May 22, 2006

Perm the Temps

Hatched by Dafydd

Last Thursday, May 18th, Mark Steyn completely changed my mind about a guest-worker program.

He was being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt (as is Hugh's wont every Thursday), and Steyn made this argument:

HH: Well, since we spoke on Monday night, I've been thinking about your condemnation of guest worker program. And I think that resonates with people, Mark Steyn, as they begin to think about a permanent underclass called in to work. And I think it's ringing a bell that reminds us of Europe.

MS: Well, you don't have to just talk about Europe, where I think it has been a disaster. I mean, you talk about relatively benign societies that don't make the news.

Fiji...a century ago, the British imported, essentially, a guest worker class to Fiji. Indian workers. And what happened was that eventually, the population rose, and I'm quoting off the top of my head here, but it's about like 46, 48 Indians to native Fijians. And as a result, that country has become tribal and profoundly unstable.

[I'm not sure what Steyn is trying to say here; according to the CIA World Factbook, the Fijian population is 51% Fijian, 44% Indian, and 5% Everybody Else. -- the Mgt.]

And if you look at any...even the most benign bi-cultural societies are profoundly unstable.

This is not an immigration issue. When you have up to maybe a fifth of the population of the United States as a special illegal class, mainly from one other society in the world, that is not an immigration issue. Immigration is a quite separate thing.

I would like first to make a big distinction: Steyn referred to a bi-cultural society... not merely a bilingual one. There are a number of stable bilingual societies; Switzerland, for example. But Switzerland is not bi-cultural: the German, French, and Italian cantons of Switzerland are certainly not blowing each other up... but that may be because they are all by and large the same culture: Western European.

If there were a section of Switzerland that was almost exclusively occupied by Bosnians or Kurds, it would be another story.

What Steyn argues is that Mexico's culture is sufficiently different from America's that it is deadly to have a permanent, floating population of people here who think of themselves not as Americans -- not even as proto-Americans -- but as Mexicans in exile.

Who are these foreign nationals? Many are already here illegally, while most are here legally on perpetually renewed work visas. These ex-pats, whom we will call "guest workers," assuredly came here originally just to work. They didn't think of themselves as an invading army of infiltrators.

The problem is what happens to them after they arrive: they are immediately set upon by activists from MEChA and La Raza. These serpents begin whispering fantasies of "Aztlán" into the ears of our (legal or illegal) guests, telling them that everything from deep inside Oregon to the Rio Grande, from Texarkana to the Pacific, is really theirs, it really "belongs to Mexico," and Mexico should "take it back."

(By the way, the word "reconquista," referring to taking back the American Southwest, is generally not used by Chicano activists that I've seen; I think it's a misunderstanding. Chicanos mostly talk about Aztlán; I've only heard reconquista from those opposing them.)

The truly goofy part of this is that Mexico never actually controlled California in any real sense. They claimed they did, following their independence in 1821; and the U.S. went along with the gag (since it didn't concern us at that time). In the mid-1820s, Mexico City started sending governors to the former Spanish colony... but Californios (both Spanish- and English-speaking) simply ignored them, just as they had by and large ignored the colonial governors immediately preceding them: they ran their ranchos, trapped beaver in the Sierras, and lived more or less placidly.

There were also Californios who declared themselves governors of California (also ignored); but the whole thing was up in the air and a big mess... until 1846, when John C. Frémont, with his rag-tag army of mountain men, scouts, and assorted riff-raff, more or less committed the United States to capturing California as part of (pretty much the end of) the Mexican-American War.

There never was any "Aztlán." The mythical idyllic kingdom was seized upon by Chicano activists in the 60s to demand that the United States turn the entire Southwest over to Mexico. In 1969, they formed el Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán -- MEChA -- the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán.

MEChA (and the National Council of La Raza "the race," founded concurrently with MEChA) act as agents provacateurs of Mexican and other Spanish-speaking immigrants (legal or otherwise). But at least an actual immigrant has somewhat of a defense: most immigrants left their home countries and journeyed to America in order to escape tyranny and poverty and find freedom and opportunity.

