I'm sorry, the analogy is both misleading and completely misses the point. That gun control is irrationally applied by localities ( I tend to believe almost all gun control is irrational ) has nothing at all to do with the rational debate on how immigration can be used to enrich our society. Allowing uncontrolled immigration is not comparable to Texas gun law, it is basically like posting an ad in the newspaper that firearms seized from criminals will be dropped in the dumpster behind the Police Department on Monday and hoping that the gang bangers won't show up.

Most illegals are decent people and I would allow them into the country without a thought after the border was secured. But it is not their choice, it is ours. The current policy is essentially open borders with occasional spurts of furious activity to try to prove that someone, somewhere is doing something.

I have no problem with freer immigration after the border is secured. I oppose any form of amnesty because it will encourage future illegal immigration. Secure the border, then we can discuss everything else. Leave the border open and the problem is endless.

The capricious law that the Mexicans (and others) are trying to escape from are not made by America. America is what they are trying to escape to.

Jerome Parker is better off carrying a gun illegally. But he would be better off by far legally carrying a gun and if he would tackle the system, like Heller, he might eventually prevail, bringing benefit to both himself and others.

If everyone with drive and skill leave Mexico (and other places) who will be left to reform them? Who will be left to care for the families left behind?

American policy would be kinder to invest in small start ups, and electrification projects in Mexico than it would be trying to cure Mexico's (and other's) problems with an open border policy.

"Uncontrolled immigration?" "Open borders?" "Amnesty?"

I think that some folks are intentionally misunderstanding my very clear and precise English, presumably because the straw man is easier to argue against than any of my actual points.

Further, deponent sayeth not.

Dafydd

Dafydd,

I believe your point has been clear for some while now.

Focus on fixing the tax laws first. They are thousands of times easier to fix over immigration.

I have long thought along similar lines. Were we to institute a "fair tax" or some other simplifying tax method, we could then reduce the size of the IRS and send those former IRS pencil pushers down towards the border to push the pencils across the immigration forms. Win/Win as I see it.

Dafydd,
I am not trying to be difficult or introducing terms that are unclear. Uncontrolled immigration exists when the laws are not enforced. There are more illegal immigrants in the US than there are people in any State except California. While laws are on the books, they are not enforced and jurisdictions like cities, counties and even States suffer no penalty for not enforcing or even blocking enforcement of the law. This is uncontrolled.

There are certain areas of the border, mostly near official crossings where the appearance of control exists. Between them are areas where it does not. It is open enough that half of the twenty million illegals in the country entered that way. To say the border is controlled is like saying your house is locked because you locked the front door while leaving all the others, along with the windows, open.

Amnesty is simply defined as mass forgiveness. Every twenty years or so, we amnesty those already here and put on the books laws to prevent another mass migration requiring another amnesty. Then we refuse to enforce the laws or fund the agencies charged with enforcement.

I do not want to be unclear or obnoxious but your post simply failed to apply to the situation in my opinion. Sorry.

If I'm wrong, please try again. I'm more than willing to listen. But please don't just dismiss those with serious reservations about "reform". If it produces the same problems in twenty years, it is simply not worth it.

Respectfully
Ken

Ken Hahn:

Ken, the point is that this post is about reforming the legal immigration system, as was the previous immigration post. Nowhere did I oppose any border-enforcement policy enunciated by conservatives; in fact, I explicitly endorsed them in the comments of the previous post and in many other blogposts on the subject.

On a subject with aspects A, B, and C, I have written about aspect C; your response is entirely about A and B. In essence, you appear to be saying, 'Why are you writing a post about C, when you could just as easily have written one about A and B?' This is a complete non-sequitur.

The point of Big Lizards is not to be an echo chamber, repeating what other people are saying on other fora. Big Lizards is an independent voice that strives, sometimes successfully, to hold forth on different aspects of familiar quandries, or even different quandries.

There are plenty of people discussing border enforcement, on all sides of that issue, in the blogosphere. Very few, however, seem interested in reform of legal immigration -- and nearly all of those few oppose immigration altogether, or at least want to drastically restrict it. Our position here appears to be unique.

I maintain that none of the enforcement mechanisms can be ultimately successful until and unless we separate the actual criminals, in all senses of the word, from those otherwise honest and decent immigrants who only broke the law because the law is so egregiously irrational.

