[This post is written by Blac(k)ademic]
I saw this posting from pandagon today regarding Jasmyne Cannick’s article against immigration reform. I had to write something in response to it because I am deeply offended by her words as a black women and as a lesbian.
Jasmyne writes:
It’s a slap in the face to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to take up the debate on whether to give people who are in this country illegally additional rights when we haven’t even given the people who are here legally all of their rights.
This reminds me of how some black “leaders” said it was a slap in the face to the civil rights movement to be equated with the gay rights movement. I am sorry Jasmyne, but the oppression olympics are played out and get us nowhere in our goals of civil rights for all oppressed people. I agree that we haven’t given all of the people in this country the same rights, but what makes the struggles of gays and lesbians more important than the struggles of immigrants? Nothing does.
While I know no one wants to be viewed as a racist when it comes to immigration reform, as a lesbian I don’t want to move to the back of the bus to accommodate those who broke the law to be here. After all, immigrants aren’t the only ones who want a shot at the American dream.
While I agree that immigration reform is an important issue and perhaps it could become the next leading civil rights movement we haven’t even finished with our current civil rights movement. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts got it right when he said, “There is no moving to the front of the line.” Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the LGBT civil rights movement, which has not yet realized all of its goals.
Excuse me? Did it ever occur to her that just because it is a law doesn’t make it right? Slavery was legal for over 200 years–did that make it right? Of course not. In fact, it was only up until recently (2003) that a number of anti-homosexual laws were repealed that de-criminalized the personal sexual relationships of homosexuals–which were the anti-sodomy laws. When she was having sex with other women, it was illegal. And if she has sex with a member of the military, it is still seen as illegal and could place her in prison for up to 15 years.
Immigration and immigrant rights are a part of the civil rights movement. Does she not know of any bi-national couples? Does she not know of any queer immigrants? She lives in Los Angeles, a diverse metropolis, therefore I find this highly impossible–unless she only interacts with queer U.S. citizens. And, since she uses racialized rhetoric (back of the bus) she implies that the civil rights movement that grew out of the desires of both blacks and whites to provide equal rights for blacks has successfully finished. She says this at the same time the majority of people in prison are black, where a large number of us are living in abject poverty, where the majority of blacks are living with HIV/AIDS–but i guess, since we got to move out from the back of the bus, everything is a-ok. Hearing this from a black lesbian is appalling.
Which is not to say that I don’t recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. I do. But I didn’t break the law to come into this country.
As a black American born lesbian, you are descendants of slaves. Of course you didn’t have to “break the law” to come here, your ancestors were already brought here against their will. But what about those of us queers or even non-queers who do not have the privilege of being born here in the United States?
Both Senator Kennedy and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas backed away from insisting that guest workers would have to leave the United States after their initial two-year visa expired, basically guaranteeing that immigrant families wouldn’t be separated.
Who actually believes that this country holds the best interests of immigrant families at the center of the guest worker legislature. The guest workers would have to leave because the United States government does not want them to stay here. If they stayed, the government would be responsible for them financially and politically, where a number of laws would have to change to accommodate these new citizens, extended stay nationals, or whatever else they would be deemed as. Our country would be responsible for treating them like human beings and not the underpaid, disposable and worthless contractors the government wants them to be portrayed as.
Cannick’s words are xenophobic and reek of right wing conservatism that deploys the rhetoric of “illegal” and “broke the law” to imply that immigrants are complicit with crime and therefore pose a threat to our rights. I find this highly problematic coming from a person of color who so-called advocates for the civil rights of oppressed people. It doesn’t surprise me that a magazine like the Advocate (a very white and very conservative magazine) published her article.
Jasmyne, what is a crime is the fact that other black women like you and me, are surviving and struggling, just as much as immigants–documented or not. What is not a crime is having immigrants demonstrate their desire for civil rights, just as it is not a crime for gays/lesbians/sgl’s to demonstrate our desires for civil rights.
Pingback: BlogHer | Where the women bloggers are
Pingback: Sixteen volts
Pingback: My Amusement Park
Pingback: feminist blogs
There’s nothing more pathetic that somebody in a discriminated-against group using their status as an excuse to be a bigot to others.
Glad to see you posting here.
Well, I can understand the emotions behind it. Once does just get fed up. Back in my day, young’uns, we used to call this the Myth of Scarcity. The Myth comes in many forms; in this case, it’s the assumption that there’s only so much justice in the bag to go around, and if Parties X use it all up, there won’t be anything left for Parties Y. Usually, however, the converse is true — the more justice other people have, the more other people wind up having, too. Through osmosis, because the pump’s already primed, because treating people fairly gets to be the default zeit geist. (Reads of enlightenment would include The Triumph of Meanness and The Wimp Factor — the latter because living in self-imposed scarcity is a big part of the Anxious Guy world view.)
I’m reminded of how some suffragists objected to the idea of voting rights for Blacks (which effectively meant “Black men,” since no one in government at the time was proposing that Black women should have the vote), saying that it was women’s turn first (meaning white women).
Cannick’s words are xenophobic and reek of right wing conservatism that deploys the rhetoric of “illegal” and “broke the law” to imply that immigrants are complicit with crime and therefore pose a threat to our rights.
Your attempt at satire here falls flat. What’s next, calling convicted criminals “priviledged guests.” Look, these illegals are here illegally which means they broke the law. Immigrants are people who apply to become our fellow citizens and they follow the law that Congress has set for the procedure. Every illegal who is granted amnesty is a slap in the face to people who are waiting very patiently to join us here.
Look, I can understand the nutter libertarians who want to completely dismantle the social welfare state being completely in favor of open borders. Their thinking is that the marketplace should provide opportunity to everyone without regard to meaningless (because it’s not market determined) things like citizenship. But what is up with liberals who are so eager to cripple the social welfare state? I just don’t get it. Is it because so many are shortsighted or are they just ignorant of the consequences of unrestricted open immigration?
This essay that you wrote makes me wonder why I’m out there arguing that the wage depression and increased labor supply is hurting my fellow citizens who are Black most severely and that 25% of Black men between the ages of 21-64 (not including homeless or those in custody) are idle for periods longer than a year and their workforce participation rate has had the severest drop of any demographic during the period that is coincident with this period of lax border control.
If the Black community doesn’t care about it’s own self-interest, and if Liberals are content to plant the dynamite that will take down the social welfare state, then I really shouldn’t give a damn either.
where in this posting did you glean the idea tha the black community does not care about it’s own self interest? and, how is immigration reform not in the best interest of blacks—there are black immigrants too.
i guess i am just not understanding your hostility tangoman
Thanks for writing about that – that is one of the truly most insane arguments I have ever seen. “We can’t have open borders until we have gay marriage” is rather like saying “We can’t have a socialised medical system until we end rape.”
I’ve never heard the women’s turn first thing (not to say that it didn’t happen, but it was rare). My understanding of the argument during reconstruction was whether to accept the fourteenth (or possibly thirteenth) amendment, or whether to fight for an amendment that would extend suffrage to all people. It wasn’t just white women who were making that argument, but quite a few people who had been involved in the franchise and anti-slavery movements.
My understanding is that it was only after the thirteenth amendment (or possibly fourteenth) that the suffrage movement became seriously racist, and eventually almost exclusively racist in the south.
Kell and Amp, I understand the ‘scarcity’ mentality and the idea that ‘excuse me, it’s our turn’–certainly there was racism from suffragists in opposition to allowing blacks to vote, but I would guess there was also a feeling, probably correct, that it was a distraction. “Oh, gosh, we’d love to get to your issue, but we’re going to get very busy helping another group first so we have an excuse to ignore you.” Divide and conquer.
But in addition to that fear, there’s plain old bigotry.
This is also a class issue. People who can’t feed their children or buy them medication when they’re sick don’t have the time to jump through a bunch of hoops and then wait patiently. Their children could die. Breaking immigration laws is akin to breaking laws against stealing bread.
Do you have any data to back up your opinions about the consequences? The two problems of open immigration that you cite are wage depression and the unraveling of the social safety net. As far as wage depression goes, that’s already happened due to the illegal immigration. A big reason why companies choose to hire illegals is that they have no legal recourse when they break labor laws and pay below minimum wage (or withhold wages entirely). Taking away these advantages might actually increase wages. Even if that’s not the case – the way to raise wages is to increase the minimum wage, not to deny a huge group of people basic civil rights. As for the social safety net (such as it is), my understanding is that immigrants generally put in more than they take out and we’re going to need an influx of younger workers to provide the revenue to support the babyboomers as they retire.