Telling someone who fled what he considered to be a dreadful life in Mexico that his new home should now be "returned" to Mexico -- the very place he just left! -- is likely to meet with a chilly reception... and indeed, most actual immigrants do not support groups such as MEChA and La Raza.

(Their American-born children, on the other hand, with no memory of the old country and why Mama and Papa left, are another question.)

But consider how different it is when the targets of the agit-prop are not immigrants, who made the choice to become Americans, but rather just imported workers who still think of themselves as Mexicans (or Bolivians or Venezuelans). I think Steyn is arguing -- and if he is, I have come to agree with him -- that such non-Americans may well look around California or New Mexico or Texas and say to themselves, wouldn't it be great if all this just belonged to us? If we didn't have to go work for the gringos to get a piece, but it was just ours by birthright?

From there, it's a short leap to saying, but it already is ours -- the gringos stole it from us!

We have indeed seen this sort of resentful cultural-warfare arise within a permanent underclass of imported workers who are never allowed to become citizens of the host country: most egregiously in France, Denmark, and other European countries. Riots, arson, murder, and even (potentially) acts of mass terrorism flow from just such a disconnect between people and the culture they reside inside.

Even their children are often denied full citizenship, and they tend to become even more radical than their parents.

It's a very good argument, and it has convinced me: I no longer support a "guest worker" program, as the Senate bill (and the president) advocates. But so, too is my own argument a good one: that no wall, no matter how strong, can withstand a million people trying to knock it down to get in.

In my other analogy, I still believe in the "spillway" that allows the dam to stand, rather than being overtopped and then destroyed by the rising flood of water it tries to hold back. So what is the solution?

The solution is to understand that distinction between immigrants and foreign workers: if we must have a spillway -- and we must -- then it should be in the form of an increase in the number of new immigrants we accept. And not just highly educated people (there aren't enough of them); but also those young men with families, men who may never have had much of a chance at an education or training, but who are willing to work... and who believe in the American dream of freedom and opportunity.

Let's allow more permanent immigrants to replace temporary workers. And to facilitate this, we should also waive the minimum-wage laws for new immigrants here on a work visa.

They're not forced to accept low wages; if they have skills and education, they can find better jobs. But let's allow them to accept a low-paying job, if that's all they're qualified for when they first arrive. When they manage to apply for and receive a green card, then they once again fall under the minimum-wage rules; but by then, they really should be doing something better than picking strawberries or cleaning hotel rooms.

(I oppose minimum-wage laws in general for everybody; but that would be utterly impossible to pass through Congress at this point.)

In fact, we should make such education and language skills a requirement for getting permanent residency, except for spouses of American citizens. Make immigrant applicants demonstrate not only knowledge of English, but also make them pass a high-school level examination of basic knowledge, not only in American history and civics but also math, science, and everything else a typical high-school student must master before getting a diploma in forty-nine of the fifty states.

Let the new immigrants take those jobs that "Americans won't perform" (which is actually true; Americans will not, not even at sharply increased wages). Let them take the jobs at the same rates that temporary guests now receive; it's better than no job at all. And make sure they know that if they learn English and get an education, they can certainly find much better jobs... and do a much better job of supporting their families and giving their niños better lives.

But there appears to be great confusion about this among the "movement conservatives." On the one hand, conservatives seem to accept Steyn's basic point: that it's horrifically dangerous to import hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals into America, people with no intention of ever becoming citizens.

But how do we square the Steyn Syllogism with the Kyl amendment, whose defeat was mourned by conservatives across the country? Here is the Washington Post:

The Senate killed an amendment that would have denied a chance for permanent status and eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than five years and to any future immigrants who enter the country under the guest-worker program.

Opponents said the amendment, offered by Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, would have gutted the bipartisan bill that allows guest workers an opportunity to seek permanent residence.

This is insane. Sen. Kyl should have offered an amendment to only admit workers who were applying for "permanent status and eventual citizenship." Kyl has it exactly backwards... and this is one reason why many see conservative opposition to the immigration bill not as solely anti-illegal, but simply anti-immigrant as well.

