Great post! I agree with some of it. However, I am especially tired of hearing about “AFRICAN-Americans” and their complaints. I am also tired of hearing about how we must cater to American Hispanics.

First…‘Seeds of Communism’ were planted and/or spread throughout America long before the Cold War started. Those ‘Seeds’ sprouted, grew into ‘Plants’, and produced new off-spring. Following the guidelines of Communism, the Communist movement in America now controls the Gov’t school systems, major unions, Hollywood, most of MSM, and the Democratic Party.

Second…the Republican Party moved to the Left – i.e. towards Communism – under Bush “43” even though the mid-term elections of 2002 gave control of Congress back to them.

Third…the Republican Party nominated left-leaning John McCain as its Presidential Candidate in 2008. NOTE: Hispanics still favored the Democratic Party.

I have noted in the past – here at Big Lizards also – that America needs to be ‘Pruned’ – e.g. more attacks on our Homeland; however, another solution has recently arrived on America’s door-step, i.e. Economic Disaster. I should’ve seen it coming, since the signs were quite clear…

Communism does not work. The Gov’t school systems were already a disaster, but we still poured money into it/them. Forced financial rules – by the Gov’t - have led to a subprime crisis. The “Big Three” now face bankruptcy, after decades of summiting to the demands of the UAW, and after decades of bad management…a secondary cause. Much of MSM is now collapsing – see recent news on NYT’s, etc. Even Hollywood is having financial problems. Democrat strongholds in California and New York are a financial disaster…gotta love – “TAX HELL.”

Drudge points to an article - "GOV'S TAX & SPEND SHOCKER" - with the title "TAX HELL."
America is now in the process of being ‘Pruned’ – naturally and/or Karmically – since Americans have been unable to reach a “verdict” on their own actions, and we have now reached a point of being akin to characters in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, whilst facing a scenario of - "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards."

There is Justice after all…

It all sounds so very reasonable, but I cannot square it with what I see as reality.

I have almost never heard anyone say they are opposed to illegal immigration without also stressing their support for legal immigration. I think it is a huge distinction, and if it isn't clear, it needs to be made so. Accepting that the rules on legal immigration need rework in no way means we must accept massive law-breaking, and vice versa.

I don't see why you think that Hispanics will be prompted to vote for Republicans merely because the GOP promotes legal immigration reform, or against us because we oppose illegal immigration. True assimilation would suggest that Hispanics should vote Republican because of all the other issues on which the GOP should naturally appeal to them. That neither Bush nor McCain, proponents of amnesty and with large Hispanic outreach programs, failed to reach 2/3 of Hispanic voters, tells me immigration is not the deciding issue for those voters. Black voters also share GOP values, for the most part, but consistently and overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Something else is at work besides what we believe is their own self-interest.

Just as the need to reform legal immigration should not be confused with the need to stop illegal immigration, neither should the two get conflated when it comes to policy. Legal immigration should be reformed as you say, but that should not change our vigorous opposition to current and future illegal immigrants. If border crossing was their only crime, there might be a sufficient penalty-- a fine or some such-- that it could be overlooked as they sought legal status in a legal way. But their presence in this country almost inevitably leads to some or all of the other crimes of identity theft, misrepresentation, tax evasion, theft of government services, fraud, conspiracy, unlicensed driving, and probably a few others. In my opinion, the only proper penalty for illegal entry is deportation. If the deportation is voluntary, legal "first time" immigration should be considered. We know it works, but it would require that legal immigration be "fixed" beforehand.

I think it matters greatly what the "official" policy of the GOP is. If we are setting that policy based on pandering for Hispanic votes, it is the wrong reason and we deserve to lose. Come up with the "right" solution, and you will deserve to win. If all we do is treat Hispanics like some "bloc" of votes, like Democrats do, we're as bigoted as they are. Hispanics are individuals who vote based on their individual sense of the issues. Get the right answer and electoral success will come.

Great post. Let me share what our Newest Republcian Congressman from Louisiana Mr Cao said:

Any conversation with the Vietnamese immigrant who is headed for Congress inevitably turns to the issue of immigration. Cao believes that “the Republican Party hurt itself with so much of the rhetoric about illegal immigrants.” But he also believes this will change, “with our Indian-American governor here [Republican Bobby Jindal], with a Vietnamese-American in Congress, and then the Republican Party will eventually expand into electing others from different ethnic groups.

Let me also we should advoid the word "pandering" It is pretty offensive. Note that language was used as social conservatives numerous times and it just makes people mad. We are a party and quite frankly we "pander" to various elements in the coalition. Also called listening and incorporating their views

"Pandering" is not listening and incorporating their views. Pandering is telling them what they want to hear, betraying your own principles (assuming you have some), and expecting people to vote for you because those in the group all think exactly alike. For example, if I tell a Hispanic gathering that "I favor amnesty for illegal immigrants," I betray my conservative principles because I think that is what they want to hear, while giving them no respect as individuals whose ideas on this issue may vary among them.

I'm not above listening and incorporating their views to the degree they can be squared with existing [conservative] principles. I am opposed to treating them as a mindless bloc of voters to whom I can appeal by telling them something I either don't or shouldn't believe myself.

I'd like to point out that Hispanics are pretty equally divided on the illegal immigration issue, so there is no position on that issue that can be taken to "reach out" to them.

The entire premise of the argument vis a vis Hispanics and illegal immigration is false.

Reforming the US immigration system in such a way is a great idea. Unfortunately it has exactly zero percent chance of happening now. It may have had a chance when the GOP ran congress but not now.

Instead of doing what you suggest the GOP leadership instead chose to advance a plan that was seen as nothing more than a permanent rolling amnesty by the public- because it was. I said here at the time that there is no immigration reform bill I would not support as long as it secured the US border. I repeat and emphasize that I would have happily let every single illegal alien here stay and be granted US citizenship- AS LONG AS THE BORDER WAS SEALED!!!
It is my opinion that such a plan would have been acceptable to the public and the GOP base but the GOP leadership wouldn't deliver.

Such a plan could not happen- because the left NEEDS the millions of foreigners coming here annually and voting or else they cannot win enough elections to maintain power. That's the whole point of letting the endless stream of illegal aliens walk across the border to get expensive bennies once they get here- again, the left NEEDS them. George Bush and John McCain were unable to face this or deal with it.

I hate to beat this dead and decomposed horse any more but you cannot understand the immigration debate without recognizing this. You can come up with great plans all day, but it won't matter.

The left doesn't care if immigrants here assimilate- as long as they vote left. In fact they are better off if they do not because if they did they would be much less inclined to vote for the left.

Whatever. If there really are still millions of Latin American immigrants coming to the US annually then it may not matter because policy won't be made by people who want them to assimilate but by people who want to prevent it.

Snochasr:

I don't see why you think that Hispanics will be prompted to vote for Republicans merely because the GOP promotes legal immigration reform, or against us because we oppose illegal immigration. True assimilation would suggest that Hispanics should vote Republican because of all the other issues on which the GOP should naturally appeal to them.

Because it's an area of interest about which they are better informed than you or I, and which affects their community much more personally and viscerally than yours or mine.

Let's change the facts slightly. Suppose the Democratic Party started making a point of saying that there were too many Israelis in America, and pushing for regulations to reduce the number of Israelis who are allowed in.

Suppose further that they stated over and over that Israelis were simply "unable to assimilate" into American secular culture because they were too religious.

Finally, suppose they blamed nearly all the ills in America on Israeli "infiltrators" who had "invaded America," infecting us with their gutter culture and inability to communicate without ludicrous Israeli accents that so enraged Democrats that they felt physically ill when they heard it.

Many American Jews -- even Jewish Democrats -- have relatives living in Israel or at least support Israel more than do most gentile secular-humanist Democrats. Would you really find it an example of the Jewish inability to assimilate if American Jews began routinely voting against Democratic candidates in elections -- rather than ignoring all that pesky anti-Israelism and voting instead on the basis of "all the other issues on which the [Democrats] should naturally appeal to them?"

That neither Bush nor McCain, proponents of amnesty...

There you are; there's one of the problems in a nutshell: John S. McCain and President George W. Bush discuss ways to bring illegal immigrants back into the system by letting them turn themselves in, pay a fine, pay restitution, and start over... and you simply dismiss this as "amnesty," which isn't even what the word means.

