. We need many voices at the table on this, from clergy, labor, citizens, advocacy groups all with an emphasis on open minds and cool heads to prevail upon this.
Hi Oliver…I am a legal immigrant and have a different take than you. I’ve posted something on my blog on this.
To summarize some of your concerns…you’ve said that people should wait in line. Quite frankly, there is no line. Most illegal immigrants don’t have a visa category that they can apply for themselves. To your concern about rewarding illegal behavior, I say so was the 21st Amendment. But its a good thing that it passed.
I think a couple points are important to remember in considering this “cutting to the front” argument:
1. Though statistics vary, there is no obvious surplus of labor of either “Americans” or “illegal immigrants.” In other words, there is a labor *need*. Again, statistics vary, but we are not seeing mobs of Americans backlashing against the taking of their jobs by illegal immigrants, nor are we seeing a huge surge in unemployed immigrants just occupying space in this country (the US). So, the labor market continues to absorb the immigration flow - I even heard a statistic on NPR that unemployment is at “record” lows.
2. If there is an ability to continue to absorb immigration, then what is wrong is not people “cutting”, but rather that the statutory numbers of e.g. work visas, and/or green card visas, is insufficient. Remember, Congress controls the number of green cards and all other types of visas issued in a given year. What’s striking to me is that anti-immigrant advocates rave on about illegal immigration like it’s an on-off switch - someone either chooses to immigrate illegally, or they choose to do it legally. What is much more accurate is to say that there is a pull for labor, combined with a push of economic conditions in sending countries. But our government will not account for these forces by providing a realistic, workable number of visas. What is someone who has an opportunity to make more money gonna do if they can’t get a visa number? Ok ok, so if you’re an American, you might sue. But if you’re anyone else, you’ll just go and get the job cuz it’s there.
3. There are per-country limits that exist, limiting the number of immigrants who can enter from any given country. These are an anachronistic cousin of race-based immigration laws that preceded our current system. Certain would-be immigrants from the Philippines, where my parents immigrated from, would have to wait 27 years to obtain a visa, last time I checked. And those are people who have family here who they want to reunite with (read: they get preference in visa allocations).
The visa limits are hit every year, and we are still seeing an influx of illegal (read: over the limit) immigration. The fact that Congress controls the numbers of immigrant visas means that just by changing a number in a statute, which is a low-consequence move as far as both the border-security advocates, and the deport-the-illegals advocates are concerned, Congress could magically turn people who would have otherwise come in illegally into legal immigrants.
This is part of what the McCain/Kennedy proposal involves. The much MUCH more controversial part was that it allows some of those increased nubmers of visas to go to people already here and without status. But conceptually, if you can agree with me that many of today’s undocumented - the ones who would benefit from McCain/Kennedy (working, law-abiding, tax-paying people) - would have come legally if the visa numbers permitted it, then by providing them with some of those visas, you are simply providing those people with the visa that was needed for them to immigrate in the first place. Because the provision only benefits people who have worked and been crime-free since their arrival, it implicitly benefits only those who Congress should have provided a visa to in the first place. In other words, it’s akin to a concession that there should have been a visa availalbe to them when they entered, because obviously they’ve turned out to be a productive member of society.
This is already a long post, and my first, but there’s a lot more to say about immigration (surprise). I posted on Eschaton earlier today. See that post for more about how immigration is not a crime and “amnesty” is just a loaded word. Also, in a shameless plug, I’m gonna point everyone to my blog.
We are all immigrants and looking logically at the issue of immigration we see that it is not subsiding not in the least,however,illegal immigrants is taking its toll on the states being that the cost of medical care,food stamps,etc,etc. This is the main issue I would think that you are seeing some of the more vocalization on the issues of illegal immigration,however there are companies who use large numbers of illegals to keep the business running in time. And on the illegals paying into social security? Most of the numbers are fake,in my dealings with them(the illegals)they would travel down to Chicago and get the fake ID’s and s.s.n’s. So how much are they helping the economy? Beats me but we are about 4 trillion give or take a few trillion in the red and on the medical issue,that is not going away,we tend to look at this issue like this; All illegals are working jobs? No illegals have children? In the end someone has to pick up the tab and I would assume it is us who are working here legally. Can the system be fixed? “No we have not got the means to do that.” Ineffective is not a good tool.