After all, "future immigrants who enter the country under the guest-worker program" have not necessarily yet broken any American laws. Sure, some folks might have snuck in here earlier, then snuck out again without being caught; but others haven't... and Kyl's amendment does not discriminate between them. He lumps them all together and says none of them, even those who never violated our laws, can come in as guest workers and stay as Americans.

Nor have I seen Kyl or any other conservative propose increasing the number of those admitted as immigrants in lieu of a guest-worker program; typically, they want to eliminate the latter and slash the former to the bone.

The Steyn Syllogism is inarguable, but it implies a very stark choice: either we cripple our economy by starving those businesses that currently depend upon illegal aliens (de facto "guest workers") -- or else we must consciously woo more actual immigrants to American shores by allowing them to work those jobs, even below minimum wage, while they're trying to better themselves such that they can move on up... and make room for the next wave of actual immigrants.

Let's "perm" those temps.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 22, 2006, at the time of 4:08 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/775

Comments

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

Dafydd - if you markedly expand the pace of legal immigration, would you make that open to all-comers or just those coming across the mexican border?

The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 5:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

More often than not I agree with Steyn, but not on this or on his doomsday vision of Europe. I agree that Europe is in big trouble, but Steyn tends to look at the demographis today and assumes that they represent a straight line. Nothing is inevitable and it seems to me that if Europe could survive Ottoman invaders, the Black Death and two world wars then they have a shot at surviving now.

I do support the guest worker program for the present because it allows the workers to be available when they are needed. Certain jobs are seasonal and require a lot of people to do the job when the job is there to be done, but I see no reason that all these people should be forced to be permanent.

BTW, we already have a permanent underclass, just look at the inner cities.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 6:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Ex-Democrat:

Dafydd - if you markedly expand the pace of legal immigration, would you make that open to all-comers or just those coming across the mexican border?

I oppose any and all country-quotas. Set up some standards (make it fairly strict), publish them in advance. Then, as immigrants come (or better, apply from their home countries), those that exceed the standards get in, those that don't are told to try again later, when they can meet the standard.

The standard should be calculated to eventually allow in X number of immigrants per year, where X is a variable set by the USCIS each year.

As the year progresses, keep track of whether you're running ahead, behind, or right on the projection X... and adjust the stringency of the standards accordingly.

Standards would include such categories as family (I would give preference to marrieds with children, because they're more stable), a demonstrated record of working, education, English-language skills, knowledge of America, passing a background check, and so forth.

Some would be just up or down: if you don't pass the criminal background check, you don't get in (except perhaps under the refugee laws, which are different). Others would be sliding scale: you have to obtain a grade of at least some percent on the ESL test. Maybe next year, it will be lower... but maybe it will be higher.

Well, that's what I'd do.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 6:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Terrye:

Certain jobs are seasonal and require a lot of people to do the job when the job is there to be done, but I see no reason that all these people should be forced to be permanent.

You mistake my point.

I don't suggest we take people who want to be temporary and force them to be permanent; I mean we accept in a larger number of people who want to be permanent already, in lieu of letting in people who intend to retain their citizenship and residency in a foreign country.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 6:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

But I think the whole point of the guest worker program is to fill a need when there is a need to fill. In other words, I think we are conflating two seperate issues. It is like people coming in with worker Visas, we do not require them to be permanent.

I am no expert on all this, obviously, but it seems to me that we need to make some compromises and then see how it all works.

Reagan made the point that it is more important to get 75% of what you want and then work on the rest than get nothing. It seems some conservatives have forgotten that. I think we are getting too hung up on some of these things, when the truth is we really do not know how all of it will work until we try.

Today I saw some of those Senators blowing off about how terrible any kind of amnesty program would be, and of course any program allowing permanent status to people here was seen as just that...and I thought to myself, these men have been in the Senate for decades. DECADES, and now all of a sudden life as we know it will cease to exist if we allow these people to stay..so where were these guys years ago? Why weren't they on the floor of the Senate demanding round ups years and years ago before Bush was unfortunate enough to step into the fray today?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 7:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

America needs pruned...simple as that.