When I read this, my immediate thought is that you consider all persons who illegally enter the country to be "criminals" in every sense of the word... not simply as a technical matter (they broke a law), but fully the equal of muggers and gangbangers.

Also, repeated use of that phrase makes me believe you couldn't care less why they entered illegally; you do not distinguish between somebody fleeing oppression, poverty, and rampant criminality to make a better life for his children -- and some mule coming here to deliver drugs to his connection; and you are utterly unconcerned with how arbitrary, irrational, capricious, or unjust is the current immigration system: The law is the law! They're all criminals who need to be locked up or deported, and never ever allowed back in.

I am certain that is not what you intend; but I'm telling you, that is how you come across to those who do not already share your views. That is how nearly all those opposed to the late, lamented immigration act came across; and it's why the "victory" they won (killing the bill) comes at such a terrible cost.

The same thing happened here in California with the passage of Proposition 187 in 1994. Ever since then, the California GOP has been a powerless, permanent minority, and a joke. (Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, the current Republican governor, was elected in spite of the CalGOP, which opposed him.)

Black voters also share GOP values, for the most part, but consistently and overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Something else is at work besides what we believe is their own self-interest.

Yes, and I'll tell you exactly what it is: During the civil-rights era, many conservatives (such as Barry Goldwater) were truly appalled by Jim Crow laws and would have voted for the civil-rights measures to overturn them -- if those measures weren't so collectivist, even socialist; but the Democratic Party was determined to use civil rights as a Trojan horse to ram through all sorts of Great Society schemes.

Those conservatives were right to push for more individualism and against pro-black racial preferences. Alas, they used some of the same language as was being used by those who opposed the civil-rights laws, not because they opposed government tyranny, but because they applauded racial segregation. The conservatives failed to distinguish their positions from those of the racists.

Regardless of what they meant, they did such an abysmal job of explaining themselves that what came across was a Republican Party that supported Jim Crow -- despite the fact that they actually voted for civil-rights legislation more consistently than did Democrats, and about the same as non-Southern Democrats.

In politics, as I said above, image is every bit as important as substance. Because Republicans and true conservatives (which does not include racists) failed to assure blacks that the GOP was sincerely opposed to Jim Crow, they allowed the Democrats to create the impression that Republicans supported Jim Crow.

Many Republicans must have thought, "Why should we have to make such assurances to blacks? Jim Crow was put into place by Democrats after the Civil War -- in which a Republican president nearly destroyed the nation to end black slavery! Blacks should be grateful; at the very least, they should remember who helped them in the past and accept our logical arguments today."

But the reality is that gratitude for past help is non-existent in politics... and that holds for everybody, not just blacks. Politicians need constantly to reassure their constituents that they really do care about their perceived problems... both the very real, like anti-black segregation and discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s, and even the non-existent, such as anti-black "discrimination" in the 2000s.

The upshot was that black culture absorbed the (false but powerful) message that Democrats supported civil rights, while Republicans opposed them; and the rejection of the GOP this spawned continues unabated to this day, to the great distress not only of Republicans but of blacks left to the tender mercies of the Democratic Party.

Sno, I really do not want Republicans to pull the same "stupid politician trick" with Hispanics today that they successfully pulled with blacks in the 1960s. If you envision what political life would be like if Hispanics routinely voted 92-97% Democratic, perhaps you will understand why I am so adamant.

We need not compromise our principles; but it doesn't compromise our principles to apologize for previous intemperate language and refrain from being insulting and offensive in the future.

If we are setting that policy based on pandering for Hispanic votes, it is the wrong reason and we deserve to lose. Come up with the "right" solution, and you will deserve to win.

Yeah. Goldwater "deserved" to win. How did that work out?

There is no "deserved" in politics; there is either victory or defeat... and either principled or unprincipled. Democrats have "unprincipled victory" pretty well sewn up; but why shouldn't we pursue "principled victory" instead of "principled defeat?"

LarryD:

The entire premise of the argument vis a vis Hispanics and illegal immigration is false.

No, you have simply misunderstood it.

I do not argue that we should "pander" to Hispanics by offering "amnesty;" in fact, if you'll note, I didn't even discuss what to do with current illegal immigrants.

But Hispanics and other immigrant cultures (e.g., my wife, who is a legal Japanese immigrant, now U.S. citizen) do have a pretty uniform opinion about the current wretched legal immigration system; and they also have a strong and unified opinion that conservatives tend to talk down to them, insult them, and offend them when they equate Hispanics (or immigrants) in general with illegal immigrants -- and in turn equate illegal immigrants with "identity theft, misrepresentation, tax evasion, theft of government services, fraud, conspiracy, unlicensed driving, and probably a few other [crimes]." Which conservatives routinely do, as we see in this very comment thread.

It's this sort of aggressive language that comes across as anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant.

There are ways to oppose illegal immigration, and even to oppose the 2006 bill, without using such language, and without implying that the only reason Latin Americans sneak across the border is to suck up welfare and commit various horrible crimes. In reality, the vast majority of those who enter illegally do so only because the legal system is so horribly broken that they cannot enter legally -- for no logical or coherent reason.

That is the point of this post, and that is what needs to change.

Xennady:

Reforming the US immigration system in such a way is a great idea. Unfortunately it has exactly zero percent chance of happening now. It may have had a chance when the GOP ran congress but not now.

Suppose the GOP were to unify behind such reform, then send out numerous spokespeople, politicians and other Republicans, to the states with large immigrant populations.

Suppose we held townhall meetings and such explaining our support for true immigration reform.

Suppose we were consistently, year in and year out, to meet with local Hispanic small-business owner groups, the National Society of Hispanic MBAs, and even leftist organizations like La Raza and MEChA -- as well as other ethnic political organizations for Chinese, Armenian, Russian, African, and other immigrants -- and argue for our principled reform of the USCIS standards and criteria for immigration.

And while we were about it, suppose we also explained how our support for individual rights, Capitalism, low taxes, and less regulation particularly helps immigrants and their American-born children.

Don't you believe that we could recruit a much larger percent of those immigrant or first-generation voters to Republicanism? Wouldn't that go a long way towards reelecting a Republican majority that could enact such reforms, and would even have a mandate to do so?

There is always value in rebranding a party to be more attractive to more groups of voters, so long as the party doesn't jettison its principles in the process.

Dafydd

If I tried to put a Dodge Hemi in my Toyota Pickup,
it would be a real challenge to connect it to my
Chevy tranny. If I somehow did that, what the
heck would it be? It would no longer be a Toyota,
that's for sure.

A party is a group of like-minded people, who have
more in common than differences. If others agree
that these are pretty nice people, and they choose
to join, that's good.

However, comma, if society changes and no longer
appreciates the reason the party formed in the
first place, then it is foolish to try to keep it
alive just to keep it alive. It no longer serves
the purpose for which it was formed. Further,
IMO, it is foolish to change it to fit some new
idea of what it should be.

Let the Republican Party join the Whiggs, and
maybe the Conservative Party will arise from the
ashes. Or not. The public thinks the Liberals
are pretty good now. Let's hope they don't
damage the Country too much. They have shown that
they don't think the Republicans speak for them.

Dafydd-

Once our immigration laws become more rational, predictable, and fair, then and only then we can equate pre-Americans with legal immigrants.

The equation you desire has, on the whole, already been achieved, at least if you look at it in reverse order. Those who immigrate legally generally qualify as what you refer to as pre-Americans.

As far as immigration law reform is concerned, it’s a laudable goal, but just how do we achieve it? Predictability and fairness must, of necessity, follow rationality as you have defined it. The two “irrational” criteria you cite, country of origin and family connection, while I agree should not be controlling factors, at least have the merit of being objective. How do you predictably and fairly evaluate “assimilability and American values”?

We went back and forth on approximately this topic last month. At the end, you said:

And yes, the agents [evaluating immigrants’ applications] need to use some good judgment and common sense.

And I responded:

Exactly.

* * * *

There is no need to compromise on the fundamental requirement of controlling our borders; but we must finally recognize that most illegal immigrants are not "criminals," not in the commonly understood sense of a convenience-store robber or a carjacker. Most are simply responding irrationally to an irrational and unjust immigration system. Correct the system -- which we should do anyway for our own reasons -- and we'll see a huge drop in illegal entries, as those pre-Americans who rationally should be admitted are allowed in legally.

I assume you meant to say “Most are simply responding rationally….” Most illegal immigrants are not irrational. They are responding rationally to the realities of life at home and the promise of a better life (or at least more money) in the US.

