The home of the free... and legal
And now for yet another Immigration Debate Post!
As I was trolling various news sources this morning, I stumbled upon this gem. (free registration is required). Some Latino pop stars "chose to re-record 'The Star-Spangled Banner' to show [their] solidarity with the undocumented immigrants and their quest for basic civil rights," said UBO (Urban Box Office, a Latin music-oriented record label), President Adam Kidron.
I find this particular quote and this particular quest quite fascinating for the questions both immediately raise in my mind:
1. Why would those who emigrated to America via legal means want to support those who made it here via illegal means? Why would someone want to enable "cheating" after reaching the goal the tougher way?
2. Is the Civil Rights Movement an apt metaphor for the current immigration debate?
In everything I've read, it appears that illegal aliens (I love the evolution of that term to the nicer-sounding "guest workers" or "undocumented immigrants") striving for "civil rights" fail to comprehend that the notion of "civil rights" relies upon citizenship status. In the 1960s, scores of African-Americans in the South who were full-fledged citizens of the United States were denied their civil rights under Jim Crow. In my book, this an entirely different ballgame. This isn't the only article to attempt to construct a parallel between the two...
As I was trolling various news sources this morning, I stumbled upon this gem. (free registration is required). Some Latino pop stars "chose to re-record 'The Star-Spangled Banner' to show [their] solidarity with the undocumented immigrants and their quest for basic civil rights," said UBO (Urban Box Office, a Latin music-oriented record label), President Adam Kidron.
I find this particular quote and this particular quest quite fascinating for the questions both immediately raise in my mind:
1. Why would those who emigrated to America via legal means want to support those who made it here via illegal means? Why would someone want to enable "cheating" after reaching the goal the tougher way?
2. Is the Civil Rights Movement an apt metaphor for the current immigration debate?
In everything I've read, it appears that illegal aliens (I love the evolution of that term to the nicer-sounding "guest workers" or "undocumented immigrants") striving for "civil rights" fail to comprehend that the notion of "civil rights" relies upon citizenship status. In the 1960s, scores of African-Americans in the South who were full-fledged citizens of the United States were denied their civil rights under Jim Crow. In my book, this an entirely different ballgame. This isn't the only article to attempt to construct a parallel between the two...
posted by Melanie @ 1:35 PM
26 Comments:
The two responses I would have are...
First, while I'm sure that there are some of us can trace back our ancestry through the legal American documentations, I'm also equally sure that a lot of us can't. It wasn't just a perfect streak of legal, documented immigration until the Mexicans wanted in, but we naturally assume that our ancesters were all on the up-and-up because, well, they just had to be didn't they? That kind of xenophobic self-righteousness really disturbs me for some reason.
Secondly, I'm seeing more and more the tendency to view the illegal aliens as the ones exploiting the American way of life, instead of the ones being horrifically exploited by it. At the very least, there's blood on everyone's hands, but I have a feeling that the U.S. is getting by far the better end of the stick.
This isn't to say thatthis isn't a problem to be solved, but rather to say that alot of people (read: the right wing) have used the racial lines of this to make it into an us-versus-them problem. And while that may help to win elections, it does nothing to fix a broken system when we need them as much as they need us.
Howdy, all. I've got two hours to myself this evening, so I thought I would ease back into the blogoverse with a comment on this post. I should be back to something resembling 'full speed' by this time next week.
1) Pascals, I think you're misinterpreting what was meant by the question "why should legal immigrants help illegals?" In the context of the article Boudicca linked, this is a question restricted to the Latino community and its showings of "solidarity."
She wasn't asking "why should we
white-and-therefore-legal people help these brown-and-therefore-illegal people?" But rather, "Why are these legal Latinos (again, the context of the link) helping people cut ahead in line - the same line they themselves stood in patiently?"
You were correct to call instinctive white privilege (a strawman though it may be in this case) "xenophobic self-righteousness." Might I get a similarly strong condemnation from you if this is a case of legal Latino immigrants encouraging illegal Latino aliens to break the laws of their adopted country simply because of a racial-ethnic bond?
