The sky has been falling for a long, long time….
Click on the image to see a larger version.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
-
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
Ob sie wirklich Deutsch spricht. Normalweise, kommt die US Soldaten nicht ins Stadt und spricht nicht so oft mit denn…
As for being a Nazi, ich spreche fliessend deutsch und wohnte in Deutschland fuer drei Jahre mit der americanishe Luftwaffe…
And of course this "incentive" only applies to poor people: Rich people who already have enough to live off of…
-
Nitpicking, I know, but it’s hard to believe that Japanese immigration was a serious issue in 1850. Chinese, yes.
Lets not forget Ben Franklin expressing his fears that German speakers were going to displace English back around the time of the American revolution, the No Irish Need Apply signs popping up all over the east coast following the potato famine, the Oriental exclusion act of (IIRC) the 1890s that was used to target Finns and Russians as well as Japanese and Chinese persons . . . the list goes on and on. For a country that likes to bill itself as a melting pot, the U.S. has always been remarkably xenophobic.
Pingback: Random Things that Have Been on My Mind « Tiny Cat Pants
For the sake of clarification, is “wall of brass” a metaphor for police enforcement of anti-immigrant laws, the “brass” being their badges? Sorry if that’s a dense question, but I had never heard the expression before.
Also, for those interested, historian Kenneth C. Davis wrote an op-ed in the NY Times about Founding American anti-immigrant sentiments last year. Worth a read.
And, of course, great cartoon, Barry.
Kevin, there was a wall of brass around Atlantis in Plato’s story. That’s a possible source of the reference. Brass is also regularly referenced in the Bible as a metal of strength and impenetrability, Chief Justice Jay would undoubtedly have been intimately familiar with that metaphorical language.
Amp’s got the date wrong, Japanese immigration was big in the 1886-1920 period. In 1850 the nativist would be warning against the prospect of Japanese immigration, not decrying that the existing horde wasn’t assimilating.
I’m pretty sure “wall of brass” — a phrase which itself appears in the Bible, as it’s a pretty safe guess John Jay knew — was used the way someone nowadays might use “wall of steel” or “wall of iron.” As Robert says, it just means an impenetrable wall.
Thanks for the date correction, Robert.
The obvious issue regarding those claims is the question of whether those are good analogies. If not, then so what?
One might, for example, note that during many of those time periods there was significant expansion going on the U.S., (the morals of which are for another thread) so perhaps extra people were treated differently. If there’s “unclaimed”* land available, for example.
Or, we might postulate that the physical barriers–crossing an ocean by sailing ship, and travelling over land by horse or by foot–tended to slow things down. My ability to migrate to California is helped by the automobile.
Or that the pressures were smaller because the differences between the countries was less: the U.S. “first world” high standards of living weren’t as obviously different back then.
Or, obviously, that the numbers were different. I don’t know percentages, but it’s possible. Not only percentages of immigrants, but percentage sof ILLEGAL immigrants.
Or, finally, that some of those things were right. Who knows? Maybe the U.S. would have been better off without letting in as many Irish–my wife wouldn’t be here, and I’d be miserable, but I’m not the country. Maybe the U.S. would have been better off without letting in any Jews, either (I certainly wouldn’t be here). Maybe us Jews and Irish folk were just what the country needed, or maybe our presence has hurt it. Who knows? And so on. As I hope I made clear by using my own personal examples, I don’t think that this is the case, but I don’t exactly know it isn’t the case, either.
*The quotes are prior reference are an effort to avoid a side track into the US treatment of NA populations.
Amp, I’ve actually recently read documents from the time period that Catholic immigration into the U.S. was being debated. The documents I’ve seen centered on Catholics being considered as owing a higher allegiance to the Pope than to the U.S. and being more likely to accept an authoritarian government in the U.S. There were also many people in a primarily Protestant U.S. who considered Catholics as non-Christian and who would thus dilute the Christian nature of American culture.
What I’ve been reading didn’t set effects on the economy as a primary concern, so judging from that this analogy to present-day objections doesn’t hold. If you have some sources that would show that economic issues were the primary concern I’ll be glad to read them.
Overall the U.S.’s economic and security concerns were different in each one of those times than it is now. So I too would challenge those analogies. Also, your last panel equates making the border secure with restricting immigration for economic and cultural reasons. They are in fact separate concerns.
Ron, nothing in my cartoon claims “that economic issues were the primary concern” in anti-Catholic bigotry. But economic issues certainly were claimed as a concern, especially concerns about rising taxes, and in the cities competition for jobs was also a concern. I agree with you that the claim that Catholics were going to be loyal to the Pope — a variant on the “they refuse to assimilate” claim, imo — was much more prominent.
As for border security, there has not been a single terrorist attack committed by someone who came across the Mexican/US border. Nor have concerns about terrorism led nativists to claim that we need to close the border with Canada — even though large sections of that border aren’t guarded at all, as far as I can tell. (When I was a kid, I crossed the border between Maine and Canada a dozen times with a sophisticated spy device called a “canoe.”) So I take the security concerns with a grain of salt.
I believe the country’s passion for closing the border with Mexico is motivated by “economic and cultural reasons,” as well as by racism. If you really don’t think there are any elements of economic or cultural concerns in current arguments for increasing security at the the US/Mexico border, then I think you must not be reading the news.
Ron, nothing in my cartoon claims “that economic issues were the primary concern” in anti-Catholic bigotry.
The first sentence is “Papist immigrants are wrecking our economy with their fecundity.” It appears to me from that sentence that you thought that economic concerns were the first thing that the opponents were considering.
As for border security, there has not been a single terrorist attack committed by someone who came across the Mexican/US border.
Maybe not. But there are other reasons for securing the border besides to prevent terrorist attacks. Drugs and crime and sex trafficking immediately come to mind.
Nor have concerns about terrorism led nativists to claim that we need to close the border with Canada — even though large sections of that border aren’t guarded at all, as far as I can tell.
I can’t answer for what claims nativists have made, or the reasons for them. But it seems to me that when you have limited resources, you concentrate them on the biggest problem. Every breakdown of illegal aliens that I’ve seen pretty much indicates that the vast majority of them come across our southern border, and just about all the rest come in via airports. So if I’m trying to figure out where to spend money to secure our borders, the Canadian border would be low on the list.
BTW, why would you expect to see anyone propose we close the Canadian border when no one has proposed to close the Mexican border or our airports? Who has proposed we close any border?
When I was a kid, I crossed the border between Maine and Canada a dozen times with a sophisticated spy device called a “canoe.”
Hah! What canoe base did you go out of? I canoed around the Allagash region a bit but never crossed into Canada from there. I’ve paddled across the Minnesota/Ontario border a few times, though.
I’ve also driven across it. That border is not being ignored; crossing the Canadian border is a lot harder than it used to be. The days of waving your drivers’ license at the border guard while answering a few perfunctory questions are long gone. Bring a passport (even for minors) and be prepared to get searched. The last time I crossed was two years ago, and all manner of trucks and RV’s were off to the side getting searched going in both directions. And it’s tougher now, according to the people posting on the Scouting canoeing mailing lists.
In composing his cartoon, Barry chose quotes from the past that were most relevant to the current debate. Alleged allegiance to the Pope is not a charged made against migrant workers from south of the border, but their impact on labor competition, wage depression and other economics issues is. So Barry left that out, reserving the most relevant quotes for the limited space the cartoon format allows – which is how good cartoons are made.
…that you or I know of. And, of course, this has no bearing on the question of whether people GET IN, just on whether we catch them first.
My own knowledge of exactly what high risk people have or have not come in is pretty limited. Unless you know a hell of a lot more than i do (possible) and have access to databases of things that don’t hit the national news (unlikely) I don’t see how you can make this statement.
When immigrants start flooding in through Canada in equivalent numbers to mexico, let me know. And if they do, I suspect it will become more of a problem. Or are you in all seriousness trying to suggest that the northern and southern borders present similar national issues?
Much of the northern border, for example, is closed by nature to non-experienced individuals on foot, for a significant portion of the year. Much of the rest of it is wilderness. Many of the unguarded sections lead out through reasonably traceable highways.
Not to mention, of course, that our relationship with Canada is closer than our relationship with Mexico, and that we (properly) put more trust in the Canadian government do do their part in stopping illegal immigrants. you know, because Canada seems to acknowledge that we actually have some right to control immigration, and all that.
Finally: Nativists? Who are you arguing against, here?
Hokay. Is your belief on the same level as the belief that we should be focusing on the Canadian border? I know that sounds a bit snarky, but I don’t get why you’re responding to substantive proptests with a canoe story.
I don’t think anyone has implied this, have they? The question is more whether your stated position in the cartoon and other threads (which, as I understand it, that racism is a/the primary factor, that economics are either unimportant or incorrectly interpreted against illegal immigration, and that a conclusion which places limits on immigration is improper) is correct.
Also, the last border-crossing terrorist plot nipped in the bud was on December 31, 1999 – the suspect was coming from Canada.
Whoops! My bad. It was December 14, 1999. Here’s a link to the CNN article. And to a NY Times article on the Algerian found guilty of smuggling explosives from Canada into Washington.
Thanks for the date correction, Robert.
When an unimportant error presents an opportunity to open my mouth…I will be there.
Pingback: Green Tee Readings » Blog Archive » links for 2008-01-29
Kevin, the way I interpret the point of the cartoon (and certainly YMMV) is that it’s being alleged that from the beginning of our history people have been making objections to immigration for the same reason they do now; that reason has been economic; and they have been wrong in the past and are wrong now.
Now, you can certainly argue that point; for one thing, the basis of our economy is much different now than it was in 1780, 1850 or 1920. But as far as the structure of the cartoon itself goes, that line of reasoning I see represented in the cartoon depends on the idea that the objections of immigration opponents have focused on the same issue all these years. That’s what I’m challenging.
There’s also a major difference in that in at least the first two instances (I’m not clear on immigration law in the 1920’s) the objections were to legal immigration, not the flood of illegal aliens we have now.
Also, the last border-crossing terrorist plot nipped in the bud was on December [14], 1999 – the suspect was coming from Canada.
And it was caught. And there’s been no successful terrorist attack in the U.S. where the principals came in from Canada since then. So it seems we have sufficient resources on the Canadian border, and should thus focus our efforts elsewhere. Say, on the border where 90% (I’m guessing, but I bet I’m not far off) of the illegal aliens do cross.
The *most* obvious issue is that people whose ancestors were formerly scorned and made the subject of anti-immigration sentiment are turning around and uttering the same sky-is-falling predictions thrown at their grandparents or great-grandparents–and those predictions are not really based on any new or solid information showing that this time, things will be different.
The *most* obvious issue is that people whose ancestors were formerly scorned and made the subject of anti-immigration sentiment are turning around and uttering the same sky-is-falling predictions thrown at their grandparents or great-grandparents–
To you, perhaps. Others are not so sure. This is neither the 1780’s, the 1850’s nor the 1920’s. Times have changed. So have the nature of people coming here.
Very few of the people crossing our borders in those times did so illegally. Now, it seems the majority of them are. People coming here were committed to America; they weren’t ever going back to their home country, and their allegiance to that home country was greatly weakened. Unlike the illegal alien of today, in those times there was no expectation that people should expect to live here for years in violation of American laws and that managing to do so for a period of time should protect them from the consequences thereof if they were caught. Far fewer of the people crossing our borders then were doing so for the express purpose of committing crimes. We were not facing terrorist threats. And the need for and uses of labor in the American economy has changed drastically.
To compare America now and present-day illegal aliens to America and the immigrants of the past ignores ~230 years of history and does not, in fact, present a whole lot of valid analogies.
So have the nature of people coming here.
That is one chilling statement, there.
Very few of the people crossing our borders in those times did so illegally.
Well, in the 1780’s & 1850’s there weren’t too many laws regarding immigration. As for the 1920s, you’d be wrong.
From http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Gabaccia/index1.html:
… the terms “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” could only emerge in a nation that restricted movement across its borders. Digitized texts confirm her conclusions. The earliest references are to “illegal immigration,” which referred to the movement of workers from China; they appeared immediately after passage of the 1882 Chinese exclusion. With the exclusion of all Asians and the restriction of southern and eastern European migrations in the 1920s, “illegal immigrant” became an intermittent fixture in the pages of New York Times, where it usually meant stowaways, persons who “jumped ship,” or the “immigrant bootleggers” who supposedly smuggled in workers and “immoral” women.
It’s obvious that someone crossing our borders cannot be defined as having done so illegally if there were no laws restricting such action. That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people crossing our borders now are doing so illegally, or that having done so gives them a different nature than those who did so legally – regardless of whether or not laws restricting such action existed at the time of the crossing.
As far as being wrong about the 1920’s goes, you haven’t demonstrated that. I didn’t say that nobody illegally entered the country in the 1920’s; I said that things are different now in that the majority of people entering the country seem to do so illegally. To show I’m wrong you’ll need to argue that stowaways, people who jumped ship and imported sex workers were the majority of border crossers in the 1920’s.
Whenever I hear the “But it’s illegal!” argument, I have to wonder if it’s code for something else, since the fastest way to eliminate illegal immigration would be to legalize it. But I never hear the anti-immigrant crowd arguing for that, so I’m pretty sure that the legality isn’t the first and foremost issue.
Your point that in previous eras, immigrants did not expect to return to their country of origin, is noted. However, I don’t see how it makes much of a difference.
Whenever I hear the “But it’s illegal!” argument, I have to wonder if it’s code for something else
Yes. It’s code for “we want to have control over our border, and have who comes across be subject to review and decisionmaking by our elected government”. John can desire this state of affairs and want to see the border completely closed to immigration; Frank can desire this state of affairs and want to see a million people per year permitted across – the key word being, permitted.
Your point that in previous eras, immigrants did not expect to return to their country of origin, is noted. However, I don’t see how it makes much of a difference.
“I want to spend the rest of my life with you. Let’s get married.”
versus
“Let’s fuck. I might go home tomorrow, I dunno. We’ll see.”
Many people would find one or the other of these propositions more attractive than the other, perhaps depending on the timing or the identity of the proposer. Interesting and sensible arguments can be held as to which proposition is better, or worse, or more transgressive, or whatever.
But it would not be sensible to argue that the propositions are identical.
Whenever I hear the “But it’s illegal!” argument, I have to wonder if it’s code for something else,
Let me ease your concern, then. It’s not code for anything. It means exactly what it says.
since the fastest way to eliminate illegal immigration would be to legalize it. But I never hear the anti-immigrant crowd arguing for that,
What do you mean by legalizing illegal immigration? Eliminating immigration laws entirely and having open borders where anyone could walk/ride/fly into the U.S. and take up residence?
Oh, and what’s the “anti-immigrant” crowd? I’m not aware of any sizable group of people who oppose immigration.
Positing for argument’s sake that “open borders” is what you’re aiming for, I think that failing to favor this distinguishes one group from another. Regardless of what various groups think of our present immigration laws and the efforts (or lack thereof) to enforce them and how to deal with the illegal aliens here in the U.S. already, I haven’t seen any of them that favor “open borders”. Failure to do so condemns Democrats as well as Republicans and those who favor amnesty for currently resident illegal aliens as well as those who don’t.
so I’m pretty sure that the legality isn’t the first and foremost issue.
Something like that, yeah. Or perhaps just vastly reduced requirements for entry — no more years-long waiting lists, for example — while maintaining some control in order to keep, for example, murderers and rapists out.
I’m not saying that this is a good idea. But it is an excellent rebuttal to those who harp on how undocumented immigrants are ILLEGAL and they’re VIOLATING AMERICAN LAWS and DON’T YOU KNOW THAT THEY’RE BREAKING THE LAW and similar endless one-track arguments that idolize the law over fairness, justice, practicality, and common sense.
(Incidentally, the same thing works for those who demonize illegal drugs because they’re ILLEGAL. Simple solution, legalize them and then they won’t be BREAKING THE LAW any more.)
Back to immigration — so if, as you say, the problem is that all this immigration is illegal, then all we need to do is legalize it and the problem goes away. Which, admittedly, is reductio ad absurdum. Which is why I think that the problem isn’t the illegality per se, but something else.
Now, there are plenty of credible arguments against our current system of ignoring-the-issue-while-benefitting-from-the-labor that don’t rely on the “ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!” mantra. But those don’t show a distinction between current immigration and past immigration that you were trying to show.
Back to immigration — so if, as you say, the problem is that all this immigration is illegal, then all we need to do is legalize it and the problem goes away. Which, admittedly, is reductio ad absurdum. Which is why I think that the problem isn’t the illegality per se, but something else.
Well, obviously. To a certain extent. There are reasons why the laws are what they are, so when people violate them we end up with the problem that the laws were established to eliminate. So it’s quite valid to emphasize that their presence is illegal because that means that the issues the laws were established to address are now not being addressed.
But that’s not all. The fact that their conduct is illegal is in and of itself a valid issue. When someone enters the United States in full knowledge that this act and most everything they may do after that act is against the law shows that they have little regard for the laws of the country. That itself is an issue. Legalizing their activities flouts the reasons why the laws were established in the first place, and it also flouts the idea that this country is based on the rule of law. The fact that millions of people flood into a country and do this and the government does nothing about it corrupts our entire political and governmental process. It supports a concept that the left, in fact, tries to establish; that our government is influenced by the desires (I won’t say “needs”) of corporations and other business interests and is willing to degrade the rule of law to do so.
The attitude that the concept of “rule of law” is something to be degraded or ignored may be common where many illegal aliens come from, but it’s not something to be encouraged in the U.S.
The fact that their conduct is illegal is in and of itself a valid issue.
Why don’t I see the same outrage over, say, speed limits being violated? I mean, if the fact of conduct being illegal in and of itself is the root of the issue, where’s the outrage? How about jaywalking? Theft of office supplies? All of these crimes are committed by far more than 12 million people.
I’m having a hard time taking this argument seriously.
Jake: You want to focus your attention on speed limits? Be my guest. But don’t tell me where to focus mine. I mean, after all–why are you even bothering to waste time on the plight of someone who can’t immigrate to the U.S. based on moralities and ethics? They’re not generally shooting people randomly in Mexico, and you could be spending all your time lobbying for Darfur.
In any case,
What you suggest isn’t what the U.S. people appear to want.
the “legality” argument is based on the belief that
1) the U.S. has the right to control who gets in
2) the U.S. has a right to control who “joins” the U.S. as a citizen, and
3) those rights are expressed through immigration laws and enforcement.
among others
If you don’t agree with those three propositions then it is unlikely that we will agree about much.
OTOH, if you DO believe in those three propositions, the “it’s only illegal because we say it’s illegal” argument is so much dreck. yeah, it’s only illegal because we say so. So are theft, murder, embezzlement, fraud, assault, etc etc. We can surely reduce violent crime in this country my merely categorizing it as noncriminal. Hopefully you see that such a step would be ludicrous.
so when you say
you’re wrong: it’s not a rebuttal at all, much less an excellent one.
It is also interesting that you refer to idolizing the law over fairness and justice. There’s a lot of debate about whether the laws are/should be more biased towards fairness or justice but there’s no way that supporting the law is going to be opposed to BOTH.
Common sense? Sure, our laws violate common sense all the time. (not that this is necessarily a bad thing; common sense is more common than sensible) But so what?
Now, practicality is a reasonable argument to change the law. It may also be a reasonable argument to enforcing it. But you’re not making a practical argument here.
Sailorman,
Perhaps you hadn’t noticed the last line of RonF’s comment # 27. Let me highlight that for you.
The attitude that the concept of “rule of law” is something to be degraded or ignored may be common where many illegal aliens come from, but it’s not something to be encouraged in the U.S.
Aside from what the construction of this sentence reveals about RonF’s belief’s & biases…
Where is the outrage from RonF about the degradation of the concept of “rule of law” that he knows is happening in the US? Where is the acknowledgement that the “concept of “rule of law”” is being actively ignored (and thereby degraded?) every day in his very presence? It seems it is only something that happens where illegal aliens come from.
It’s a bad argument. It’s not bad because he isn’t concerned specifically about speeding. It’s bad because he claims to be concerned with the necessity to the US of obeying the rule of law – not the breaking of immigration laws specifically – but has yet to give any hint of outrage at a single other, more common example of the failure of massive amounts of people to honor this vital concept.
Maybe it’s because he feels that petty theft or speeding or any of the other dozens of laws routinely ignored by millions really isn’t a major concern and doesn’t reflect terribly on one’s character, whereas immigrating illegally is and does. I strongly suspect this to be the case, and it’s a position that is comprehensible. But that would show that his concern is the action rather than some spurious worry about the overarching concept of rule of law, thereby revealing that his “rule of law” repetitions are just arguing in bad faith.
That I can express outrage at genocides & other injustices has nothing to do with whether or not I make those my priorities. I’m still outraged. Where is RonF’s outrage at the degradation of the concept of rule of law perpetrated by speeders & jaywalkers and so on? Please note that I’m not asking why RonF doesn’t devote his time & energy to punishing speeders and jaywalkers, rather I’m asking why he hasn’t said, “I find speeders and jaywalkers to be doing a horrible thing by ignoring the rule of law.” Is that really the equivalent of your suggestion that Darfur is more important and, therefore, that is where my energies should be directed?
RonF makes it clear that “rule of law” isn’t his major concern with the perceived problems of illegal immigration, yet tries to convince us that it is vital by repeating it ad nauseum. This is why I find it hard to take that argument seriously. Bad faith red herring.
I am, personally, a big proponent of the ROL (as you would expect, given my profession.)
But within that, I’m still capable of making distinctions between more and less important violations of ROL. So I get very upset if we start executing people without due process. I get less upset for speeders and jaywalkers. And I try to be equal about it: in fact, if you were to check my posts on Alas and elsewhere, you’ll see that I am quite consistent in support of this principle, whether or not I happen to like the people who benefit from it. This means that sometimes my views align with liberal feminism (constitutional rights of accused defendants in general), and sometimes (constitutional rights of rape defendants in particular) they do not.
Here, it seems like you’re attacking RonF on consistency grounds. Oddly enough, I agree with it in general principle: I get into consistency arguments all the time. But I don’t think your argument is correct as applied. The examples you give are simply too different to be relevant analogies. To use Bjartmarr’s example of “in order to keep, for example, murderers and rapists out”… obviously I don’t think Bjartmarr is implying that everyone who isn’t a murderer or a rapist should go free. She’s merely prioritizing, which is appropriate.
Furthermore, your comments are well on the track of “why don’t you work on ____ instead of ___?” As we know here, that’s a silly argument. If you tell me what your priorities are, chances are that I could come up with other things you should be doing instead of, or in addition to, whatever it is you do now to support your goals. So what? It doesn’t make your goals invalid, nor your actions.
Now, if you were accusing someone of undermining those goals–say, supporting “rule of law” on Monday, and claiming that the Supreme Court has no business interpreting the Constitution on Tuesday–then that’d be another thing.
“Times are different” and “but THESE immigrants are different” are also time-honored, pull-up-the-bridge-after-me arguments.
“Seem to be” is not evidence. As for illegality, in former years it wasn’t quite as easy to track entry across the border, nor to monitor paperwork to make sure that “undocumented” immigrants could not then obtain documents. (My own grandmother, I am told, bribed a judge to issue her a fake US birth certificate; my grandfather simply started putting down “Ohio” as his birthplace, and in an era before electronic documents and cross-checking, nobody noticed the difference.)
I really don’t get the argument that supporting more open immigration means throwing the borders open entirely, unless it’s being used as a bad faith rhetorical club. Yes, Robert, I’m looking at you.
Ah, heck with it. Let them all in. How much worse can they be than the people we’ve already got in the US? (Fred Phelps, George Bush, Dick Cheney…the US’s produced some real winners.)
Are you claiming that a law can’t be neither fair nor just?
Surely that’s not what you are claiming. But if you aren’t claiming that, then you actually have to demonstrate how the law is either fair or just, not merely state that it musty necessarily be either fair or just.
Furthermore, your comments are well on the track of “why don’t you work on ____ instead of ___?”
I’m having trouble seeing that. How are you reading that in what I wrote? Especially given that I wrote:
That I can express outrage at genocides & other injustices has nothing to do with whether or not I make those my priorities. I’m still outraged.
I think that you are reading something into my comments that is explicitly not there.
You state your position on ROL. RonF, though given chances in this and in past threads to declare his outrage over anything that undermines ROL or to open discussion of relative importance, has not. Not that I can recall. Also, your position on ROL doesn’t seem to be the same as RonF’s at all. RonF claims that the concept of ROL is paramount. Not that ROL is important, but less important in some cases than in others. Your position allows for discussion about how important ROL is wrt this law or that law. RonF’s stated position is that ROL is everything. To wit, if you break immigration laws, you’ve undermined ROL & are not fit to stay in the US because you’ve undermined ROL. I see a big difference between those stated position.
No.
Then why are you asking? ;)
You use a sneaky trick here, or try to:
I’m not talking about “a” law (which you refer to in your initial strawman.) I’m talking about “the” law, i.e. our legal system in general.
Those are not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing.
“A” law can certainly be unfair and unjust: i.e., one can have a shitty law.
However, I believe that our legal system in general does a pretty good job (better than most, I’d say) of being fair, just, or both. People who generally support the general “rule of law,” i.e. our system, are also supporting its implementation.
Dianne
Lets think about that a moment. There are probably 100s of millions of poor people (perhaps billions) from all over the world who would immigrate to the US tomorrow if given a chance. What do you think would happen if we imported, say, 200 million poor people over the next couple of years?
IMHO our economy would completely collapse. Much, much worse than the great depression. We would become the shit-hole 3rd world country that those poor people fled. You cannot import that massive amount of poverty without consequences. Lets say you agree with that. Would immigrating 20 million poor people simply be 1/10 of the catastrophic problem? 2 million 1/100?
RonF @#26
Okay. So when you were arguing that historical objections to immigration and modern objections to immigration differ in that the former were objections to legal immigration while the latter are objections to illegal immigration (comment 16 last paragraph), were you actually trying to say that the latter has issues that are not being addressed while the former did not? Because I don’t think that the folks in the first three panels of Barry’s toon would agree with you.
Utter and complete hogwash.
If I run a red light at 3AM while driving my about-to-give-birth wife to the hospital, does that show that I have little regard for the laws of this country? Of course not. What it shows is that I have more regard for my wife and child’s safety than I do for the letter of this particular law.
When a Mexican exhausts all reasonable legal ways of feeding his family and decides to break the law about unauthorized entry into the US, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t respect US laws. It means that he loves his family.
Sailor@#28
Well, duh. But this just reinforces my point: if the US people claim to be primarily concerned with the illegality of the situation, but they reject a solution that eliminates the illegality, then the illegality is likely not the cause of their concern.
Of course it would be ludicrous. But your analogy isn’t applicable. Violent crime is bad because it hurts people, not merely because it is illegal. But the one-track argument that I hear from anti-illegal-immigration folks is that it’s bad because it’s ILLEGAL. (Often they point out that they or their ancestors came here legally, so that’s okay. But this ILLEGAL stuff is BAD because it’s ILLEGAL. Legal good, illegal bad.)
After engaging these folks in conversation for a while, it usually becomes apparent that some other things that are illegal don’t bother them so much. Smoke pot? Enh, so what? Underage drinking? Hey, I did that! Exceeding posted speed limits when it’s safe to do so? Of course I do!
My rational interpretation of their beliefs, then, is that they in fact do not believe that illegal -> bad; that it’s some other aspect of undocumented immigration that bugs them, but either they don’t know or won’t say what that aspect is.
Uh…you must be using a definition of justice and fairness with which I am unfamiliar. Perhaps you’re using a legal definition and I’m using a lay definition, but in my book fairness and justice go hand-in-hand.
You’ve been reading that book of Lazarus Long quotes again, haven’t you?
Something like that, yeah. Or perhaps just vastly reduced requirements for entry — no more years-long waiting lists, for example — while maintaining some control in order to keep, for example, murderers and rapists out.
Well, I’m not going to argue that the Federal bureaucracy can’t be made more efficient. But there’s an inherent conflict in reducing delays while maintaining control. People aren’t being made to wait just for the hell of it; it’s a product both of bureaucratic inefficiencies and the need to do thorough background checks, etc.
Actually, wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said that? Except I think it was that it as “neither common or sensible.”
I won’t side track this into a fairness/justice thing so this’ll be short: Those represent two different and morally valid ways of reaching putatively “equal” treatment, BOTH of which also include, inescapably, a significant degree of INequality somewhere in the process. There’s generally a tradeoff, and some laws are biased more towards one than the other.
Bjartmarr, here you go:
Moderately Insane: Justice and Fairness are two different things….
As I suspected, you are using an extremely legal definition of fairness and justice, while I am using a lay definition. IANAL. So sue me.
In any case, I really don’t understand how your belief that the legal system does a “pretty good job” of being fair and/or just supports your assertion that “there’s no way that supporting the law is going to be opposed to BOTH.” In fact, I think it contradicts it: if our legal system merely does a “pretty good job”, then there likely exist specific cases where it fails. But if somebody supports the law (in the context where I initially mentioned it, i.e. an expression of blind support for the law regardless of the circumstances) then they also support the specific laws in those cases where it fails to deliver either justice or fairness. And support of an instance of injustice and unfairness inherently opposes justice and fairness. QED.
But there’s an inherent conflict in reducing delays while maintaining control.
If we reduce ridiculous, needless delays, that is not in conflict with maintaining control. People should have to wait to have a criminal-records check done. They shouldn’t have to wait because Immigration lost their file, or doesn’t have enough clerks.
If we reduce ridiculous, needless delays, that is not in conflict with maintaining control.
True.
People should have to wait to have a criminal-records check done. They shouldn’t have to wait because Immigration lost their file,
True and true.
or doesn’t have enough clerks.
The number of clerks the U.S. hires to process immigration or citizenship requests should be a function of what meets the needs of the United States and the U.S.’s priorities for it’s resources. What the needs or desires of prospective immigrants/citizens are is lower on the list.
I’d like to think that one of the US’s interests, and priorities for its resources, would be having an immigration system that is fair, consistent, competent and acts in accordance with the laws. Call me a crazy dreamer, but I don’t believe “providing a living for immigration attorneys” or “giving border guards a chance to act out power fantasies” are appropriate goals for a government agency.
I don’t know about that. The first interest of the U.S. government is its citizens. As a government, we don’t really owe potential immigrants ANYTHING–entry, speed, competence. We don’t even have to take their damn application.
That is a very important issue that drives the whole affair. there are no entitlements here, and no “rights.” People have no more of a right to immigrate to the U.S. than they do to get on my list of personal charities.
As a result of the lack of entitlement, the priorities are different. As are the moralities.
For example, because there’s no right to immigrate, it’s perfectly OK for the U.S> to concern itself mostly with keeping out the unwanted people, and giving zero thought to the “deserving” people who might be unfairly barred. It would be perfectly OK to ask people to prove their bona fides, instead of taking it upon ourselves to find the problems. (compare that with the criminal justice system, which operates on the assumption of innocence.)
Because there’s no right to immigrate, it’s perfectly OK for us to adopt simple rules, such as “any conviction makes you ineligible,” or “you must speak English.” We can institute draconian rules “application costs $5000,” or we can institute long waits. Because of course we can always admit NOBODY, right?
I wouldn’t support abusive treatment in general, border guards or otherwise, and because that seems like a red herring that’s all I’ll say about it here.
I am curious as to why you think a priority for the U.S.’s resources should be to make things easier for noncitizens. We already do a piss poor job on public assistance for citizens, why cut into that?
Or are you making a different point? Is all of your “we should do ___” stuff really code for a belief that people ARE entitled to immigrate, and that we should treat that “right” just like any other? Or is all of this based on a presumption that countries are bad–IOW, a push for global socialism? That would certainly make your suggested priorities more sensible.
As a government, we don’t really owe potential immigrants ANYTHING
As a government, we owe the people of the United States the assurance that if we are letting immigrants in, we are doing so according to the law, and in a fair, impartial and competent manner. Not because they paid a lawyer to mind their files. Not because a border guard approved of the color of their skin or their accent. Not because the crazy dictators from which they’re fleeing is or is not a current buddy of the sitting President.
By the way, you keep assuming that “immigrants” and “US Citizens” are two sets that do not intersect. “We don’t owe immigrants anything” is not a rational response to a citizen who has married a foreign national, or seeks to bring a worker to the US lawfully. What, the US no longer owes that person anything because they have immigrant cooties? Once you touch the funny person from over the boarder, screw you, pal, we’re not your government anymore?
I am curious as to why you are in favor of an inefficient, money-wasting bureacratic system that does not follow or enforce the laws. Is it because you really think we should shut our borders completely and if that means acting like a Soviet bureaucracy, woo hoo, bring it on?
And FYI, hinting darkly that I might be a, gasp, socialist is about the opposite of making a solid point.
OK, let’s get rid of that “if,” because AFAIK you are completely opposed to NOT letting them in. Right?
Now. You’re making three statements, that we owe 1) fairness, 2) impartiality, and 3) competence.
Initially, i’d note that “fairness” (consideration of people’s specific and personal situation) and “impartiality” (application of a set of rules to people without regard to their background) tend to be at odds. Personally, I’m all for impartiality when faced with a situation that requires a significant amount of rejection: it’s quick and comparatively cheap. So I would agree that we owe impartiality, though I am OK with the result that it will be unfair.
I don’t know that we “owe” anyone competence.
By the way, you keep assuming that “immigrants” and “US Citizens” are two sets that do not intersect.
For the purpose of this conversation, I am using “immigrant” to refer to people who are not citizens. I’m not including people who have ALREADY immigrated. (isn’t that fairly obvious?) I can switch to “alien” if you like.
It’s perfectly rational, it’s just not what you want to hear. We may decide to give special rights to partners, or employees. But we don’t HAVE to.
What, the US no longer owes that person anything because they have immigrant cooties? (emphasis added)
No. They don’t “no longer” owe them, they never owed them anything in the first place. Sure, they owe something to YOU (the hypothetical employer/partner) but you’re not them.
Of course they are: you’re still a citizen. You have the same rights. And the same privileges.
You can still vote. You can vote for politicians who will give special privileges to aliens who have a boyfriend or girlfriend in the U.S., if you want. You can try to get legislation passed which is an automatic admit for any alien based solely on true love.
But if your legislation DOESN’T PASS, you didn’t lose your citizenship.
I’m not in favor of it. If it could be more efficient, that’d be fine. But I am not willing to spend a lot of money or national effort on improving it for others’ benefit.
No. I’d like to admit more people legally, and fewer people illegally. i’d also like to be picky about who gets in. I certainly think that maintaining a belief in the RIGHT to close borders completely is a necessary precursor to enforcing and designing any intelligent immigration strategy, and to considering immigration as a whole.
Why? I don’t have anything against socialism. But if you’re one of the “there should be no countries” people or the “borders are evil” people then knowing that would help me understand your positoin better.
Please spare me the bad-faith arguing disguised (badly) as “gee, I was just asking”. I’d imagine that if a pro-immigration person asked you “Are you xenophobic or opposed to the immigration of non-Anglos? Because if you are, that would help me understand your position better” you’d see that for exactly what it is.
And I’m not really following the we-don’t-have-to argument. Because whether or not we “have to” is irrelevant; we do, or at least our laws say we do. You’re answering the problem of a broken immigration system with “Well, we don’t have to let anybody in anyway!” Uh, okay. We don’t have to let anybody marry anyway; does that mean we shouldn’t care if a state official refuses to marry interracial couples, or if it takes you years to get a marriage license when it should take a week? Hey, we could just say no marriage, so STFU and like it? Is that really your argument?
Sure, they owe something to YOU (the hypothetical employer/partner) but you’re not them.
Correct. And the ‘something’ owed to any citizen is that when we have laws, those laws will be enforced in a fair, competent and impartial manner. That’s sort of the point of having government. More narrowly, they owe the citizen spouse or employer the same thing when that citizen applies in a lawful fashion for an immigrant to be admitted.
Of course we, as citizens, could amend the Constitution and our laws to say nobody can come in. It would be freaking stupid, but we could do that. Your point was what again? That unless I agree to that I’m an evil socialist who wants to smash the nation-state under the pretense of running ICE in a lawful fashion?
I’m pro-immigration. I have immigrants within 3 generations or fewer in most branches of my family tree. Immigration is good for the U.S.A. I work with immigrants 3 cubes away from me, and when they became citizens (but are still immigrants, BTW), I organized taking up a collection and buying them each an American flag as a congratulatory present. One of them has it up in her cube – it takes up one wall of it. If you really want to hear some strong words about what should happen to illegal aliens, ask them. And remember, they can vote on the matter.
We owe ourselves immigration laws that meet the needs of the U.S.A., and we need to have them enforced as efficiently as possible. We do not owe the efficiency to the potential immigrants – we owe it to ourselves. We do not owe potential immigrants anything that serves their needs or desires that does not also meet our needs and desires, save basic human rights. Currently, IIRC we require resident aliens to learn English and to master some simple concepts about American history and civics. It’s probably damn difficult for them to do that, at least the language part. Too bad.
We also require that they be able to contribute to the U.S.’s economy – that they have some kind of skills and are employed and are not just unskilled labor or on public aid. Again IIRC, it is the explicit policy of the U.S. that we do not welcome economic refugees. We do not admit people as immigrants if their main reason for coming here is that they can’t get a job in their home country. That is very inconvenient for most of the illegal aliens in this country. Again, too bad. Such is the will of the American public as expressed in law by their representatives. The fact that the law is evaded and the illegal aliens are exploited by a conspiratorial minority of employers and public officials is reason to toss all of the said public officials’ and employers’ asses in jail. It is not a reason to change the law or to grant the illegal aliens citizenship.
We do owe illegal aliens basic human rights. If we pick someone up in the desert (or anywhere else), we owe them food, water, shelter and basic medical care until such time as their immigration status is determined (e.g., they aren’t U.S. citizens out for a walk who got lost). Said determination should be rapid, because that meets our needs. Once someone is determined to be an illegal alien, they should be dealt with according to the law, again as quickly as possible.
Speaking of owing people things – I have seen a few stories lately about how there are long delays in processing applications for U.S. Citizenship. Seems that the fee for this has just/is about to go up. It also seems that a lot of them want to vote in the upcoming election. So there has been a surge in applications. The fact that there are delays have prompted a number of stories sympathetic to them about how they are about to be cheated out of being able to participate in the election.
But each time I read the stories, I find in about the 5th paragraph that this person has been in the country for 10 or 15 or (in one case) 27 years. Hey, what happened years ago? Interestingly enough, no one is alleging gross inefficiencies or deliberate delays. It’s a simple issue of a surge in applications overwhelming the available staff. Kind of like what happened when passports started to be required to get in and out of Mexico, Canada, and other countries that we didn’t require them for before. Again; while it would be better for us to process these things more quickly, why should we go to the expense of doubling the staff to process these things? Why should we spend extra money to meet their needs? I’m an American citizen. Demonstrate to me why it’s in my interests to spend extra tax money to make these folks citizens a few months faster.
Mythago:
Amen. Precisely what I’m arguing for myself.
It’s probably damn difficult for them to do that, at least the language part. Too bad.
Y’know, for somebody who supposedly admires immigrants, you sure don’t seem to be able to resist taking a pointless swipe at them.
And you need to do better than skimming occasional newspaper stories and plucking out facts that support your views. You know what really jammed up the immigration bureaucracy? I’ll give you a hint: it happened in New York and involved a massive overhaul of security procedures nationwide.
It didn’t, however, lead to increased competency or efficiency. And that was to an agency that was already something that would make a Soviet apparatchik envious of its institutional inefficiency.
I don’t mean to disappoint you, RonF, but I actually agree with you on many points; it’s not our job in the US to provide work for everyone (though try telling the high-tech industry that next time they whine about H1B visas); with some exceptions, we should require a basic command of English and an understanding of American society, if only because it pisses off nativists so much when immigrants are more well-spoken, knowledgeable and patriotic than they are.
“Owe” is the wrong word, because it implies an obligation based on debt. There are other sources of obligation.
My view is that the only legitimate reason for a State to exist is to serve its citizens, but if it has dealings with non-citizens then it has the obligation to do so fairly. Competency would fall under that obligation.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but in case someone hasnt mentioned it: a problem with the focus on “illegal” immigration as the problem is that US immigration law throughout its history has tended to restrict legal immigration to European/white immigration and define non-European and non-white immigrants as illegal, starting with the Naturalization act of 1790 which opened US citizenship to “free, white” immigrants and thereby cast other people as presumtively illegal.
As immigration laws became more complex they began to explicitly exclude racially undesirable immigrants, mostly from Mexico, China and other Asian countries. This division of legal vs illegal was accomplished through national origin quotas.
In 1968, us immigration laws recognized quotas a racist and in conflict with equal protection. Quotas and restrictions on asian immigration were dismantled. Enforcement discourse began to focus on “illegal” immigrants rather than “Chinese” or Mexican “immigrants.”
Enforcement practice, and discussion of border walls etc etc, however, still continues to focus on racially marked” illegal” immigrants. What was once explicit in US law and in political debate about immigration is now implicit; it is not illegality but race that generates nativist fears bout “unfair” competition, and an overwhelming sea of un-assimilable immigrants.
As for security and terrorism; whenever my ex’s family would start to go on about illegal immigration and terrorists, he would happily point out that their entire family was descended from an Irish immigrant who had emmigrated to avoid the legal consequences of getting caught attempting to set off a truck bomb in Belfast. While it was amusing to watch the reactions to this statement of truth while sitting in an immaculate suburban home on long island, mostly it just pointed out how critical whiteness is to respectability and legality in America.
This was a logical ad hom on the part of your ex. Many white Americans are descended from people who perpetrated genocide against the indigenous population. Does that mean that they can’t legitimately object to genocide being committed today?
curiousgyrl, it’s quite true that immigration quotas have been in the past based on racist philosophies. But we are not talking about the past. We are talking about enforcing the present immigration law that was reformed back in 1986, an effort that was led by some of the same legislators that led the thankfully failed attempt to change it once again last year. Promises were made then that were not kept. There is therefore little trust that promises made now will be kept either.
The fact that most illegal aliens in the U.S. have a common Hispanic heritage does not make enforcement of immigration law racist.
mythago, obviously the events of 9/11/01 affected the immigration process. But that event was seven years ago. The current doubling of applications over recent levels is a major factor in the recent problem.
Daran, I think the point was to demonstrate the “they violated the law so they WILL BE TERRORISTS!” fallacy.
Post-9/11 security measures did not go away. They started implementing them seven years ago; they are still in place. The level of criminal background checks, fingerprint checks, and so on is higher–NOT just for Immigration, but Immigration now is part of the increased queue on any agency providing that background information. Your newspaper anecdotes might also have told you that it takes much longer to get a passport now than it did before 9/11. Do you really believe you can put that on immigrants, too?
Sorry, but “I read it in a newspaper and there was this guy….” does not persuade me.
Well, now. An interesting twist on the immigration debate came up today.
The previous President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, spoke about relations between the U.S. and Mexico and immigration issues, etc., at a conference sponsored by the University of Oklahoma State’s Business School. A news report of that speech reports the following:
Now, if I had said that last sentence I’d be labeled a hopeless racist. But let that pass. There’s something a lot more interesting to discuss. If you look up the definition of the word “immigrant” (and I invite you all to check it out in any two or three you care to), you’re going to see something like this:
• noun a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
And, in fact, that’s the general understanding. An immigrant is not a tourist. They are not a temporary guest worker. They are not here on a student visa. They are someone who comes here to stay.
Presuming that the reporters involved have properly reported Mr. Fox’s remarks, what the ex-President of Mexico has just said today (and I presume he’s got access to and has spent more time studying better information on the matter than any of us) is that most illegal aliens in the United States are not immigrants. It follows from that, then, that describing illegal aliens in general by the euphemism “illegal immigrant” is a lie; they’re not immigrants. Anyone using it in that fashion is therefore more interested in presenting a false narrative than they are in telling the truth. That also applies to describing people who oppose the presence of illegal aliens as “anti-immigrant” (which is ridiculous for other reasons as well).
People have often talked about illegal aliens under the assumption that they were immigrants. I’ve had questions about that assumption, but I didn’t know how to check that. I’m glad that an authority on the subject has finally spoken up.
I’ve sent an e-mail to a contact listed for this lecture at the school to see if I can get a transcript of Mr. Fox’s remarks.
Edit failed; I wanted to say, “Anyone aware of this information who then uses the term ‘illegal immigrant’ to describe illegal aliens is therefore more interested in presenting a false narrative than they are in telling the truth.”
Let’s see; if I were the President of Mexico, and I were trying to persuade the US to adopt a guest-worker program, I would sell it by claiming that:
a) Mexicans really, really want to have US citizenship or at least green cards;
b) Some Mexicans do want to stay in America, but some do not;
c) None of these guest workers want to stay! Honest! As soon as they’re done on the farm they’ll go home quietly and not fill up your neighborhoods with scary bodegas!
Hm. Think maybe the most persuasive is c)?
I mean, c’mon. It’s obvious that many illegal aliens who work here have no intention of staying, and would go home when not working if they didn’t have to make a dangerous and illegal border crossing. It’s also obvious that many people WOULD stay–particularly those who think US citizenship, or at least a life in the US, would be better for their children than the options back home.
If you prefer to seize on Fox’s statement as a neutral, objective survey of the attitudes of potential guest-workers, I guess I can’t stop you. But your credulity towards a politician with an obvious agenda seems odd.
Of course, the head of a corrupt government can ALWAYS be trusted to tell the truth. Especially when that truth is politically inconvenient.
I especially like the line about tacos vs. hamburgers. Because, you know, it’s not like there is any Mexican food north of the border, and Mexican and Central American culture (unlike all other immigrant cultures!) have remained hermetically sealed from American culture.
The other thing is that while many Mexican immigrants to the US would prefer to be able to move back and forth between Mexico and the US, the limitations on visas that RonF favors and the militarized border with Mexico that RonF favors mean that most Mexican immigrants can’t afford to routinely cross the border, and would prefer to live where they can find higher paying work (the US), even if that means living there permanently. So the policies the RonF favors make the people RonF wants us to call illegal aliens undocumented immigrants because they do intend to stay.
the limitations on visas that RonF favors
And what would those limitations be? Please be sure to cite my remarks on the subject.
militarized border with Mexico that RonF favors
Please cite where I have proposed having the U.S. military secure the U.S. – Mexican border.
Charles, don’t put words in my mouth. It’s dishonest.
I keep seeing this story in Amp’s sidebar and it reads “Cartoon Immigrants Are Ruining The Economy”.
Damn you, cartoon immigrants! Damn you to hell!
So the argument against Pres. Fox’s remarks are “he’s lying”? That could very well be, of course, for the reasons you cite.
OTOH, he could very well be telling the truth, despite the fact that it’s politically inconvenient; at least, for some people. And again, he should know. So if you allege he’s lying, please cite alternative sources that support your allegation.
Fox doesn’t have to be neutral on the subject to be telling the truth in this instance. And your statement and his seem to agree; that the desires of the majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. is to not become immigrants.
I have no particular problem with a guest-worker program. In fact, we already have a number of them. H-1B visas, H-2A visas, etc. In the 3 minutes I spent looking it up, there seem to be at least a dozen visas that enable aliens to come into the U.S. for work and study reasons. It’s clear that there is a recognized need for guest workers.
Let the people who wish to support creating a guest worker program pursue it along the lines established at law. If it’s a question of streamlining the bureaucracy, great. If it’s a question of increasing the limits (and unlike the H-1B visa, the H-2A visas have no limits) or otherwise removing obstacles, then fine. Let the case be made in public debate, and convince the people and their representatives that this change should be made and that the reasons advanced to not make the change are wrong.
But there’s no way that I’m going to support linking that to granting citizenship to people who have evaded and violated all these laws and more. As long as any proposed change to immigration law includes such a provision, I’m going to tell my representatives to shoot it down. And so will the majority of the American public, as we saw last year. Don’t expect that to change if there’s a change in which party holds the Presidency. President Bush supported it, and it still got shot down. Extending visas to such people or even granting permanent resident alien status might fly. Maybe. But citizenship? Don’t think so.
One of the major reasons why people are saying “we can’t deport them all” is the allegation that it would harm our economy, cause prices to rise, cost a great deal of money, etc. Granting illegal aliens citizenship is not required to keep any of that from happening. So I wonder whether there is any other motive.
No. The argument against using Fox as an authority on the subject is that he’s not an unbiased source.
So who is an unbiased source? Show me he’s wrong.
I see; it’s not your job to demonstrate that Fox is right. His remarks are attractive to you, therefore they are presumed right and it’s everyone else’s job to presume they are wrong.
I already went over why his claims do not make sense (let’s call it “spinning”, not outright lying). Why do you think that his statement is true? Because there are no tacos north of the border?
Find your own sources, Ron. I’m not the one who’s making sweeping claims about undocumented immigrants or people who call them undocumented immigrants.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me whether Mexicans who come here to work end up staying or going home. I’d rather concentrate on why the feel a need to come here in the first place, and what can be done about that.
By the way, RonF, as you well understood, in this context “biased source” means that Fox has a particular agenda, and he made his remarks to promote that agenda.
Quote me any other source that comments on the motivations and desires of illegal aliens coming into the U.S. I’ll be glad to read it. Again, the fact that Pres. Fox is biased and has an agenda doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Bias and having an agenda is not limited to proponents of any particular viewpoint or actions regarding the presence of illegal aliens in this country.
I find that his claims make perfect sense. People from Mexico come into this country in order to make money and support their families back home. If you want, I can dig up sources, but apparently there’s about $20 billion going from the U.S. to Mexico from workers here. It makes perfect sense that they would want to go back to see their families and to a place where the money they earned goes a lot farther than it does here. The fact that they are worried that they’ll have problems getting back into the U.S. when their visit is over and that they restrict their movements on that basis doesn’t mean that they don’t want to do so, and that their overall intent is not to settle in the U.S. permanently.
The taco bit I took as an attempt at a joke. Kind of racist, when you get right down to it, but consistent with other remarks he’s made over the years. He tries to put a little humor in his speeches. Robin Williams he ain’t, but he tries. Plenty of Mexican food joints in the U.S. What the Mexicans complain about is that the Coke tastes different; apparently they use cane sugar, not corn syrup in Mexican Coke. They swear they can tell the difference, and have it shipped up from the U.S.
I’d rather concentrate on why the feel a need to come here in the first place, and what can be done about that.
I’ve got a pretty good idea what can be done about that. The Mexican public needs to change their government and their culture to one of rule of law instead of rule by oligarchy. That would include the Mexican army and police deciding who they should really serve. The question is whether or not the Mexican public can get this accomplished through the ballot box or whether they need to, once again, do it via armed revolution.
If that means that they need to abrogate NAFTA, fine. That’s up to them. It takes two to sign a treaty; I don’t consider the U.S. to be the source of Mexico’s problems.
Here’s welcome news. Maybe they’re finally starting to get it:
So maybe Joe Employer is going to have to start worrying about this now. We can only hope. If we reform immigration law enforcement, reforming immigration law becomes a much different issue.
They’ve learned a few lessons that have been called for on this blog, as well.
So we’re not talking minimal fines here.
Again, the fact that Pres. Fox is biased and has an agenda doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
Again, the fact that you agree with Fox and that his statement fits your views nicely doesn’t mean that he’s correct, or that his statement is an accurate reflection of the truth instead of a politician’s speech designed to promote a particular agenda. When did you get to be so conveniently naive?
And again, his remarks are certainly true of many people who are currently illegal aliens living in the US. They’d go home if they knew they could come back safely and legally. It’s also true that many people would rather stay in the US. Fox’s remarks were intended to reassure people who see the guest-worker program as a Trojan horse for the Permanent Brown Horde overwhelming America. (I happen to agree with the idea of a guest-worker program, by the way. That doesn’t mean I shut off my critical thinking abilities when somebody I agree with is talking.)
I hope the Lindon indictments signal change, but I’m not optimistic.
RonF, I suspect it may come to something like revolution. I’m not sure on the details, but the last Mexican election ended in a highly contested, suspicious manner, in a country with a prior history of highly contested, suspicious elections.
Immigrants aren’t the only scapegoats used by the corporations to keep us from paying attention.
35 years ago it was drugs so we created the war on drugs.
25 years ago it was crime in general so we created mandatory sentences for everything.
15 years ago it was the welfare queens that were destroying everything. Some states practically repealed their entire programs.
Now we are back to immigrants.
When will Americans wake up.
This cartoon leaves out a few critical points.
1) Immigration has always ebbed and flowed, allowing time for assimilation. The immigration of the late 1700s was stopped by the Napoleonic Wars. The Irish wave was stopped because there just weren’t that many Irish. The *Chinese* mass immigration of the middle nineteenth century was stopped by the Chinese exclusion acts — (BTW not all Chinese were prohibited, the first versions acts were aimed at large scale importantion of coolie type labor. Unfortunately cheap labor hogs kept at it, but even the final acts made exceptions for scholars, clergy, etc) A like story can be told about the 1911 ‘Gentleman’s agreement’ which curtailed Japanese immigration. Finally, we cut be drastically on immigration in 1922 and 1924. I think the cut back played no small part in creating the huge working middle class, and even the baby boom, we had in the middle of the 20th century. Tight labor meant wages went up , schools were filled with English speaking kids, thus making teaching easier , I could go on.
2) While we may look back with rosy glasses, immigration wasn’t such a great deal for native-born Americans living through the large waves. The Irish did bring disease, disorder, and crime. See Gangs of New York — either the book or the movie. Italians brought vendetta and organized crime.
3) Finally, there are big differences between the 19th century and now. No frontier left, no homesteading land left. Fewer workers needed in places (such as large factories) were unskilled labor can be used to great effect and made very productive. Importing more nail salon workers and burger flippers just aint the way to build a high value added economy. There was no ‘social safety net’ to support the previous immigrants’ households. Now there is such support in things like ‘free’ school lunches for the kids, HUD subsidies for immigrants native-born children, clinics and emergency rooms for the sick, etc.
I would also like to ask to the cartoonist about his area of residence. Does he have children? If so, how many non-english speaking children in his childrens’ classes, school, school district? I think this is fair, as people that reuse this tired trope are essentially saying that we who do live in immigration innundated areas (I’m from southern California) are somehow ignorant, oblivious, our biggoted.