And they’re not responding to our unjust immigration system. The vast majority of illegal immigrants (henceforth I refer to those from Mexico, my US citizen wife’s native land) would not qualify under our current system or, I would submit, under any new “rational” system. And they are decidedly not pre-Americans. (Read your criteria for the latter.)

So why in the world would making our immigration system more rational cause a huge drop in illegal immigration?

If part of the new system involves increasing immigration quotas, that should, of course, reduce the number of illegals. But, considering who the illegal immigrants from Mexico are and why they come here, why would immigration law reform result in significantly more than a one-for-one tradeoff? The people who come here illegally are not, by and large, the ones applying for legal residency.

Consider this: The illegal immigrants who have come here from Mexico in the last twenty or so years are predominantly a different class (albeit not necessarily a different social class) from those who arrived, legally or illegally, from elsewhere in the world during our entire history. The reason is simple. Peasants who came here from the rest of the world have had to surmount certain obstacles. It was difficult and expensive for them to get here. They had to have gumption and either a modest sum of money or a sponsor. Those roots are what made this melting pot great.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico have had it comparatively easy. While some share the virtues I refer to above, those virtues are not nearly as essential. (Only a relative few cross the desert on foot. And coyotes are often paid from money made after immigrants arrive here.) Thus we get what my wife and her Latina friends see as the dregs of Mexican society.

Mexico knows this and encourages it. The illegals who come here would mainly be unemployed or underemployed in Mexico. So we serve as a convenient safety valve for their unemployment as well as providing a huge source of capital -- money sent home to the family.

Note that none of the above addresses border security. That’s a different argument. I’m just saying that the substantial majority of Mexicans who arrive and live here illegally should not, and I presume would not, be accepted under a “rationalized” immigration law.

I suppose you would say that any benefit to Republicans form immigration law reform would be ancillary. But I don’t think we would get the benefit at all. Any change that Hispanics see as positive will, for now, accrue to the benefit of the Democrats, no matter how hard Republicans “sell.”

I'm having trouble understanding which part of the debate we are having, here.

Are we trying to decide whether or not the legal immigration system needs drastic reform? If so, I agree whole-heartedly that it does. It leaves untouched the much larger problems of illegal immigration, and some would argue that a comprehensive solution would be easier politically, but that's a different debate.

Are we trying to decide whether, for crass political advantage, Republicans should say something in particular about legal immigration, or about illegal immigration, that conflicts with their fundamental principles? Absolutely not. Should they allow the distinction to be blurred between the two? Absolutely not. Can they use better words? Possibly, but not if those words do not express the distinction that must be made. You can't speak the answer if you can't speak the truth.

Are we trying to argue that those who break immigration laws are not criminals? That simply defies the definition. The question of what to do about these criminals, the extent of their criminality and "mitigating circumstances" of their crimes should be considered, even on an individual basis if the problem had not already exceeded any reasonable size. But that is why any sort of amnesty-- forgiveness of [most of] past wrongdoing-- is too much of a one-size-fits-all solution.

Much of the talk of amnesty (That's what it was called when Reagan did it) is because we have some idealized and compassion-inducing picture of the illegal immigrant which may or may not be true, certainly not to a degree that it is reasonable to generalize. It is only after working in the (Hispanic) immigrant community and appreciating them that I think self-deportation and legal entry is the most effective and compassionate solution. We would essentially say, at the border, "Hello. You have never been to the United States before (wink, wink) but would like to work here? And you know an employer who would hire you? Very good." Past amnesty and the one recently proposed all suffer from the same fatal flaw: They offer no incentive for the vast majority of illegal immigrants-- real people, mind you-- to "come out of the shadows." They don't WANT to assimilate or pay a fine or anything else, so long as they can continue what they have been doing untrammeled.

Build the fence to stop new illegal entrants, prohibit employment of illegals to force self-deportation and reform the legal immigration system so they can come back, and you have a comprehensive plan.

Snochasr: As you suggested, we seem to be talking about two things here -- the correct policy for dealing with immigration, legal and illegal, and how the Republican party can adjust its message to make it less off-putting to communities outside of its traditional base. Most of the previous commenters have something interesting to say, but frustratingly, many of those who make the most sense on one facet of the discussion are all wet on the other.

I am mostly in agreement with your prescriptions for encouraging self-deportation, although I would perhaps suggest a bit more carrot and a tad less stick. Notably, I think we could grease the skids for illegals looking to go back to Mexico -- with a free bus ticket and, yes, an amnesty for their illegal entry (and related offenses) in exchange for their voluntary self-deportation (so that their previous illegal status will not prevent them from applying for re-entry.)

But I am bothered by your dismissive attitude towards developing a more inclusive Republican message. I think we can all agree here that Hispanic immigrants arriving faster than they can effectively assimilate is a problem for everyone, including the immigrants themselves. But what is oddly missing from the Republican message is the pro-assimilation story. Liberals build dependency traps to lure minorities, including Hispanics, and hold them as captive voting blocks, but rather than offering a vision of escape and progress, too many Republicans allow their anger to slop over on the victims, ceding them pointlessly to the enemy. We have surrendered in the culture wars -- multiculturalism and moral relativism go largely unchallenged and English language initiatives are never pushed, but we all seem to be really angry at the poor slobs who wade across the river looking for work.

BigLeeH,
I think we are largely in agreement on what to do about the illegals already here. Your suggestion to grant "amnesty" in exchange for self-deportation, though, has a flaw: it would require illegals to identify themselves, which they won't do. That's why my suggestion is to let them self-deport just as they came, in the dead of night, and then pretend like we don't know them (which we basically do not) when they come back through the front door-- treat them as we would any legal immigrant application. If they can agree with their employer to hold the job open for them, and then come back as a "new employee," I think that's a good thing. It gets us around the need for a "guest worker" status that I think is anti-assimilation, among other things.

I'll also agree that the Republican "message" is not well communicated, but that problem does not start and end with the immigration issue. It is made all the more difficult because Republicans and conservatives have a reasoned message based on unchanging principles, while Democrats just have to say something, anything, that feels good for everybody. One thing I know generally missing from the Republican message is the "why this is good for all of us" part of the "this is the best solution" story. I'm all for crafting the message. What is it?

Snochasr:

I'm having trouble understanding which part of the debate we are having, here.

Are we trying to decide whether or not the legal immigration system needs drastic reform? If so, I agree whole-heartedly that it does. It leaves untouched the much larger problems of illegal immigration, and some would argue that a comprehensive solution would be easier politically, but that's a different debate.

This is the crux of our disagreement. For years I have argued, contra Dick E., that the vast majority of illegal immigrants to the United States would, in fact, qualify as pre-Americans; but they are denied entry for capricious, irrelevant, random, or even vindictive reasons.

At the same time, they see other applicants, less qualified than they, zip right through -- again for no reason other than luck.

Seeing the irrationality of the system, and after years of trying fruitlessly, the frustrated pre-American applicants eventually decide that there is no point to continuing to follow the rules. They just decide to do what everybody else seems to be doing and sneak across the border.

Others may not wait so long; after the first couple of times they're rebuffed, they come to the same conclusion. But in all of these sort of cases, a rational system would respond one of two ways to a pre-American applicant:

• Allow him residency;
• Reject him for now, but tell him why and what he need do to be a more attractive candidate next time.

So long as we tell pre-American immigrant wannabes what they need to work on, they'll almost certainly follow the rules -- because they can see themselves getting closer to admission.

At that point, when there is a clear path to residency and citizenship (I'm talking about already legal immigrants here), honest immigrants will take it. Therefore, those who still eschew the legal path must have some darker motive to penetrate our country illegally... so we can focus law-enforcement energy on the evil, rather than the luckless.

Are we trying to argue that those who break immigration laws are not criminals? That simply defies the definition.

The word "criminal" in fact has many meanings. The most technical is "one who violates the law." By that definition, Iraqis who gave us intel in 2003 to target the Fedayeen Saddam units were "criminals."

But the definition most people use is those who intentionally victimize innocents, generally for profit but also for revenge or just for fun. This is the most common understanding of your listeners or readers.

When one says "all illegal immigrants are criminals," that statement can only be sustained for the technical definition. It's certainly false to say that all illegal immigrants intentionally victimize innocents.