2) Yes, of course businesses in the United States are getting the better end of the stick with respect to illegals. We've all heard the arguments - not to be discussed in depth here - that our economy needs illegal labor because no Americans will take the jobs. Well, let's be frank about it, then! Let's just say
"We want these people to have some legal status so we can legalize their transient serfdom! God knows Good Americans (tm) can't be counted on to do these horrible jobs at horrible wages."
I resent the implication that only the "right wing" (that amorphous villain that takes many guises to suit the need!) is exploiting this issue on a "blood and soil" basis. Both parties are pretty craven here, on pretty much every count you can muster. How many times have you heard the phrase "Latino vote" uttered with regard to this debate? A pox on both houses!
But for a moment, let me address the idea that closed border types are closet anti-Mexican racists. I mean, why else would they be so concerned about the border with Mexico? To ask this question is to ignore the obvious fact: Mexico is a much poorer nation than us by every metric and we have a largely unguarded border. To say that paying attention to this fact is "us-versus-them" thinking and (by implication) racist is absurd. I mean, is it 'racist' and 'Anti-Arab' to assume that citizens of Saudi Arabia more to do with 9-11 than those of Norway? No, it's a plain reading of the facts.
The real problem here (aside from our anemic defense of our own border and laws) is that Mexico is poor. Very poor. So how do we fix that?
A further comment, and then I'm out for the remainder of the week:
In response to Boudicca's point #2, no, the Civil Rights Movement is not an apt metaphor. "Civil" means citizens, and that is precisely what illegals are not. For more on this, please read my post here, wherein I talk about the effect of illegal immigration on our fellow citizens, African-American in particular.
Tac, I deliberately left parties out of this, as a response to the sudden diversification in the Republican party, where as much as I may disagree with some members, it would be excessively ignorant of me to demonize the whole. It was Republicans and Democrats alike who've been working to solve this problem responsibly (for instance, getting rid of the felony provision.) What angers me is those who would present the issue as Americans vs. illegals for political gain, when that approach is not only broadly simplistic, but also fails to provide justice, bolster national security, or resolve the economic issue. All it does is create another enemy to prey on the nightmares of thew working class, and while I won't blame the GOP as a whole for that, that is a pretty distinctly right wing tactic at this day in age.
Granted, the inverse could be considered just as disingenuous, which is of course the point of the original post. If it's insidious for one side to divide along racial lines (implicit as it may be) then why is it not just as insidious for the other side to unite along those racial lines to oppose them? Because it is in response to the original division, is why. This is where the civil right movement analogy come into play. In the '60s, what did a Hatian immigrant in the Bronx and the grandson of a former slave in Mississippi really have in common, save for the color of their skin? And yet they stood together out of an understanding of the brotherhood of humanity being valued over other, smaller factions, and they knew that if they held out long enough, that eventually the rest of the colors of society would come around as well. This is largely what the immigrant issue is about, especially from the view of the hispanics, is their social relegation to second-class citizens (the legal ones, I mean) and worse for those who are here illegally, but still performing crucial jobs. And we can crow about our borders all we want, and about how those who aren't citizens don't get civil rights, and we'd be right, but for what purpose? What is gained?
As an American citizen born from legal immigrants, I'll answer the questions below of what my family thinks and I believe a majority of legal immigrants think.
1. Why would those who emigrated to America via legal means want to support those who made it here via illegal means? Why would someone want to enable "cheating" after reaching the goal the tougher way?
We all understand that these people are coming here to work hard and make a decent living not afforded to them in their home country. We recognize that a decent amount of resources are needed just to get in line under the current immigration system. It effectively discriminates towards the wealthy or highly educated where as the people that are undocumented have nearly zero resources available to go through this process. It’s not just “tougher”, its virtually impossible for these people to currently enter this country legally and so with no options, no chances of opportunity at home, and nothing to lose, they bet it all to enter into America and make ends meet. We are the land of oppurtunity and everyone in the world knows it. People talk about how poorly they get paid working here, but honestly, it’s significantly better than what they will get back home, that’s why they work hard and take the jobs no one else wants.
2. Is the Civil Rights Movement an apt metaphor for the current immigration debate?
I think the Civil Rights Movement was about ensuring that people were treated fairly and humanely. Right now the immigration process isn’t administered in a fair manner at all. It’s a loose metaphor I agree, but they can’t vote in this country though they pay taxes.