Three days into Iraq, and not only was the Democrat Party embarrassed by Bill Clinton's inaction over *EIGHT* Years, the *WHOLE* Democrat's base, as in its constituency was even more embarrassed for having 'vOtEd' for Bill Clinton twice...so to speak.

Something had to be done!!! Thusly, the Democrat Party's *OWN* MSM started claiming that American Troops were "bogged down in Iraq", in order to aide Saddam and other enemies of America.

America needs pruned...simple as that.

Saddam and Osama gambled that Al "Global Warming" Gore would win in 2000, and that their prediction would be proved correct. BTW, Al, has your dumb liberal socialist arse ever heard of the Ice Ages...both major and minor ones?!?!? Al, what caused any Ice Age to go away??? Difficult question, huh, you dummy!!!!!!!

America needs pruned...simple as that.

John Kerry almost said it best...almost, whilst he struggled to quote CHINGIS KHAN or whatever; however, this Genghis Khan said it best:

"A man's greatest work is to break his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all the things that have been theirs, to hear the weeping of those who cherished them, to take their horses between his knees and to press in his arms, the most desirable of their women."

Let the Democrats try to make peace with the likes of a Saddam or a Osama or a KIM Jong Il again, and America will not only be pruned, but America as we know it will cease to exist. Hey, i am all for whatever it takes to rid America of such weak males as Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, and etcetera...etcetera...etcetera. i am more patient than any Muslim/Arab/Islamist ever imagined such to be, and shall wait for them, here on our own shores, even after the pruning. Yes, the Muslim/Arab/Islamist world will need help from the Communists and America's Liberals, but i don't really care who dares to show up after the pruning.

Just for starters: America needs pruned...simple as that,

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 7:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

By the way, the word "reconquista," referring to taking back the American Southwest, is generally not used by Chicano activists that I've seen; I think it's a misunderstanding. Chicanos mostly talk about Aztlán; I've only heard reconquista from those opposing them.)

El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.

We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent

Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán.

For La Raza to do. Fuera de La Raza nada.

You are correct they did not use the word reconquista, but as to some supposed "misunderstanding" is the above and what follows it anything except a Declaration of
Revolutionary War?

I mean Bin Laden was pretty clear in his Fatwas what His aims were, I give Mecha and La Raza the same credence, I think they mean what they preach.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 9:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Federico Rangel, a University of Colorado graduate student and MEChA officer, said most students view Aztlan as part of their history, not as a rallying cry for revolution. "Aztlan isn't what people say it is, like the reconquista," said Mr. Rangel, who carried a MEChA sign at Monday's rally. "It's a spiritual homeland to Chicanos."

And Jihad as we have been told so often is an internal spiritual struggle and not genocidal bloodshed?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 9:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dan Kauffman:

Dan, I didn't say people in MEChA don't support the concept of seizing the American Southwest and handing it over to Mexico. I said it was a misunderstanding to believe -- as Hugh Hewitt and many others believe -- that the word they use to describe that is "reconquista."

The Reconquista refers to kicking the Moors out of Spain.

The signs the MEChA protesters carry read "Aztlán," not "reconquista." That's the only misunderstanding I meant. Not the concept. Just the specific word they use.

¿Comprendes?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 10:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Oh then I did misunderstand you

when you said "referring to taking back the American Southwest"

I assumed you meant the "concept" they certainly talk about that a lot.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 10:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Abject appoliogies they DO reject the concept of reconquista
http://billstclair.com/ferran/aztlan.html
"The term 'reconquista' is being used strategically
by the ruling class (Democrats and Republicans) to
brand our claim on the return of our land as an 'act
of conquest,' versus an 'act of liberation.'
Basically, this covers up the fact that people can't
conquer what is theirs - they liberate it. It
attempts to turn history upside down by painting
Mexicanos as invaders,

PS it wasn't ever theirs they conquered it in the first place, you don't liberate what you have previously conquered.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 11:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: jc

Steyn's comment on Fiji is interesting because of the contrasts it shows up.

In Fiji, the British colonists worked very hard to hold the land and institutions "in trust" to the native fijians. Thus an Indian immigrant couldn't buy land but must rent it. And the Indians did that with a vengence, they rented land and made it profitable and paid pretty big rents to the Fijians who did little work.
Today, these two races remain apart and antagonistic.