The statement "all illegal immigrants are criminals" is, then, a variant on the fallacy of tendentious redefinition: Opponent uses a word in a narrow, technical sense, hoping his audience understands it in a broader, more common meaning... which is in fact false.

Clearly some illegal immigrants are also criminals in the macro sense, those who invade other people's property or steal things and so forth. Others may unintentionally victimize innocents; they might be negligent, but they're not criminals in the larger sense.

But I believe most never victimize anybody; even if they assume a ficticious identity, it may be of a person who died in infancy, or else a completely made up identity. They work, they pay their bills, and they would pay taxes if they could without being arrested and deported. They didn't come here to suck up welfare, and they don't trash the joint.

I suggest that only a very tiny fraction of illegals deliberately victimize innocents... hence only that many are actual "criminals," as most people would use the word. But simply repeating "all illegal immigrants are criminals," as if it were a mantra, has only the effect of enraging some native-born Americans against immigrants in general -- and of enraging legal immigrants and first-generation native-born Americans against Republicans.

Why? Because they all know some illegal immigrants who are only illegal because of the caprice of our immigration system, but who act as legally as possible otherwise. Here is the analogy: During the Vietnam draft, many kids had a moral objection to the war and the draft; but the Army routinely denied conscientious-objector status in any but the most extreme cases (Quakers, for example).

So many otherwise law-abiding teens dodged the draft. Now, riddle yourself this: What good would it do, politically or in terms of policy, to get on a soapbox and loudly declare that "all draft dodgers are despicable traitors to their country?"

Will that help persuade people to accept being drafted? Hardly; more likely, it will harden opposition. Moreover, it will even turn some people who agree with the goals of the Vietnam war into war opponents, simply because they know people who reject the draft and the war for purely moral reasons. The very extremism of the language has the opposite effect to what the speaker intends.

Such language is counterproductive, even to the very goals of the speaker... in this case, it makes it less likely, not more, that we'll have some kind of immigration reform that none of us loves, but nearly all of us can live with.

It is only after working in the (Hispanic) immigrant community and appreciating them that I think self-deportation and legal entry is the most effective and compassionate solution. We would essentially say, at the border, "Hello. You have never been to the United States before (wink, wink) but would like to work here? And you know an employer who would hire you? Very good."

Sno, that would only work if the people you want to deport themselves actually have reason to believe they will be let back in... which means only when we have a legal immigration system that is rational, predictable, and just.

Until then, it's overwhelmingly likely that self-deportation would be followed by rejection for entry (simply because most are rejected; acceptance is dumb luck). They'd be right back where they started; so why would they do it?

Once a better legal system is in place and seems to be operating rationally, I suspect that nearly all the pre-American illegals will self-deport and enter legally anyway, as that will be the fastest way to clear up their legal threats.

But we can speed up that process (once the reformed system is up and running) by making it increasingly difficult for them to remain "in the shadows," as you put it. That won't work if there is no alternative but permanent return to Mexico or Nicaragua or Venezuela, because there is nothing we can do, or are willing to do, that would make America worse for them than where they came from.

We can scare them into taking a chance on a rational immigration system; we cannot scare them into returning to a country where they have no future whatsoever. So everything depends upon reforming the legal immigration system; all else is dicta.

One thing I know generally missing from the Republican message is the "why this is good for all of us" part of the "this is the best solution" story. I'm all for crafting the message. What is it?

Let's start with the most basic element of the message, the welcome to new (legal) immigrants. I just don't see that from the Republican Party, though I see it all the time from the Democrats.

(In the latter case, they only welcome those they're reasonably sure will vote Democratic -- legally or via ACORN. But at least they pay lip service to it.)

I want to see Republicans heading out to Hispanic-oriented gatherings and groups -- constantly, throughout the year, even in non-election years -- and talking about the benefits of immigration to this country (which are myriad). And not just Hispanic Republicans; I'd like to see every California GOP congressman (both of them), state senator, and state legislator doing this in his own district, and we should be doing it in Democratic districts as well.

I'd like to see GOP-sponsored forums on starting new businesses, aimed at immigrants and their children. I'd like to see the Republican Party paying for lawyers to help illegal immigrants who want to become legal (to offer advice, at least). I want to see Republican voter recruitment to counteract the ACORN-style propaganda tours. I want to see Republican small-business organizations show up at high-school career days in immigrant neighborhoods, GOP officials at neighborhood fiestas and celebrations, and holding their own townhall meetings focusing on "new Americans."

You can never say too much of the right thing; we have a lot of "saying the wrong thing" to make up for.

And not just Hispanic gatherings; we should do the same for many other immigrant groups. For example, where I live there is a very large Armenian population. We're represented in Congress by a whitebread Democrat... but he seems to attend every Armenian political meeting, cultural event, barbecue, and hootenanny.

Contrariwise, the local chapter of the GOP for this district was not even aware there was an Armenian enclave here.

That's the sort of communications stupidity I want us to overcome. Surely no one can say it violates Republican or conservative principles to go to Armenian (Vietnamese, German, Irish, Brazilian) events and give a talk about the contributions that immigrants in general, and [fill in specific ethinic group] in particular have made to American history, science, and culture: It makes the audience feel good; it allows us to press our message of Republican values; and it's good politics.

Let's start with that. Shouldn't be too hard, should it? Then we can move on to crafting a unified and solidly Republican approach to immigration reform... and promoting it, once we've already established ourselves as good neighbors who like and (more important) respect the legal immigrant populations that make up the United States of America.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

…and they would pay taxes if they could without being arrested and deported.

Actually all illegal immigrants pay taxes. In fact, in many cases they pay more than legal residents -- one can even argue they often pay more than their fair share.

What taxes do illegal immigrants pay (or what refund opportunities do they forego)?

1. FICA tax, with no opportunity to collect future benefits. (Those who work in the underground economy do not, of course, pay FICA.)

2. Income tax, even if none is withheld from their wages. Legal residents with comparable low incomes can file tax returns and apply for the “earned income tax credit” which gives refunds even when no tax has been paid.

3. Real estate tax. Most pay rent, so part of their monthly payment goes to reimburse the landlord for the teal estate tax (s)he pays. (Where I live, the state recognizes this by giving renters a “rent credit” -- which, of course, illegals cannot apply for.)

4. Sales tax on every taxable purchase.

5. Corporate income tax. (What?) Yup, everyone who buys anything, or pays for any service, is paying the seller’s income tax -- it’s included in the selling price. (Well, it’s not always corporate tax, but that probably got your attention.)

Correct the system -- which we should do anyway for our own reasons -- and we'll see a huge drop in illegal entries...

Doesn’t anyone besides me question this statement -- which Dafydd has yet to support or defend?

Dafydd-

I agree in general with what you say about what Republicans should do to gain support from Hispanics. I think it is a very long-term strategy, though.

First, we won’t get credit as long as the Dems are in power.

Then you have to educate a lot of Republicans about how to act, talk and behave. How long will that take? I dunno, but even looking at the posts above one wonders how much agreement there is about what education should be required.

Dafydd-

For years I have argued, contra Dick E., that the vast majority of illegal immigrants to the United States would, in fact, qualify as pre-Americans…

OK, here’s your definition of pre-American, as quoted from above:

…those who come here anxious to assimilate, who already believe in American values, no matter where they were born. We need more, not less, immigration by folks who were already American in their hearts long before they immigrated here.

I call such folks "pre-Americans."

Wow.

Most illegal immigrants (Mexicans) I’ve known share just one American value: Capitalism.

They most assuredly do not “come here anxious to assimilate.” They know before they leave home that they cannot assimilate. In fact, a very large number arrive with the idea that they’ll eventually go back to Mexico -- as soon as they make enough money.

I have known illegal immigrants who have lived here for twenty or more years and who still have the dream -- an illusion at that point, really -- of going back home to Mexico.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico tend to live in enclaves and avoid Anglos to the extent possible. They want to keep a low profile and, maybe, send a few dollars home. Assimilation may eventually occur in a later generation, but it is not generally a motivation for illegal immigration from Mexico.

Now, in what other ways are these folks “already American in their hearts”?

Dick E.:

Correct the system -- which we should do anyway for our own reasons -- and we'll see a huge drop in illegal entries...

Doesn’t anyone besides me question this statement -- which Dafydd has yet to support or defend?

Dick E., I have explained, supported, and defended this proposition in at least a dozen posts over several years, going all the way back to when I was a guest poster at Patterico's Pontifications. Where have you been?