Glad to have you on board, Ernesto! It's always nice to see new commenters are taking an interest in our little parcel of the blogosphere. Yet I must disagree with you (somewhat).
I am very sympathetic to the difficulties faced by people trying to come to America. Yes, their countries of origin are often far worse and yes, America may be their only way to a successful future. But let me say again: that is not the issue! I am not disputing the fact that our immigration process is slow and at times unfair, nor am I disputing the basic fact that it needs reform.
Indeed, if we were having a discussion about readjusting our immigration 'quotas' and naturalization process to reflect who chooses to come to America and why, I suspect that we would all be on the same side. But that is not what we are discussing.
We are talking about granting illegal aliens - hardworking they may be, I do not dispute it - a preferential place in the legal immigration line. We are talking about creating a program of 'guest workers,' similar to a European model which has done nothing but breed alienation, contempt, and even violent outrage.
Turning slightly to the Civil Rights question. You say the ideal is basic fairness. I disagree: the ideal from the start was to claim legal rights which were being denied through illegal means. MLK was asking for his rights as an American, rights owed to him in the Constitution but unjustly denied. That was a gross injustice.
But how is the current situation - the desire to obtain legal rights (citizenship, etc) through illegal means (e.g., crossing the border/ocean in violation of current U.S. law) - analogous? Are we honestly saying it is an inherent right of everyone, everywhere to become a U.S. citizen on terms of their choosing, regardless of our own citizenship laws?
Everything has to be viewed through the prism of citizenship. I think, in that regard, the struggle for same-sex marriage is more analogous to the 1960s civil rights effort. Here are citizens who are being denied the right to marry (or civil partner rights, etc...) simply owing to an accident of birth. Now that's a civil rights issue, because they are citizens.
Let me ask this of readers, then: in your view, under what conditions should people become American citizens? What does being an American citizen mean? What rights should resident non-citizens have? Why?
(here's teh version without typos)
So, like the illegal aliens, can we just ignore the laws we want to? Really, I see a lot of potential in this.
Like someone can come into my store and ask for a cd and I can cut open their neck with a box cutter and then at the trial I can say it was civil disobedience. This is awesome. I can't wait. I've been itchin' to start the cullings for quite some time now.
While Mike ignores the possibility that legality and morality might not be the same thing, and that sometimes laws need to evolve to best benefit a society, I'll move onto the guest worker idea.
While Cato and Prometheus are right about America not maintaining the same ethnic borders as European nations do (and considering that the U.S. was founded, like, five minutes ago in the grand scheme of things, on the backs of slaves, isn't that a hell of a thing?) that's not the only problem with the guest worker program. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that it looks to me suspiciously like a shiny happy exoneration for sweatshops. And the reason I think that is because (A) it's a Bush plan, which means it's weighted towards big business profits, and (B) that's how it's already working in Saipan. Now I have nothing against big business profits, but when they're attained through illicit and exploitative means, it's not worth it. Saipan is a great example.
Saipan, the largest of the Northern Mariana Islands, enjoys a full deregulation of labor laws, while still remaining a United States Commonwealth. This means that Walmart and it's ilk can pay their factory workers pennies an hour and still say "made in the USA.' And pass the savings onto us! It's a favorite spot for Chinese immigration traffickers to send unskilled emmigrants, because the way the laws are set up there allows for indentured servitude, so the immigrants pay the traffickers thousands of dollars to work sixteen hour days and live in factory barracks, and are stuck there for decades in order to pay off the debt, at which point theyonly need to go through all of it again to pay for passage the hell away from the Mariana Islands. Ah! Land of opportunity! And yet somehow this system has led to forced underage prostitution, among other things, where the rights of the employer to exploit are considered to have more weight than those of the immigrant to, you know, not have to choose between turning tricks at twelve years old or being beaten and shipped back to China.
Now granted, most Americans dont think about this sort of thing happening on U.S. soil, in accordance with U.S. laws, and that's largely how the sweatshop managers are able to get away with it. As such, it probably wouldn't get that far in Orange County, but that's a line I'm not very comfortable approaching. The problem that illegals face, first and foremost, isn't getting caught by the border guards, but rather the expolitation at the hands of unscrupulous employers once they get here, which is still better than the no work at home. Guest worker programs will allow the businesses to legally continue their exploitation, while guaranteeing that the "guests" won't enjoy the same rights as citizens. It is, in reality, far worse for them.