This is yet another issue that is being used to play the voters and taxpayers for fools. Whenever you hear someone suggest that the ‘borders’ should be ‘closed,’ point in their face and laugh loudly. This is an infantile notion, and it only panders to irrational fears. You can’t examine this issue with your hypocritically moralistic and Pollyanna glasses on. You have to look at the people involved and examine their motives.
All you need to do to get a grip on the ‘immigration’ issue is follow the money. Look at NAFTA, and every other ‘free trade’ action taken by our corporate-owned government; they’re all about the flow of money and commodities. To the fat cats, labor is just another commodity. The corporate honcho doesn’t give a shit about Joe Sixpack. That’s why Bush has come up with the Guest Worker idea. He and his handlers know that cheap, disposable labor is wanted here as well as in the places to where so many formerly U.S.-based jobs have been shipped. If it were possible to cut off the flow of desperate migrant workers from south of the border, then the domestic cheap labor pool would shrink. That would eventually force the fat cats to pay honest wages and perhaps even– gasp– benefits (somewhere a Wal-Mart bean counter just got angina pectoris).
In other words, if you pass draconian immigration laws, the result won’t be to stop or even seriously curtail ‘illegal’ immigration. The migrant workers will be driven further underground, will be more vulnerable, and will work for even less money. This will drive down the labor market even deeper.
If you go with the Bush administration’s plan, you’re approving legal codification of the same thing, albeit with nominal protections for the workers.
None of the above would significantly challenge the status quo; they might even make things worse. Face it: in this case, the border serves as an arbitrary means of dividing, conquering, and exploiting a continental labor force for the enrichment of a relative few. This is nothing new: the history of pre- and post-colonial U.S. economics followed the same rules (using slavery and Jim Crow to keep poor and working people of all colors in ‘their place’). Focusing on immigration– for economic reasons, anyway– is a fool’s errand at this point, and it only serves to divert attention from the real problem, which is the increasing polarization of economic inequity.
Manish, why do you hate America?
Seriously though, I enjoyed seeing your perspective. We can’t deport 11 million people, but we may be able to dry up demand by fining employers heavily, and by fast-tracking immigration in needed fields (such as migrant workers). We need a more realistic solution than “Deport all these evil immigrants that have no respect for our laws”.
We need a more realistic solution than calling all immigrants “evil” (which no one has done), and we need a more realistic solution than pretending that Mexico’s problems can be solved by breaking our own immigration laws.
Here’s a solution:
Make it agains the law to emigrate here, and assume citizenship, i.e., receive benefits, without going through the naturalization process… Oh, wait.
Actually, Mike, several states had or have issued drivers licenses to people without checking for legal status. North Carolina and Tennesee were among them, although the laws may have been changed recently. That is why in neighborhoods with lots of undocumented aliens, you will see NC and TN plates where you wouldn’t normally. Since they are able to register the cars, they are able to get insurance, etc.
Whatever we do, if we allow these people to stay in the country, which seems inevitable, we need to mainstream them so that they are less likely to drive and live “underground” (without insurance, registration, etc., not paying taxes). This is for all of us, as you found out personally.
There are plenty of sensible things that could be done on top of trying to enforce current laws, Frank.
I liked your argument earlier that it was either do as you say or give up. Great choices. I think you have a serious penchant for logical fallicies.
Why not try to think about alternatives to your master plan of just hiring more law enforcement, kicking everyone out and building a wall.
Why not some plan like this:
1) If someone has been here for over a certain number of years, say 3 or 4, put them on a path to citizenship in order to show that we’re not just going to turn our back on the Latino community. This would be in addition to hiring more people to police the border and increasing diplomatic relations with the Mexican government or perhaps buying air time in Mexico to let everyone know we’ll be cracking down on illegal immigration and to encourage them to go through legal networks. We could increase quotas as well.
Or this (might be more up your alley)
2) Take over Mexico. Invade through Texas. Let DeLay lead the way. Turn rest of the country into tourist trap. Of course, Corporate America would not like this as they are continually moving labor just across the border to pay slave wages so their stock price increases.