Actually, every illegal immigrant who is granted amnesty ought to be a clue to us that there is something wrong with the system that keeps perfectly decent people “patiently waiting” for years, while we lose their paperwork, let other people in before them, give benefits to certain nationalities rather than others, and so on. It’s also a slap in the face to businesses and industries that use legal labor, and are undercut by powerful competitors who get a wink and a nod from the government for hiring illegal workers.
Why should illegal immigrants take us seriously? We fuss about how awful it is that Those People come here illegally, when we won’t let them in legally–although, of course, we’re happy to buy cheap strawberries, move into shiny new houses, and go to restaurants fueled by their labor. We don’t run and call la migra if, working late in the office one night, we see janitors who don’t speak English and likely didn’t get here on an H1B visa. We don’t call ahead to Swanky Restaurant to affirm that it has I-9 forms for all of its employees. And our government does nothing to change any of this.
FYI, Pattie Thomas has a great discussion (No. 8 in the “10 Things…” series) of this from the perspective of the fat civil rights fight, i.e. the claim that bigotry, exploitation, discrimination, injury of fat people somehow doesn’t count as “real” bigotry.
While I agree with Blac(k)ademic about the issue of there being more than enough justice to go around I disagree with a liberal immigration policy or granting amnest to millions of illegal aliens.
I can completely understand that a poor Mexican worker ( and other aliens too because Mexicans are not the only people from south of the border that are here illegally and there are plenty of people here from other nationalities that have overstayed their visas) would want to stay here in America and be put on the path to citizenship. If I was them I would want to stay here too.
However, to do so for them because they have been here longer- in essence broken the law longer-than another immigrant is completely unfair. There are people in African countries and Asian countries that have been on the waiting list to get into this nation for years and years, and they do not have the benefit of a shared border with the US so they cannot just be smuggled in so easily and bide their time until granted amnesty.
The millions of illegal workers are depressing wages and putting an immense strain on our healthcare and penal systems.
I don’t see the two issues as mutually exclusive though, for instance a transgendered person that cannot go back to their native country due to their lifestyle choice but they are illegally in this country.
No, no. I think it’s NAFTA we can pin at least some of the blame on for depressed wages. Not to mention corporate greed.
Or do you think that if I was paying an undocumented laborer $10 to mow my lawn, he’d vociferously protest if I tried to double his fee ? “Oh, no, madam. I must faithfully perform my evil function of forcing your country’s wages ever lower. Do not attempt to give me more cash to send home to my mother in Chiapas/Dublin. That would be bad.”
Give me a break.
You want to reduce illegal immigration, or at least the wage depression caused by employing illegals? Then try this simple 3 step plan:
1) Enforce current laws regarding employing illegals.
2) Change the law so that if an employer is caught paying illegals less than the local minimum wage that the employer is fined 10 times what it has thus far paid the illegals. Plus payroll taxes + the illegal’s portion of taxes.
3) Conduct advertising campaigns to advertise the fact that any illegal that turns in her or his employer for paying them less than minimum wage will get 30% of the fine leveled by the federal government & a green card & a path to citizenship.
Generally speaking, illegals get the minimum wage (or higher). It’s difficult to break that law and get away with it over time. Most employer mistreatment of illegals comes in other areas, like ignoring safety rules, overtime pay, breaks, and general respectful treatment.
The wage depression caused by mass immigration (legal or otherwise) has little to do with employers not paying them “minimum wage”; it’s an economic question having to do with the market value of low-skill labor. With 100,000 people of a particular skill level available for work, the market-clearing wage is X. With 1,000,000 of that skill level available, the market-clearing wage is some fraction of X.
Okay, so modify my three step plan. Offer cash rewards & path to citizenship for reporting employers mistreatment in those other areas. Combine that with raising the minimum wage to a living wage & I think that is a beginning.
Also, why is immigration so much higher in the last 20 years than it was in the 2 decades preceding that? I have no idea, but I figure that something must have changed.
Amp: I’m reminded of how some suffragists objected to the idea of voting rights for Blacks (which effectively meant “Black men,” since no one in government at the time was proposing that Black women should have the vote), saying that it was women’s turn first (meaning white women).
Except that that isn’t what happened.
Heart
i’m not sure i understand how undocumented people puts a strain on our healthcare system.
It’s because they’re allegedly getting “free” care that they don’t pay for, Blac(k).
Of course, this is crap, because all sorts of folks in this country are reduced to seeking “free” care in emergency rooms because they don’t have insurance.
It’s great having scapegoats, though. Because then the SBW’s among us can avoid actually examining the true sources of the problem– like outrageous insurance rates that fewer and fewer folks can afford, coupled with a for-profit system that leaves more and more care uncovered even for those of us who are still shelling out. (To cite just one major factor.) Folks like SBW can instead select the most odious (to them) symptom possible, and call it a disease.
[Diversion, one post only, do not want to derail Blac(k)ademic’s thread.]
I cannot stand it when you do what you just did, Amp. It irks me to the highest level of heaven.
Here’s what happened. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed during Reconstruction, granted full citizenship to former slaves and free black people. It also introduced the word “male” into the Constitution and left it up to the states to determine which of its male citizens who were 21 could vote. The Fifteenth Amendment said U.S. citizens could not be denied the right to vote on the basis of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The suffragists wanted *sex* included along with race, color and previous condition of servitude. The inclusion of the word “sex” would have meant both white women and black women would have the right to vote. Abolitionists, including their former friend and ally, Frederick Douglass, didn’t want to push for that. He thought there was more chance of the 15th Amendment passing if the word “sex” were omitted and that while women’s suffrage was important, it was more important that black men be given the vote.
The suffragists were enraged and split. If the 15th Amendment wasn’t going to include sex, some wanted to reject it and work for an Amendment that *did* include the word “sex.” Others felt they should support it without the word “sex” and work for another Amendment that would give women suffrage.
What did not happen in any way shape or form is this:
Amp: I’m reminded of how some suffragists objected to the idea of voting rights for Blacks (which effectively meant “Black men,” since no one in government at the time was proposing that Black women should have the vote), saying that it was women’s turn first (meaning white women).
How many ways is what you posted there just so wrong. No one in the government was proposing that ANY women should have the vote. That’s the whole point. The suffragists wanted ALL women, black AND white to have the vote. White suffragists did not object to the idea of voting rights for Blacks; they objected to the exclusion of women, black and white.
Damn.
[End diversion. I will not post any more about this here if I have to cut my hands off at the wrists, though I may rant and rave my head off about it on my own blog. Damn.]
Heart
alsis39.75 – like outrageous insurance rates that fewer and fewer folks can afford, coupled with a for-profit system that leaves more and more care uncovered even for those of us who are still shelling out.
Well, I would agree that insurance rates are outrageous. It is true not only for individuals but for employers as well.
But the entire system is not for profit. HMO’s in many states (maybe most) are required by law to be not for profit. That is true here in the HMO heavy state of MN.
As far as what is covered, I’m not sure where you get your info. I have worked in the healthcare system for going on 25 years now. I can tell you, from the standpoint of state mandates, that the opposite is true. The services that are required to be covered and the level of coverage for them continues to increase, not decrease. I would challenge you to name one medical service that was covered 10 years ago that is not covered or less adequately covered today.
Now, certainly patient contributions have gone up. My deductibles and coinsurance on my employer sponsored plan suck. But as far as what services are covered under the plan, I have no complaints. In reality, I get seek a much wider variety of covered services now than I could with the same employer 15 years ago.
I periodicallly volunteer with an organization that helps people who have fled political persecution and torture gain asylum in the US. My role in the process is to perform physical exams on the refugees to document physical or psychological evidence of ill treatment in their home countries. As such, I’ve met a number of “illegal immigrants”: people who have entered the US illegally in desperate flight from unbearable conditions in their own country. Those I have met have been, without exception, exactly the people one would want as immigrants: hard working, creative, dedicated, and resourceful people who are interested in building a better life for themselves and others. People who are lazy and just want a “free ride” don’t get as far as the US. No, not even those from Mexico. You try crossing the Rio Grande and the southwestern deserts before telling me how “easy” it is. Anyone with the ambition and ability to get here has a better than average chance of being the sort of person we want for the country. Stop wasting time and money trying to keep them out and work on ways to make the transition and integration into society more efficient.
It’s also not free. Although hospitals are not allowed to turn anyone away because they can not pay for care, they can and do aggressively pursue reimbursement for care rendered. This pursuit can include efforts to ruin the patient’s credit or seize their assets. Because of this and the fear of being turned over to the INS, many immigrants, legal or otherwise, do not get medical care. Some die because they do not.