My solution - two years mandatory civil service for all citizens. I've discussed this before, but the idea would have every citizen - generally when they turn eighteen - spend two years in paid service to the U.S. This could be military, if they so chose, or in any other capacity that could help the country, and they would learn skills as they did so, after which they can go into college or vocation or what have you. There would be no exemptions from this. Immigrants would have to do the same thing, but with a special department set up to best place their skills, teach them English, and so on, so that when the service is done (during which time the immigrant is still providing for his family) he has the best chance of making something of himself in America.
Let me get back to some earlier housekeeping. No, I am not "missing the point" about why people come here. I urge you to re-read these following two paragraphs of mine:
""I am very sympathetic to the difficulties faced by people trying to come to America. Yes, their countries of origin are often far worse and yes, America may be their only way to a successful future. But let me say again: that is not the issue! I am not disputing the fact that our immigration process is slow and at times unfair, nor am I disputing the basic fact that it needs reform.
Indeed, if we were having a discussion about readjusting our immigration 'quotas' and naturalization process to reflect who chooses to come to America and why, I suspect that we would all be on the same side. But that is not what we are discussing.""
At no point have I said people are coming here just to screw us over. They want a better life. I know that and you know that. In that regard, as I've said before, we have to change our immigration laws to streamline the process for everyone. If that means more legal immigrants from 'controversial' Mexico, that's fine.
But the elephant in the room (and the nation) is the 12+ million illegal aliens who are already here. I think Mike was making a bit of an absurdist point when he said "oh cool, we don't need to follow laws," but the grain of truth is still there. If we grant amnesty or guest-worker-ness to millions who broke our laws, we're basically saying it's okay to break those particular laws.
Don't believe me? In the 1980s, Reagan followed a similar policy and granted a de facto amnesty to some 2-3 million illegals. Since this was not backed by any change in enforcement or general policy, all that happened was people felt the laws could be ignored. Now we have nearly five times the illegal population. What happens if we grant them a similar deal without changing our laws? Any guesses?
In a related vein, Cato said it was totally understandable - and indeed, admirable - that legal immigrants are supporting their illegal brethren. I quote: ""In the case of legal immigrants, illegal immigrants are often their friends, family and neighbors. They share common cultural bonds, a common first language, and often blood. Many of them know very well how difficult it is to move to a new country, and work to help others enjoy the benefits that they have. Add to that the fact that the hysterically anti-immigrant brigade (hell, that's the wrong word, nativists is better) want to make it a felony to be an illegal immigrant.""
So let me get this straight. When citizens choose ethnic bonds and ties of kinship with foreign nationals over the law of land, this is praiseworthy, even in an issue that I think we agree involves some degree of national sovereignty. But when citizens seek the enforcement of that law, this is (variously) 'xenophobia,' 'right-wing,' 'hysterically anti-immigrant,' and 'nativist.'
One more thing on this particular idea. I was asked if I think people have more or fewer rights depending on where they were born. Of course I do! I don't think I have the civil rights to vote in Germany or claim Swedish welfare benefits. These are properly rights of citizenship, which certainly differ from country to country. You can't be saying that everyone in the world has the right to be legally viewed as an American citizen (with all due rights) regardless of whether they are one, are you?
Now for the shocker: I agree with Pascals about the guest worker program! Here's the dilemma: if this program leads to citizenship, we're basically saying there's a handy extra-legal way to become a citizen- just hop the border illegally and apply! If it doesn't, we have a servant class with no chance of joining the team. Just like Europe.
Prometheus beat me to it. But some pre-lunch rambling anyway.