Or this:
3) When an illegal immigrant is found due to increased law enforcement, charge the employer an average cost per deportation of the immigrant (including apprehension, transportation, prevention from occurring again)
There are many other possibilities. The laws that have been passed are obviously not working. I think that is apparent. There should be some discussion about how much we really want to increase enforcement versus changing laws/quotas.
Kudos to the point made about illegals not purchasing car insurance as that is likely impossible without papers, etc. My first accident in Phoenix was with someone in this category and we ended up getting screwed (even though it was not my fault). Personally I think car insurance is a very elaborate racket, but that’s another discussion.
http://www.tennessean.com/government/archives/04/04/50357258.shtml?Element_ID=50357258
This is an article about the above issue.
If I were an illegal immigrant and was told I could have a license, I’m not sure I would be willing to take that chance. If I were an illegal immigrant and decided to take that chance, I may not take the chance to get insurance. I understand the reason the lady didn’t have insurance. I have no qualms with the lady that hit me besides the fact that it made my day suck pretty bad (it was two days after I got my license and was 10 years ago). I have qualms with insurance companies in general.
I was unaware that there were states that allowed for driver’s licenses though as I don’t do much thinking on the subject besides that one anecdote I have in my memory. And yes, Frank, I understand that using anecdotes to try to make a logical deduction/induction is a logical fallacy. I just wanted to make a point that there are all sorts of risks illegal aliens take when coming across that border and making a living here and they are risks that are taken everyday. It’s absolutely amazing to me so many of them go so long without getting caught, but then again, the law enforcement don’t exactly have deporting illegals high on their list of things to care about.
1) If someone has been here for over a certain number of years, say 3 or 4, put them on a path to citizenship in order to show that we re not just going to turn our back on the Latino community.
Is that 3 or 4 consecutive years?
How do we document how long people have been here illegally?
As Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, there shouldn’t even be a “Latino community” for us to “turn our backs on.” Do you know if all Latinos favor open borders? I wouldn’t bet on it.
It seems that of “all the things” we could do, your first suggestion is not so hot.
BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that I was giving up… I was being sarcastic, and referring to the kind of thinking that says we can’t deport the 11 million (i.e., we “give up” on them); what do we do now?
If we don’t begin to, at least, resist this illegal wave, it will never stop.
What will you be saying next year?
“We can’t deport the 12 million”?
As Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, there shouldn t even be a Latino community for us to turn our backs on.
Frank, could you please explain your point further and provide the Roosevelt quote to which you are referring.
It would be 3 or 4 consecutive or collective years. Doesn’t matter. I see your point regarding how to document how they people have been here illegally, but if companies who have employed these individuals came forward on their behalf, perhaps the companies could be penalized to a lesser extent of the law. A large number of people are going to have to suck it up and take responsibility for past actions and come to the realization that they are expoiting these workers and it hurts the illegal alien and the country while being lighter on their pocket-books. The companies that are hiring them are to blame here, not the illegal immigrants.
The legal immigrant that linked to his blog above makes a good point on his site about supply/demand and if there were no demand for illegal immigrants, they wouldn’t be here.
So, yes, I agree, penalize the companies involved, but penalize them in a constructive fashion so that they must hire the immigrants they have been exploiting at minimum wage if they have been there for more than 3 years.
There will indeed be a problem as a lot of the work that is done is not full year round work and the companies do not keep books on it as that would be foolish (as if hiring illegal immigrants isn’t foolish enough).
I think the shorter answer though could be “take their word for it” though and let the people who are being sent back know that they will have an opportunity to come here in the future by increasing the size of “the line” which, according to the legal immigrant whose blog I referenced earlier, does not exist. I’m not quite sure on all that, but if there isn’t one, there ought to be and if there is one, it should be lengthened.
I say, let ‘em over. The Mexican people I met in high school and earlier in my childhood were good people. I enjoy their culture and I’m as pasty white as they get. I’m often told I look like Conan O’Brien, which sort of keys you into my white-ness.
