Illegal Immigration Pt. 2

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I just have to bring this back up.

A sequel to the former topic:



Is erecting a fence across the southern border a horrible policy? Yes or yes?

Is it reasonable to demand thousands of dollars in naturalization fees from migrants fleeing $80 work weeks? No or no?

[Jose]

Only because immigration laws didn't exist at the time. They do today. You can't be an illegal immigrant if you're not breaking the law.

When law trumps logic.

Greedy Europeans migrating to America, stealing Indian land, raping their women, enslaving their children? What's the problem? There's no law against it!

Indeed. No one asked what the Americans' laws were. They just came on over and took the land. They justified much of their anti-American campaign, judging from contemporaneous accounts, by claiming that Americans were heathen cannibals who begged for salvation. Of course, by the time Plymouth and Jamestown colonies were established, the vast majority of Americans had been killed by imported European diseases (some of which, as I understand it, started in Hispaniola in 1492.) Their societies had been devastated and their laws undermined by the devastation. But, since they weren't European Law, it was OK to pretend it didn't exist.

Most would willingly pay more to have the jobs done by Americans. Besides, the whole thing is a sham, prices would rise by a couple of cents here and there but be largely unaffected.

Such optimism. All of those great department stores of the 50's and 60's gave way to K-mart because of lower prices. K-mart has been having trouble because WalMart can offer even lower prices. Feedlots with their antibiotic-dependent cattle are the norm because they provide the lowest prices. There's a reason that US manufacturing jobs have disappeared--it's cheaper to pay poor people poor wages than it is to pay Americans minimum wage. Paying minimum wage doesn't just cut into the owners' profits, it raises the cost of the product. Then the product doesn't sell as well as competitors' cheaper products, and the company goes under.

We hear quite a bit about WalMart, Tyson, Construction Companies, and other big companies being raided and having their undocumented workers deported--some back to Mexico, some to Armenia, some to Vietnam.

Looked in the "back of the house" in an upscale restaurant lately? To quote Tony Bourdain, hispanics are the backbone of the restaurant industry. If you go to a restaurant and get a really good meal, chances are it was prepared by a Latino. If you want food prepared by a White American, you probably have to nuke a frozen chicken pot pie.

Nor do I see them fighting for jobs in the produce-harvesting industry.

Again, it's a sham. Over 90% of the jobs in the agricultural industry are already done by Americans. So much for "jobs Americans won't do", it's already jobs Americans *DO*!

Yet more lies from the pro-illegal groups.

But is it a sham?Drive through the lettuce fields in California, or the orchards around Yakima and see who's there. You'll find an inordinately high percentage of Latinos. A large percentage of them are citizens, having previously immigrated--hence the 90% figure you cite. On the other hand, if you drive through Kansas and look at the fields, you'll find mile after mile of abandoned houses. American workers--the white kind--have figured out how to invent Agribusiness, so that a small number of Big Machines can do what hundreds of American Farmers used to do. What's left is the really hard manual work.

I don't claim that these are jobs Americans won't do. Some do them. Many of the workers are no longer "immigrants," but children of immigrants. But I stand by my prior statement that you don't find a lot of gringos fighting over these kinds of jobs.

As I see it, there simply is no argument based on jobs. If most of the jobs are already done by Americans, then a few immigrants are just a minor fraction, and there's no problem. If there were a lot of competition between citizens and immigrants, you'd think it would be evident when you look at work crews. Those that are all Latino must be all Latino for a reason: either they're willing to work for lower-than-minimum-wage (illegal employers), or they're better at it than us honkies (wouldn't you hire the better employees?). If Americans were competing for these jobs, and had the skills and the willingness to accept poor pay, you'd see them in the work crews.

No, I think it's just Fear of People Who Are Different. California is probably a great example. About 20 years ago, my parents (Californians) described the common sentiment then as anti-Asian. There were too many Asians! They didn't know how to drive! They talked funny. It was time to stop allowing immigration. Then someone noticed that there were also Latinos, and the noise shifted to them. Same complaints, but different target. Choose someone who looks different, and get mad at 'em.

Part of the source of resentment was that public services were getting worse--declining schools, more public health care expenses, etc. Uhh...what did they expect when they cut taxes? What other consequences can there be if the population doubles (the majority of which is normal, legal, Americans), but public infrastructure doesn't keep up?

The basic problem is Americans' desire for good services and good products for low cost. Good schools, but low taxes. Cheap food, cheap clothing, cheap gas. We seem to think it fashionable right now to blame Mexico, rather than think about the real problem.

[Cephus]

I honestly don't see what your point of view is. And since you are an atheist I am sure you have a good point there somewhere. PP has suggested letting them all in. I have suggested bringing the troops back from Iraq to secure the borders in a serious concerted effort. You object to both.

No, I objected to shooting them, not on putting troops on the border. Shooting them is a bit extreme, don't you think?