For that matter, I even defend it in this very comment thread. Look up.

Most illegal immigrants (Mexicans) I’ve known share just one American value: Capitalism.

Your experience assuredly does not match mine. Even among Hispanic illegals, let alone Canadians, I find the values of work, family, right to life, Christianity (please don't tell me they're not Christians, they're Catholics!), education, learning English (my stepmother teaches hundreds of immigrants each year in ESL, and the school does not require proof of legal residency), and it sure would appear they believe in American freedoms, too.

That makes them more assimilated than most native-born American Democrats.

By the way; why is it that whenever I say "illegal immigrant," you read it as "illegal Mexican immigrant?" While they are the majority, or at least plurality, of illegals, they are not the totality.

Dafydd

Sno, that would only work if the people you want to deport themselves actually have reason to believe they will be let back in... which means only when we have a legal immigration system that is rational, predictable, and just.

I think that is exactly what I intended to say, but I now see I did not. It was so clearly in my mind that I assumed it obvious to everyone. We are not going to be able to handle the immediate self-deportation and readmittance of 20 million illegal immigrants with a 500,000 per year quota. When we reform the immigration system, which is sorely needed and, I believe, your main point, we will have to take into account the past failures of the current system. I do not believe, as you do, that it is those failures driving illegal immigrants to come here illegally rather than legally. But until the legal path is made easier than the illegal path the current situation will continue. Change to BOTH paths is needed to bring about balance.

One of the things that surprised me recently was that two states-- Arizona and Oklahoma, I believe-- have laws requiring that employers use the federal e-Verify system before hiring new employees. This seems to have prompted a large wave of self-deportation. Until this happened, I was under the assumption that most illegal immigrants were here because they "had to feed their families," and that there was only poverty and death awaiting them back home. Compassion would dictate, at most, a quick "touchback" before allowing them some form of residency and work permit, if not a path to citizenship. It seems now that the touchback should be a minimum provision.

As for the politics, I like your prescription, but again, I think the Republican message needs to be more than just showing up at every little interest group's annual dress-up day and pig-tossing. There needs to be a consistent message, not just telling each group they're "special," but rather that Republican values are mainstream values, and good for everybody. We don't care where you came from, this is what you came here for, and we will get government out of your way so you can get it. It's not as easy as promising them that government will get it for you, but we're stuck with the truth, if we still believe it ourselves.

I've been wondering when you would come back to this Dafydd.

For those who do not know, I have worked for the federal government in an immigration capacity for almost 13 years now. Approximately 10 years of that on the souther border, now i'm at an international airport.

As for the politics, ive not much to say. How the Republican party puts forths its views on certain things is a debate i'm not much interested in.

As for the "criminality" of illegals, they are not criminals. Yes, I know that seems to defy logic because they have "broken the law" but it is administrative law, which is seperate from criminal law. Yes, some illegal aliens are criminal aliens and we prosecute these individuals, normally, and they serve time in our prisons before being deported. The vast majority are not criminals because they fall under administrative laws rather than criminal laws.

Don't blame me for this fact, or Dafydd, if your unhappy that illegal immigrants are not criminals, blame those who make the laws. I'm merely trying to educate Dafydd's readership on the facts.

Dafydd is also correct about the people of Mexico. In my experience the majority of them coming here would be great additions to the United States in many ways. They are normally conservative, socially, like many black americans are, but they are also socialists. This is generally why they support democrats. Yes, they are against gay marriage and abortion, but they are for "spreading the wealth around". Again, this is speaking generally. The Mexicans I know are hard working people who do not take their jobs for granted.

The thing about voting.... the Mexicans I know are more likely to vote for Democrats because a Democrat is likely to make promises concerning money and jobs and unions and that is what is immediately important to them, not so much the abortion and gay marriage and other social issues. Traditionally they are catholic and believe what the church teaches, but more immediately they are in need of food, clothes, shelter, etc, which is what is more important to them, not the tradition of the church, but more immediate needs.

As for correcting the system....

There are so many flaws in the system I think it would be easier to discuss and correct our tax code. The problem I would like to see Dafydd address is how we are going to go about fixing a problem as massive as our immigration problem.

Most of the americans I know who are against "comprehensive" immigration reform are against it because they have zero confidence in our government doing a good job of it. I'm one of those people.

My experience working for immigration for almost 13 years now can be summed up as follows. Something I was told when I first started back in 1996.

"You can let illegals in all day long, but you turn one U.S. Citizen back to Mexico and its your job"

We make errors on the side of illegal immigration. We have waivers for everything. Our beauracracy makes it harder and harder and harder every year to remove illegals from the United States. When I first started in this job, if an illegal immigrant came up to the port where I was working it took me less than 10 minutes to take away their visa or their Border Crossing Card. We told them, "This visa or this document is a priveledge, not a right, and you've abused the priveledge. Have a nice day."

Nowadays it takes me about 4 hours to do the same thing. That's 4 hours of endless paperwork to turn someone back to their home country.

It used to be those coming to visit the United States had to obtain a visitors visa in order to do so. Then they started the Visa Waiver Program where our good friends could come, from countries like Germany, France and England, without a visa and visit us for up to 90 days. It's worked out alright so far because most of the countries on the Visa Waiver List were first world countries that didn't need to come here for a job.

Recently, they added South Korea to the Visa Waiver Program. Now any korean can come to the United States for up to 90 days as long as they have a passport, issued by their nation.

This tells me once again why I have no confidence in our government when it comes to immigration. If they don't know what they've just done by adding Korea to the Visa Waiver Program, they're kidding themselves.

Its been a couple of years since I commented on this and all other blogs. The last time was when Dafydd and I were forecasting that the Surge would show results only after all units were in-theater, not to expect incremental improvements as units were incrementally deployed.

Dafydd is right-on. The GOP is on the wrong end of the immigration issue and will lose elections until its image is changed, but I believe images must be used to affect the change. Rational actions will not work, the GOP must appeal to the emotions of all Americans.

The way to do this is best illustrated by the methods used by Bill Clinton, starting in January 1995, to pull himself out of a rut of irrelevancy using TV image advertisements. The ads, to me, seemed oddly timed, being almost three years before the next presidential election. However, they worked; Clinton's approval ratings rose dramatically.

Rich (previous tag unremembered)

Just out of curiosity, which law does one need to break in order to become a "criminal"?
Apparently, "administrative" laws (whatever they may be, don't count.
How about repeated DUIs? Being deported multiple times and repeatedly crossing back in?
Drug smuggling? People smuggling?
Where does one draw the line?

Baggi-

Interesting, informative post. Thanks.

BTW, same goes for you, Dafydd.

Bart Johnson-

Look up "administrative law" on Wikipedia.

Dafydd-

Dick E., I have explained, supported, and defended this proposition in at least a dozen posts over several years, going all the way back to when I was a guest poster at Patterico's Pontifications. Where have you been?

For that matter, I even defend it in this very comment thread. Look up.

I just re-read (twice) your comments above. I fail to find your defense, unless you refer to this:

Once a better legal system is in place and seems to be operating rationally, I suspect that nearly all the pre-American illegals will self-deport and enter legally anyway, as that will be the fastest way to clear up their legal threats.

So a large number of illegal immigrants leave and are allowed to return legally. (Note that this has no effect on illegal immigration; we’d just be legalizing people who are already here.) Then I guess one can infer that you think those Mexicans (the largest group of illegals and the only ones to which I refer) who might at some future date consider coming here illegally would also be allowed in. Presto, less illegal immigration.

In order for either of those things to happen, we would have to increase substantially the number of Mexicans allowed to immigrate legally. And in order not to shortchange other countries, we would have to significantly increase our total, worldwide immigration quota. While both of those might be good things, they’re not necessarily part of making our immigration laws more rational, predictable and fair. (I recall you said something about rationality requiring less emphasis on country of origin, but that’s not the same as increasing overall immigration quotas.)

Then, in order for there to be a big drop in illegal immigration, the folks accepted to come here legally must be the same ones who would have come illegally. That would not necessarily be the case. (I’ve previously said I certainly HOPE it wouldn’t be true, but that’s a different issue. We disagree on that.) As long as there is screening and a quota of any kind on Mexican immigration, there will be additional people who want to come here but are denied, or don’t seek, the opportunity. Some of them will come anyway. How many? I don’t know, but there are plenty of people who would be willing to try if they thought our immigration laws were becoming more lax -- just the kind of (perhaps misguided) thinking that goes on among the Mexican peasantry.