If you disagree with that point -- if you argue that increasingly draconian border-enforcement and deportation policies will ultimately stem the tide without having to bother with any reform of the legal-immigration system -- then that would be germane to the argument; you are encouraged to post such a refutation, if you believe it.

But I really wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth, especially not those 180 degrees off of what I believe and have said. I have never on this blog or any other called for "open borders," "unrestricted immigration," or "amnesty" (correctly defined).

Dafydd

I suspect most of you can see exacty where I'm heading with this analogy to illegal immigration, so I'll leave off here. But please think about your reaction to the scenarios above, then about your reaction to my call for the reformation of the legal immigration system -- and my argument that this alone would dramatically decrease the illegal immigration problem.

i am not certain that immigration reform which is needed will have any effect on reducing the number wishing to cross our borders.

We have fairly consistant and uniform speed laws wwhich do have some effect but don't stop speeding

Illegal aliens are in large part inviduals who might not qualify under your new laws

The incentives you point out and use for your illustration will still remain, We canot accomodate ALL those who wish to enter.

IMO a system where a business can verify the legality of an employee and ceasation of all welfare benefits for illegal aliens would be more effective.

I am curious of the millions who have crossed the border since the last amnesty, what percentage do you think would have applied under your envisioned improved imigration reform and how many do you think would have qualified and how many of the latter do you think would have come in any way?

Dafydd-

Back to your original point -- the analogy itself. (The following is based on your description of the laws. I have no personal knowledge thereof.)

I like Texas’ law and dislike LA’s.

That said, my not liking it doesn’t make LA’s law irrational. Many jurisdictions have CCW laws somewhere between Texas and LA, and some ban CCW’s altogether. Some whole countries ban CCW’s. They may be misguided, but they’re not necessarily irrational.

A lot of people who would not otherwise be considered irrational think no one but police should be permitted to carry concealed weapons. I’ve heard a number of police spout this mantra -- although I’ve never had a private conversation with one to confirm their true, non-political feelings.

Nor, if it’s administered as you describe, is LA’s CCW law arbitrary, capricious or vindictive, at least insofar as its everyday application to ordinary Joe’s and Jane’s. Everybody knows that only a select few have a chance of getting a CCW permit. The elite may be subject to bureaucratic nastiness, but the rest of us are all in the same dinghy. The unwashed masses are treated consistently -- one could even argue fairly -- since they’re all treated the same (no CCW’s, no way, no how -- unless, of course, you’re willing to pony up).

Only a very few applicants -- the elite who at least think they have a chance for a CCW permit -- are affected by arbitrary, capricious, vindictive treatment.

Administration of the law is certainly authoritarian and corrupt, because it is not enforced as written. Rather, the folks in charge think they possess a “higher wisdom” that lets them understand that no one should really have a concealed gun. But they figure they can’t keep the various elites from carrying guns, so they make allowances. And maybe a few palms get greased along the way. After all, the rich are different, aren’t they?

I’m not sure, then, how your analogy provides clarity in the discussion of immigration reform. Isn’t your main point that, while Texas’ law may be superior, the greater problem is that LA and Slobovia administer their laws very poorly? If you look at immigration reform through the same prism, the main effort should be to clean out the incompetent, corrupt, etc. bureaucrats. Changing the law becomes secondary.

It is easily provable that gun control contributes to murder rates and crime.

Cities with the toughest gun control end up with only the criminals having guns and police unable to respond fast enough except to clean up the mess later.

See India and the rising knife murders in England for examples.

The opposite of mandatory gun laws in some small towns leave weapons in the hands of the unqualified to carry.

CC laws leave the perp second guessing as to his risk.

I agree with Dafydd. Our present policy is irrational and punitive. It won't work and is contrary to our ideals.

And on the bright side, maybe a burst of immigration would so overburden government entitlements that they would become untenable.

so overburden government entitlements that they would become untenable.

and they tenable now then?

Dafydd,
If I have misunderstood you, I apologize.

The problem lies in the extrapolation to infinity of either case. If you extrapolate loose gun laws to their conclusion, that is, that anyone who applies who has no criminal record or reason for the legal system to object can obtain a concealed carry license through a not-too-arduous process,you end up with generally everyone who wants a gun having a gun. This is because everyone who wants one will either be a) a good person and acquire one by legal means, or b) a bad person and acquire one by illegal means. Proponents of gun laws, like myself, think this outcome is as good or better than any alternative.