Laws and crimes aren't equal and we've never acted like they are, which is why we have felonies and misdemeanors, afterall. Moreover, some laws are considered to carry less weight morally and with less a stigma attached to breaking them (I sincerely doubt I'm the only one here who didn't wait until 21 to drink). And some laws are eventually considered so immoral that it becomes an obligation to break them (Jim Crow, which was originally perfectly fine and Constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896). So now we have an entire system that's based on a process considered immoral by many (weighted towards those with resources already), while the taboo of breaking such laws has eroded (with Reagan's amnesty passed, why not wait for the next round of amnesty?), and in a climate where the trip to El Norte has increasingly become one-way (hence the higher number of deaths in trying to reach the land of opportunity), making it easier for an immigrant - both legal and illegal - to rationalize the idea of circumventing a flawed and immoral immigration process. At the end of the day, the fact that the current immigration process is broken remains a key reason why legal immigrants sympathize with illegals (and so agrees my favorite legal immigrant).
And here comes the day of solidarity. I'm ready to be entertained.
Per the original source of my post: I held off on any commentary on the appropriateness or lack thereof of singing the National Anthem in Spanish. I actually see no problem with it. But then again, I don't really listen to lyrics. Singing in Spanish to me is simply changing the orchestration of the piece.
President Bush doesn't agree.
Wow... the National Anthem comment seems politically ill-advised, at best. You can refer to my post above to see that I favor English language programs for immigrants - it's in their own best interrest as a job skill - but for the president to disavow A Spanish language recording of a song that honrs America is very similar to saying that Spanish as a language isn't good enough for America. And when the Spanish language is a large part of the ethnic identity for the most sought-after political demographic, that seems like a signal to give up on them. Honestly, who would Bush have offended by saying, "I think it's great when any American chooses to honor their country in this way, regardless of language."
This is my favorite part of the article about the national anthem - "After all, (the producer) notes, American immigrants borrowed the melody of the 'Star Spangled Banner' from an English drinking song." Nothing says True American like a bunch of drunken Brits
It's all part of Bush's inability to placate both sides in this debate.
Here he manages to piss off both:
1) By calling for a guest-worker program, he pisses off the 'defend the border' crowd;
2) By mysteriously saying Spanish sucks, he pisses off the people he's wooing with the guest-worker program.
He's managed to annoy me on both counts, that for sure. I'm totally against the guest-worker program (as you know), but jeeez, sing the anthem in whatever language you want. Be as ironic as you want singing it, too! Change the lyrics to anti-American drivel! I may think it's ridiculous, but hey, that's the whole First Amendment thing...
"Battle Hymn of the Republic" is way better, anyway.
In the end these people are probably going to be allowed to stay if only because finding them and deporting would take so much time and money.
And also because giving in is so much easier.
I love how the strength of men has so totally failed.
And maybe the fact that we'd be breaking up numerous families and likely orphaning millions of their American children that were born here should also be a factor. It certainly doesn't sound all that American to me.
I love how people seem to assume that strength without sympathy should be a virtue.
But Tacitean raised a good point earlier (actually, he often raises good points - especially regarding "Battle Hymn"). Mexico is poor and a place of great inequality. Why? And how does that get fixed?
Part of the trouble is our own doing. While I'm all for expanding free trade, NAFTA screwed over a large portion of poor Mexicans that were dependent on growing and selling corn, a crop that we subsidize and kowtow to every year (thank you Iowa Caucus). And there's no way you can defend our agricultural subsidies as free trade. Which is why tt's no coincidence that the Zapatistas of Chiapas chose the day NAFTA was signed for the start of their rebellion.
There’s a good piece in the NYTimes Magazine on how we’ve always produced too much corn here.
. And it’d nicely tie into our FAT WARS discussion, too.
Cato, my prediction is that - in practice - the guest worker program will do more to protect factory-owners' ability to run their sweatshops than it will do to secure any legal rights of recourse to the guest workers. The deal will end up something like this: We let you come in and work here legally, as a guest, and then you provide us with next-to-free labor. I might be wrong, and I hpoe that I am, but if there's one thing we can learn from politicians in general, and Bush in particular, it's to follow the money.
As for the "servent class" question, I direct you to a line from Arrested Development, "A sea of waiters and no one will take a drink order!" If hispanics aren't already being treated as a servent class in the U.S., then why is that line as shockingly funny as it is?