In Hawaii I see a different approach. The colonists made it easier for immigrants to own land and participate in the society as some level. The result is greater mixing of the races and a vibrant economy.

Here in New Zealand the Europeans had mixed objectives, but assimilation won the day, to the point where there are no pure blood Maori, they are mostly around three quarters European (Pakeha).

Assimilation might be a swear word since the 50s and decolonization, but if done early enough it makes for a more harmonious society.

I've no idea what's going to happen along the US/Mexico border, but I'm pretty sure that some form of partnership/assimilation has to occur in the long term. That probably means controlling legal and illegal immigration for a generation.. and probably recognising that Mexico is in a form of war with the US.

JC

The above hissed in response by: jc [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 3:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: Harold C. Hutchison

I'm not convinced by Steyn's argument. I think that there is a need for a program for temporary workers - albeit, only in the event that we are unable to get permanent residents to arrive, and our need for labor still exists.

Think of it as another spillway. The dirty little secret is that we have quotas that are too low. I find it interesting that many people oppose the notion of trying to create legal avenues. It's almost as if it's not just illegal immigration that they have a problem with.

The above hissed in response by: Harold C. Hutchison [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 3:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

It seems to me that a lot of people on the right have become indifferent to or bored with the war on Terror. Because of this boredom they are casting about looking for a new enemy and [as if on cue] there was ANSWER together with their crackpot friends from LaRaza and the hysteria becomes full blown. Never mind that the average American agrees with Bush, at least on this, we must suspect all hispanics and group them together. These guys may not have to sit out the next elections to lose. In fact they may disgust and alienate so many people that folks might decide to teach the hardliners a lesson...instead of the other way around.

There is ample evidence over the years that hispanics can and do assimilate. I would hate to see conservatives back themselves in a corner on this issue..with no way out.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 3:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dan:

The average hipanic is not even remoteley interested in stealing the southwest and taking it back across the border to the Mexico. If you ask most remaining Indians today if they thought they actually owned North America I would imagine most of them would say yes, that does not mean the days of Crazy Horse, and Tecumseh and Sitting Bull and Geronimo are going to return.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 3:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: Blank:No One

Dafyyd,
There is another way around the guest worker/bicultural divide. There is no reason a controlled guest worker plan should be primarily Mexican, or even Hispanic. The only reason Mexicans so dominate the illegal immigration group is because they have the easiest and cheapest option to come to America illegally. It is a much more expensive and difficult problem for someone from a Darfur Refugee camp in Sudan to get here. But make no mistake, many would love the chance to work hard to build a new life. As far as third world countries go, Mexico is pretty well off. Roughly one third of the global population makes less than $2 per day. $5 an hour probably looks pretty good to that 2 billion people.

Given that we control who comes (and who doesn't) a guest worker plan can easily be feasible without running into the assimilation and bicultural issues Steyn discussed.

Done right, a guest worker plan would be a tremendous benefit. Done poorly (not controlled) it will be a disaster.

The above hissed in response by: Blank:No One [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 5:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

Dafydd:

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

You propose standards for legal immigration that “would include such categories as family (I would give preference to marrieds with children, because they're more stable), a demonstrated record of working, education, English-language skills, knowledge of America, passing a background check, and so forth.”

Do you really think those standards have a prayer of getting past the PC-police? I don’t.
And if I’m right about that, it is, I think, a big part of the problem. Why? Because, when we can’t impose a rational basis for rationing immigration, irrational bases fill the vacuum. Country quotas, for example. Other possible alternatives are (a) easiest-come (i.e. Mexicans) = easiest-served; or (b) no rationing at all (i.e. quasi-open borders).

The reason many are unhappy with amnesty is not just that it rewards illegal behavior (which it does) but also because it carries a message that is anathema to assimilation, which is fundamentally about inculcating values that are vitally important in our society. One of these values is the concept of waiting your turn. That value may seem banal when you’re used to it, but it’s anything but.