The extension to the logical conclusion of a similarity in immigration analogy, the result of a "Texas Law" form of immigration is that anyone who wants to come in will be allowed in...because they will either a) be good and follow the laws or b) be bad and not. In this case, this question becomes critical: is having a nearly unlimited immigration policy advantageous to this country?

That there's a problem I don't think anyone is arguing. That the means to get into this country are difficult is also a given. However, what goal would we be obtaining by vastly relaxing -- for that is the only direction they can go from vindictive, irrational and capricious -- the immigration laws which currently exist? Other than making people who desire that all things be right with the world sleep better at night, for we now have a rational means of telling people "Yes" or "No"?

I think some people may not understand just how easy it is to come into the United States illegally. Perhaps an anecdote will help.

We like to do what is called "outbound" operations at the airport where I work. We go to the jetway where people are boarding their flight and we ask to see passports. One particular flight that goes to Mexico usually has between 1 and 10 people on the flight who are living in the United States without documentation.

The State where I work gives out ID's and Drivers Licenses to anyone who can demonstrate residency in the State, so it's rather easy for those here without proper documents to get ID's and Drivers Licenses.

So, we stand there in the jetway and we ask for documents and people give us their passports. Usually, because this flight is going to Mexico, those without documents we find are Mexican citizens. When we do the flight to Korea, they tend to be citizens of an Asian country, like the Philippines or Korea, etc.

Back to my flight to Mexico.

So as we ask for documents, inevitably we get people without proper documents to be in the United States. 99.9% of these people we encounter are able bodied men and women, those who are able to run quickly, swim, crawl, climb, etc.

Every one of those we encounter have passports, Mexican Passports, without a United States Visa. This means that they are not allowed to be here. Their passports have been issued in the United States. This fact surprises some people but because Mexico and the United States are such good friends, we have a lot of Consulate officers in major cities in the United States where the Mexican government can issue brand new passports to Mexican citizens who have "lost" their passport.

Most people from Mexico who are entering by jumping the fence, or through a tunnel, etc, do not bring a passport with them. This means that in order to fly out of the United States, they need to obtain a passport, and fortunately for them, they've got consulates all throughout the United States willing to issue them passports so that they can fly back home.

So here we are in the jetway encountering these folks who have come to the United States to work without documentation and they all have State issued ID's and/or Drivers Licenses. We are not allowed to take their Passports from them (Because they are documents issued by another nation) but we do take their State issues ID.

One guy said, "I need my ID back." and we told him, "Sorry, you don't have papers to be here, you can't have it back." and he said, "But i'm coming back in a month, I need my ID for my job." and we said, "Yes, but, you're here without papers, you're here illegally, you don't get to have a job or your ID back." and he shouted at us in the jetway, "You don't understand! I'm coming back, I need my ID back!!"

This isn't typical of Mexican people we encounter but it does happen from time to time. It's so easy to get back into the United States that this guy knew that he'd be coming back in a month, after the holiday's, to resume working.

Currently, our border controls keep out the old, the young, the sick and the lame. Able bodied individuals, at least those from Mexico and coming across the Mexican border, don't have much trouble getting in and out of the United States.

I estimate that approximately 75% of our yearly immigration of those coming without documents are people who left previously.

In other words, if we have 10 million people living in the United States illegally, approximately 10% of those come and go at least once a year. Probably more than twice a year.

Baggi-

Thanks for another interesting comment. It may not bear directly on Dafydd’s arguments concerning immigration, but it adds valuable insight.

One question: Why do you folks do “outbound” operations? The targets are already leaving the US. Is the purpose to confiscate the improperly issued drivers licenses, etc? If so, does that somehow discourage illegal aliens from returning?

Or are your real targets other passengers, and you just happen upon the people you mention here?

I’m not challenging you -- I assume the decision to do these operations is made by someone else. Just curious.

On a subject with aspects A, B, and C, I have written about aspect C; your response is entirely about A and B. In essence, you appear to be saying, 'Why are you writing a post about C, when you could just as easily have written one about A and B?' This is a complete non-sequitur.

I don't think you will get any disagreement on C-- that our legal immigration system needs reform. The difficulty with doing that is any claim in support of C, that it will have a significant and salutory effect on A and B, I cannot imagine to be true. With 10-12 million illegals already here (the "A") and 1 million plus coming across every year (the "B"), a change in the legal system for the roughly 100-200 thousand is not going to make much of a dent. While C is highly desirable in its own right, it would have to be radically changed to effect A and B, and in fact it would have to be such that C actually became EASIER than A or B, and that is not the case today. People come in illegally because it's far easier to come, and far easier to stay, almost regardless of what the legal process is.