Actually, Bookie, I'd argue that as registered and governmentally sanctioned guestworkers, the position of numerous hispanics will improve. I sincerely doubt we're simply going to toss out the minimum wage laws of individual states. And as they will no longer have to fear being deported, hispanic guestworkers will be able to come forward and report abuses as they occur. However, as things stand now, it's not at all uncommon for an illegal worker to left with no recourse. Sure, he or she could step forward and report the sweatshop conditions but then they can look forward to a return trip to Mexico for their trouble because, as an illegal, they are left with the least amount of right and are, thus, easier to victimize. But as an invited guestworker, they can bring attention to the worst conditions without fear of deportation. The net result should be a bit more sunshine and better conditions.
As far as public support for minimum wage laws, there's an excellent article here in regards to fairly broad public support for some sort of minimum wage as a compelling moral issue.
Pascals,
Do you remember that scene in the movie "The Rocketeer," where the gangsters and the cops - enemies throughout the whole movie - are both shooting at the Nazis, and they look at each other for a second, shrug their shoulders and smile, and then keep shooting at the Nazis? That's what it feels like when we agree on stuff! I love it! And no, I'm not implying anyone is a cop, gangster or Nazi. Anyway...
I still maintain that the "guest worker" idea is fatally flawed. It may look nice on paper, but it can't survive a real-world test. I will use two hypotheticals to demonstrate my point.
1) The "guest worker" program is instituted as a pathway to citizenship. As a result, 12+ million illegals are given de facto amnesty and preferential treatment over the millions more who have chosen to become citizens in the legal and painstakingly long fashion. Tell me how that will do anything to stop millions more from entering the country illegally.
2) The "guest worker" program is instituted and is not a pathway to citizenship. Well, now we have the delightful servant class Pascals has mentioned above. That is, a group that can only stay in the United States so long as they do the most menial jobs at wages no American would take (probably minimum wage or so). At least, that's the idea. What happens when they are laid off? Do they quietly go back to their country of origin, or do they apply for benefits? What if the benefits are a better deal than picking cabbage for ten hours in the hot sun? And so you could have a European-style situation with jobless non-citizens (who can never be citizens) feeling 'entitled' to the benefits of American society without being told to assimilate. In fact, since they can't be citizens, they'd probably fight assimilation anyway. And knowing our record for enforcing our current laws, I can only imagine what kind of terrible job we would do with guest workers staying past their welcome and living off our generosity.
I may be accused of being overly pessimistic in viewing this issue and our possible responses to it. Good! Before the government creates a new program or tackles a problem, we owe it to ourselves to look at the worst possible outcome. At the very least, it will give us a more realistic assessment than "oh, everything will be fine if we just push this button here."
In recent years, the latter type of thinking has certainly been in vogue. We didn't consider the worst-case scenario in invading Iraq; we didn't consider the worst-case scenario in creating the Medicare drug benefit; we didn't consider the worst-case scenario in creating the Homeland Security Department to the detriment of FEMA; and I fear we're not considering the worst-case scenario in this push for guest workers.
I am already bracing for responses that say I simply don't care about the plight of those who would leave their country, because I am a native-born American citizen of suitable means and can't identify. Let me say this line of thinking is a red herring and a straw man. A straw herring, if you like. The debate is not "I like these poor people and you hate them." The debate is "How can we solve the problem of America's porous border? How can the flow of people between Mexico and the United States be regularlized?"
Indeed, all the compassion in the universe would be useless if the state of Mexican society remains in shambles. That's the root cause. Feeling 'bad' for their citizens and passing ill-conceived laws won't fix that. As Baker Carr said above, the subsidization of American agriculture doesn't help - and need I remind you that subsidies were instituted because we 'felt bad' for the poor 'American farmer,' and mutated into the current villainy? - and Mexico's low supply of high-skilled labor means their wages will be low and they will not attract the jobs of the future. And now they've found that China can always out-cheap them when it come sto wages. Seventy-plus years of socialism probably didn't help any, either.
All of these things have to taken into account before we decide to change our immigration laws and border control. Will they actually help the situation in America and the Mexican economy and nation in the long run, or will they hurt it? I just can't see how a guest worker program can help.
In all of this immigration debate, I can't help but think that all of the efforts to give illegal aliens their basic human rights and possibly some government-granted civil rights will ultimately be detrimental to the current lower-class in America. I'm sure that many of those people lost jobs when employers realized they could pay illegals under the table for less.
I also find it increasingly difficult to stomach the idea that illegals do "the jobs Americans won't do," possibly because I have not yet given up on the American people. Paying wages commensurate to the work would definitely encourage more Americans to do the work.
As with so many other issues, I believe we really need to focus on what's happening to Americans before concerning ourselves with the plight of others. Speaking of considering "worst-case scenarios," has anyone given any thought to what will become of America's lower-class with the addition of a guest worker program?
Here's a retired Democratic Congressman who seems to agree in large part with what Boudicca says.
Money quote:
"For Democrats, fighting illegal immigration would not only be good policy, but would have the welcome effect of being good politics, too. Democrats' major political obstacle is the increasingly intractable opposition of the non-union working and middle class, exactly the groups who most fervently oppose illegal immigration. While the opponents of immigration no doubt include nativists and xenophobes, the vast majority of those who oppose illegal immigration do so on sound public policy grounds. Illegal immigration is seen rightly as a threat to their economic livelihood. So when the Republican Party offers a platform that not only comports with their social and religious beliefs, but also addresses the one economic threat that is open to government solution, is there any wonder that the working and middle classes find solace in the GOP?"
Cato,
"Why can't more people come here? The argument rests on the idea that we can't encourage more people wanting to come here. Well, why not?"
I am all in favor of more people coming here. I am not asking the U.S. to shut down legal immigration and prevent a Pakistani grad student (for example) from coming here to study at Columbia. To stop legal immigration would be ridiculous. My concern, as I have stated, is the message we send when we let illegals into the process without even a hint of sanction. If we don't follow our respect our own immigration laws, why should we expect anyone else to? And you believe that immigration to America should involve some modicum of order, this should be a concern. If you would like the borders to be completely unmonitored and open, then it should not be a concern, I guess.
Re: "Tacitean not getting it." I'm sorry, but what we're describing is cutting in line. I fully understand there are reasons why they can't get in line in the first place, mind you. That is not lost on me. Let me use this analogy:
There's a line to get into a nice restaurant. On the door of the restaurant is a very simple yet forceful sign that says "former attire required." Anyone not wearing formal attire will be turned away at the door. Everyone who's wearing the attire is waiting very patiently. However, some people dressed in jeans and a t-shirt find a side entrance, get in, and seat themselves at the nearest table. The head waiter finds that they have snuck in, but lets them sit. In fact, he takes their order and serves them. The owner comes over, finds out that they've snuck in the side entrance and flouted the dress code. He decides to let them stay, too, on the condition that they put on these nice jackets he bought for them.
Just because you're not allowed to get in the line in the first place doesn't mean you're not cutting.
Again, the real question to ask is whether our current quota system is fair (that is, should you have to wear formal attire to get in the restaurant? Is that fair to people who can't afford it?) and reflects the current global immigration situation. That's the debate to have. But in the meantime, I would really prefer that we pretend our laws mean something.
And for the record, yes, I know people who have expressed frustration because they've gone through the rigamarole and had to wait while other people who have avoided the rules may be rewarded. One of those people is my next-door neighbor, in fact.
Finally, the idea that we simply "can't deal" with all the illegals. The nation that fought the world's greatest empire to win its freedom, fought a bloody Civil War to preserve itself and in so doing freed the slaves, overcame a Great Depression, conquered Nazi tyranny and defeated Imperial Japanese barbarism, mastered the atom, vanquished Communism, and invented rock and roll... can't bother to put a few more cops on INS duty to check documents and deport people? Eh?
Thanks, Cato. Nice to see not even your birthday kept you away.
Just wanted to hop on here to address the economic points that Boudicca brought up above, especially in regards to wages and workers displaced by immigrants, as, yes, some of us have given it some thought. According to our friends at The Economist and their "Myths and Migration" article, "immigration, in the long run, has had only a small negative effect on the pay of America's least skilled and even that is arguable." They reach this conclusion by referencing several studies, including that of Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, whose assessment The Economist summarizes thusly: "even within the same skill category, immigrants and natives need not be perfect substitutes...the two groups tend to end up in different jobs. Mexicans are found in gardening, housework and construction, while low-skilled natives dominate other occupations, such as logging. Taking this into account...between 1980 and 2000[,] immigration pushed down the wages of American high-school drop-outs by at most 0.4%."