(Sorry if I didn’t recall your dozen+ posts. I didn’t read your pontifications at Patterico. And how would you like it if my argument consisted of “I explained it to you three times in the last year. Look it up. QED”? It’s your site. You make the rules and decide to whom and how to respond. Nuff said.)

Dafydd-

Your experience assuredly does not match mine. Even among Hispanic illegals, let alone Canadians, I find the values of work, family, right to life, Christianity (please don't tell me they're not Christians, they're Catholics!), education, learning English (my stepmother teaches hundreds of immigrants each year in ESL, and the school does not require proof of legal residency), and it sure would appear they believe in American freedoms, too.

All right, I was being a bit facetious when I said capitalism was the only value illegal immigrants share with American values.

But since you list others, let’s go over them. These are all supposed to be American values and considered as positive attributes in evaluating ones “pre-Americanism”, thus eligibility for immigration. Right? OK:

Work ethic. You’re right, illegal Mexican immigrants’ work ethic is very good -- maybe better than native born Americans. I guess I considered work ethic to be part of capitalism, which encourages it, as opposed to socialism, which stifles it. Marginal, but I suppose I’ll give you this one. (Although, if this is to be a qualifying factor for immigration, how does one evaluate it for people who are unemployed or are subsistence farmers? Lots of those folks come here illegally.)

Family. Yup, Mexicans are very family oriented. I guess you consider that a factor in being “pre-American,” thus qualified to immigrate legally. One more for you. (BTW, is that a factor in why your Japanese friend, who you think has been screwed by the current immigration system, should be admitted?)

Right to life. You’ve got to be kidding. Pro choicers need not apply. As I understand it, that includes you, at least by most definitions.

Christianity. Of course Mexicans are Catholics. Why should they be given any preference over Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists? We should be concerned with applicants’ morality, but that has little to do with their claimed religion. Of course, once we start talking morality rather than religion it becomes more of a judgment call -- less rationality, predictability and fairness.

Education. Again, surely you jest. Illegal immigrants tend to be the bottom of the Mexican educational barrel. And that barrel isn’t very deep to begin with. Public schools (the only ones poor people can afford) in Mexico are a joke -- no, more like a crime. No one with any means at all subjects their kids to public schools. I know people who are pretty poor by our standards who scrimp and save just to let their kids go to a modest private school. (Yeah, there are people here who do the same, but it’s far more common in Mexico. It‘s essentially universal for the middle class and above.) Then there’s the issue of education level. I would guess that the average education for the Mexican lower class (whence 95%+ of illegals) is something less than sixth grade -- and that’s being generous.

Learning English. Very few illegals know English before they get here. Those few get a plus on immigration status. Some take ESL -- but where I live, it’s a relative few compared to their numbers. This is something that can only be evaluated after arrival, so it can’t be considered for immigration.

American freedoms. Not sure what that means, but everyone loves freedom, right? That’s what the inscription on the Statue of Liberty implies. There are a few exceptions like Hugo Chavez, the Castro Bros. and some Middle Eastern clerics. But those are all from elite classes and not likely to apply for immigration to the US.

OK, so which of these values can we use to rationally, fairly and predictably evaluate an immigration application? Work ethic, but only if there is a confirmable history. Family, probably, if nobody lies. Education, sure in most cases. English, but very few Mexican illegals would get a plus on this one.

The rest may represent good pre-American values, but they fail on predictability and fairness -- and a couple even on rationality.

By the way; why is it that whenever I say "illegal immigrant," you read it as "illegal Mexican immigrant?" While they are the majority, or at least plurality, of illegals, they are not the totality.

I don’t interpret what you have said as applying only to Mexicans. I did say earlier that my comments are limited to this group. I guess I should have repeated this caveat. The reason is because I have quite a bit of experience with Mexicans, both in Mexico and here. And in the US, with both legal and illegal immigrants. My experience with other immigrant groups is limited.

And I should add that I truly love Mexico and many Mexicans (one Mexican in particular). They are a wonderful people. It’s just that I’m probably in a better position than most to evaluate their faults and foibles. Just as you are in a better position than, for example, some Frenchman to comment, positively or negatively, on America or Americans.

Dick E:

I just re-read (twice) your comments above. I fail to find your defense...

Dick E., try the parts where I discuss why otherwise law-abiding people illegally enter America in droves. That is my argument.

Family. Yup, Mexicans are very family oriented. I guess you consider that a factor in being “pre-American,” thus qualified to immigrate legally.

I'm citing examples of why I consider the huge majority of them pre-American; these are not the criteria that USCIS would use, because they're not directly measurable. The actual admissions criteria would have be measurable proxies of these points and others.

More specifically, I'm citing reasons why they can assimilate into American society. They believe in a (male) father and a (female) mother with children... rather than, say, one man with six wifes, or a harem, or some bizarre tribal culture, or "marriage" between an adult and a six year old. Or even permanent metrosexual singleness.

Education. Again, surely you jest. Illegal immigrants tend to be the bottom of the Mexican educational barrel. And that barrel isn’t very deep to begin with. Public schools (the only ones poor people can afford) in Mexico are a joke -- no, more like a crime. No one with any means at all subjects their kids to public schools. I know people who are pretty poor by our standards who scrimp and save just to let their kids go to a modest private school.

I'm not talking about the level of educational attainment but their attitude towards education -- and evidently you agree with me that it's important to Hispanic immigrants, because you call attention to "people who are pretty poor by our standards who scrimp and save just to let their kids go to a modest private school."

American freedoms. Not sure what that means, but everyone loves freedom, right?

No. Most cultures don't even have the concept. Those people who break away from oppressive cultures to head to the U.S. -- excepting those who come here for obvious economic reasons (guest workers, for example) or disreputable reasons (criminal or terrorist) -- are almost necessarily more interested in freedom than their co-nationalists: Most Arab Moslems have no interest in emigrating from Saudi Arabia or Syria to America; ditto for Rwandan Tutsis, Chinese Communists, Singaporeans, Maori, or Tibetans. They consider our freedom to be bizarre, bourgeois, frightening, or unholy.

OK, so which of these values can we use to rationally, fairly and predictably evaluate an immigration application?

While we're looking for those values, we cannot measure them directly. Once we've settled on the values, the next step is to come up with reasonably dispositive yet still workable proxy measurements.

We're looking for people who share the American virtue of family, for example. Now being married is no guarantee that a person believes in the traditional family; but being in a one man, one woman marriage is a fairly good proxy, especially if they have children as well. Also, people with children are more likely to work hard than those who are single. So we would give preference to intact families over singles or other, non-traditional (in America) family structures.

Knowledge of English: Most immigrants wouldn't know much English the first time they try. Suppose they're rejected; recall I also said they would be told what they need to do.

Let's suppose some sort of "pre-American" point system. We've decided to take X number of immigrants this year, so we take the top X in point scores (barring those bounced for other obvious reasons).

The rejected immigrant-wannabe gets his score, and he sees that he can move up the ladder substantially by improving his English from Level 1 (bare comprehension) to Level 3, 4, or 5 (able to carry on a conversation or read a book in English with strong comprehension). Thus, before applying again next year, he rationally concludes that he had better study English, by any means necessary.

Same with the other proxy measurements, whatever they end up being. If "community service" is one, then rational applicants will find some qualifying charity or other type of volunteer work to do. If work history is another, they'll get jobs in their country of origin and work assiduously at them, and so forth.

The point is to let them know what will make them more likely to be in the upper part of the applicant pool, so that when the top X are taken, they'll be in that number. This encourages rational planning, a longer attention span, individual achievement, and a greater involvement in community and society... all meta-values we need in our immigrants (which used to be forced by the difficulty of the act of immigration itself, but now must be artificially selected for).

That is the theory; the challenge is actually to design the proxies and weight them appropriately.

Dafydd

The rejected immigrant-wannabe gets his score, and he sees that he can move up the ladder substantially by improving his English from Level 1 (bare comprehension) to Level 3, 4, or 5 (able to carry on a conversation or read a book in English with strong comprehension). Thus, before applying again next year, he rationally concludes that he had better study English, by any means necessary.