I haven’t made my mind up what, if anything, should be done about the issue at this time. (And only see it as urgent to the extent it’s an issue of national security). Whatever is the best practical solution, however, the underlying message must not be that the principle of waiting your turn is no longer important.

The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 8:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Ex-Democrat:

Two very interesting points about your comment:

  • First, as I have explained before and will continue to do, the word "amnesty" does not mean what you think it does.

Take a few moments to look up the word, either in a regular dictionary or (better) a legal one, such as Black's Law Dictionary. By applying it to Hagel-Martinez, you evidently must believe that "amnesty" means "pleading guilty to a crime in exchange for a reduced sentence."

But in fact, amnesty is a "blanket pardon;" and a "pardon" means the crime is excused without any punishment at all, as if it had never occurred.

Those accepting regularization would have to admit they broke the law (plead guilty, in effect) and would have to pay a $2000 fine, plus also make restitution -- which is more than they would suffer if they were simply captured by the Border Patrol. This is admission plus punishment... which is not "amnesty."

The description you're groping for here is a "plea bargain," except it's not even a reduced sentence: the only ill effect they avoid by this deal is deportation. Other than that, they must swallow a punishment larger than if they were simply caught.

Words have meanings; while they're not set in stone, neither are they so fluid that, like Humpty Dumpty did in Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, they can simply mean whatever you choose them to mean at your convenience.

  • Second, I have a question for you and for everyone who is adamantly opposed to letting those already here illegally become legal because they're not "waiting their turn," or because they're "cutting in line," as others have said.

We all agree that the vast majority of those here illegally snuck in because they could not get in legally (if they could have, why sneak in?) Except for drug runners, terrorists, and the like, who might try the sneaking-in part first, the huge majority probably tried repeatedly to get in here legally, were rebuffed, and finally resorted to coming here illegally.

So here is my question: in your opinion, why couldn't they get in here legally? What was the reason?

I am very curious to know what you think.

Thanks,

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 1:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: rich

Mark Steyn is one of my favorite writers and immensely talented and thus I regret I disagree.

Christian Mexicans are culturally a world closer to Americans than Moslem Turks are to Christian Germans or Hindu Indians are to Christian melanesians.

Thus Steyn's comparison is not directly on point.

This will probably be the only time Steyn is off in this century, but he should be given some slack because he was not making his point with humor.

The above hissed in response by: rich [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 6:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

Dafydd:

While I grant you that the program does not, strictly speaking, present a “blanket pardon,” some might argue that it still approximates the forgiveness of past crime (as my Black’s law dictionary describes “amnesty”) albeit with payment of a modest fine. (Ironically enough, Blacks also gives the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act as its amnesty example).

I understand your analogy to plea bargains (with which I’m all too familiar), but wonder whether that analogy is as good a fit as you suggest. For one thing, pleas are negotiated one-on-one, rather than class-wide. Also, in a plea bargain, the People arrogate to themselves considerable benefits before agreeing to recommend a reduced sentence. And, even then, the court may refuse to grant that reduced sentence, if it considers the bargain insufficient. Following your argument, what do the People get here in return for reducing an illegal immigrant’s punishment from deportation to a modest fine? Are you quite sure that the bargain you envisage does not send a bad message to others in the community?

As to your second point, I’m less clear what you’re asking. I assume that those that “snuck in because they could not get in legally,” couldn’t get in here legally for the same reason millions of others around the world couldn’t get in here legally: because of immigration controls. The difference between them and those others is that they wouldn't take 'no' for an answer, no?

The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 6:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Ex-Democrat:

For one thing, pleas are negotiated one-on-one, rather than class-wide.

As would these be. Each would-be immigrant would have to individually find out how much he owed in restitution, then add the fine.

Following your argument, what do the People get here in return for reducing an illegal immigrant’s punishment from deportation to a modest fine?

The fact that they turn themselves in, when otherwise, it would be virtually impossible to find them.

Actually, a lot of plea bargains are made on the basis that it's cheaper not to try the case, not because the defendant has any particular information of interest to anyone... just for ease of prosecution -- he pleads guilty -- DAs are willing to trade a light sentence.