I remember seeing one woman die of basal cell skin cancer because of this fear. Basal cell skin cancer, in case you don’t already know, NEVER metastasizes (spreads to other organs) and grows very slowly. Skin cancers of this type are so unlikely to be fatal that they are not even included in cancer survival statistics because they would screw up the data. So how did it kill her? She had a cancerous lesion on her ear. It grew and, over a period of years, invaded her neck and wrapped itself around her carotid artery, eventually eroding into it and causing her to bleed to death. By the time she got to the hospital there wasn’t anything to do. So much for lazy illegals just looking for free medical care.
Thanks, Blac(k)ademic, for this needed antidote to the division that engendered by the immigration debate.
I impatiently await the day when certain people on the left understand that human migration is a symptom , not a cause, and that we won’t resolve the matter by narrowly focusing on border control but rather by taking into account all the economic, social, political and environmental aspects of globalization. I believe globalization is inevitable, and the last thing progressives should do is buy into a notion of immigration control that doesn’t deal with the unfairness of a system in which goods, services, capital and financial capital can move freely across borders, but labor cannot.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t dislocations that must be dealt with. But the neo-isolationist, sometimes xenophobic approach we’re seeing touted even by some on “the left” will not improve matters.
(Thanks for your comment, Dianne. I saw close up in Central America in the 1980s the sometimes genocidal policies supported by U.S. policy that led to so many refugees, ironically, to flee here.)
exactly. we need to think of immigration as a global issue and examine the reasons why people feel the need to flee their home countries.
Heart, while I don’t blame the suffragists for being angry over the exclusion of women from, I disagree that they advocated for both Black and White women.
Certainly I agree that one group shouldn’t come before another, and that the idea that we should all wait our turn is bullshit when it comes to civil and human rights. But the reaction of some of these activists went over the line and tripped into racism.
While there were plenty of women in the movement who were anti-racist and pro-suffrage for all women, there were still plenty of women who did buy into racist bullshit, who scrambled to reassure southern racists that the number of White women with the vote would outnumber those odious Black men and keep White supremacy safe. Far from advocating for suffrage for all women, some White women in the movement were quite happy to exclude Black women. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton got George Francis Train to be an ally–but advocated for “educated” suffrage, which excluded Blacks as it had been illegal to teach a Black person to read or to educate them. His programe was White women and THEN black men.
The National American Woman Suffrage Association not only barred Black women from attending its Altanta conference, but allowed chapters to bar Black women from joining. That’s not indicative of fighting for the rights of all women.
I realize I’m contributing to thread derail, but it sets me off when I see people deny misogny in progressive circles, and racism in feminist circles.
Thanks for this post, Nubian. It drives me fucking batshit when people act like we have to queue up for our civil rights. I’m the descendent of immigrants, as are many people in this country. And I find it telling that the bile I hear is often xenophobic–oh, they don’t bother to learn English (bullshit, but also, I lived overseas and I didn’t see any Western Whites speaking anything BUT English). They aren’t ‘part’ of this country. They use all of our resources and programs (yeah, right). They’re dirty/criminal/unemployed/insert stupid stereotype here.
People who freak out over illegal immigrants supposedly depressing wages or taking jobs should ask themselves why they feel they have to take such a dangerous journey here and subject themselves to this crap. Maybe it’s because they NEED THE MONEY. (And we can thank BS moves like NAFTA and CAFTA in making the economic situation worse in Mexico and Latin America.)
And Dianne, thanks for contributing. I spent a very small amount of time volunteering at a legal clinic that primarily helped illegal immigrants. It is un-fucking-believable how Kafkaesque the bureaucracy is.
For those who have never had the pleasure, CIS/ICE is what you would get if you crossed the IRS with a stereotypical bigoted cop.
Do you have any data to back up your opinions about the consequences?
Sure, where would you like to start? How about 2 huge commissioned studies conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science back in the mid 90s. Table 7.5 in the book breaks down the net lifetime fiscal contribution of different classes of immigrants. The table shows that those without a high school education end up costing society $89,000 more than they contribute through taxes and value added from work. Those with a high school education present a smaller net fiscal drain of only$31,000. Those with education beyond the high school level are positive economic contributors and they benefit society to the tune of $105,000.
From the follow-up study they conclude:
Now keep in mind that these studies were looking at legal immigrants, not illegals, and the legal immigrants had far different proportions of education categories than do illegals who have disproportionate numbers who never went beyond 6th grade:
So, what do you think will happen to the social welfare programs when another 12 million poorly educated illegals get on the path to citizenship and fully qualify for the programs that liberals proclaim to love so dearly? For most of these illegals we’re looking at granting them an $89,000 lifetime subsidy, and keep in mind that this figure was derived in 1995, so with services like health care, education expenditures, etc rising at a rate faster than inflation, the subsidy is likely to be even larger than $89,000. If you’re bothered by the insane cost of the Iraq War, which is likely to top a trillion dollars, then the ($89,000 *12,000,000) NPV of $1,068,000,000,000 subsidy that we’re taking on to support these illegals should bother you as well. Then factor in the $45 Trillion of unfunded liabilities that face Medicare, and the Social Security funding, and you start seeing the outlines of the problem facing the social welfare state – someone has to pay for it. You can’t add another 12,000,000 net tax recipients now and then open the borders for another 5 billion who would like to come here and not expect the social welfare system to be strained.
Liberals don’t like income inequality, right? Take a look at the income inequality data and separate out immigrants and you see that that the gini coefficient is either stable or declining. Now add in 12 million (in this batch) very poor and ill-educated people and the income inequality rises. Further, the social mobility of these people and their children is impaired by either the parent’s lack of education or the children’s lack of inclination or lack of opportunity to continue on to higher education. With state funding shortfalls, states are shifting higher tuition burdens onto students and this is decreasing social mobility because education is one of the best mechanisms to insure increased social mobility.
Liberals don’t like segration, right? As the public school system gets evermore burdened with teaching the children of poor illegals we’re seeing that parents of native born children and immigrant parents of a higher SES are moving their kids out of the schools that are being dragged down to the gutter by the burdens that are being inflicted upon them:
Now what happens to the health of the social welfare program we know as public education as more of those with the ability to pay the taxes are abandoning the system and going private or charter? They will start to vote in increasing numbers to cut funding for public schooling and instead divert that money to programs that support private and charter schools.
Another front on the segregation issue is housing and if you look at L.A., which is the epicenter of the illegal invasion, you see that neighborhood segregation is increasing. We see two opposing trends at work – the broad social movement of desegregation continues and neighborhoods are becoming more mixed because there are fewer predominantly white enclaves and the opposing force is that more and more neighborhoods are becoming predominantly Hispanic:
What we’re seeing is an increase in White Flight and an increase in gated communities. The problem that arises with White Flight is that there is a loss of tax revenue and this impacts the transfer payments from net tax contributors to the net tax recipients.
What I just can’t get my mind around is how the Left is choosing to favor the interests of foreign citizens who are here illegally over the interests of the Black community and the low income community. Take a look at what is happening with Blacks today:
Or put another way:
The problem we, as a society, have is that many, or even most, employers prefer to hire illegals rather than Black people. Rather than pushing the favored Leftist prescription of social programs onto the Black community why not create more job opportunity by decreasing the supply of low skill labor and thus increasing the demand for low skill workers who are Black? If you think that Black joblessness is a no-cost issue to society, then you need to look at the issue a little more closely.
Also, take a look at what has happened to the low skill population that isn’t part of the Black community. I’ve detailed the decreasing workforce participation rates in my post Jane Galt: Modern Day Paul Erlich and the increase in Social Security Disabily recipients from 6,000,000 in 2000 to 7,200, 000 in 2004 – a 20% increase in 4 years. Who do you think is paying for this rapid rise in disability spending. I’d say that many of these “disabled” are really discouraged workers.
The problem with low wage illegals is that the economic activity they generate is, in many cases, actually less than the costs they impose on society. The illegals certainly come out ahead, so do their employers and so do the employers customers. The losers are the taxpayers and other low skill workers. Think of it this way – how would you feel if the gov’t imposed a 8% tax only on low skill workers so that it could fund foreign aid to Mexico and points south? The 8% is what Borjas calculated as being the wage depression created by illegals back in 1996. I’d say that the depressive effect is even greater today considering the increase in the illegal/low skill worker ratio.
If the proposed solution to these fiscal problems is that we just need to tax rich people more, then you have to factor in the depressive effects that such a tax increase will have. Further, what is sure to come up is the race-based transfer that will be taking place. When you look at more homogeneous societies, like Finland, you see that there is a greater acceptance of social transfer spending because it could conceivable be spent on any of the citizens. Sweden used to be the same, but now such spending is a little more controversial than it is in Finland, because the spending is being disproportionately allocated to their immigrant community (who are net fiscal drains on society.) In the US, we’ve always had that problem with our Black community, but with the increasing size of the Hispanic community and their having overtaken Blacks as our largest minority, we’re going to be seeing Whites and Asians becoming the Market Dominant Minorities sometime in the next half century. If you want to see the social trouble that results from Market Dominant Minorities then you should read Yale Law Professor Amy Chua’s book World On Fire.
I could go on and on, but I’ve already gotten to long with this post, so I’ll stop here.
Sheelzebub, I could argue with a bunch of stuff there, but that would be rude in this thread, number one, number two, all I intended to do was straighten out was what Amp said instead of leaving it there like it is true because it isn’t. ALL of the suffragists — ALL, to the last woman, white and black — wanted the word “sex” included in the 15th Amendment and it would have meant voting rights for ALL women, white and black. This is undisputed. What happened after the decision was made not to push for the inclusion of the word “sex” is a whole different discussion which I don’t want to have here in Blac(k)ademic’s thread. My point is, what Amp posted there was flat wrong. The 14th Amendment left the issue of suffrage for freed slaves and free black people up to the states, but also injected the word “male” into the equation. The 15th Amendment was designed to protect voting rights throughout the country for all men, black and white, i.e., to not leave it up to individual states. Suffragists wanted voting rights to extend to all people, black and white, men and women and hence they wanted the addition of the word “sex”. Meaning, again, what Amp said there was flat wrong.
Heart
It’s also not free. Although hospitals are not allowed to turn anyone away because they can not pay for care, they can and do aggressively pursue reimbursement for care rendered.
The problem is that it’s hard to squeeze blood from a stone, it’s hard to squeeze repayment from someone who is using forged identity documents, etc. What usually happens is:
This means that the health care costs for those people who are working and on a plan are increased. This also means that employers have higher cost pressure because they’re paying for their employees’ health care and for the health care of other people’s employees who don’t have coverage and thus stiff the system.
But is that because of immigration or because of lack of insurance?
This study finds that it is the number of uninsured individuals in an area that increases the amount of uncompensated health care services, not the number of immigrants. So legalizing all the immigrants and giving them HMO coverage or medicaid, if necessary, is likely to improve the compensation rates. Additionally, emergency care and end of life care are the two most expensive things in medicine. If people were not afraid to go to the hospital or doctor’s office when they were only mildly ill, instead of waiting until they were half dead, costs would likely go down. And sometimes refusing to provide routine treatment produces more damaging and expensive problems.
This study, admittedly from Sweden, not the US found very little difference in health care costs could be attributed to country of origin. That is, being an immigrant does not mean that one is likely to cost the country a huge amount in health care costs.
Then there’s the fact that some poor Americans, immigrants or otherwise, travel to Mexico for health care. Should Mexico start kicking out the Anglo slackers who take advantage of their relatively inexpensive, government backed health care system?
Anyone seen this article yet? Just in case you had any illusions about where this sort of prejudice leads.
alsis39.75,
In that lala land your living in the gardner probably isn’t getting paid $10/hr. He is probably getting paid much less because he will accept less whereas a man with kids, a house, and a car wouldn’t be able to work for that wage.
I don’t know what you’ve been taught in your economics classes-maybe you never had any-but a surplus of cheap labor drives wages down. That’s something you might want to think about next time you feel like giving an Econ lesson.
A surplus of low-skilled, illegal, workers from Mexico is not the only reason wages are low but it is a (large?) part of the reason and denying that fact does not make it any less true.
So legalizing all the immigrants and giving them HMO coverage or medicaid, if necessary, is likely to improve the compensation rates.
If all you’re concerned about is the compensation rate then you’re right that this tactic would improve the compensation rate. The problem is that it doesn’t make sense. This is like being concerned about the homeless rate, so the solution is to give every homeless person a home. Presto, the homeless rate is now 0.0%. The problem is with the financing of the solution.
If you boil the problem down to a core level you see that the US is the world’s most technologically advanced nation, and a nation that is hovering close to the top in terms of cost of living. To live at a level above poverty we each must generate enough economic value to be compensated accordingly. The days of being a well paid union member, being a fisherman, lumberjack, farmer, etc are numbered in that in today’s economic climate, especially in the economy of the US, the value that is generated from muscle power is much less than the value generated by brain power.
When the taxpayers are offering to subsidize the employees who are hired illegally what we do is stall the substitution efforts of the employeres, who absent subsidy would seek more productive employees (those who could handle technology) or substitution of captial for 6th grade educated illegals. Consider this example:
You want to put all of these workers either on state aid or on HMO plans. The problem is that in the latter case, the cost of adding health coverage will reduce, or entirely eliminate, the economic value created by these illegals. Think of it this way – an employer will hire a worker for $9 per hour if the work that is done creates value of $10 per hour. They will not hire the worker at $12 per hour to create value of $10 per hour.
Simply increasing state health subsidies for low economic value generating workers is a path to the poorhouse.
Economists simply don’t agree about the level of impact from immigration.
Here, for instance, is a very recent a study, “The Impact of Immigration on the California Economy,” which says the effect on wages is pretty minimal.
An economist quoted in an article about the study disputes the conclusions.
Strongly differing opinions among well-regarded economists are something you “might want to think about next time you feel like giving an Econ lesson.”
I’m the descendent of immigrants, as are many people in this country.
I think you can safely replace “many’ with “all”. ;P
One could argue that it’s in the interest of gay rights not to crack down too harshly on immigration; isn’t it likely that there are, in this country, at least a few people who are partnered with illegal immigrants of the same sex? They can’t get a Visa through marriage yet–and I’m not crazy about the government breaking up families.
I think that the original article’s premise, which seems to be that we shouldn’t be working for the rights of illegal aliens because other groups in the U.S. that were here first or are citizens don’t have all their rights yet, is bogus.
I also think that it’s bogus that illegal aliens should be recognized as having any rights other than emergency medical care, a decent meal, and a quick ride to the border. I love the rhetoric of “the House bill will criminalize illegal aliens”. Folks, they’re already criminals; they’ve crossed our borders against our laws. People who break laws are criminals. People who break immigration and border control laws are criminals we cannot afford to tolerate in an age of ideological terrorism.
By the way, given that a discussion of healthcare for illegal aliens has broken out here, you might all find this interesting:
Almost all of the state’s poorest residents will have to show proof of US citizenship to continue getting medical care by July 1, under a little-noticed federal law that could endanger coverage for many, as Massachusetts is trying to expand access to healthcare.
Born out of ongoing efforts in Washington to clamp down on illegal immigration, the new federal requirement compels anyone seeking Medicaid coverage to provide a birth certificate, a passport, or another form of identification in order to sign up for benefits or renew them.
No such proof is required now.
The requirement was tucked into the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which President Bush signed into law earlier this year.
The measure was part of an effort to limit the skyrocketing growth of federal entitlement programs. It has surfaced as Massachusetts begins to implement its sweeping healthcare plan, which aims to bring health coverage to almost all of the state’s uninsured, in part by enrolling those in Medicaid who are eligible but who have not signed up.
Some people are going to suffer because of this, there’s no denying it.
Anyone else think it’s amusing that she thinks there is a “line” for civil rights movements? As if we have take-a-number stations set out in front of Congress, from which we grab little white tags, assuring us of civil rights if we just wait long enough?
If anything, awareness of civil rights needs on multiple fronts increases the odds of each “movement” (not that they can be counted as separate entities).
People who freak out over illegal immigrants supposedly depressing wages or taking jobs should ask themselves why they feel they have to take such a dangerous journey here and subject themselves to this crap.
For those who come here to work there’s a simple answer. Their country is so screwed up that they believe that the easiest path open to them (note I said “easiest”, not “easy”) is to come to the U.S.A. and make a living.
Mexico could support a reasonable living standard for it’s residents. My God – they export oil! But the government is so corrupt it’s breathtaking. The tax burden is actually way less than ours (about 12%), but those tax laws that are enforced are easily evaded (compare that to the IRS here). And people expect to have to bribe officials at every level to get even the most basic of government services.
Mexico is broken, and it’s their own fault. Maybe if we force Mexicans to stay in Mexico, they’ll fix it.
ck, I’m curious. Do you think that civil rights come into play somewhere in the debate over immigration reform?
SBW:
Duh. You have heard of sarcasm, have you not, SBW ?
You made an asinine generalization that smacked to me of scapegoating and an inability to look at the big picture. That’s why I responded as I did.
No, I’m not going to talk any more about healthcare today, since I don’t want to divert this thread any further and give your comment any more cred than I have already.
alsis39.75 Writes: You made an asinine generalization that smacked to me of scapegoating and an inability to look at the big picture. That’s why I responded as I did.
alsis39.75, there was no scapegoating and there was no inability to look at the big picture. I just came up with a different view than you did and for whatever reason you felt the need to make inaccurate statements.
If you don’t agree with me, thats fine, but there was no need to attempt to misconstrue my words to fit your preconceived notions.
… but those tax laws that are enforced are easily evaded (compare that to the IRS here).
Are you saying that tax laws are not easily evaded in the USA? If so, I strongly suggest that you read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston before you try to claim that again.
SBW:
Perhaps there was “no need,” whatever that means. But you didn’t write what, say, Sheelzebub did in #26. That is, you wrote:
This makes it sound as if illegal workers are the sole and willing burden on a social system that has already been starved, looted, privatized, and starved some more– pretty much steadily over the last two or three decades.
If there is no examination of global economic issues (ie- NAFTA) and domestic issues (ie – Our moronic, ineffective, and racist drug war, which has certainly done quite a lot to pack prisons) alike, there can’t be any true understanding of why folks continue to take incredible risks to come here and work jobs that often enough, the natives don’t want anyway.
Technically true, but criminal is a decidedly loaded word. It implies mugger, rapist, etc., not illegal border crossing.
Response to comment #42
Ron, I’m not sure yet. I was a Spanish major in college and have some sympathy for the Hispanic population impacted by this question. But I’m torn between a desire to help those people who are here, earning a living and acting as law-abiding citizens and a desire to maintain a lawful process for granting citizenship.
However, what I was mostly commenting on is Jasmyn’s remarkt:
Which was, of course prompted by Sen. Kennedy. I think they have the guiding metaphor all wrong, and that the image of a “line” is more hurtful than anything else–as if it’s a “first come, first serve” or a matter of who has more lobbying power (which, of course, it is).
I guess the image in my mind was of a single stall bathroom in a restaurant, with a line out the front door–and the proprieter shaking their head at the folks in line holding their crotches and jumping up and down (caus’ the LGBT person is taking too much time). He says, “You just gotta wait your turn!” I say–let’s build more stalls!
This makes it sound as if illegal workers are the sole and willing burden on a social system that has already been starved, looted, privatized, and starved some more”“ pretty much steadily over the last two or three decades.
We spend 23.4% of our gargantuan GDP on the “social system”. (#11 in the world in absolute percentage terms; around the top of the world in per cap terms.)
For a starving, looted, privatized system, it sure has a lot of dollars sloshing around in it.
As far as your reverse Panglossian view of thirty years of decline goes, it’s about as accurate as every other economic opinion I’ve seen you utter. In 1980, we spent less of a percentage of GDP on the entire Federal government than we spend today just on social spending. Our social programs today are bigger than the entire government was then.
Oh, the irony.
Your source link doesn’t include details, but I’ll bet my top hat that the 23.4 % of GDP spent on social spending includes more than just Federal social spending – probably it includes local spending, of which a huge portion is paying for schools. Which is a problem, because the number you’re comparing it to only counts the cost of the Federal government. In other words, you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Obviously, the conclusion that “our social programs today are bigger than the entire government was then” is not true; you’ve mistaken the Federal government for the entire government. In 1980, we spent about 31% of GDP on the entire government, which is substantially larger than the 23.4% spent on “social programs” (like public schools) today.
[Edited to account for me finding the relevant statistic for 1980]
* * *
By the way, I also think your first paragraph was needlessly attack-y – that you think her past economic opinions have been inaccurate really has nothing to do with the point at issue here.
* * *
Finally, if y’all really want to continue discussing this, I can start a new thread – I’d rather not divert this thread further.
Robert:
Total federal spending today is “only” about 20% of GDP. That 23.4% figure must include state and local spending. Government spending at all levels has been trending slightly upwards as a percentage of GDP (31% in 2004, up from 23% in 1959 and 28% in 1970, but down from a peak of nearly 34% in 1993).
Not to say that your general point is mistaken—spending on social services, both as a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of total government spending, has increased, not decreased, over the past 20-30 years.
Two points I haven’t heard discussed in the media yet:
1.) Employers are required by law to take documents — fake or real — ON THEIR FACE as the real deal. Which does not mean some employers aren’t deliberately getting as many illegals to work for them as possible. But it has to do with general employment hiring discrimination — as well as the unspoken notion that it’s not an employer’s job to go around doing the government’s work if there are any questions; a person shows up with documents to work, the employer must take them as genuine ON THEIR FACE, and now is required to submit basic hiring forms the employee signs not only to the IRS but to the Justice Department too.
2.) In El Salvador — this is the only country I know several illegal immigrants came from who told me about this next point, but it’s likely true of many Latin countries — the government prices the cost of getting legal papers so far out of line with what’s affordable, I mean in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars, that it’s much cheaper to pay $2,000-plus to sneak across the border. The papers that make immigrants legal that they must get from their government to come here legally are just super-high-priced by the government; the government wants as much money as possible. The few Salvadorans who can afford to come here legally are generally from the capital, San Salvaldor — I know two brothers who came here legally — and are considered among the wealthiest people in their nation. They will pay what it costs for those legal papers because they can — the system is that lopsided with rich and poor — and they will get their M.D.s or whatever here and then they will go back and be that much wealthier in this highly rich-poor system.
Having said all that, none of which has been integrated into basically any major media discussion of the issues, I disagree sharply with the blogger, I mean I found the blog offensive, frankly.
Nah, let’s get back to talking immigration. Thanks for the correction; you’re right, it was apples to oranges. Nonetheless, as Brandon notes, the trend is up up up.
RonF’s point is very cogent. Mexico doesn’t reform because Mexico doesn’t have to reform. Those Mexicans who can’t stand it, leave. And, unfortunately, they also tend to be the people with the most drive and ambition – which leaves the people left behind in even worse straits.
Which leads to a larger question.
Should we as a country aggressively recruit the best and brightest from other lands to come here? Doing so makes us stronger – but it makes everybody else much worse off. Should we pursue a pro-immigration policy of strengthening the United States, and damn everyone else, or should we close the door and make the high-talent individuals of the world stay in their home nations and (presumably) work to improve those places?
In the past, I’ve leaned toward the second option. As an employer, I’m leaning towards option one.
or should we close the door and make the high-talent individuals of the world stay in their home nations and (presumably) work to improve those places?
This sounds awfully patronizing to me. We have presumed to know what would be best in general and for those who might desire to emigrate here. “Sorry, I know you’d rather move here, but try and make the best of it in Country X.” (I suspect that isn’t what you meant to convey, but I’m not sure how else to take it.)
Incidentially, the US already cherry picks in terms of immigration.
ck, I’ll go along with your critique of Jasmyn’s remarks (I’ll pass on the Senator’s remarks because I have no idea of their context). As I think was pointed out above, should all other people whose civil rights aren’t fully fulfilled have to wait until all racism is defeated? Do we rank injustices, and say “Why are we wasting time on problem ‘x’ when problem ‘y’ is extant?” It’s not the first time I’ve heard it, and it’s stupid.
What are civil rights? It seems to me that there are some rights that people have that are human rights, due all persons regardless of any other considerations. However, there are some rights that people have because they are citizens of certain countries, states, municipalities, etc. For example, I have no right to vote in Mexican elections. These rights are what are my understanding of what civil rights are. People who come into the United States and constantly violate our laws are due human rights, but not civil rights.
Note that I say that they constantly violate our laws. It’s illegal to work in the U.S. unless you are either a citizen or are in possession of some kind of work visa. Illegal aliens of course don’t qualify in either case. Every day that those that are employed show up to work, they are breaking Federal law. If they take pay in cash they are breaking tax laws.
It used to be we just talked about Tax Amnesty. The idea was to bring all the evaders and nonfilers into the system, bringing in more tax revenue and cutting every taxpayer’s bill in the process. But never — and this is true whether the debate was over a federal tax amnesty or a state tax amnesty — does the discussion NOT include very loud and strict warnings of the ENFORCEMENT CRACKDOWN that will follow once the amnesty has ended. Anyone who didn’t come in under the amnesty, or who is caught newly evading or nonfiling after the amnesty, will be treated to the harshest extent law enforcement allows and will be hunted down. I mean there are states, like Connecticut, where the tax commissioner went on TV with ads to Blondie’s song “One Way, Or Another, I’m Gonna Get You, I’m Gonna Get Ya Get Ya Get Ya Get Ya.” And it scared the bejesus out of evaders and nonfilers — who came in, and who DID have to pay the back taxes they owed but not interest and no jail time. But enforcement is always key, and always has been, to any amnesty discussed or implemented at the state or federal level.
Here we have no provisions for an enforcement crackdown after an amnesty whatsoever. It’s not that federal lawmakers don’t know that this is a key to making any amnesty work or worthwhile — both in terms of bringing people currently out of the system in, and in terms of stopping future illegal actions. They do know. They know all too well. Amnesty talk is very common in regard to taxation. I can only conclude that federal lawmakers aren’t interested in closing the borders, period. That is the only possible conclusion.
Does it really make everyone else worse off? Might competition for the best and brightest not tend to make everyone better off, at least insofar as the conditions necessary to attract the best and brightest are also better for everyone else?
Also, the positive externalities from the best and brightest doing their thing tend to spill across borders. It doesn’t really matter where a technological advancement comes from—we all benefit. Better to have the best and brightest working abroad than to have them trying to work with inadequate resources in their home countries. Granted, this applies more to some workers than to others—we’re not doing other countries any favors by luring away their doctors.
This sounds awfully patronizing to me. We have presumed to know what would be best in general and for those who might desire to emigrate here.
It is patronizing. If you’re an immigrant, then the United States is your patron. As such, it’s our call as to how things get handled.
We don’t presume to know what’s best in general; we presume to make those decisions for ourselves. “Well, but every point of view is valid” is lovely for philosophy class. Life isn’t a classroom; the decision has to get made. And it does get made; relativism (of the weak sort actually espoused, not the powerful sort that conservatives like to strawman) simply means “I’m not going to make the decision”. Then someone else does, instead.
Incidentially, the US already cherry picks in terms of immigration.
Well, kind of. We don’t do it systematically.
If I were to design a cherry-picking immigration system, it would work something like this:
First, we index nations on their level of Western cultural attainment. (Britain is high. Russia is medium. Zimbabwe is low.) That index value would become the base score for immigrants. These numbers should range from 0 to 100.
To that base score, add bonus points for high educational attainment, high economic attainment, and high scientific/cultural attainment. (25 points per category.) Add bonus points for youth and for number of children (5 points total) and a ten point bonus for English fluency. Have a discretionary 10 points that Congress can use to set priorities. (If you’ll enlist when you get here, we give you 5 points. If you’re a nuclear physicist, that’s worth a bonus 10. And so on.)
So you can have anywhere from 0 to 200 points. For maximum score, be a British millionaire PhD Nobel laureate, 28 years of age with 4 kids. Minimum score is to be a destitute Third Worlder with no education or skills, 70 years old, infertile.
Annually, globally rank every immigration applicant in an ordinal list. Ask Congress how many people to let in this year, X. Admit the first X people on the list.
(Lest the heartlessness quotient be too high, I do support a limited number of refugee/hardship admissions as well. Say, 10% of the total.)
It seems to me all immigrants here legally awaiting citizenship status would have a clear-cut legal case of discrimination under our laws were we to grant illegal immigrants amnesty en masse.
I don’t know what the answer is. From my three posts you can see I see many aspects of this currently not incorporated into debate or consideration. Federal lawmakers clearly have no intention of closing the southern border to illegal immigration. Granting amnesty would raise immediate legal issues with immigrants patiently awaiting citizenship and paying for it through the legal route. Cracking down on employers won’t help much until federal laws and regulations are changed so that employers do not have to take documentation — legal or otherwise — on its face as legal without being hit with hiring discrimination suits. And another key to addressing illegal immigration is the outrageous fees charged by nations illegals are coming from for getting the legal papers to go the legal route.
The point about let’s not give x rights before y has them is definitely a bad argument.
evil_fizz
I fail to see the relevance of this. Okay, those who violate speed limits are criminals.
Should the use of the word criminal be suppressed because some people feel bad about it?
mythago:
This has always confused me about the U.S policy: Very strict in theory, but rewards those who don’t play by rules. Economic concerns aside (there are more qualified posters on that than me), this strikes me as blatantly anti-humanitarian, considering the border jumping has its risks and is fraught with scumbag human traffickers.
And the open borders for everyone everywhere -view just seems unrealistic and irresponsible.
Speaking of things that are never mentioned in the immigration debate, I haven’t seen anyone point to the most effective American tactic ever devised – sic the trial lawyers onto the problem: (sorry the original article went down the memory hole – this is a link which quotes the original article)
We have presumed to know what would be best in general and for those who might desire to emigrate here.
When taxpayers end up paying a $89,000 subsidy to every illegal without a high school education, a $31,000 subsidy to every illegal with a high school education, then it’s not presumptious at all to want people who have higher levels of education and who end up contributing $105,000 over to the economy over their lifetimes.
We are the world’s most technologically advanced society – the last thing we need to be doing is importing people with 6th grade educations.
If I were to design a cherry-picking immigration system, it would work something like this:
Why not take a look at how the Canadians do it. Go take the on-line quiz and see if you have what it takes to qualify to immigrate to Canada. They are definitely not seeking people with 6th grade educations.
Copy Canada? Never!
Besides, I barely scrape by with a 69 on their test. Lousy Canuck bastards.
It has less than 1/4 of what we spend in this country sloshing around in it. All you do is reinforce my point for me. The system is not equipped to handle the burdens that have continued to accumulate and to become more complex, thanks to the machinations of the Reaganites and their sycophants in both parties. So simply blaming illegal workers for supposedly burdening the system all by their lonesome is nonsense.
Thanks for the smug patronization, Robert. I expect nothing else from you. Unless it’s one of your snide inferences that I’m not sane. Since that’s generally all you have to offer in your exchanges with me and since I have no particular interest in addressing you on this subject or any other, do me a favor and piss off.
I’m pretty dubious about the argument that if we only shut Central and South Americans into their countries, they’d fix their plutocratic governments. Like a cage match, eh? The problems I have with this are, principally, that when such a country does overthrow its corrupt government the US has more than once sent armed insurgents against the new nation. The effects are bloody and lingering, and a canny reformer might well have worked out that change has to be imported from the US, one way or another. Secondly, the US has a bunch of economic rules that are (IIUC) pretty destabilizing to the poor in Mexico, who then have less time and safety to work for systemic change.
If the US stopped the flow of money and subsidized corn across the border, and didn’t take all the water out of some rivers that used to cross the border, we’d have more right and less need to prevent illegal immigration. While we haven’t fixed these problems in our system, we haven’t any right to expect the people burdened with them to fix follow-on problems in theirs.
I think the extended chronology of black/woman suffrage infighting is an elegant analogy: it’s in retreat that we come apart. If US labor was stronger, we might have an import policy that supported workers’ rights around the world, but while labor is weak here it can’t fight anyone but illegal immigrants, who are weaker yet.
Sorry about the double post, Amp. I expect you’ll be editing it anyway. But I don’t much care.
Secondly, the US has a bunch of economic rules that are (IIUC) pretty destabilizing to the poor in Mexico, who then have less time and safety to work for systemic change.
OK, they’re poor now, and living in one of the more corrupt countries on earth – where you have to have money to get anything out of the government. So they’re basically completely fucked, unless they really like lots of sunshine and hard work for no money.
So what exactly is to be so feared about the awesome evil of the US economic rules? What are the rules going to do, pitch peasant farmer Pedro Morales and his long-deceased donkey directly into the sun?
Precisely, clew.
I fail to see the relevance of this. Okay, those who violate speed limits are criminals.
Should the use of the word criminal be suppressed because some people feel bad about it?
I’m not arguing that the word should be tossed out the window, just that it should be used a bit more carefully because of what it connotes. Also, if everyone who does 37 mph in a 35 is a criminal, the term becomes absolutely meaningless. It’s sloppy to use such a loaded term in a conversation where people are choosing to use the word differently. There is much to be said for clarity and appropriate vocabulary…
I suppose it then becomes an issue on how bad a crime does one consider illegal border crossing (and illegal work, residence etc.) to be.
Someone who accidentally happens to walk on the wrong side of the border (assuming the border isn’t heavily guarded, walled etc.) shouldn’t probably get the title “criminal”. I’m not so sure about deliberate illegal immigration. Probably should.
I’m not so sure about deliberate illegal immigration. Probably should.
Since illegal immigration is a crime against the state, rather than against the individuals, it seems to me that the appropriate metric to apply is the behavior of the state where the illegal immigrant originated.
If Joe comes from State A to State B without permission, then his criminality ought to depend on how State A treats illegal migrants. If State A treats them as criminals, then he is a criminal.
Mexico, from what I understand, is vigorous in its border security and considers illegal immigrants from the south to be criminals. Accordingly, so should her citizens be treated.
Those Mexicans who can’t stand it, leave. And, unfortunately, they also tend to be the people with the most drive and ambition – which leaves the people left behind in even worse straits.
When I’ve thought about American history, it has occurred to me that the people who have moved here have always those who in their home culture have been the most dissatisfied, the least culturally integrated, the most ambitious. This country has been filled, by and large, with people who were probably seen in their home towns as disagreeable misfits who were the least likely to submit to the local government. Hardly a model for assembling a country where the citizenry is supposed to govern itself. Amazing how well it’s worked.
I’m pro-immigration. I don’t think any of my great-grandparents were born in America. I have ancestors from Africa, England, Germany, Ireland, Scotland – and reputedly, some that walked over the then-frozen Bering Straits some 12,000 years ago. Some of my wife’s grandparents weren’t born here. Her father wasn’t born here. Immigration has continuously leavened and enlivened and enlightened American art, science, culture, and politics, and in my view has contributed to it’s pre-eminent position in the world today.
But immigration must be regulated. We have to know who has come here, and why. Their purpose must be plain, and must fit what we as a nation perceive our needs are. And those who come here must understand that we have cultural standards that they must meet and (if not accept) tolerate.
Amp, I think you made this remark about social spending:
It has less than 1/4 of what we spend in this country sloshing around in it.
Am I right that the total fraction of the Federal budget that is dedicated to social spending is what you refer to here? What categories of spending do you include and exclude (and I realize that you’d have to paint the answer to that question with a broad brush).
It’s sloppy to use such a loaded term in a conversation where people are choosing to use the word differently.
People can choose to use words as they want, but this isn’t Alice In Wonderland; words have meanings. I do understand that stealing a pen from work is not what people think of when one says “criminal”, but in this case I feel that naming someone who violates immigration law by crossing an international border without accounting to the target country’s government a criminal is within both the letter and the spirit of that definition. The fact that other people are choosing to use the word differently is one reason why I used it as I did; to emphasize that such usage is not just accurate, but appropriate. It’s glossing over the criminality of such conduct by using euphemisms that I find inappropriate.
I got a 68 on the Canada test. At least I passed, eh? If I had a job waiting for me and was a few years younger (or spoke French) I’d do better.
How many of your ancestors came to this country legally & how many came illegally? That may have an effect on how you view the matter.
Ron:
It was Alsis, not Ampersand, who complained that social spending is less than a quarter of what we spend in this country. Heck if I know what her perception is, but the reality is that social spending (by government) is 23.4% of GDP (everything everyone spends), or about 75% of total government spending. In 2004, that was about $2.7 trillion, composed of:
At the federal level:
-Health: $240B
-Medicare: $269B
-Income Security: $333B
-Social Security: $496B
At the state level (Extrapolated, since I have numbers only through 2003):
-Education: $640B
-Public Welfare: $335B
(From the Economic Report of the President 2006, tables B-80 and B-86)
That accounts for $2300B. There’s another $1100B classified as “other” which presumably accounts for the remaining $400B.
As far as I know, all of those of my ancestors who came to the United States did so legally.
Thanks, Brandon. Careless of me. Alsis, could you expand a bit on the meaning of your comment about 1/4 of what we spend in this country? 1/4 of what? And where it’s going?
Fellows, maybe you should take that up with Robert. After all, I was using his comments as a basis. Then again, maybe getting blamed for his distortions is only fair, since it’s generally a poor tactic to base one’s discussions on a willful distortion from somebody else.
It’s not the main point, anyway. The main point is that it’s ridiculous to claim that illegal workers are stretching either medical or prison services in this country to the breaking point all by their lonesome. SBW, as I said before, confuses a symptom with an illness. I just don’t buy it.
You both already know that any exchange between us on this issue is doomed to impasse, so why even bother ? Go find somebody who you have a prayer of convincing and leave me the hell out of it.
RonF,
Did you read past the point where Brandon Berg mentioned that it was Alsis, not Amp? Once you get past the point where he got in a pointless insulting dig at Alsis (I guess he figures if Robert can get away with pointlessly insulting Alsis, then he can too, not remembering that Robert has carte blanche and he doesn’t), Brandon then explains that it is approximately 1/4 of GDP, and then breaks down where that quarter goes. That is what Alsis was talking about. Is there some reason you need to see it repeated by her? Particularly since it is thread drift for this discussion?
On the criminal question, the house bill makes being in the country illegally a felony, where currently it is a misdemeanor. I think a reasonable definition of when someone becomes a criminal (rather than someone who has broken a law, such as speeding, or shoplifting, or stealing a pen from work) is when their crime is a felony. Now, if you routinely refer to people who have committed misdemeanor offenses as criminals, then I suppose it makes sense for you to view illegal immigrants as already being criminals. Nonetheless, making first offense illegal immigration a felony rather than a misdemeanor is a big step, and certainly increases the degree to which undocumented aliens are treated as criminals.
Robert: Our economic policies subsidize, e.g., corn production in this country, sometimes using water that would otherwise run to Mexico; and our trade policies require that farmers in Mexico compete with this subsidized production. They can’t. This drives them to the cities, theirs and ours, which is very profitable for people who can use a steady supply of immiserated labor. Until the massive power of the US stops using Mexico & points south to do things that aren’t legal in the US, we’re going to have a flood of the desperate coming here.
Some of my anecdotal experience suggests that US-earned money going back is creating a middle class in Mexico, which might be able to cause stable political change. Anyone know of research along those lines?
All my ancestors came to the US before there was any immigration policy – well, none that Europeans recognized, anyway. I’m pretty sure some of them were in the flood of treaty-breaking across the Alleghenies that Benjamin Franklin so deplored.
Sorry Alsis, cross posted with you.
Go Alsis!
Yeah, that’s what I thought. It’s hard to have a well-rounded discussion about immigration & legal vs illegal when everybody involved has no relations who were illegal immigrants. You miss at least 1/2 the conversation.
Immigration is an issue of daunting complexity it seems, but I’m given to understand that certain fears about immigration are more legitimate than others. And for those problems about immigration that are real problems, people can still disagree about the appropriate response, and indeed there may be no perfect solution that perfectly disposes of every gripe that people have about illegal immigration. Even “law and order” might actually be at cross-purposes, since a narrow focus on “enforcing the law” against illegals might have the effect of undermining social order, given that illegals are deeply embedded (if not truly integrated) in their neighborhoods and communities.
I am persuaded that illegal immigration has a modest but real depressing effect on the wages of unskilled workers (particularly in those states that have a high level of immigration), but a mildly positive effect on the rest of us, and that the costs of immigration mostly accrue at the state and local level (primarily because immigrant households tend to be younger and are more likely to have school-age children) while the benefits mostly accrue at the federal level (in the form of tax receipts). Still, I wonder if even the costs of immigrants might have more to do with their illegal status than with any essential characteristics of the people themselves.
From this article I found the interesting tidbit that when 3 million undocumented immigrants became legal immigrants 20 years ago, their wages increased by 14 percent over five years and their productivity increased dramatically. This suggests that illegals are as responsive to changing opportunity structures as everyone else, and that we should be skeptical of long-term projections of the “costs of immigration” that don’t factor in the possibility that the characteristics of the immigrants themselves may change over time, and that short-term problems may be overcome by immigrants being given the time and support necessary to integrate themselves into society and climb the economic ladder, which all evidence indicates they’re as willing to do as past generations of immigrants.
As an African-American, I’m keenly interested in the notion that Mexican immigrants are taking jobs from my people. But I’m not persuaded that they are. Most African-Americans don’t live in high immigration areas (not that we should ignore the ones that do), and in any case the desolate employment situation of young black men is the result of social, historical and economic processes that were well underway long before immigration from Mexico became a problem. Black folks don’t need to be lectured on their problems, and indeed our litany of basic demands has changed little if any: for a sane alternative to the racist War on Drugs (hasn’t happened), for enforcement of anti-discrimination laws (the current Bush budget cuts funding from EEOC, so you tell me where their hearts lie), that affirmative action not be gutted (they’re still trying), that there be serious investments in public education (vouchers and private/parochial schools keep stealing the spotlight), that the prison-industrial complex be brought to heel (its tumescence continues unabated), and that racial disparities in health care be addressed (nowhere on the agenda). If you’re not willing to engage with me on these issues and many more, I won’t look kindly upon you sucking up to me on the issue of immigration. At isn’t it interesting that anti-immigration folks can get away with such a naked appeal to racial self-interest, when black leaders are routinely vilified for doing the same thing in other contexts?
when 3 million undocumented immigrants became legal immigrants 20 years ago, their wages increased by 14 percent over five years and their productivity increased dramatically.
What else would you expect when these people move from the underground economy into the normal economy? I’m curious why you don’t speculate on the issue of wage sensitivity at the bottom of the “legal economy” wage ladder when these 3 million new workers were added to the labor supply.
At isn’t it interesting that anti-immigration folks can get away with such a naked appeal to racial self-interest, when black leaders are routinely vilified for doing the same thing in other contexts?