Why doesn't this seemingly motivated and rational individual simply wade across the few inches of water in the Rio Grande and enter illegally? If the benefits are the same, and the penalties non-existent, they will rationally choose that better course. If they really are in desperate straits in their home country, as is the conventional wisdom story line, then they cannot afford to "wait in line" either. For any system of legal immigration to work for the huge backlog of existing and potential illegal immigrants, we have to do some combination of: 1) Create a huge, one-time "loophole" in the quotas for the self-deported to re-enter quickly, 2) determine that we have been in error on the true conditions for the self-deported in their home countries and that our laws can be compassionately enforced, or 3) decide that those who violated the law can be fairly punished by sending them back "home" until they can meet the requirements of the new law. As in all policy prescriptions, the biggest consideration is what the incentives are. The incentives in the current system discourage legal immigration, and the laxity of enforcement encourages illegal immigration. Your proposal treats the former, but not the latter.

Dick E.:
Thanks for the information about administrative law. I learned something.
Back to my topic, where does one draw the line on criminality? Must we convict them
before we can deport them?

Dafyyd-

Dick E., try the parts where I discuss why otherwise law-abiding people illegally enter America in droves. That is my argument.

I don’t think that is at all germane to the point I was challenging, which is from your original post:

Correct the system -- which we should do anyway for our own reasons -- and we'll see a huge drop in illegal entries…

I think you may have gotten off topic in your previous response to me in which you said:

Dick E., I have explained, supported, and defended this proposition in at least a dozen posts over several years, going all the way back to when I was a guest poster at Patterico's Pontifications. Where have you been?

For that matter, I even defend it in this very comment thread. Look up.

I’ve been following your blog for a few years now, and in that time you’ve posted on immigration reform several times. This is the first time, I believe, you’ve claimed that reform would lead to substantially less illegal immigration. I’m pretty sure I would have remembered.

You’ve mentioned several times over the years that we need improved rationality, predictability and fairness. Does that mean we also need significant increases in total legal immigration? Combining these concepts could, indeed, result in fewer illegals, but higher immigration quotas aren’t intuitively included in the improvements you have discussed herein and before.

Not that higher quotas would necessarily be a bad thing, but that is a different matter.

Bart,

Sorry i'm so late to answering your question, hope you are still around to hear the answer.

The purpose of the law being administrative is that we need no judge or jury. Those people who are making entry into the United States and are not United States Citizens have absolutely no right to enter our country.

Therefore, the visa that they have is a priveledge given to them by the State Department. An Officer like myself needs only garner permission from a supervisor in order to tell him, "Sorry, you need to go back home." and cancel his visa.

There is no appeal to a judge (in most cases), there is no right to a lawyer, there is no right to a trial by jury, etc.

Now, if a person claims a credible fear to going back home to the country that they live in, then they can certainly claim that and get a review (Sometimes by a judge, sometimes by an Asylum officer, depending). Usually if they are from a country like Somalia, let's say, then claiming Asylum will mean they get to enter and stay forever.

But sometimes we get Somalians who try that and are citizens of European countries, like England. They've got almost zero chance of getting granted asylum.

So, we don't need them to be criminals to remove them.

If they are criminals, we'll punish them in the United States first (Send them to our jails and prisons and they get a lawyer and court and everything else criminals get in the United States) and then, once their time has been served and debt has been paid, they get deported.

Baggi-
That's a fine system in theory, but millions of Mexicans never got visas in the first place.
Further, nearly every copy of the

Daily Cageliner

has stories of serious crime committed by people
who had been deported multiple times, without any trials for the crimes committed here before.
You have a better chance of getting off with DUI, no license, and no insurance if you are an illegal
from Mexico than if you are a native-born citizen.

Bart,

i'm lost as to your point about Mexican never getting any visas, am I missing something?

If it helps you, forget about the visa's. The point is that those who are in the country illegaly do not get to go to criminal court, due to it being administrative law. They get removed quicker that way and we don't fill up our already full detention centers thanks to it being administrative law.

As to people getting off with serious crimes, i'm not sure what that has to do with it either.

It's not because they are illegal that they get off with serious crimes. It's because for whatever reason we don't know that they are wanted for those crimes.

Unless you're speaking about sanctuary cities or something. But then, that's not a problem with our Federal Immigration laws, but rather, the will of these institutions to fight crime, rather it is committed by illegals or by legal residents/citizens.

Are you suggesting that the law be changed to make illegal entrants criminals?

I'm not disagreeing with you so much as i'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

If illegally entering the Country is not a crime, it should be. If smuggling drugs and people into
the country is not a crime, it should be. If robbery, rape, DUI, fraud, and other assorted
activities are not crimes, they should be.

However, comma, in example after example, the miscreants are more often allowed to leave
than to go to prison. After which, they return if they can.

I'd like Mexican illegals treated the same way in this country as Mexicans treat illegals there.

I guess I'm a little late to the game but did want to add a couple comments, from the perspective of a Mexican/American Republican conservative. Just some quick from the hip thoughts about a subject I have thought a great deal about.

- The problem for Republicans is not policy but language. What puts off mexican-americans isn't a larger border fence, or national ID or whatever. The problem is that the language used to argue for these things is racist language in the absolutely true sense of that word.

- Whatever happened to the great anti-illegal alien vote bonanza all the anti immigrant forces were predicting just a couple of years ago? That's what we should be talking about. How many votes did Tancredo get?

- The mainstreaming of anti-immigrant fervor by National Review among others was a big mistake. When did immigration become a central part of the conservative agenda? Certainly not under Ronaldous Maximus.

- Local Republican party leadership is extremely white and country clubish. This alone keeps Republicans from winning over minority votes. Republicans treat their political party like an exclusive club and they don't want any busboys, lawnmower jockeys, maids, farm workers, or day laborers in their club. They don't mind their votes they just don't want to have to associate with them much less have them in positions of authority. This is a big problem. The same people who reflexively defended Scooter Libby attacked Alberto Gonsalez.

- In my personal experience the rants against immigration were and continue to be the wellspring of anti Mexican bigotry and bias.

- The arguments used by the anti-illegal immigrant forces were and continue to be for the most part bogus. E.g. more terrorists have entered the U.S. from Canada than from Mexico but there is little talk about building a fence across the border with Canada. As the result of main stream conservatives, like Hugh Hewitt, using these bogus arguments the impression Mexican-Americans get is that there is some ulterior motivation for the anti-illegal immigrant fervor.

- The intellectual side of the conservative movement is extremely inbred. Their strategy seems to be one of controlling the debate by limiting access to opposing points of view. That conservative websites have to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow comments, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, NRO, Instapundit, is not a sign of good intellectual health.

- You cannot expect conservatives like those who viciously attacked Sarah Palin to welcome Mexican-Americans into the party. It seems that there are a great many conservatives who are more interested in the votes and opinions of elite Canadians than of Mexican-Americans.

Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net

Hello again; we came back from our Orlando excursion, lived through Christmas, survived the joint birthday celebration of my stepmother and Sachi, and staggered over the errand-day finishing line more or less intact. Time to dive into comments. (I have several stubs saved up to be turned into posts; probably commence that tomorrow.)

Snochasr:

Why doesn't this seemingly motivated and rational individual simply wade across the few inches of water in the Rio Grande and enter illegally? If the benefits are the same, and the penalties non-existent, they will rationally choose that better course.

My suggestion is that the benefits of legal and illegal immigration would not be the same, and I'm perfectly happy with serious, even severe penalties.

The point is that, when the legal immigration system has been made more rational, predictable, and just -- no longer capricious, arbitrary, unjust, and seemingly random -- then we can assume that honest immigrants will use it. Those who do not can be presumed to have more nefarious motives, and we can deal harshly with them.

That's one of the major points.

Dick E.:

I’ve been following your blog for a few years now, and in that time you’ve posted on immigration reform several times. This is the first time, I believe, you’ve claimed that reform would lead to substantially less illegal immigration. I’m pretty sure I would have remembered.

I did, but you didn't. The syllogism is clear:

1. I maintain that a huge majority of illegal immigrants sneak across the border because they cannot figure out what to do in order to immigrate here legally; the system is so screwed up that the decisions have become essentially random.
2. If instead these pre-American immigrants knew what was expected of them -- what would actually make them significantly more likely to get permanent residency and eventually citizenship -- they would rationally take that route, rather than unlawful infiltration. Given that they really want to stay here, being legal is much, much better than being illegal.
3. Ergo, reform the system, and illegal immigration will drop, because most of those coming illegally would qualify (maybe after a couple of tries) to immigrate legally.

Granted, immigration itself would not decline; but why should it? Personally, I believe immigration brings new blood to America; I want to see much higher levels of legal immigration, enough to include all the (pre-American) illegal immigration (though not the terrorists, mules, insane, or criminals) and even somewhat more.

This begs the question of what metric to use to discriminate between pre-Americans and the truly unassimilable; but that's a discussion for a later blogpost. First I want to argue the principle that pre-American immigrants tremendously benefit the country, while unassimilable immigrants endanger and impoverish it... so we should create a "Maxwell's demon" to let in the former but not the latter.

Even with immigration we're just barely meeting our reproductive quota to maintain population. The United States needs to grow; our population must expand to create more wealth.

In addition, I like the new customs and ways of thinking (and food) that immigrants bring with them -- so long as they assimilate into mainstream American culture, I appreciate the new flavors they give it. This was true of the Irish, the Jews, the Poles, Canadians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cubans, Africans, and even the anti-Ayatollah Persians who fled here after 1979. It see no reason why it should not be true of Mexicans and other Latin immigrants, no matter what Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan say.

I want more immigrants; but I want them here legally, above-ground, contributing and expanding the tax base so we can lower the rate and still clear necessary expenses.

(I also want us to stop paying for unnecessary garbage, from transportation boondoggles, to parascientific nonsense like globaloney, to so-called "entitlement" programs that simply transfer wealth from the productive to the parasites, to hidden taxes in the form of unfunded government "mandates" on private companies, to propagandistic pseudoeducation; but that's a horse in the other hand.)

So the object is to make it easier for pre-American immigrants to come here legally, yet harder for them or anyone else, including Axis agents, to come here illegally. That is my primary point.

Dafydd

As far as I know, the process for legally entering the Country is no more onerous than that for other
groups - from Irish to Iranian. There are limits for each country; these limits change with time
and are politically calculated. The limits for
Mexico were long ago trashed and exceeded by
the illegals. If no more Mexicans came into the Country for the next ten years, they would still
exceed the 'legal quotas' for Mexico.

In part, these limits are to keep the numbers to those that can reasonably be assimilated.
I know there are pockets where English is seldom used - there is at least one Russian newspaper
in NY. There are more Polish in Chicago than in Warsaw.

There are more illegal Mexicans in the U.S. than all the Polish and Russians combined.

Some years ago, there was a killing in a hotel in Denver. One witness was a cleaning lady.
She Had been in the Country for over 15 years at the time, but could not speak English well enough
to testify without an interpreter.

When I lived in a foreign country, I learned enough of the language to get around without
an interpreter. I could read some of the
newspaper and the signposts. I assimilated more
in a year than that woman did in 15 years.

I don't think that lady is out of the mainstream of the illegal population. I bet she still
cannot speak English very well.

It is a favorite game of some to point to opposition to illegals as opposition to
immigrants. Not true, of course, but such people don't observe the niceties of truth or falsehood.

Legal immigrants, in limited numbers, strengthen the Country. Illegal immigrants, in uncontrolled
numbers, weaken the Country.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Bart Johnson:

It is a favorite game of some to point to opposition to illegals as opposition to immigrants. Not true, of course, but such people don't observe the niceties of truth or falsehood.

Legal immigrants, in limited numbers, strengthen the Country. Illegal immigrants, in uncontrolled numbers, weaken the Country.

Is it really that hard to understand?

So you're not opposed to immigrants, so long as they don't immigrate here. Do you see the problem?

Instead of setting a particular quota -- how is this number calculated? -- let's try setting standards of "pre-Americanism," then let the numbers take care of themselves by process of discrimination between immigrants who will likely assimilate and those who have no interest in assimilating.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

I did, but you didn't. The syllogism is clear:

1. I maintain that a huge majority of illegal immigrants sneak across the border because they cannot figure out what to do in order to immigrate here legally; the system is so screwed up that the decisions have become essentially random.

2. If instead these pre-American immigrants knew what was expected of them -- what would actually make them significantly more likely to get permanent residency and eventually citizenship -- they would rationally take that route, rather than unlawful infiltration. Given that they really want to stay here, being legal is much, much better than being illegal.

3. Ergo, reform the system, and illegal immigration will drop, because most of those coming illegally would qualify (maybe after a couple of tries) to immigrate legally.

Granted, immigration itself would not decline; but why should it?

OK, you’ve now stated your argument clearly and reasonably succinctly, so the fact that this is the first time you’ve made it is now essentially irrelevant. But the gauntlet seems to be down, so…

First, to summarize -- what you’re saying, absent the trappings of syllogism, is that we should allow many (most?) of those currently coming here illegally to enter legally because they are “pre-Americans.” In order to accommodate these new immigrants, we just increase or abolish quotas. Simple, no? Now for the specifics:

You have previously (and often) opined that the immigration system is badly flawed, making it difficult, sometimes impossible, for applicants to know how to apply properly. But your syllogism consists of:

[Major premise] Most illegals would not be so if only they knew how to apply legally. You might have said that before, but I don’t recall.

[Minor premise] If illegals knew how to apply they would likely do so. You may have said that before, too, but I don’t recall it either. (BTW, note the logical jump referring to the “huge majority of illegal immigrants” as “pre-American.” I’m not saying it isn’t true, just pointing out the logical incongruity. This is, after all, supposed to be a syllogism. [Now I’ll say it: It’s not true.])

[Conclusion] Immigration reform would cause a decrease in illegal immigration. This you have NOT said in your many posts I have read over the years. I definitely would have remembered that. (I just did two global searches on your archive for “immigration immolations” looking for “decrease” and “decline.” No hits that remotely resemble your conclusion. I also found that I’ve been commenting on the topic since just about your first related post, so I’ve read nearly all of them, including comments.)

If you again claim you’ve previously stated this conclusion (let alone “at least a dozen” times, as per your Dec. 19 4:08 AM comment) without providing some evidence of the prior statement, I think I’ll scream! And that would upset no one but my wife, so please don’t do it.

This begs the question of what metric to use to discriminate between pre-Americans and the truly unassimilable; but that's a discussion for a later blogpost.

I await that post with bated hook.

So the object is to make it easier for pre-American immigrants to come here legally, yet harder for them or anyone else, including Axis agents, to come here illegally. That is my primary point.

I applaud making illegal immigration harder, but that seems like more of a border security issue than it is legal immigration reform. If that is part of your primary point, where is it addressed? You said above that legal immigration should be made easier for those who qualify. But just because someone doesn’t qualify as pre-American does not, by itself, make it more difficult to come here illegally. What would?

Dick E.:

So the object is to make it easier for pre-American immigrants to come here legally, yet harder for them or anyone else, including Axis agents, to come here illegally. That is my primary point.

I applaud making illegal immigration harder, but that seems like more of a border security issue than it is legal immigration reform. If that is part of your primary point, where is it addressed? You said above that legal immigration should be made easier for those who qualify. But just because someone doesn’t qualify as pre-American does not, by itself, make it more difficult to come here illegally. What would?

You seem to labor under the odd interpretation that I offer reform of legal immigration instead of border control; in fact, I offer it in addition to border control. I support all reasonable border-control proposals, including the security fence (along both borders, please!), the virtual fence, beefing up the Border Patrol, smart-card ID cards, more automated border crossings, and so forth. (By "reasonable," I only mean to exclude, e.g., machine-gun nests along the Rio Grande, etc.)

So bring on all the border-control laws; I have long since abandoned the extreme libertarianism of my youth, when I railed against the concept of national borders; I now accept, even embrace them.

Build the wall! But as I have said before, There is no wall, no matter how high or thick, that can be secured against a million peasants with pitchforks trying to knock it down.

(Here is an example of me saying it -- and indeed, making the same argument I have made here -- back in October, 2005... just about a month after launching Big Lizards.)

We must decrease the number of people trying to knock down the wall by letting the most of them in legally. Thus, we must reform the legal immigration system to make it more rational, predictable, and just... as I have argued for years now.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

You seem to labor under the odd interpretation that I offer reform of legal immigration instead of border control; in fact, I offer it in addition to border control.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth post. You said that your primary point was, in part, to make it “harder for [pre-Americans] or anyone else … to come here illegally.” I was merely asking how you would propose to accomplish that, since it was not addressed in your original post or any of your comments. (An interesting omission for a “primary point.") I generally agree with your solution as you have now stated it.

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!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)