I was really hoping Frank would bite on option (2) though…
Does anybody else see the bigger ramifications with this past weekend’s march? 500,000 in LA, 20,000 in Denver, 30,000 in washington, etc. That ain’t a protest, my friends, that’s an army. An army of (well, some of them) registered voters not too happy with Republican leadership. The GOP is gonna have to do some pretty serious sucking up over the next few months to get back the Latino/Hispanic vote that they spent the last 8 years trying to get.
Boo-yaa!
Another example of misinformation:
“If we don t begin to, at least, resist this illegal wave, it will never stop.”
Just for starters (I should be putting this much effort into my 30-page paper on Sensenbrenner’s bill), check out the statistical yearbook page on the immigration courts’ website. It shows that between 2001 and 2005, there was an increase of 100,000 “removal” (read: deportation) cases completed in the immigration courts.
You can also easily find on the web the statistic that immigrants in deportation proceedings are the fastest-increasing population in American prisons. As such, the population that immigration-right advocates are so loathe to spend money on are one of the fastest-growing drains on taxpayer money.
My point: we have been “resisting the illegal wave.” Since 1986, we have been on a self-fulfilling prophecy of enacting severe enforcement-heavy laws, watching them not work, and then thinking we must not have gotten tough enough, and enacting even more severe laws. The only effect has been to drain more resources and put more people into hiding. As long as Congress does not respond to the economic forces involved, by e.g. increasing the numbers of visas, implementing a workable “statute of limitations”-like path to citizenship, and enforcing sanctions against exploitative (is that a word?) employers, there will be no end to this cycle.
Thanks to mikebdot for the assist with plugging my blog. Guys, I’m not only trying to self-promote, I’m trying to show how much ignorance and misinformation there is about what immigration law looks like today. When I started working in immigration law, I was shocked at how much of a disconnect there was between what you hear politicians, the mainstream media, and your family talk about, versus what immigrants with real immigration issues face.
BTW, for the record, I’m not an immigrant, I’m a child of immigrants. My parents were the ones who took that long path, I’m a full-fledged “legal” US citizen by birth.
An example of the lack of knowledge: there was a temporary remedy in the 1990s that was temporarily (yes, both temporary) revived in 2001 (pre-9/11) that allowed people who could prove X years of continuous residence thru anything like work papers, bills, marriage certificate, etc. to apply for a green card if married to a citizen or green card holder and willing to pay a fine of something like $500 or $1,000. The reason this remedy has never been available as more than a temporary remedy is because of the ability of the immigration-right to stamp the word “amnesty” onto anything that they can.
I’ve written much more about the whole “amnesty” thing on Eschaton and my blog, but the short short version is why is everyone so hung up on this idea of “amnesty” as if it doesn’t exist anywhere else? It exists everywhere else, where it’s called a statute of limitations. We “reward” (I am using the word in a sarcastic sense) illegal *criminal* conduct (immigration violations are not criminal violations - they’re closer to traffic violations than even walking out of a store with stolen goods) as big as tax fraud and violent crimes by giving “amnesty” after a certain number of years in every state and Wash. DC. But the way immigration law looks today, someone could have overstayed a visa or entered without permission 30 years ago, worked continuously, paid taxes, gotten married, raised citizen kids, retired, and still face exactly the same punishment (deportation) as the first day they crossed the border or overstayed on an expired visa. Meanwhile, some US citizen who assaulted them, was prone to harass women, and drove drunk regularly 30 years ago would not have to see a day in court, much less a jail cell.
Which “rewarding” of bad behavior is worse?
Here you go, frameone (I’m ready for your ambush):Key graf
Roosevelt on Americanism, 1915
http://www.rpatrick.com/USA/americanism/
mikedbot: If you want to have a serious discussion about immigration, you might want to look elsewhere. Your attempt at humor is just that — an attempt, and a poor one at that.
And before all you automatons jump up screaming, “Open Forum!”, I meant a discussion with me.
I’ve had it with half - wits like mikedbot.
DS: Nice job of obfuscation. Are the number of illegal immigrants increasing, yes or no?
Frank_D. Which attempt at humor were you referring to? That I look like Conan O’Brien? I was being truthful there. I’m not “Powder”-white, but pretty darn pale.
What do you propose? Round up, literally, millions of police, find all the illegal immigrants by some means and literally take them across the border? The discussion to be had is whether or not this would cost more money than the benefit the country would get from allowing the workers to stay in the country and work towards citizenship (and everything Mr. Roosevelt stated in his speech).