There is no racial self-interest being advocated but a taxpayer self-interest. As a taxpayer I’d rather have the large proportion of idle black men active in the workforce and climbing the wage ladder rather than out of the workforce doing whatever it is they’re doing with their free time and likely costing taxpayers more more for the additional social services that are directed at them. Further, they’re my fellow citizens and so I owe them a greater allegiance than I do the illegals who’ve come here uninvited. Lastly, I’m aware of the prejudice that exists and acts as a barrier to the job market for Black citizens and one can create intrusive, immoral, and ineffective laws to try to mitigate against that phenomonon but an even more effective process of bringing down the barriers is to create job demand from the employers. That’s very hard to do when that demand is immediately filled by illegals, who employers tend to prefer over Black citizens. Cut off the supply of illegals, and the employers will still demand people to fill the jobs, therefore they have to confront their own racist beliefs, get over them, and hire Black citizens. That benefits every citizen of the US and the only losers are the citizens of Mexico. If you’re concerned about them then send them some foreign aid.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive »
Am I the only one who sees the overt xenophobia being displayed here? I am seeing many of the same arguments being used to espouse an anti-immigration (or, if you prefer, curtailed immigration) position that were used in the early 20th century wrt to civil rights for African Americans (the economic arguments). I also see a parallel to the Racism and Empathy: Some of My Approximating Experiences post and comment thread in that none of the “illegal immigration needs to be severely curtailed” crowd don’t have any approximating experience with illegal immigrants. Lastly, why are we so focused on Mexicans? While Mexicans make up a good sized portion of illegals (the data from 1996 indicates that Mexico accounts for 54% of illegal immigrants), they are far from the vast majority.
It’s something to think about.
… crowd don’t have any approximating experience with illegal immigrants.
Heh. Scratch the word “don’t.”
Lastly, why are we so focused on Mexicans? While Mexicans make up a good sized portion of illegals (the data from 1996 indicates that Mexico accounts for 54% of illegal immigrants), they are far from the vast majority.
One country produces 54% of the illegals and the other 190 nations split the remaining 46%. How would you characterize the Mexican contribution in terms of its magnitude?
We are focused on Mexico because:
(a) Mexico produces the majority of the illegals.
(b) Mexican illegals are generally low-skilled people who contribute to the wealth of whoever hires them, but net out to be a substantial cost to society.
(c) The huge Mexican trafficking weakens the southern border’s attainable level of security because of the sheer volume of bodies.
Am I the only one who sees the overt xenophobia being displayed here?
What exactly is xenophobic about desiring to see our country able to control its borders, provide a good standard of living to its people (not just those who happen to own poultry plants), and set itself on a track of increasing, not decreasing, median education and mental attainments?
What exactly is xenophobic about desiring to see our country able to control its borders…
The fact that the arguments are the same that I mentioned from the early 20th century & a different minority, the fact that it is not “controlling our borders” that we seem to be focused on, rather the focus seems to be on who should be allowed to become a citizen, the fact that “median education & mental attainments” has not gone down over the past 2 decades of increased illegal immigration, the fact that all of us have ancestors who were immigrants at one time (many of us before there were immigration laws as such), the fact that the same arguments were made about the Italians, & Irish & so on in their time.
Must I continue? Should I even bother to respond to you? Have you actually given thought to why many comments in this thread could be viewed as xenophobic? Or is it so difficult to admit the possibility & reflect on why somebody has brought this up without reflexively saying, “Uh-uh. Not me?”
I guess that I must continue.
It’s xenophobic because:
An anti-immigration stance seems to contradict the pro-free market global economy position held (in general) by the anti-immigration crowd.
As alsis pointed out, NAFTA says we’re happy to integrate you 3rd worlders into our economy by paying the much lower prevailing wage (and exploiting the far lesser rights of workers) in your country. But don’t even think about moving to our country.
Anti-immigration folks don’t seem to see any parallel between their ancestors and immigrants of today. They don’t see any connection between immigration laws (or lack thereof) when their ancestors came to the US & immigration law now.
Anti-immigration policies are inimical to US style capitalism. US style capitalism depends on the economy continuing to grow and grow as fast as possible. In order for the US economy to grow, you need to increase demand. The easiest & fastest way to increase demand is to increase population. Increased population (illegal immigrant or otherwise) creates demand for food, housing and so on, thereby creating jobs (or so the theory goes).
As an aside, I’d like to have an honest discussion with you, Robert, about this. It’s just that your history of commenting makes me doubt that it is possible, thus my pessimistic statements.
Am I the only one who sees the overt xenophobia being displayed here?
Am I the only one who sees liberals copying the annoying conservative tactic of proclaiming themselves more patriotic and moral than their heathen liberal foes when liberals proclaim themselves to be more culturally enlightened and cosmopolitan than their barbaric conservative foes.
Let’s concede, ad arguendum, that every person arguing for curtailment of illegal immigration and a restoration of law and order is the vilest of racists and the most fearful of xenophobes, so then what do Leftists propose to do about the problem (if they indeed even think it to be a problem)? Should they engage the merit of the arguments that are advanced or should they insure that they maintain their own self-images as enlightened anti-racists by never being on the same side of an issue as those xenophobic anti-illegal immigration advocates, and thus, by default, advocate poor policy?
Am I the only one who sees liberals copying the annoying conservative tactic of proclaiming themselves more patriotic and moral …
Gee, thanks so much for considering what I have to say. Xenophobia does not mean unpatriotic &, really, while my comment raised valid questions, your comment is nothing but an attack.
… every person arguing for curtailment of illegal immigration and a restoration of law and order is the vilest of racists and the most fearful of xenophobes…
That is severely twisting what I actually wrote into something other than what I wrote.
You’re not big on self reflection are you? You pretty much think that you’re perfect the way you are, huh? No need to think about whether what you are saying is actually xenophobic or racist. You know it isn’t, so questioning your unquestioned phrasing is a personal attack on you.
Get a grip and try to read what is written. Perhaps you can bring yourself to see if the criticism has any merit. Once you’ve done that, you might say that you’ve looked at it & say that you just don’t see it. Or that you’ve looked at it & I might have a point. Or you can just be an insulting prick. Whatever.
Get a grip and try to read what is written.
Perhaps you’re misreading what I wrote and, if so, then I apologize for my unclear prose. I’m not saying that xenophobia means unpatriotic. What I was trying to get across is that the Republican tactic of painting their opponents as unpatriotic is a.) a smokescreen; b.) has more to do with bolstering their own self-image; and c.) usually has nothing to do with the merits of the debate that they are having with the Democrats.
Just as I find their self-aggrandizing tactic to be a distraction, I also find the liberal tendency of doing the same thing with respect to issues of enlightenment and culture, to be just as self-aggrandizing and distracting.
Does it really matter if your opponents are motivated by xenophobia? What if the policy they advocate is a good one when judged against liberal criteria? Should the policy be opposed simply because of the motivations of those who are strongly advocating it?
You’ve heard the sayings “even a stopped clock is right twice a day” and “even George Bush can be right sometimes.” Same principle here.
Perhaps you can bring yourself to see if the criticism has any merit.
This is what I’m pointing out – who cares about what is in the heart of those who advocate against illegal immigration? And for those who do care, why do they care about the motivations rather than the actual policy and the implications of the policy? The only reason I can see, and please correct me if I’m overlooking others, that people care is that they’re more interested in reassuring themselves that they’re not damn dirty xenophobes like those who they are arguing against. I don’t see the purpose of soulful introspection of what is motivating the people who oppose illegal immigration and that’s why I conceded ad arguendum that we assign the basest of motives to such people and then figure out what to do about the illegal immigration problem when we know that it is being championed by xenophobes.
From a liberal perspective, what should be the policy towards illegal immigration and how much should it be driven by the liberal fear of not appearing racist and xenophobic?
… why do they care about the motivations rather than the actual policy and the implications of the policy?
… who cares about what is in the heart of those who advocate against illegal immigration?
Do the ends justify the means? Your answer to this question will answer the questions that I have quoted. If it is, in fact, xenophobia that is the motivation, I believe that, even if anti-immigration policy is a net good, that the policies advocated based on xenophobia result in a net bad.
Also, xenophobia (by definition being unsupported by facts) is a prejudice best identified & dealt with, IMHO. As Robert has said, there are things more important than any particular single policy or position.
As to whether or not building a fence & criminalizing illegals is good policy, I think that I addressed that in comments # 90 & 91.
…the liberal fear of not appearing racist and xenophobic?
Thanks for the cliched insult. You know what? There is no liberal fear of appearing racist and xenophobic. There is a dislike, a position against, racism & homophobia in the progressive political community. It is conservatives & reactionaries who, in fact, are afraid of appearing to be racist & xenophobic and who have no problem with actually being racist & xenophobic. If you want to stoop to cliched insults against your opposition, that is.