As to your second point, I’m less clear what you’re asking. I assume that those that “snuck in because they could not get in legally,” couldn’t get in here legally for the same reason millions of others around the world couldn’t get in here legally: because of immigration controls.

But why (and how) were those controls exercised to keep those particular people out? For example, Gerry Adams, head of Sinn Fein, was denied entry to the United States (for a fund-raising tour) because he was declared a high-ranking member of a terrorist organization, the IRA.

Do you believe there is any specific reason why the illegal immigrants here in the United States were not given visas? Do you believe they are undesirables, significantly different from those who were granted entry or even a green card?

Because if the system is properly discriminating between people who should get in and those who should not, then you might argue that it's reasonable to think of the latter as "criminals."

But if instead, the system is completely and utterly arbitrary, and there is not, in fact, any rational distinction at all between those granted a visa and those not, and that there was no particular reason for the latter not to have been allowed in... then that makes a much stronger case for reforming the entire system.

...And also for not thinking of the illegals as "criminals," any more than we would think of those millions upon millions who continued to drink alcohol during Prohibition as "criminals."

In the end, "criminal" must mean something stronger than merely "fell afoul of an arbitrary law"... or else the law itself falls into such disrepute that the survival of the republic is imperiled.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 6:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

D - do you know which other laws are actually just arbitrary? I only ask because i'm going to feel a right fool for having abided by them when i eventually find out!

The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 8:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Ex-Democrat:

Actually, you should feel foolish for that silly question! <g>

It's not the law itself that's arbitrary; to a large extent, all laws are arbitrary... from traffic laws -- why should red mean stop, instead of go? -- to laws against murder that won't even let a private citizen execute an escaped child killer.

But this is much worse: the law itself is silent; it's the individual bureaucrats who make arbitrary and senseless decisions, or decisions based upon personal interest, or based upon personal likes and dislikes... yet these decisions are life-altering for the victims of such random chaos.

I'm not saying this is a reason for every illegal to instantly become a permanent resident; you know I've said no such thing. But it should give us pause before dubbing them "criminals."

Arbitrary, unpredictable laws are bad laws. Laws that tell some to come on in and others to go home and starve under tyranny, with no rhyme or reason why the one and not the other, are very, very bad laws. Those are laws that desperately need changing... and those who violate such laws fall into a very different category than muggers, rapists, and kidnappers.

When the Volstead Act was passed, at that moment, every single person in the United States who purchased a beer was technically a federal criminal. But that applied to tens of millions of Americans.

If you can call 25% of the population of the United States "criminal," then, Ex-Democrat, the word "criminal" has no meaning.

If visa-granting is administered in an arbitrary, capricious, and corrupt manner, then the whole system is a sham. This does not mean that those who sneak into the country illegally have done no wrong; but not everybody who has done wrong by the law is a "criminal"... as a number of obvious examples lushly illustrate.

And if most of the illegals cannot rightly be considere criminals, then it should be more palatable to find a less punitive way to accomodate them.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 9:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

D
sorry, i was away watching the President of Mexico instructing me on how I must behave towards the millions of "Mexicans" living in the USA.

as i mentioned above, i have some sympathy with your position (especially the desire for a rational filtering process) but you make some pretty hyperbolic claims. for example: "visa-granting is administered in an arbitrary, capricious, and corrupt manner, [such that] the whole system is a sham." when i went through it, it, it was irritating but basically made sense.

Also you say that "if 25% of the population ... is 'criminal,' then, Ex-Democrat, the word 'criminal' has no meaning." Perhaps not, but then nor does the word non-criminal as applied to the other 75%. "Sucker" might be better.

cheers, ex-d


The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2006 10:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Ex-Democrat:

when i went through it, it, it was irritating but basically made sense.

My wife Sachi went through it, as did a bunch of her friends. It was as I described it. The only reason she finally got her citizenship, in the end, was that we had a Republican congressman at the time (James Rogan) who cared enough to send official letters to the INS (back before it was the USCIS) to figure out why they wouldn't set a date for her to get sworn in. And that was after literally years of getting the run-around.