In an unrelated topic, I love how you have a picture of a hand reaching out as if you really want to engage me and continue to address me directly and then openly call me a half-wit. 100% class.
Also, do you not think we should just take over Mexico? Is that the attempt at humor you were referring to? I was being serious. I figured you’d jump at that one, what, with your guns and killing and explosions necessary for conservative values to be present in a movie, why not in real life? Do you have the courage of your previous convictions?
What American ideals are you portraying in your labelling me a half-wit?
My post where I mention three possibilities was actually intended to show the range of possibilities that exist, rather than the simple-minded “let’s kick ‘em all out” as it is impossible to do so. It would surely benefit everyone involved (besides companies/persons exploiting the cheap labor) to put these people on some path to citizenship. If you disagree state as such and the discussion can actually be had. Or insult me again if you makes you feel better.
“Obfuscation”? Is that the best you can do? I gave you fact after provable fact. You return with unsupportable characterization.
The number of illegal immigrants are increasing, yes. Does the simple fact of increasing population mean that there is lax enforcement? No. The reason so many Mexicans trying to cross the border are dying is because we have been constructing uncrossable fencing and more rigorous border security at the crossable points. Most of what’s left is literally mountains and desert - the most inhospitable terrain.
Yet people still cross. Unless they are completely mentally defective, there must be a rational pull for them to come. What is it? Jobs.
And speaking of jobs, you know what’s not increasing? Unemployment of Americans. We have not seen a proportional increase in American unemployment despite a growth of some 6 million undocumented in the last 15 years. Nor are we seeing Americans who are actually raving about actually losing their jobs to illegal immigrants. We only see people raving about the supposed, “undocumented” (ironically) loss of American jobs to illegal immigrants. Against the inability of the immigration-right to produce rallies of Americans who have actually lost jobs, there are now articles like this one documenting how immigrants really, actually are taking jobs Americans don’t want.
You still haven’t responded to why it’s fair to reward violent American criminals with statutes of limitations, or give amnesty to people who violate traffic laws or even evade taxes, yet it’s not ok to forgive someone who crossed the border to provide for their family. The McCain-Kennedy citizenship provisions require a fine to apply for the green card, for God’s sake. How is fining someone for illegal behavior *even* an amnesty? If you get fined for speeding, tax evasion, blowing a toll booth, driving without a license, bootlegging a video, etc. etc. etc. did you get an “amnesty”?? Why is anything short of deportation an “amnesty”?
You also haven’t provided a solution to the ever-increasing cost of enforcement. How is it rational to spend millions or billions on enforcement rather than fine people (i.e. give our government income) and let them stay, *especially* if they’re working, otherwise-law-abiding people?
Immigration!
Not that you give a rats ass about my opinion Ezra… But I have to agree with Oliver on this one. Try moving to Costa Rica. I am married to a Costa Rican, have three half Costa Rican children, am…
DS: The number of illegal immigrants is increasing, yes.
Thank you.
Mike, don’t pretend that, for one moment that either you or I might consider an invasion of Mexico. You were being a wiseass, and you and I both know it.
I was really hoping Frank would bite on option (2) though&
“Bite?”
As to “let’s kick them all out”, you might want to read my comment in the other post, before you suggest invading Mexico in the future.
And if you can stop being a wiseass, I will stop calling you one.
Frank: “I ve had it with half - wits like mikedbot.”
Weren’t you just talking about how you never attack someone personally unless you are attacked first?
gee, factcheck, maybe you guys are getting to me… I’m starting to act like you
OTOH
Or this (might be more up your alley)
2) Take over Mexico.
* * *
I was really hoping Frank would bite on option (2) though&
I’ll let you be the judge — not that I give a crap…
factcheck, you might want to read my comment of 6:32 AM, which was actually posted (but held in moderation) before yours. An insult doesn’t always involve name - calling.
I don’t see mike calling you names. Again you play the victim. But I bet at $1/post, all these histrionics put lots of money in your pocket, huh?
I guess it would beat getting a job, right?
You can feel free to call me a wiseass, but “half-wit” is not the same as “wiseass” the last time I checked.
I get your point, you don’t think invading Mexico would be a good idea. But it would certainly solve illegal immigration, now wouldn’t it? I think it would be much more effective than rounding up all the illegals and transporting them out of the country. If you did so, not only would it cost an enormous sum of money, but it would not solve anything as it is highly probable 1/2 of them would find their way back within two years along with the other million you cite, so, actually after a few years you’d be pretty close to where you started. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, I’m saying there are alternative methods to solve the problem besides “get rid of ‘em”. If you take offense to my comment about my hoping that you would ‘bite’ I apologize. You don’t think it in good fun for me to insinuate that that would be something you’d be into with the discussion from “V” the other day?
Like I have stated previously though, the problem isn’t the illegals, it’s the people who hire them.
Oliver, besides the fact that choice was involved in actually coming to the states, how is this situation any different than millions of slaves being freed and given citizenship? The issue isn’t how they got here, the issue is now that they are here, what do we do? After abolition would you rather they would have taken all the slaves back to Africa? The situation is nearly the same in that both groups of people are being exploited to make an extra buck.
mike: I have no problem telling the difference between movies and real life.
Running two threads is really a pain.
From the other thread:
Incidentally, none of you have seemed to notice that I mentioned deporting illegal immigrants on a case by case basis. I m a firm opponent of wholesale, non - selective law enforcement like mandatory sentences for marijuana posession, and three time loser laws.
If someone has a real plan for determing how to divide up illegals into categories, I d like to hear it. So far all I ve heard from you is that rightwingers are racists, and we can t just deport 11 million people.
Put your thinking caps on.
Step 1: Provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to turn themselves in.
Step 2: Favor families over singles (meaning would they be willing to be naturalized if their whole family could join them, with priority given to their parents, and extended families later. {That s extremely important to Hispanics})
Step 3: Favor people who have been good citizens and stuck around, as opposed to people who flit back and forth across the border.
Just a few things off the top of my right wing head.
Number 4: English speaking preferred.
I’m not as crazed as you make me out to be…
English literate is required of the Kennedy immigration bill in order for illegals to be normalized.
Hopefully they don’t get the same people to verify the English that verify that NYC taxi drivers are English speaking, lol.
Where are you claiming you said anything about deporting them based on ‘case by case’ basis. Your first post in this thread says:
“Let s start tomorrow with the first person who sneaks in. Send him / her home. Let s start checking expired visas oldest first. Find him / her and send him / her home.
Repeat until done.”
The only action item listed is sending them home. So what part of “repeat until done” doesn’t imply “let’s kick ‘em all out” (albeit, one by one). Maybe I missed something there.
But, I happen to agree with step 1 listed above. Step 2 is a good thought as well. I don’t know about #3 as the people that do this are most probably doing seasonal work. I suppose the argument can be made that they broke the law more times or something, but people that come and stay illegally are just as guilty of breaking the law as someone that does it many times. And, once again, how would you know how many times he’s been here?
“number” 4 I agree with as well. There are various tests for this already to gain citizenship.
The people that are here illegally ought to be required to pay some sort of fine to help pay for health care they receive for ‘free’ or other social services that are used. Not sure how much that really ought to be.
Then, I think we ought to seriously consider opening our borders to those who have an understanding and desire to be citizens of the states. I don’t see a reason not to. I don’t think overpopulation would be an issue at this point, but perhaps that is just blind ignorance. Either way, it ought to at least be an option on the table. We ought to take pride in the fact that so many people want to be a part of the country. Not that I particularly like ‘pride’, but really, it’s pretty cool that so many people want to immigrate here, IMHO.
Re: Step 1: incentive for illegal immigrants to turn themselves in? How about a fine to account for the violation, and then ability to apply for a green card?
Re: Step 2: The law already does this, and has since 1952. See here and here.
Re: Step 3: all currently existing paths to green card/citizenship require either “intent to abandon former residence” or continuous physical presence in the US.
Re: Step 4: McCain/Kennedy does require English ability.
So, the ‘case by case’ comment is this one from Frank:
“Right do nothing until we solve the unsolvable problem of the 11 million. Maybe they ll get homesick and go home. Maybe they ll decide to do the right thing and go home, OR, maybe the government will begin the unpleasant, but necessary, process of deporting them, one person, one family, one case at a time.
That s how crime has been dealt with in this country for some time now not by bemoaning the fact that some people don t get caught, or that criminals may have to leave their families to go to jail or be deported.
”
Incidentally, that followed this post:
“Bottom line: Illegal immigrants are here illegally. Except for (extremely) special circumstances. they should be asked to leave.
They should not be allowed to enter or stay. Period.
Illegal immigration has many negative circumstances, and should not continue.
It doesn t get any simpler than that, accusations of xenophobia be damned. ”
While technically accurate about not being “wholesale” this phrase makes it pretty close “Except for (extremely) special circumstances. they should be asked to leave.”
Sounds sort of like the right’s abortion plan. Maybe you could deport women who get abortions! Hot damn. Two birds with one stone.
And just, what would be and example of an extremely special circumstance that wouldn’t require them to be deported?
Ezra, for whom I have the greatest respect, said “The question is, given that we re proving totally unable to stop illegal immigration, what s the best policy…”
Our inability to stop illegal immigration, at least on the massive scale we see today, is not a given. A lack of desire to stop is a given, but they are not the same thing.
Oliver’s view is one that I share. And the “labor need” argument is simply a way to dodge the question. Americans are currently doing the jobs that Americans allegedly don’t want, at least in areas where labor arbitrage has not driven them out of the marketplace. But the bottom line is that illegal immigration is illegal. This is not a civil rights issue, where noble people went to prison furthering the fight for freedom. This is about people wanting better jobs than they can get at home.
I sympathize with their position, but I see no need for us to move out of the way to enhance their quality of life. Let them stay home and reform their own country, not mine.
But I bet at $1/post, all these histrionics put lots of money in your pocket, huh?
Wait, wha..? You make money off of this? Dude, nice gig.
I have an answer. It would solve at least 2 problems at once. Hear me out.
Problem: We have an immigration problem of people crossing the mexican border in record numbers every day.
Problem: We don’t have enough border guards to stop them form crossing.
How about this?
Instead of deporting the illegal aliens we catch, we give them jobs as border guards? Who better to know where illegals will cross the border?
They can work off the fine for entering the country illegally, apply for a green card, and contribute to Social Security at the same time!
It’s kind of like giving thieves jobs as security consultants (re: Catch Me If You Can).
“I see no need for us to move out of the way to enhance their quality of life.”
Illegal immigrant nannies enable women to work even while raising young children. Illegal immigrants serve us food when we’re too busy/lazy to cook, and they make suburban yards look really nice. Whose quality of life is increasing?
“Americans are currently doing the jobs that Americans allegedly don t want, at least in areas where labor arbitrage has not driven them out of the marketplace.”
Again, point me to the displaced, now-unemployed Americans. Where are they? Why are they not part of an exploding unemployed sector?
“This is not a civil rights issue, where noble people went to prison furthering the fight for freedom.”
It was illegal for black people in Alabama to refuse to give up front bus seats to white people. They were arrested for violating criminal laws. They were criminals. Today, we see them as heroes.
I only raised the points as starting points to think about immigration. And what to do with illegal immigrants. It wasn’t a trick question or a quiz. If had answers, I would have posted them. Then maybe I would have contacted the RNC to help them out.
In regard to family members, I meant a way to entice illegal immigrants here on their own to turn themselves in.
Duros62: I actually think that’s a good idea - it’s one of those “WTF?? Oh wait… hmm…” Like having prisoners train seeing-eye dogs. The big BIG problem: if there’s one kind of American job that no one will be happy to see go to immigrant workers, it’s guarding the nation’s borders. Although, maybe not, cuz if you took a picture of the staff who work at USICE and USCIS, you’d think you were looking at a United Colors of Bennetton ad.
Thank you DS. It is one of those WTF thoughts. “It’s so crazy, it just might work!”
I think if immigrants are charged wtih protecting the border, they would have even greater civic pride.
Great response to zak, BTW.
rwxsfgh meywbtc kham xgjn gtqviazsc zmonjkf gonv
rwxsfgh meywbtc kham xgjn gtqviazsc zmonjkf gonv