The second drawback is strictly political-- that it is unlikely that C will be fixed without addressing the more politically potent problems of A and B in a "comprehensive" manner.

Snochasr:

Again, reforming the legal immigration system does not by itself stop people from entering illegally; my point has always been that it's a necessary but not sufficient component... one that is often neglected or dismissed by those focused upon physical interdiction methods.

What I have said is that physical interdiction is doomed to fail if we don't also separate the actual criminals from those whose only crime is illegal entry and ancillary crimes such as document fraud... there is no wall so tall and strong that it can hold back a million people trying to knock it down. But it can certainly hold back a few hundred!

Thus, for a number of years now, I have supported building the wall and the virtual fence and the SmartKard ID and the elimination of "guest workers" in favor of legal immigrants who are not yet citizens (exempting them from minimum-wage laws, for example) and criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants... and reforming the legal immigration system as described previously. Alpha through Zed and "on beyond Zebra."

Dick E:

My guess is that they do outbound operations because all passengers are required to have passports with them. We just flew to Florida from California recently, and of course we did not bring our passports... so there is no way we could prove our nationalities on the spot. (Nor are we required to carry them about within the United States.)

K2aggie07:

The extension to the logical conclusion of a similarity in immigration analogy, the result of a "Texas Law" form of immigration is that anyone who wants to come in will be allowed in...because they will either a) be good and follow the laws or b) be bad and not. In this case, this question becomes critical: is having a nearly unlimited immigration policy advantageous to this country?

You're carrying the analogy too far. I never suggested that any wannabe immigrant who doesn't have a criminal record is allowed in; in fact, I envision that the "assimilability" test could be very strict.

The major difference from today is that the applicants will know what elements of their pre-Americanism they need to improve in order to get in next time, or at least come closer: They will have a rational path to follow from application to residency to citizenship.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

My guess is that they do outbound operations because all passengers are required to have passports with them.

I’m not sure about that. Why do US authorities care whether DEPARTING passengers have passports?

I don’t remember the effective date, but until recently US residents visiting Mexico didn’t need passports. Now we need them, but I assume that’s a requirement to return to the US rather than to enter Mexico.

Maybe Mexico still doesn’t require passports for visitors from some countries. If so, it’s possible someone on a connecting flight originating in such a third country could be on flight from the US to Mexico. That is, of course, conjecture.

I’m still just wondering why our government spot checks ID for outbound international passengers.

Baggi?

What I have said is that physical interdiction is doomed to fail if we don't also separate the actual criminals from those whose only crime is illegal entry and ancillary crimes such as document fraud... there is no wall so tall and strong that it can hold back a million people trying to knock it down. But it can certainly hold back a few hundred!

I believe that physical interdiction-- the "fence"-- coupled with rigid enforcement of a requirement for using the federal e-Verify system by employers and acting upon the KNOWN 9 million "no-match" Social Security numbers, would reduce the illegal immigration by 90% or more. It's already proven to work in a couple of states.

The question of what to do with the existing illegals who are already here and will be found by these measures is where we are going to disagree. Apparently you would favor some sort of instant legalization, and allowing most to remain here in some sort of "assimilable" status. That is an amnesty if, as I do, you consider people who break the law are criminals. My solution is to reform the legal system, in all the ways you cite, create all of the obstacles to employment on which we agree, and then to create a special, one-time entry quota for those who "have a job waiting" here and can meet a few other requirements. This would basically require all of these folks to self-deport, but would allow them to more or less immediately come back in through the 'front door' as pre-Americans. We would essentially ignore any questions as to how this brand new immigrant has a job waiting, so as to avoid asking how many laws he may have "inadvertently" broken. Clean slate.

Even this approach has problems, of course. Employers would have to "hold the job open" while the illegal employee went home and returned, and would have to have some sort of amnesty for knowingly doing so. It is also probable that many of these will not want to become pre-Americans, simply wanting to work and make money. I see nothing in your plan for such, and I believe they constitute a large percentage of those here. Many others will not meet the requirements for knowing some English, etc, and not be allowed to return under your proposed rules.

Lastly, remember what happened during the last amnesty: very few illegals stepped forward to claim a path to citizenship. Some no doubt feared repurcussions, but I believe the majority simply saw no reason to make the effort.