A friend of hers, Takao, lived here for nineteen years, trying to get permanent residency. Neither he nor Sachi was ever "illegal" for even a nanosecond... but in both cases, it was like pulling teeth with a pair of tweezers to get anything out of the INS.

(At one point, they "lost" Sachi's file and refused to go looking for it... for two years. They just left her in limbo, wondering if she were suddenly going to be sent home, even though she had a green card already. The file was, of course, sitting on somebody's desk, buried under a mountain of other files -- that he also wasn't bothering to process.)

In the end, Sachi (who had a kind representative) managed to get her citizenship; Takao, who had no such help, though he did have a lawyer, was never even able to get a green card... despite living here all that time, paying taxes and insurance, with a job, owning a condo here, attending an American university and getting both a BA and an MA.

He lost his job when the hotel at which he was the accountant closed... and the INS promptly ordered him to leave the country. After 19 years.

He left, of course; he is incapable of commiting a crime, even when "the law is a ass." He's back in Japan now, miserable and somewhat bitter.

I'm truly glad that you had such a rational time of the, E.D.; but I suspect Sachi's and Takao's experience is more the norm.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 12:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

D - that nightmare may explain your extreme view, but it does not necessarily justify it. It was not our experience - for example, my wife and my best friend immigrated separately from me and theirs went without incident. I suppose i tend to put the kind of gubmint bureaucratic idiocy so vividly on display in your story down to .. well, the fact that the INS (now DHS) is run by gubmint bureaucrats. Just like the DMV. But would your solution be to do away with Drivers Licences and Vehicle Registration too? I think not.

One other point: my wife immigrated from a third-world country and likes to quip that it takes a lot of work for them to stay part of the third world. When pressed, one of the key things she talks about is the fundamental lack of respect for law and order.

Thankyou again for the effort you've put into this discussion - i cannot imagine where you find the energy! Ex-D.

The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 7:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

(oh, and by the way, show me a way we can trade Takao - and 599 more just like him - for the 600 'Mexican-Americans' who today hailed Vicente Fox as "their President," and I'm right there with you.)

The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 7:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: ex-democrat

D - looks like Ed Meese has been following our discussion ;-) - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The above hissed in response by: ex-democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 7:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

A snippet from the Meese article, it appears that he is also challenged regarding the meaning of "amnesty". :)
And note the ref to Black's Law Dictionary as recommended above by Dafydd--
In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.

Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.

The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."

Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 9:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

Jim... in 1986, what Congress offered was basically amnesty. What is offered today in the Senate bill is not -- because it includes two things that were missing from the Reagan amnesty:

Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes.... In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.

In addition to the similarities enumerated by Meese in the main section of his piece, there are these two huge differences -- which Meese wants to bury:

  1. Illegals must admit guilt;
  2. They must make restitution of all past taxes they scamped on (with interest and penalties, I suspect);
  3. They must pay a hefty fine.

This is significantly more than they'd suffer if simply caught.

Ed Meese quietly sweeps that part under the rug, hoping you won't notice the huge lump that's actually taller than he is. Adding those three elements is precisely what makes this version not amnesty.

Years ago, I heard a local politician arguing for the closure of a club where private adults could go and have sex with each other. They shared the cost of renting the building, but nobody made a profit.

This local politician wanted a city ordinance to ban the place, and he argued thus:

It's exactly like prostitution, except no money changes hands.

That, Jim, is just the sort of "thinking" going on here: the Hagel-Martinez bill is exactly like amnesty -- except the miscreants receive a criminal punishment.

In both cases, the tail of the sentence completely negates the head.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 1:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Ex-Democrat:

D - that nightmare may explain your extreme view, but it does not necessarily justify it.... I suppose i tend to put the kind of gubmint bureaucratic idiocy so vividly on display in your story down to .. well, the fact that the INS (now DHS) is run by gubmint bureaucrats. Just like the DMV. But would your solution be to do away with Drivers Licences and Vehicle Registration too? I think not.

You think correctly:

You can read every one of these posts -- that's quite a lot of words written -- and find not a single example of Big Lizards suggesting that the solution is to "do away with" border control.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 1:12 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved