A vow to give the boot to criminal aliens has become an almost daily part of the New York senator’s presidential campaign spiel on overhauling the immigration system.
“Anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process. They are immediately gone,” Mrs. Clinton told a town hall meeting in Anderson, S.C., Thursday. [..] “No legal process,” the New York senator said at a forum in Tipton, Iowa, according to a political news outlet, the Politico. “You put them on a plane to wherever they came from.”
Katharine at Obsidian Wings points out:
If you read the full article, she does not, in fact, seem to be suggesting summary deportation in violation of the 5th amendment of any immigrant with a criminal conviction. This is just an applause line. But it reflects EXACTLY what I fear about the Clintons: the voters are anti-immigrant this year? Throw in an applause line about putting people on a plane without legal process. […]
“Deport the criminals!” sounds great in theory, but when you’re wondering if you actually have to draft a deportation order for someone who came to the United States as a six month old based on a fairly petty conviction, & reading the “don’t deport my daddy!” letters in his file, it looks rather different. When you’re trying to avoid having to draft an opinion that sends someone to rot in a godawful Haitian prison because of a marijuana conviction he got in high school, it looks rather different. Now, if you’re talking about felonies & people who are here illegally to begin with, that’s another thing; I don’t mind the Z visa restriction she’s talking about & I don’t think any candidate opposes it. But there’s a real possibility of Congress passing some crappy, mean, immigration bill at some point during the next 4 years, & I have zero confidence that she’d fight them on it.
(2) Where have I heard the circular “we don’t need a legal process because they’re bad people and don’t deserve it!” argument before? Hmm….
And then from immigration attorney Crankyliberal, discussing the current laws that Clinton apparently finds too merciful:
Do you want to know how many Lawful Permanent Residents I’ve helped lately who were in proceedings for a single drug possession conviction? These people have been here for over 20 years in most cases, have families and jobs, and screwed up. One of them was a bit stressed out after surviving cancer and also having to take care of her mother who is suffering from cancer. So she did some drugs. Right now, they have a chance to prove that they deserve to stay because the positive equities outweigh the negative. Now, that’s their only chance- if they ever screw up again, they’re removed, no questions asked. […]
…You want to deport the asylum seekers who have crimes? Are you saying you want to overturn the Convention Against Torture, a remedy founded in international law that may be availiable to ANYONE regardless of crime, provided they can prove to a judge that there is more than 50% chance that they will be TORTURED at the hands of their government?
Clinton’s rhetoric contributes to an anti-migrant atmosphere which has made it a real danger that (to pick one issue of many) some victims of domestic violence will be deported.
(You may wonder, reading this, where Obama stands on migrant issues. My impression is that he’s not perfect, but he’s better than other mainstream politicians, including Clinton. Even when it involves taking a political risk by supporting drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants.)
I don’t have an intelligent comment on any of this, but I have an emotional one.
It makes me sad that people have so little compassion and empathy for others. This is just one example, but there are a 100 others.
It’s also a little hypocritical. After all many parents of teenagers who do dumb shit like get caught smoking pot do everything they can to keep it off their record because they don’t want one small mistake to ruin the rest of their lives. And, in fact, many of those parents feel entitled to making sure that it doesn’t affect their children’s future because, “It’s just one mistake. It didn’t hurt anyone.” etc.
I guess it makes me sad that so many people are ready to judge and pounce on people before they actually hear the circumstances.
I wish there was more empathy in the world. It would be a better place I think.
The decision making is made at the wrong point in time.
Ideally, the fact that you’re a six month old who gets brought in illegally shouldn’t matter only when it comes to evaluating your crimes; it should be predetermined whether or not it has an effect.
If you want to make everyone who was brought in as an infant an honorary citizen (I don’t, but some surely do), then we should do so. That makes the legal process pretty much guaranteed. If not, then not. I don’t like the individualized assessments, mostly because I think it gives too much power to very different judges, and I like equity in the legal system.
But you know, I always wonder.
If you had to choose who got in to (or stayed in) the U.S., what would you do?
Say you’ve got 100 million hypothetical immigrants. You want to take some smaller proportion, call it 15 million–so you’ve got to eliminate 85 million people.
You’ve got, what, 5%? 20%? 50%? that have been convicted of a crime. What possible reason is there to ignore such an obvious selection criteria? Why SHOULDN’T you eliminate them?
If you want to talk about fairness? Please explain why it’s fair to have A commit a crime, and fail to give the benefit of the doubt to B–who did nothing of the kind. So long as the crime is within A’s control, that’s difficult to understand.
You’ve got, what, 5%? 20%? 50%? that have been convicted of a crime. What possible reason is there to ignore such an obvious selection criteria? Why SHOULDN’T you eliminate them?
You shouldn’t just flatly eliminate them because not all crimes are equal. I find this concept that you are in favor of to be the equivalent of punishing all crimes equally. Or do you mean to be less general than just “convicted of a crime?” Also, do you mean convicted in the US only, or convicted anywhere in the world?
Now, if you want to eliminate those who have been convicted of a certain class or classes of crime, I’m much more open to that.
Please, stop conflating legal and illegal immigration. There’s a world of difference.
Only the nativists are calling for immigration bans. The rest of us want the legal processes followed for immigration–which means those here illegally should be shown the door.
It’s not a lack of compassion. It’s a realization that we cannot absorb everyone from Central and South America who wants a better life. It’s impossible, and the flow is never-ending. That’s the part seldom addressed by the “compassionate” folks.
If you’ll support stopping the flood of illegals, I’m down with letting those that are here stay here. But there must be some genuinely effective way to stop the flood of illegal immigrants.
Sailorman,
The 6 month old didn’t enter the US illegally, she entered legally, but her parents failed to correctly fill out all the paperwork to make her a citizen when they became citizens. She wasn’t being deported as a high school student for being an undocumented alien, she was being deported for being an alien who was implicated in a minor crime.
You don’t like individual assessments, so you’d prefer that people get sent back to the middle of civil wars where they don’t speak the local language when they commit very minor crimes, rather than having anyway of applying leaniency. You place the idea of equity over the actuality of people being sent to disastrous situations. Have you actually worked in the area of deporting people, or are you merely speaking from the side lines? It seems to me it is often much easier to place ideals above actualities if you don’t have to deal with the actualities in any way. Since you and I are safe from being deported to the Sudan, and neither of us have to deal with rules that require us to deport someone else to the Sudan, we can safely prefer our ideals over some deportees life.
Jake,
I think we can safely say that anything major is OK as exclusion criteria, right? Then, the only question is how we treat relatively minor crimes.
I agree with you that not all laws are equal, and that at some point “did this individual break a law?” becomes ridiculous. Jaywalking and speeding are excellent examples. I would not be in favor of excluding or deporting someone based on those grounds.
But of course, we do need to draw a line somewhere. And in all seriousness, it needs to be a quick and easy line. We have to apply it to so many people that we need to be efficient. As a result I think that it’s OK to sacrifice some accuracy for inefficiency: Some people get helped and others get harmed, but it averages out. And unlike some other accuracy/efficiency tradeoffs the “crime line” is at least theoretically within people’s control.
So: where to draw the line?
Convictions may make more sense than you think. Going back to speeding and jaywalking, people almost never get “convicted” of either. (if you get a speeding ticket it’s not a “conviction.”)
But even those are not immune to stupidity. I’ve seen someone get convicted for pissing on a mailbox at 1 AM. Stupid? Sure. Criminal? Not in my view.
But the question of course isn’t whether you would, given a single immigrant, deny entry to her because she pissed on a mailbox. You probably wouldn’t, and neither would I. The question is really whether, given two otherwise identical immigrants, you would deny entry to the one who didn’t piss on a mailbox, in favor of the one who did.
That’s really the crux of the argument. If we were basically letting in everyone who wanted to come, and just wanted to make some cutoff of the bottom dwellers, then we would be far less strict. But we’re not. We have to make enormous cuts.
I agree though that “conviction” might be too harsh. I’m not sure, but I think I’d agree that any conviction which results in actual jail time would be an OK-with-me cutoff criteria, and any conviction which results in no time would be ignored.
I would be willing to accept the decisions of other countries. Not that I particularly like their legal systems, but merely in the interests of realism: I don’t think we can effectively give everyone a ‘second trial,’ especially not when we only have access to the defendant.
That also ties into the concept of respect for the law. Whatever a country’s rules may be, they generally reserve jail for those crimes which are thought of as more serious. If you end up in jail, you’ve violated the social and legal standards of your country to a larger degree than if you do not. That’s not usually a good indicator.
Jaywalking and speeding are excellent examples. I would not be in favor of excluding or deporting someone based on those grounds.
Why not? We have laws against jaywalking and speeding for a reason. If you want to draw a bright-line classifications, say putting the threshold at a particular class of misdemeanors and up, fine. But “well, I don’t think that crime was any biggie” is not the rule of law, it’s the rule of “do I, personally, care about breaking this law?”
Clinton’s speech is especially stupid because it would *protect* some lawbreakers. Commit a horrible crime? Hey, no worries about being imprisoned; we just pop you on a plane and send you home, with no guarantee that you will be punished, or even that you will be permanently unable to sneak back into the US.
Right now, aliens convicted of a crime get deported after serving their sentences in the US. Other than pandering to paleocons, I don’t get why Clinton wants to change that.
Charles,
No, I don’t particularly like the result. (You know what I would like? I’d like it if people would stop breaking the law, and making this matter come up in the first place. Sigh. Which will never happen, I know, but I’d feel a bit better if folks would concede admit that this isn’t some random act of nature. People have control over their actions, you know.)
And I would also support a law that provides for rectifying what I might call “honest mistakes” such as, say, misfiling paperwork for someone who was essentially guaranteed to therefore become a citizen. Or, as you describe, incorrectly filling it out. (Of course, “incorrect” doesn’t mean “lying,” and “misfiling” doesn’t mean “deliberately doing it wrong.” Did they really not know for so long? Or did they know but not get around to it? Odd.)
I hate procedural error arguments so I’m with you there. Generally speaking, I don’t think that a procedural error, unless it’s intentional or very serious, should be held against a pro se litigant to the point of losing their case. I’m embarrassed when we deport people whose appeals are filed an hour late, and I think it’s a travesty when we execute people on the basis of procedural default.
“Have you actually worked in the area of deporting people?”Yes, though that’s all I care to reveal here.
Hm. Two different quotes:
and
The common error that the left keeps making of conflating opposition to illegal aliens with opposition to immigration added to a lack of specificity and context for the first quote makes me ask just what Sen. Clinton’s position is.
If she’s coming out in favor of immediately deporting illegal aliens who have been accused of a crime, that’s legal in that you’re positing that they are illegal aliens and are thus subject to immediate deportation anyway. It might not be smart, since the presumption that they’ve committed a crime might permit the actual offender to get off if they are falsely accused. It could inhibit determining the actual truth of the situation. So while in principle it’s valid, I think there are practical objections to her proposal.
If she’s coming out in favor of immediately deporting any alien, legally resident or not if they have been accused of a crime then I would have to oppose that on principle. If someone is here legally, then they should enjoy the same due process of law that I do.
Actually, Sailorman, a lot of immigrants don’t understand our “rule of law”. Particularly if they come from countries where corruption, bribery and official incompetence are the norm. You or I would look funny at anyone who said “Hey, for a fee I can expedite your application for new license plates – I know people at the DMV.” But would we if our country of origin was one where that’s exactly how the DMV is expected to be run?
I briefly volunteered at a legal-aid clinic where many of our clients fell for just those kinds of schemes. Somebody from the same region of their country would show up and explain he was a notario (which can also mean ‘lawyer’) and could help them expedite their immigration papers so they would be here legally. The ‘notario’ would then file incomplete and bizarre applications guaranteed to get these people deported, sometimes forging signatures on documents or presenting papers in English the clients didn’t understand. Of course, the clients trusted them–this guy was from the next village over, he could be trusted, right?
I am Not asking this question rhetorically to make a point; I honestly don’t know my own answer.
But is there some point at which a failure to understand or adjust to our rule of law justifies excluding someone? I obviously understand that people are the product of their upbringing. They can’t control that they were raised in a hypothetical country near the bottom of the world corruption list. But OTOH (to use your example) I don’t want anyone in the U.S. who would be spending a lot of time trying to bribe, or get bribes from, people. And I don’t view bribery as ok. I don’t know how to describe it better. How do you resolve that?
I don’t quite understand: technically anyone accused of a crime in the United States is entitled to due process, including illegal aliens and tourists, right? So is Clinton talking about deporting illegal immigrants CONVICTED of crimes, or is she advocating abrogation of due process in cases that involve immigrants?
The first I have a flexible opinion on (I want to let everyone who wants to come to the USA and stay. I also realize that’s not totally practical.) The second is, among other considerations, unconstitutional. This diminishes my willingness to support her if she wins the nomination.
Sailorman, I’m not saying bribery is OK; but the line between ‘honest mistake’ and ‘deliberate wrongdoing’ in some areas isn’t all that bright. I really think the solution is a more open, liberal immigration policy so that most of the people now arriving illegally have an avenue to come in legally–whereupon they can learn how to be law-abiding citizens, instead of finding out the hard way what the law says.
But you’re not necessarily deciding between someone who pissed on a mailbox and someone who didn’t. Maybe you’re deciding between someone who pissed on a mailbox and got caught, and someone who pissed on a mailbox and didn’t get caught. Maybe you’re deciding between someone who pissed on a mailbox and got caught and someone who beat up his girlfriend and didn’t get caught, or who stole a candy bar from 7-11 and no witness showed up to court. Point being – people with minor convictions are not necessarily bad people, and are not necessarily better/worse people than people with no convinctions. They’re people who got caught doing stuff that LOTS of people do, and for whatever reason also got convicted of it.
deleted by author
So is Clinton talking about deporting illegal immigrants CONVICTED of crimes, or is she advocating abrogation of due process in cases that involve immigrants?
She appears to be saying deport on accusation with no due process. Either she’s completely hostile to the civil rights of the accused (over here on the “send them all home” barricades, even we don’t think deport-on-accusation makes a whit of sense), or she doesn’t mean it and is just lying about what she’ll do, pandering to sound tough. I know my guess.
They’re people who got caught doing stuff that LOTS of people do, and for whatever reason also got convicted of it.
True. Unfortunately they’re also people who are in a process where there are hundreds of applicants for every slot. With that much competition, tiny differences have to tell, because the large differences have already been sorted out. “Dumb enough to get caught” may not be a kind metric, but it’s a metric. Suggest a better one.
Thanks, Robert. That’s how it sounded to me, but I find it kind of unthinkable.
And, Mythago, I think you’re 100% right on the bribery issue– there are plenty of places (oddly enough, places people tend to want to emigrate from) where bribery is just plain how the system works, and where getting someone to finesse your paperwork is how it’s done. So, yeah, at a certain point one does have to take responsibility for understanding how things work here, but I don’t think we can assume right off the bat that people will understand that our bureaucracy makes at least a pretense of not being corrupt.
And just to clarify, to screw with your immigration status, you don’t have to be convicted. “continued without a finding,” for example, is enough, I believe.
So is Clinton talking about deporting illegal immigrants CONVICTED of crimes, or is she advocating abrogation of due process in cases that involve immigrants?
Actually, if you look at the source (and specifically to the quotes I posted up-thread), Sen. Clinton doesn’t mention immigrants. She’s talking about aliens, and it’s not clear to me whether she’s limiting her proposal to illegal aliens or to all aliens, including legally resident ones.
You certainly couldn’t do that to all immigrants. Remember that “immigrant” != “alien”. My wife’s grandparents were immigrants, but they became citizens. A U.S. citizen who was born in another country and was then naturalized here in the U.S. is still an immigrant (I said “were” because they are dead, not because they lost their immigrant status when they were naturalized). I work with a woman who was naturalized last year, but she’s still an immigrant and will be as long as she lives here and doesn’t move back to where she came from.
She’s talking about aliens, and it’s not clear to me whether she’s limiting her proposal to illegal aliens or to all aliens, including legally resident ones.
As worded, her proposal refers to all aliens – although I rather doubt that’s what she means. Tough talk about immigration is usually about sorting out the good, law-abiding aliens against the Unlawful Southern Hordes, and that’s nothing she needed to spell out if she’s trying to pitch to conservatives.
Remember that “legal alien” doesn’t mean “citizen”. When my now-ex got his green card, he had to register for Selective Service, even though he had no right to vote (and therefore little control over whether the US would go to war, something he now had a particular interest in). And if he’d been convicted of a crime he most certainly would have been deported.
“Little” compared with what? The huge amount of control over whether the US would go to war he’d have if he had a vote?
SS registration is a bit different for a green card holder: As a citizen of another country they have the ability to permanently vacate the U.S. and/or surrender their green card (and any concurrent obligation to provide military service to the United States) if the U.S. should institute a draft.
I agree. But I don’t care.
We can either give everyone the benefit of the doubt, or we can do less of that with the realization that some “honest mistake” actions will have bad consequences. I don’t see why we’re obligated to take the full blown “better 10 guilty go free…” attitude when it comes to noncriminal judgments (citizenship eligibility determination), as applied to noncitizens. Entry and citizenship into the U.S. are not entitlements.
Why? Why, when there are ALWAYS going to be more people who want in, than get in, would you NOT choose the ones who ALREADY abide by the law?
It is very frustrating that nobody appears to answer this. I see only two reasons:
1) You support letting everyone in who wants to come in, literally; or
2) Some other reason that i don’t understand.
can you explain?
I look at it this way. You know how statisticians will put up a chart, and then down at the bottom it says, “Differences of less than four percentage points are not meaningful”?
Well, I see the difference between a person who has and a person who has not been convicted of a minor crime as similarly not meaningful when addressing the questions, “Who is the best person to let in?”. And I would rather make the determination on some more meaningful standard (or, failing that, a roll of the dice) than by looking at who has and has not been convicted of a minor crime.
Bjartmarr, when I think of “minor crime” I think of jaywalking or speeding 8 miles an hour over the speed limit on the expressway. Crossing over the border illegally, falsifying a Social Security number, etc. do not strike me as minor crimes.
It’s interesting how many of those posting in favor of illegal immigration go to examples of people running in fear of their lives, or use other extreme example. Those peoples are few in number relative to those coming in from Mexico and South America. Most illegal immigrants are here for economic reasons, not fleeing oppression. Particularly those coming from Central America.
Perhaps some of those arguing compassion would like to offer a solution to the limitless flood of people illegally entering our nation from Central and South America. Or are you really saying we should let everyone in who wants to come in?
The huge amount of control over whether the US would go to war he’d have if he had a vote?
Having a vote is a hell of a lot more control over US foreign policy than not having the right to vote. As I’m sure you’d point out if somebody attempted to argue that your right to vote should be taken away because c’mon, how much difference does it make anyway?
I don’t know if what Sailorman says about “give up your green card and go home” was the law at the time my ex was admitted. Certainly he was told that he had to register for the draft, not that he had a LAWFUL opt-out of the draft by going home.
Why? Why, when there are ALWAYS going to be more people who want in, than get in, would you NOT choose the ones who ALREADY abide by the law?
Do you really give a shit about the answer, or is this more “pro-immigration people hate America” posturing?
The simple answer is that we don’t have a fair, rational system that rewards people who abide by the law. Am I supposed to be shocked, shocked that an impoverished Mexican, rather than patiently waiting ten years to (maybe) be processed by an agency that has a good chance of misplacing his paperwork, screwing it up, or making him start over, might notice that American business and government turn a blind eye to enforcing those laws once he gets across the border as long as he does what he’s told once he gets here?
The solution to “more people want in than we can afford” is not to encourage and allow illegal immigrants to come here, so that certain industries can get cheap labor. Which is really what we do now. If we actually set up a way for limited numbers of immigrants to work here legally – instead of “we’ll stop you at the border, but once you get here, go pick us some goddamn strawberries” – ICE would be less overwhelmed, and have an easier time keeping out criminals and people we don’t want coming in.
This isn’t about “entitlement”. It’s about pulling out the mote in our own eye. We clearly don’t give a fuck about genuinely enforcing our immigration laws (please let me know when ICE starts locking up Joe Contractor who hires people off the Home Depot lot), but we turn around and pretend to be HORRIFIED that anyone violates them.
And again, having gone through immigration the legal, law-abiding way, I have trouble blaming anybody who threw up their hands and said “Fuck THIS noise”. The assholery and incompetence we ran into at what was then INS would make anyone think the IRS was the Department of Cuddly Bears and Big Hugs by comparison.
Mythago,
You’re misreading my “abide by the law” comment. Aren’t we talking about the effects of breach of the lawother than by entering once, illegally? Aren’t we talking about what, other than the “obvious” rape or murder, should be enough to disqualify some random person from entry?
That certainly seemed like what we were discussing until post #26. In the context of my other posts, it should be pretty obvious what I was referring to.
(please let me know when ICE starts locking up Joe Contractor who hires people off the Home Depot lot),
Hear, hear. I’m all for this.
Me too. But it won’t happen, and you know as well as I that there would be a huge outcry if it did. Oh, why pick on poor Joe when we all know that big corporations hire thousands of immigrants? Joe just wanted a little help with his business and it’s not his fault those bad union people and OSHA drive up wages!
(Honest competitors of Joe’s business would be ignored, of course.)
Aren’t we talking about what, other than the “obvious” rape or murder, should be enough to disqualify some random person from entry?
Certainly. Having been deported previously is pretty much a Forget It on a subsequent immigration application. Given our ridiculous and self-serving application of the current immigration laws, I’m in favor of an amnesty for people who can show that there was not a realistic means of legal immigration (which for most of our southern neighbors, there isn’t; and for a long time we had a policy of refusing to acknowledge that people from certain right-wing dictatorships could be refugees).
Oh, why pick on poor Joe when we all know that big corporations hire thousands of immigrants?
Well, no one’s going to go after Joe for hiring immigrants. Plenty of U.S. citizens are immigrants, and there’s no problem hiring them. The government is going to (or should) go after him for hiring illegal aliens.
But in any case, you make a good point. I’d be all in favor of starting at the top and working down. Places like that Swift meat-packing plant that was raided. When they marched the illegal aliens out the door, they should have dragged the plant manager right out with them. And then given him the “roll on Swift HQ and you’ll get a deal” speech.
I’m in favor of an amnesty for people who can show that there was not a realistic means of legal immigration.
And I’m not. The fact that the U.S. did not provide a means for legal immigration that met the desires of an illegal alien does not provide a justification for that illegal alien to break our laws.
Call me a big squishy socialist, but I tend to think that if we knowingly prop up and fund a dictatorial, oppressive regime, we have no business excluding refugees on the grounds that admitting they were persecuted in their home country makes us look bad.
That said, of course we should arrest the CEO of the meat-packing plate. We don’t. We fine the corporation and watch them a little closely for a while. A chimpanzee could run the cost-benefit analysis on this. Do you expect that to change?
This is pretty much the crux of it, is it not?
You appear to view immigration as an entitlement. Ergo, if your entitlement gets blocked, you’re justified in seeking means (illegal or not) to reclaim it. There is really no other way in which the existence of an alternate “realistic means” of legal immigration is relevant.
If I don’t have a realistic means of doing X legally, am i to be forgiven for doing X illegally? That is largely dependent on whether X is something that I should expect to be able to do or not.
I and others like me view immigration as a privilege. Whether there is a realistic means of legal immigration or not is, IMO, pretty much irrelevant as to whether it’s “OK” for someone to immigrate illegally.
Similarly, the number of people who want to get in, should IMO be pretty much irrelevant when we determine who we want to let in (and their composition in terms of skills, age, language ability, etc).
I can certainly see the merits of some of your arguments about efficiency and fairness. But if you’re operating on the “immigration is an entitlement” approach, you’re so very far off from my views that I’m leery of conceding anything at all.
You appear to view immigration as an entitlement.
Nope. I’m considering what would be an intelligent immigration policy from the point of view of American citizens. The fact that you disagree with views does not make me a socialist, anarchist, entitlement-giver, or whatever other negative term you happen to think of at the moment.
What’s the Latin for the “everybody agrees with me” fallacy again? Robert? God, I hate getting old.
From Wikipedia:
Sorry, mythago, didn’t see that. There’s a complete list here. Bookmark it – ctrl-D, the friend to us aging geezers everywhere.
(Eh? Who said that? You’re not my nurse. That’s not my medication!)
Mythago (quoting me):
Whether I care about having it, has no bearing on whether it gives me any control. For the past five years I have been a single issue voter. I will only vote for an anti-war candidate of an anti-war party. If I have a choice of more than one, I will vote for the one who is most likely to unseat the pro-war candidate.
So you can see exactly how much control I have over British foreign policy.
Daran, if you did not think your vote had any effect on the likelihood of your being drafted into a war, you wouldn’t bother to vote, no?
Thanks, Robert. Now I just need to buy some discount Geritol and I’m good.
Mythago, I’ll be 44 this year. I’m fat. I’m asthmatic. There isn’t even a hint in the air of an impending draft here in the UK, not even for fit young men. I’ve never given a moment’s thought to the possibility of it happening to me.
I vote against the war because of what it is doing to other people. Yeesh!
There isn’t even a hint in the air of an impending draft here in the UK
Here in the US, which is where my now-ex emigrated, we have something called the Selective Service. All males age 18-25 must register. That includes legal aliens, who are not able to vote on whether the US will go to war. (I don’t know if some of the provisions now listed applied at the time he got his green card; I only know that he was told he had to sign up. That could have been yet another INS fuckup, of course.)
As for the efficacy of the vote, again: if you felt that your vote had absolutely no effect on whether the UK goes to war, regardless of why you oppose the war, then why are you bothering to vote?
Sailorman, I agree that a nation should have a good deal of control of who can enter its borders. But I disagree with the implication that thus this means that governments can use any criteria they want in picking and choosing amongst the available pool. If it did, then we’d be perfectly justified taking in only the men, the heterosexuals, or the ones with the least Amerindian blood. (Do note that if you seriously contend that these are legitimate, I will hold you to that on all subsequent discussions on immigration. I have no patience for escalation games that come from fetishization of “frame control”.) If, as I suspect, you and I agree that these reasons aren’t legitimate, I merely extend that if there are *least legitimate* measures the government can use, there are correspondingly *most legitimate* ones. And those are the ones they should apply.
The logical corollary of your argument as I read it seems to be that people who belong to no country are not entitled to any residency rights from any territorial government anywhere. Where does this leave refugees, I wonder? The ocean?
I do not understand that to be his argument. He’s saying that governments are unconstrained by any obligation to the members of the pool, not that they are generally unconstrained in their choice.
I know. I was objecting to your implication that I only object to the war because I’m afraid I might be drafted.
Because it makes me feel better.
Thanks for the assumption of non-insanity; I agree that those are not acceptable. Daran accurately summed up the crucial distinction.
I am not sure what you mean by this, sorry–can you elaborate?
I haven’t really been addressing refugees, mostly because the issue of immigration seems to me to be somewhat separate from the issue of refugees. But I would have to say that a refugee’s rights stem from a sort of exception. It’s not that the refugee status affects whether or not someone is in the category of people who we want to immigrate (that would be silly–their “resume” doesn’t change with their refugee status), but rather that refugee status makes the category question sort of moot.
mostly because the issue of immigration seems to me to be somewhat separate from the issue of refugees
Why? If we have a specific treaty obligation we’ve assumed, then yes, it’s a separate situation. Otherwise, why do we owe a refugee anything more than we owe the spouse of a citizen? If the argument is predicated on “they’re not citizens, we owe them nothing”, why does that argument change for refugees?
On what basis is classifying someone as a refugee the function of a treaty? How is it there defined?
I’m failing to see the difference between the two. If they are not unconstrained with regards lining up southrons by skin color, detachment of earlobe, and sexual availability, I say that’s the same as saying as they have the obligation of not being racists or weird perverts. The difference between “constraints” and “obligations” here is that they’re spelled differently.
I think we both agree that there are metrics the government can use that would be the most deplorable. The flip side to that is that there are those that would be the most preferable. For instance, those with family already here and who intend on staying and living here. Are these people entitled to entry? Entitled is such a dirty word. But I’m comfortable with saying that if anyone should be let in, it should be them. Since I believe the number of people who should be let in is non-zero, that’s functionally the same as saying they should be given the right to immigrate.
The US should retain the rights to bar immigration of any sort given a special emergency. But I’m having great difficulty imagining such a situation playing out outside of some dystopian novel.
Refugees aren’t citizens, yet here you speak of their “rights”. Clearly, rights aren’t dependent on any sort of citizenship.
We’ve already established what you are, ma’am. Now all we’re doing is haggling over the price.
I’m failing to see the difference between the two.
The constraint lies in our moral code, that says it is wrong to treat someone badly because of the shape of their ears. The constraint does not lie in a duty already assumed to the group of oddly-eared people. We cannot say “no, you cannot come in, because your ears are a funny shape”; we can say “no, you cannot come in, because there are people ahead of you in our list of unfulfilled obligations”.
We owe them treatment as human beings, but we do not owe them treatment as citizens. The constraint on our behavior is not deriving from their status, it is deriving from our moral choice.
Since I believe the number of people who should be let in is non-zero,
I agree.
that’s functionally the same as saying they should be given the right to immigrate.
Nobody has the right to immigrate. Immigration is a privilege. There are moral and non-moral reasons and methods for the U.S. or any other country to extend that privilege, but it’s not a right inherent to or in any person.
The US should retain the rights to bar immigration of any sort given a special emergency.
The U.S., and any other country, is properly described as having the right to bar immigration of any sort for any reason it chooses, including skin color or sexual orientation. Whether it is moral for it to exercise that right in those fashions is – well, in those cases it’s not worthy of debate. But for other reasons it very well is. Certainly on the basis of whether or not the U.S. believes, based on a specfic set of criteria, that the immigrant is likely to be a net contributor to the U.S.’s economy or culture. The nature of those criteria gets debated every time the immigration law comes up for revision. But once set, the U.S. has every right to enforce them. The U.S. is under no obligation to take everyone who wants to come in regardless of education level, employable skills, health, or intent to pledge allegiance to America. It has every right to discriminate on the basis of those criteria and others as well.
On what basis is classifying someone as a refugee the function of a treaty?
I don’t understand your question. If we have no external obligation, such as a treaty, requiring us to accept refugees – why set them apart as a category of immigrants? If you agree that we don’t owe noncitizens the right to enter, and we should limit immigration only as it benefits us, then why set up a special class of “refugees” whose only claim on us is that some other government treated them abominably? Because it would be a little too obvious to turn them aside, or what?
We don’t necessarily owe them anything–they’re not citizens. But to be honest, their lot is among the worst in the world, and I’m comfortable giving them advanced status over “ordinary” immigrants (who I will refer to as “immigrants.”)
This is mostly an issue of personal morality. It also involves some practical issues: there simply are not nearly as many refugees as there are potential immigrants. I’m guessing that you also would not bar refugees, right?
Not incidentally, this morality also extends to the desires of citizens. The government exists to serve the desires and needs of its citizens. Sometimes (as with refugees) those desires are met by providing services or benefits to others.
mythago:
Sorry – what I meant was, are there any treaties that we have entered into that define certain persons as refugees – and if so, what are the terms/criteria?
My personal understanding of “refugee” is someone who has fled their homeland because they face being subjected to loss of liberty, possibly violently, there, especially as the result of discrimination; being or having the “wrong” race, religion, sex, politics, etc. Giving them at least temporary shelter and support is a matter of human rights and compassion. Whether our interests are best served by admitting them on a permanent basis is a question to be decided in the legislature.
Sailorman – don’t forget that the term “immigrants” does not define someone’s citizenship status. There are immigrants we owe the same rights as an American citizen because they ARE American citizens. There are immigrants that have proper claim on somewhat limited rights to because they are legally resident aliens, and there are immigrants that we have very limited obligations towards because they are illegal aliens.
And there are illegal aliens that we owe almost nothing to (except for certain basic human rights) because they are not even immigrants; they did not come here with the intention to live here permanently and their allegiance is to their home country, not the U.S.
The word “immigrants” is not suitable as a “catch-all” or summary classification in discussing rights.
Sailorman
“Not incidentally, this morality also extends to the desires of citizens. The government exists to serve the desires and needs of its citizens.”
Or, as it’s been stated elsewhere at more length by a bunch of dead white guys:
A government’s funtion is to secure rights. It doesn’t grant rights; those have already been granted by a higher power than the government. Those rights thus necessarily include the right to dissolve a government and replace it with one that they deem better suited to secure their rights.
The worthy debate is, what rights has our Creator granted us? What rights belong to people who have come to our country in conformance with our laws? What rights belong to people who have come to our country in violation of them?Some people think the very existence of a border violates those rights. I disagree.
And, again, you’re proposing a rule based on “Sailorman’s Gut Instinct”. If you have a coherent reason that the we-owe-them-nothing rule should be relaxed for refugees, I’d like to hear it. Yes, their situation is awful. So’s the situation of many people who would like to come to this country. Why should we give them immigration preference, if your stated preference is that US law should first and foremost reflect “what is best for America”?
RonF, human rights and compassion could also extend to a lot of groups of potential immigrants who don’t have preference. For example, some of the illegal aliens you mention didn’t come here with the intent of violating our laws, because they were infants or very young children when their parents brought them over. Do they deserve special compassion? Or are they merely one more kind of intruder?
(Off the top of my head I believe that we are party to international treaties on the treatment of refugees, but blasted if I can remember which ones.)
Mythago,
Did you even read my post? I’ve been fairly clear about what is a general statement (“governments should…”) as opposed to my own personal beliefs (“this is mostly an issue of personal morality.”) I don’t give a shit whether or not you agree with me personally. And you sure as hell haven’t done much to support your OWN position, or to present your OWN views, which–if you claim a “coherent” argument–should be visible by now.
But if you want to go back to generalities: If it makes enough citizens happy that the U.S. gives money to the Sudanese, this justifies giving money to the Sudanese, even though the money is not going to the citizens. The government’s role is still to see to the safety and happiness of its citizens, but that happiness can sometimes be achieved indirectly.
Put in another way, self-interest does not mean that you can’t do anything nice for other people.
So if there are enough citizens who are desirous that refugees be admitted to the U.S., this justifies admitting them. And as we both know, these citizens DO exist, and the existence of such citizens is pretty much driven by the moralities behind refugee status. That is why the situation of the refugees becomes relevant.
Are you stating that you consider the immigration status of refugees and other non-refugees to be equivalent or identical? If not, why does it seem odd that two different categories of people would be treated differently?
Oh, and RonF:
Apparently none, since apparently she doesn’t exist. But can we leave religion out of it?
mythago, human rights and compassion requires us to take care of someone’s immediate needs. If we find someone in the Texas desert near the border, we don’t leave them there to die of exposure or thirst; we pick them up, give them food, drink, temporary shelter and medical attention. But there is no human right to go wherever you want to, get a job and settle down to live there. Eventually, it is not a violation of human rights to require someone to leave the U.S. and go back to their home country.
As far as what qualifies someone as a refugee, that’s a question that could fill an entire blog. But granting that there is such a thing, qualifying for that status may well qualify someone to stay here for a length of time. But depending on what the issue is, it doesn’t mean that they get to immigrate here. If the issue changes (e.g., the shooting stops and a political settlement is reached), such persons can lose their refugee status and be repatriated to their home country. Refugee status may give you preference to attain legal resident status, but that status can be temporary and by no means need grant you immigration and naturalization preference.
Sailorman:
Apparently none, since apparently she doesn’t exist. But can we leave religion out of it?
It’s not possible to leave religion out of a discussion of rights in the United States. Our country was founded on the premise that rights come from the Creator and are granted to individuals. It is a further founding premise that the government’s job is to preserve individual rights, not grant them. Now, you are of course free to disagree that the Creator actually exists. But there’s no arguing away the fact that this is the philosophy on which the country was founded, and that it’s still central to how our country is governed and how rights and privileges are differentiated.
But can we leave religion out of it?
No. See your commentary about “what the citizens want”.
Yes, Sailorman, I read your post. I’ve also stated my position before. Do you even read my posts? Or do you just prefer to wait and get pissed off and rant that I’m an idiot for questioning you?
You’ve said that the US owes nothing to immigrants, but we should treat refugees differently because their lives suck. Do you really not see the contradiction there?
If your argument is that the US’s immigration policy should depend on what its citizens want, I’m a little confused, because you seem to be arguing that you don’t care if USCIS actually follows immigration law – you know, the laws that the citizens of the United States enacted through their elected representatives and all that?
RonF, I agree that refugees have human rights. But should that extend to granting them preferential treatment in immigration? In other words, if we use Sailorman’s basis (no obligation to immigrants; what is in the best interests of the US), you’re going to have to argue that admitting refugees is in the interests of US citizens.
OK, if you think I wasn’t clear, I will try to be as clear as I can. I hope you will refrain from simply attacking my position in response, and that you will post an equivalent explanatory position of your own to compare them. So:
I do not think, as a theoretical manner, that we owe anything to potential immigrants. I do not think, as a theoretical manner, that we owe anything to potential refugees, either.
On a practical view, refugees are 1) a small population; 2) often preselected by the countries who are expelling/killing them; and 3) just so happen to also be one of the small preselected categories who are most in need of assistance. As a result, my personal view of refugees is that it doesn’t bother me if we let them in.
I believe this view is reasonably justified. There’s probably some cost to the country of doing so, but it’s small (see #1 and #2). And it makes us feel better as a nation (see #3), which IMO offsets the cost in the case of refugees..
As a theoretical issue, I think it would be a perfectly valid decision to refuse entry to refugees, and/or to treat them in the same manner as all other potential immigrants are treated.
Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting some, if not more, refugees.
So, that’s refugees. Now, for potential immigrants:
Potential immigrants are 1) a large population; 2) not preselected (it takes more work to choose who to let in; it takes even MORE work if you want to be very personal about it); and 3) are not, as a general average, nearly as in need of assistance as are refugees.
As a result, my personal view of refugees is that it doesn’t bother me if we decline to let most of them in. And as with refugees, I believe this is reasonably justified. There’s a possible cost to the country of letting in potential immigrants, which is much higher than for refugees based solely on the different numbers (see #1.) Similarly, the cost of “sorting” the immigrants we want from those we do not want, or the ‘deserving’ from the ‘nondeserving,’ is more expensive and difficult than for refugees (see #1 and #2.) I don’t particularly think that admitting large numbers of immigrants makes us feel better as a nation (see #3), and I would also note that the costs are much higher.
Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting few, and deporting more, citizens.
This is not a contradiction, any more than it is a contradiction to like apples and not oranges (but they’re both fruit!) Refugees are not the same thing as potential immigrants who are not refugees. Those differences are an acceptable basis on which to make a choice to treat the groups differently.
Ok, your turn.
%#$#@!!!
Two corrections that it won’t let me fix:
“As a result, my personal view of refugees is that it doesn’t bother me if we decline to let most of them in. ” (in third-to-last-paragraph) should be “As a result, my personal view of potential immigrants is that it doesn’t bother me if we decline to let most of them in. ”
and “Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting few, and deporting more, citizens.” (second to last paragraph) should be “Finally, I think that if we started with the proper (IMO) point of “owing duties only to citizens” and looked at the factors above, that we would end up admitting few, and deporting more, potential/illegal immigrants.”
This is going to be confusing, so if some mod is willing to make a cut-and-paste fix and delete this post, that’d be great.
Mythago said:
RonF, I agree that refugees have human rights. But should that extend to granting them preferential treatment in immigration?
That’s a function of a few factors:
a) What’s the likelihood that they’ll be able to go back home and not get killed in the future?
b) Do we have a national interest in admitting them as immigrants?
Factor a) places the most extreme example of human rights first, and it also emphasizes that today’s refugee may be able to go back home tomorrow, and so can be given temporary refuge without committing to admitting them on a permanent basis (i.e., classifying them as immigrants rather than temporary visitors). That gets sticky if they stay here for 5 years and make lives, but that can be addressed. Factor b) breaks down further to include (but not be limited to):
1) Do we support/oppose any faction in their homeland that’s involved in the reason why this person is a refugee? Will then providing that person a platform to speak/act further our support/opposition?
2) Did we cause the problem that has caused this person to become a refugee (and no, the U.S. is not the source of all the problems in the world)?
It’s a calculation. People from Cuba are fleeing the only Communist regime in the Western hemisphere; it’s been judged as being in our national interest that we designate people fleeing from Cuba as refugees. If they make it to shore, that is. Don’t ask me to justify it, I can’t. But I offer it as contrast to our policies regarding the island next door, where people fleeing from Haiti are not so favored, as we have not judged it in our national interest to designate them as refugees. Personally, I don’t see the advantage; Communist, socialist, dictatorship, it’s all the same to me. All I can figure is that the pretense is that everyone fleeing Communism in Cuba is doing so because of political repression and not because of the economic failures there. Hah!
Hey – back to the original topic:
Has anyone ever figured out what Sen. Clinton was actually talking about? has she been pressed for a clarification? I mean, deporting all immigrants convicted of a crime would include stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship and deporting them. I can’t imagine that she meant that, unless the crime involved falsifying the information they supplied during the naturalization process – that’s been done repeatedly. So, is there any clarification? Did she mean deporting legally resident aliens without due process, or just illegal aliens? And did she really mean without due process (although if you write the laws that way, I guess it is due process).