Dafydd, Sachi et al-

Thanks for a year of stimulating, informative blogging.

Happy New Year!

I agree that many of the quotas for entry are arbitrary, and all are politically affected.
In most cases, however, they are supposed to keep the number of people down to the level where they
can and will be assimilated. This, of course, assumes the immigrants plan to assimilate.
In addition, the rules typically restrict entrants to those who have enough money, sponsor(s), and jobs to
support themselves without public assistance.
None of these conditions apply to the flood of Mexicans.
I am reminded of a sign in a store: NO Checks Please. We have enough left over from last year.
Until WE control the influx from the South, we cannot say we have control. The numbers are much
higher than will voluntarily assimilate.

When I lived overseas, there was an area where most of the Americans lived. They chose to be in
a small set of buildings where they had common language and traditions. Study after study shows
that "Diversity" leads to ghettos, conflict, and strife.
They will not assimilate unless forced. If they will not assimilate, they should not be allowed.

Step 1: build an effective fence.
Step 2: deport as many illegals as possible
Step 3: allow transient workers who will periodically go home
step 4: apply the same restrictions to Mexicans as we apply to the Irish. Or, at least, the Russians.

Keep in mind that not all those who enter illegally are Central/South Americans.
A small number are from the Middle East, with unknown intentions.

Finally, for all the people who cry in my beer that deporting illegals "breaks up families", tough.
If they didn't want their family to be broken up, they should have stayed where they were legal.
I am not responsible for the poverty found in many parts of the world. The percentage of "poor"
has not changed since Jesus's time.

We all know that governments are the cause of poverty. Go cry in the Mexican President's beer.

Bart Johnson-

Step 1: build an effective fence

Agreed.

Step 2: deport as many illegals as possible

Does that mean deport every last person we can identify as illegal? If so, you’re a lot harder hearted than I am. A few examples:

A Mexican parent comes here illegally with their equally illegal baby. The baby grows up here, never goes back to Mexico, and doesn’t know anyone there. The parent dies, and the offspring, now 15 (20? 30?) years old and fully assimilated is caught by ICE. Should they be deported?

That example’s too unlikely? OK, it’s common for illegals to arrive with children, who obviously have no choice in the matter. Say the kid was 5 or 10 years old when they arrived. Now they’re 25, graduated from college and working. Send ’em back to Mexico?

I’m sure you’ll disagree with me on this one, but I’ve known people like this: A rich American couple pays a Mexican woman to come here for domestic help. After she arrives the Americans essentially keep the Mexican as a slave, forbidding her to leave the house except under very restricted circumstances, confiscating her passport and threatening her with various dire consequences if she tries to escape or tell the authorities. 15+ years later, the unsophisticated, uneducated Mexican, who no longer has any family or friends in Mexico, finds a way, with some kind assistance, to escape. The authorities are still unaware of what happened. What to do with her?

Then there are the anchor babies. You’ve already said you don’t care about breaking up families, but what about the 10-year-old children born here of illegal immigrants? Deport these US citizens or put them in foster care? How many thousands of them would we need to treat this way?

Of course, these examples represent just a small minority of illegal immigrants, but they illustrate what, in my mind, is the cruelty of just rounding up all the illegals indiscriminately and sending them back where they came from.

In a broader sense, all illegal immigrants have broken our laws, but who is really at fault? It’s somewhat like the legal concept of an “attractive nuisance.” The most common example is a swimming pool. Say you have a pool and it isn’t fenced off (or the gate is unlocked) but you have big, bold signs that say “no trespassing.” If a 5-year-old jumps (or falls) into the pool and drowns, YOU are responsible. As long as we don’t properly defend our borders, we are maintaining an attractive nuisance, and we bear at least some of the responsibility for illegal immigration.

Then there’s the practical consideration of international relations. What would happen if we suddenly rounded up and deported, say, 5 million Mexicans? Mexico would instantly have 5 million people added to their unemployment rolls. Not our problem, you say? I don’t think Mexico would view it that way. Do we really want our southern neighbor that angry?

Step 3: allow transient workers who will periodically go home

I have yet to hear a really good reason why this is necessary or even desirable. Employers like the cheap labor, of course. But if the source of low-cost labor were cut off, hotel rooms and offices would not remain dirty and burgers would not go unflipped. Manufacturing and agriculture would have to adapt, either by paying more for labor or, more likely, by mechanizing as they have in the past. There would be some dislocations, and we would probably see some marginal companies go out of business. In my opinion, the benefits of mechanization outweigh the loss of a few businesses that now rely on an illegal source of labor.

Cutting off low-cost illegal immigrant labor should not be done precipitously, and right now might not be the best time to pursue it vigorously. But if we just seal the borders and don’t deport massive numbers of illegals, the problem will, in time, take care of itself -- through self-deportation, retirement and death.

On breaking up of homes

Our prisons are full of people whose homes have been broken up by their incarceration, if breaking up of homes is a valid defense for not enforcing the Law, then every person imprisoned should be set free.

Dick E.,
I do not favor "rounding up" illegals and deporting them. First of all, it's highly impractical from a logistics standpoint. Second, if it could be done at all in anything like a reasonable time frame, it would be economically disruptive. I used to believe that it would also be a humanitarian disaster, but no longer. The states which require employment verification have found mass numbers of illegals self-deporting. It confirms my opinion that the vast majority are here only for economic advantage, with no interest in citizenship or assimilation. Those who have been here a long time, with family here and steady work, are probably ready to assimilate and become legal. A short "vacation" across the border and a clean slate should be welcomed by all sides of the debate for these nice people.

And that is the flip side of the "guest worker" or "transient worker" debate. I don't think it is right for the US to use another country's citizens as substandard laborers. Either let them earn what the market will bear or leave them free in their own country. My preference is to have only pre-Americans or Americans employed here, period. As for the Mexican government, I could care less. They encourage emigration, and their largest single source of export revenue is money that illegals earn here and send home.

"Anchor babies"? There should be no such thing. A careful reading of the Constitution makes a good case that these babies are NOT US citizens. Beyond that, the rules about self-deportation and prompt re-admittance for people who WANT to become Americans (including youngsters who already are, except for legal status) should apply.

Snochasr:

"Anchor babies"? There should be no such thing. A careful reading of the Constitution makes a good case that these babies are NOT US citizens.

Well, yeah... if you use the same sort of "careful reading" that the Court used in Roe v. Wade.

Here is the relevant clause:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

"Anchor babies" are by definition born in the United States; and by living here, they are certainly subject to its jurisdiction. (That jurisdictional exception is to prevent us claiming that, say, the child of a French diplomat stationed here or a Swedish tourist who immediately returns to Sweden is an American citizen.)

There is no way to interpret this to mean that only children born of legal residents are citizens, except by extraordinary mental gymnastics -- the most blatant kind of judicial activism imaginable.

If you don't like this clause, you must look for relief via constitutional amendment.

Dafydd

Contrary to your assertion, I think that analogies are effective exactly because they communicate on an emotional level. You're dealing with the imagination, and story, and word pictures, and the like. But, I have a hard time getting past the whole "personal responsibility" aspect of this analogy.

Surely you understand that Jerome was made into a criminal by a lousy L.A. law

No law makes someone a criminal, unless they willfully choose to break that law. Jerome didn't just wake up one morning to realize that a stupid law had been passed while he was asleep and now he was a criminal. He knew the law that already existed, and decided to purchase and carry a gun illegally, and he will have to deal with the consequences if/when he is caught.

How about another analogy? On a minor, everyday scale, look at speed limits. Just because 100 other people exceed the speed limit and don't get punished doesn't mean it is unjust, arbitrary, authoritarian or whatever, to require people to drive under 40 mph on this particular stretch of road. And if I choose to constantly exceed the speed limit, I too will have to "constantly worry" that I might be stopped by some zealous, anti-speeding traffic cop. Additionally, the speed limit did not make me a speeder. I made myself a speeder when I decided to exceed the posted limit.

I also don't understand why you are so defensive when people assume from your post that you are in favor of open borders. After all, you did say that the analogy was "perfect" for the immigration system, etc. If Texas law "requires" the authorities to grant a CCW permit to "any citizen who applies for one, unless they can show (within a reasonable period of time) that the particular applicant in question has a specific disqualification," then it is not an unreasonable leap to assume that you are in favor of a similar stance with immigration -- that everyone should be granted access unless there is a criminal history that would disqualify them.

Since you later commented you "envision that the 'assimilability' test could be very strict," then the Texas gun law should correspond more closely to that in your analogy. The "obtainability" test for a concealed weapons permit in Texas would, in fact, be very strict, and not everyone who applied for it -- even without a disqualifying history -- would be able to acquire one.

Patrickb:

It's a perfect analogy for that which it was analogizing, which I thought clear (but perhaps I was mistaken). By definiton, an analogy also contains elements that differ from the original situation... else it would be a description, not an analogy.

The analogy was to the idea that bad laws can force people to become "criminals" in the technical sense, when no reasonable person should consider the actions "criminal" in a moral sense.

The specifics of the gun laws in question -- as well as the specific locations (California and Texas alone) and the names of the participants (which I just made up) -- are not elements of the analogy; they are window dressing to set up the point. If I didn't make that clear in the post, I do so now.

No law makes someone a criminal, unless they willfully choose to break that law. Jerome didn't just wake up one morning to realize that a stupid law had been passed while he was asleep and now he was a criminal. He knew the law that already existed, and decided to purchase and carry a gun illegally, and he will have to deal with the consequences if/when he is caught.

This is the central point, and here you definitely have missed it. When the law criminalizes normal, even necessary behavior (such as self defense), it places people into the terrible dilemma of either breaking the law or else disrupting their entire lives -- or losing them.

For an extreme example, suppose we pass a law against breathing. Can you not see that if your only option is to hold your breath for the rest of your (short) lifespan, that can fairly be described by saying the law has "made you a criminal?"

If you don't agree -- if you still think it's just your willful obstinance in refusing to hold your breath forever -- then of course we cannot continue the debate. But I think most folks would agree in this extreme case that the law creates criminals; the only question would be one of degree.

Suppose you pass a law banning the eating of meat (as one Japanese shogun did). Would you really argue that this can't reasonably be described as making millions of Americans into criminals because they won't (or can't) live as vegetarians?

Even less extreme, suppose we passed a mandatory, nationwide speed limit of 30 mph on all roads, highways, freeways, throughways, tollways, railroads, and so forth. Obedience would cause commerce to come to a screeching halt, hurling our economy into a black abyss and throwing tens of millions of Americans into unemployment; thus, in practice, such a national speed limit would be almost universally disobeyed.

Are you prepared to label the 80% or more of Americans who would ignore such an insane law as "criminals," on the technical grounds that anybody who disobeys any law, edict, or pronunciamento, no matter how crazy or immoral it may be itself, is a criminal? (For the most infamous example, is a German who hides a Jewish family during the Nazi era a "criminal?")

That's an awfully authoritatian worldview!

The phrase ought to be reasonably understood, but I'll define it: When I say "the law has made ordinary people into criminals," I mean that the law has criminalized some ordinary, normal activity that almost nobody heretofor thought of as 'criminal behavior' in any moral sense of that word.

Perhaps some people disagree that illegal immigration falls into this category; perhaps they see gross immorality in trying everything one can, without consciously harming another, to build a better life for one's children. But that demur is not the same as denying that the phrase itself has meaning.

Dafydd

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "Anchor babies" are by definition born in the United States; and by living here, they are certainly subject to its jurisdiction. (That jurisdictional exception is to prevent us claiming that, say, the child of a French diplomat stationed here or a Swedish tourist who immediately returns to Sweden is an American citizen.)

There is no way to interpret this to mean that only children born of legal residents are citizens, except by extraordinary mental gymnastics -- the most blatant kind of judicial activism imaginable.

If you don't like this clause, you must look for relief via constitutional amendment.

Dafydd

OR a simple law declaring that during the delivery of a baby by a foreign national the location of the delivery shall be considered Consulate Territory of the Nation the mother is a Citizen of.

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?"
That stupid question has already wasted too much time, but there is an unambiguous, unchallengeable
answer, if one would simply define "sound".
This is similar to the question of "crime." Define your terms and live with them; most of this
discussion would then evaporate.
Do try not to get entangled debating "moral" versus "legal" crimes.
To answer a few comments - yes, I would send those children back to Mexico. Don't complain to
me, fuss at their parents. On the bus back to Tijuana.
Anchor babies may stay; their parents may not. Deal with it.
I am not concerned about the Mexican Army. The Vatican has a more formidable force.
If the Mexicans are willing to come here to work for much more than they can get at home, what
is the basis for disallowing that? They benefit, we benefit. I like cheap produce.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Those who are born here of parents who are not here legally are subject to their parents, not to the jurisdiction of the US. If the parents were subject to US jurisdiction, they would have been deported or, more properly, never arrived. At least that's my interpretation and, if it didn't need definition at the time of its writing, it does now.

Perhaps some people disagree that illegal immigration falls into this category; perhaps they see gross immorality in trying everything one can, without consciously harming another, to build a better life for one's children.

I don't think you can assume that illegals are in such desperate straits back home that they are forced to become criminals. If the conventional wisdom that they are desperate were correct, then the conventional wisdom that they are paying thousands of dollars to smugglers to get them here belies the notion. The fact that so many quickly and willingly self-deport at the first hint of employment verification, rather than becoming real criminals or simply moving to another state is additional evidence.

You are making the moral relativist argument that what is illegal and/or immoral can be justified by avoiding some other illegal or immoral act. I don't see how taking a job that one is not legally entitled to take and letting someone else be unemployed is a moral act, harming that person, and in this case it is also criminal.

Your examples also assume that some reasonable human activity is suddenly criminalized by a capricious legislature. But the borders have been the borders for a hundred years. There is an "excuse" that they have not been properly enforced, but that doesn't excuse knowingly breaking the law.

"Anchor babies" is a non-sensical term because even though the Fourteenth Amendment gives them citizenship, Congress need give nothing to their immigrant (legal or illegal) parents. Right now, the law is that U.S. citizens under the age of 21 cannot sponsor their immigrant parents. Congress can make it never.

Dafydd's "analogy" was not an analogy. Rhetoricians may have a word for it but I don't know or care what it really is. We, as a free people, through the democratic process make laws about how we and our fellow citizens will go around armed. We also make laws that keep people who are not our fellow citizens out of our country. Some of those laws involve 4,000 or so nuclear warheads? Other laws parse out visas to those whom we want to come in. Some of these foreign invaders could care less about either. What that has to do whether my neighbor and I want to carry guns ...?

Bart Johnson-

You have demonstrated your feelings -- or lack of same -- toward the innocent children of illegal immigrants. I suspect that yours would be the minority view among Americans presented with the examples I cited.

Military action by Mexico contra the US is, of course, a ludicrous notion. I was thinking of other consequences -- economic, diplomatic, etc. -- and not necessarily committed directly by Mexico or Mexicans.

Temporary workers benefit our economy far less than permanent residents. They spend less here than comparable resident workers. The rest is spent in Mexico. Mechanization would also benefit our economy significantly: Someone has to design, build, operate, maintain, fuel, etc. any mechanization equipment.

snochaser-

Those who are born here of parents who are not here legally are subject to their parents, not to the jurisdiction of the US. If the parents were subject to US jurisdiction, they would have been deported or, more properly, never arrived. At least that's my interpretation and, if it didn't need definition at the time of its writing, it does now.

Illegal immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction by my understanding of the term. They are subject to our laws, and, if they commit crimes (other than immigration-related ones), they can be tried and punished for their offenses.

Dick E:My feelings have nothing to do with anything. I don't solve problems with feelings.
I have them, but I don't let them run my life.
I am more concerned with the survival of my culture. It has already changed too much, and the changes
of more than 10M unassimilated outsiders will be difficult to tolerate. I will not live to see which way it goes.
However, comma, I fear for my children and grandchildren.
Years ago, the lefties used to proclaim that the problem with the Soviets was the leadership, that
the people are just like us.
I have met those people. I have studied their lives and their literature. They are nothing like us.
You can take the Russian out of the country, but you can't take the Russian out of the people.
The Russian story about "I want my neighbor's donkey to die" is an excellent example.
The Asian immigrants forbid their children to speak anything but English.
The Mexicans don't bother to learn any more English than they must.
The illegals have the idea that they will go home someday. They don't assimilate because they don't plan to need to.

If you live your life guided by your feelings you will have a lot of them, but most will not be happy.

Years ago, the lefties used to proclaim that the problem with the Soviets was the leadership, that the people are just like us. I have met those people. I have studied their lives and their literature. They are nothing like us. You can take the Russian out of the country, but you can't take the Russian out of the people

Whoa there, the Russians I have met in the dozen or so I times I have been there are a lot like us on a basic level, and I never really met anyone who filled the role of "I want my neighbor's donkey to die"

Now that is an Old Russian story, but more as a moral lesson than a definition of character, IMO

Dafyyd:

I think you are right about this. I know some people on the right do not, they think that being hardliners will win them support. But thus far it has accomplished nothing but to alienate a lot of people the GOP needs to be recruiting. They forget that not every Asian or Hispanic was born to be a Democrat.

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