John Tierney of The NYTimes draws upon these and other studies in his piece, "Sense and Sandwiches," including that of Patrica Cortes and her finding that "the low-skilled immigration wave of the 1990s increased the purchasing power of high-skilled natives living in the 25 largest cities by 0.65 percent but decreased the purchasing power of native high school dropouts by 2.66 percent." So it seems that the economic argument that immigrants naturally replace native-born low-skilled workers and, thus, significantly lower their wages is not entirely fullproof. In fact, there seems to be something to Tierney's claim that "To the extent that anyone's hurt by immigration, the burden falls not so much on the people complaining the loudest — American-born workers — but on the immigrants who are already here. The new immigrants have a harder time competing for jobs against English-speaking natives than against fellow immigrants."
And as for your neighbor's frustration, I know people who have "gone through the rigamarole and had to wait while other people who have avoided the rules may be rewarded" - two of them are my parents, many more are their friends, and they support the idea of expanding immigration numbers, creating a guest worker program, and adopting some form of amnesty. Nor do any of them think that new immigrants significantly reduce wages for the native-born but that they instead are hard-working in their dedication to do the jobs many Americans won't. My parents, in particular, would like you to note that it's not as if unemployment is particularly high right now, either (feel free to ignore them, I often do). Oh, and they'd like to point out that the restaurant analogy works better if it's rewritten so that the only option for many of the people who snuck into the restaurant is waiting outside in the cold and hungrily rooting thru the trash (and that the service they get when they do sneak inside is subpar compared to those who waited, too).
Admittedly the restaurant metaphor was not perfect, but I trust its intent is still fairly clear.
And I do have one question relative to the economics (excellent stats, by the way; thanks for the inclusion):
"Taking this into account...between 1980 and 2000[,] immigration pushed down the wages of American high-school drop-outs by at most 0.4%."
Does this mean that wages were 0.4% lower than they would have been otherwise, or wages declined 0.4% over the whole period? I trust it's the former, but just want to make sure.
So everyone looking forward to tonight's immigration speech and the talk of placing thousands of National Guard troops on the border? While I don't like the idea of such actions, I can appreciate the political necessity, which is in line with Peter Baker's analysis that "Tonight's speech is aimed at assuaging House Republicans who have insisted on tougher enforcement measures against workers illegally in the country. If the House contingent feels action is being taken, White House officials hope they may yet sign off on some version of Bush's guest-worker proposal, which would provide a way for undocumented immigrants to stay here legally if they pay back taxes and penalties." I sincerely wish such things weren't required but I don't know how else the President can round up more votes in the House (although, he'll have to parry comments that this further strains an exhausted military) Sausage-making is never pretty, I suppose.
Earlier in the discussion, Tacitean invoked the not-so-great Brad Carson of Oklahoma and his analysis that: "For Democrats, fighting illegal immigration would not only be good policy, but would have the welcome effect of being good politics, too." Carson has a point in that Americans want stronger enforcement of the border. But should the Democrats overplay that theme without simultaneously allowing for some form of amnesty or guest-worker program, they will only hurt their long-term prospects. Nixon's Southern Strategy was at least forward-looking but much of Carson's rhetoric flies in the face of current demographic trends. Hispanics "accounted for 49 percent of the country's growth from 2004 to 2005...and the increase in young children is largely a Hispanic story, driving 70 percent of the growth in children younger than 5." Alienating tomorrow's Hispanic voters - many of whom are the children of illegal immigrants - would be a strategic error for either party. Ahora marchamos, mañana votamos.
And Tacitean, apologies for the late response (vacation called), but wages were indeed a mere 0.4% lower for American high-school drop-outs because of immigration according to that study. By far, earlier waves of immigrants were most hurt economically by subsequent immigration. And Patricia Cortes earlier mentioned study is especially persuasive in arguing that non-native and native-born low-skilled workers are not easily viewed as substitutes and, thus, are often found working in different areas.
Post a Comment
<< Home