This leaves you open to charges of racism. In the media, the people most concerned about immigrant are (by and large) clearly motivated by racism. But let's be clear. My username not withstanding (I'm not "julio") no one hates hispanics more than I do. I lived in Spanish Harlem for 7 years during graduate school. Nasty place. But that doesn't mean I can see any significant reason to limit or harass immigrants.

I'm sorry to hear that you hate hispanics. I certainly don't. I don't hate anyone. I'd feel the same if it was the Canadians running across the border, or the Chinese, or the British. The fact is, we are a soverign nation and we have a right to control our borders. We have laws and limits in place and they deserve to be respected. We are a nation of laws, you don't get to just ignore the law without consequence because you don't feel like following it.

[Jose]

I'd feel the same if it was the Canadians running across the border, or the Chinese, or the British. The fact is, we are a soverign nation and we have a right to control our borders. We have laws and limits in place and they deserve to be respected. We are a nation of laws, you don't get to just ignore the law without consequence because you don't feel like following it.

This is good logic. Fundamentally, I agree. The problem is, our culture has created a situation in which these people are attracted to something we have to offer. That attraction doesn't seem to hold much interest for Canadians or the British. But, for our southern neighbors (including those well south of Mexico), it seems strong enough that they are willing to risk life and limb to get here. Compared to those risks, mere illegality isn't much.

Wouldn't it make more sense to address the fundamental attraction? If there really are jobs, and they really need to be done, then let's make it possible for our friends to do them. If there aren't really any jobs, and it's just "opportunity," then it's still hard to see why it's so bad to give them the opportunity. Make what they are doing legal, and make sure they pay taxes to support the infrastructure that is needed. But, if the problem is that we've used up our natural resources and just can't feed any more people, then, perhaps, it is fair to close the borders. But, then we should close all of them, and we should also address our own population increase. If "more people" strain our country too much, then we should do something about "more people," regardless of where they come from.

Of course, if the real problem is that employer-jerks are hiring illegals at slave wages, and that's what creates the attraction, shouldn't we go after those despicable employers? Fat chance. They're rich, and contribute to political coffers.

[Cephus]

This is good logic. Fundamentally, I agree. The problem is, our culture has created a situation in which these people are attracted to something we have to offer. That attraction doesn't seem to hold much interest for Canadians or the British. But, for our southern neighbors (including those well south of Mexico), it seems strong enough that they are willing to risk life and limb to get here. Compared to those risks, mere illegality isn't much.

That doesn't excuse people ignoring the law for their own personal benefit. I don't care what they're risking to come here, I care that they are violating the law. I care that they care so little for this country that they've decided they have no obligation whatsoever to respect our most fundamental and basic legal concepts. They can all dive out of airplanes carrying concrete parachutes for all I care, it doesn't make their violation of our laws any less important.

Wouldn't it make more sense to address the fundamental attraction?

The fundamental attraction is that they're going to get treated as slave labor. The whole amnesty argument is utter crap. Suddenly, all of these people will have legal status, they'll be protected by labor laws, get better wages and... they won't be employed anymore because the employers don't want people with legal status, protection or decent wages! That's why they employed illegals in the first place! Suddenly, you're going to get 12 million illegals getting welfare and the employers will hire the next batch of illegals that flood across the border.

Where does it end?

20 years ago, we gave amnesty to 4 million illegals and said never again.
Now we're thinking about giving amnesty to 12 million illegals and saying never again.

In another 20 years, we'll be doing it for 50 million with the same rhetoric.

Of course, if the real problem is that employer-jerks are hiring illegals at slave wages, and that's what creates the attraction, shouldn't we go after those despicable employers? Fat chance. They're rich, and contribute to political coffers.

Which is exactly what the problem is. They're all supposed to be paying $10k in fines for every illegal they employ. How many companies have paid *ANY* fine since 1986? Um... ZERO!

Of course we should go after those companies. Those hiring managers should be serving some severe jail time and paying through the nose. But that still doesn't excuse the criminal acts that illegals have perpetrated just by being here. There's plenty of blame to be spread around, it's sad that the pro-illegal crowd are pointing at everyone but the ones who are most flagrantly breaking the law.

[theleftone]

The mods can shoot me later for off-topic non-debate post, but in light of the debate some humor is needed.

The Great Immigration Debate of 1621

[Jose]

The mods can shoot me later for off-topic non-debate post, but in light of the debate some humor is needed.

The Great Immigration Debate of 1621

Bang! Not only that, it's almost a one-liner.

Suddenly, all of these people will have legal status, they'll be protected by labor laws, get better wages and... they won't be employed anymore because the employers don't want people with legal status, protection or decent wages! That's why they employed illegals in the first place!
...
Of course we should go after those companies. Those hiring managers should be serving some severe jail time and paying through the nose. But that still doesn't excuse the criminal acts that illegals have perpetrated just by being here. There's plenty of blame to be spread around, it's sad that the pro-illegal crowd are pointing at everyone but the ones who are most flagrantly breaking the law.

It's the hiring managers who are breaking the law most flagrantly. They are also violating basic human rights by paying slave wages. They're the real bad guys here.

The immigrants have a choice between "really bleak" and "maybe a chance." The employers have a choice between "rich" and "filthy rich." I think there's no contest. Knock the filthy-rich jerks back to just plain rich--it won't hurt 'em at all.

The problem is, if we actually think about those hiring managers, and ask why they are breaking the law so flagrantly with so little effect, we uncover the unsettling truth that in general, our society admires such dorks because they're rich. We don't attempt to punish them because what makes them rich also keeps our prices down, and probably because we secretly long to be in their shoes. That's what The American Dream is about, in a way. That's why we elect rich idiots to positions of power.

The "pro-illegals" aren't so much pro-illegal. Their thinking is more on the lines of "don't punish the little guy. Get the ringleaders. And if you don't have the guts to do that, get out of office."

[Cephus]

Bang! Not only that, it's almost a one-liner.

Heh, it was actually a 3 liner!

It's the hiring managers who are breaking the law most flagrantly. They are also violating basic human rights by paying slave wages. They're the real bad guys here.

There's no such thing as basic human rights, just the laws of the land. They are certainly violating labor laws and as such, need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But the illegals are also violating existing laws, no matter how you slice it.

The immigrants have a choice between "really bleak" and "maybe a chance." The employers have a choice between "rich" and "filthy rich." I think there's no contest. Knock the filthy-rich jerks back to just plain rich--it won't hurt 'em at all.

I'm sorry, but the immigrant's choice is not our problem. That might sound heartless, but the United States labor laws are intended to protect United States citizens, not illegal immigrants. It's sad that these people might have bleak lives in their own countries, but that's not our problem. It's the problem of their governments. You want things to be better for Mexicans? Go talk to Vincente Fox.

The problem is, if we actually think about those hiring managers, and ask why they are breaking the law so flagrantly with so little effect, we uncover the unsettling truth that in general, our society admires such dorks because they're rich.

More like the government admires them because they pay a lot of taxes. Most of the individual hiring managers, especially in corporate America, don't make a whole lot, it's the CEOs and their boards that are making billions. The bottom-rung managers who are responsible for the day-to-day operation and hiring and firing of employees don't get to feed at the gravy trough.

We don't attempt to punish them because what makes them rich also keeps our prices down, and probably because we secretly long to be in their shoes. That's what The American Dream is about, in a way. That's why we elect rich idiots to positions of power.

That's why there is an American Dream. Unfortunately, that's not a dream shared by illegals. They just want to skim off the top and take no part or responsibility for their newfound success. It would be one thing if they had any interest in becoming Americans, we could respect that. They don't though, they want to be Mexicans living in America, and to a large extent, they are little more than foreign invaders seeking to return the American southwest to Mexican control. It's the stated goal of groups like La Raza.

The "pro-illegals" aren't so much pro-illegal. Their thinking is more on the lines of "don't punish the little guy. Get the ringleaders. And if you don't have the guts to do that, get out of office."

No, punish everybody. Just because you've got a bigger target over there doesn't mean you ignore the little guy. They're *ALL* guilty and they *ALL* need to be punished.

[Jose]

Cephus--

Yes, the little guys and the Big Guys are all guilty. We can agree on that. Ideally, however, you'd try to solve the actual problem. That means eliminating the bait, not chasing the fish. There are limited resources. Spend them where they'll do the most good.

It's sad that these people might have bleak lives in their own countries, but that's not our problem. It's the problem of their governments. You want things to be better for Mexicans? Go talk to Vincente Fox.

As you say this, I wonder what the real issues are. I certainly don't know. Why is the US more stable (so far) than many other countries? Here's a thought:

1. It's basic human nature to be distrustful of people who are not part of your group.
2. Most geographical regions were settled long ago by migrating tribes--different groups.
3. The US is unique in that we killed off the vast majority of the original inhabitants during the Westward Expansion.
4. Many were killed in Central and South America, too, as a result of European diseases, but we did a much more thorough job of killing or rounding up and displacing the original residents.
5. As a result, the US is moderately homogeneous, with a common language (except in a few pockets where native languages are still used). We even have a majority religion that is relatively unadulterated by native beliefs in most places.
6. By contrast, poorer countries with less-rapid transportation systems tend to have larger groups of culturally-distinct people, largely descending from tribes of indigenous peoples. There are lots of native american groups in Mexico, Central America, and South America. In the same way that there are differing groups held together by separate warlords in Afghanistan, so there are different groups south of our border.
7. So, it seems to me, that it's pretty likely that such hetergeneous populations will have a really hard time becoming united in common goals. They perceive themselves, perhaps, as Tarahumare or Huichol or Zapotec first, and Mexican second. We don't have such affiliations for the most part--I'm an American first, and a Hoosier second (and a displaced Californian third, and maybe, somewhere around 17th, a Scot).

It's as Orson Scott Card said: Ben Franklin's major invention was The American--giving everyone present at the time a common identify.

So, where Alfred E Neuman (I mean GW Bush) can unite people enough to get re-elected, there's probably no way that a Vicente Fox can unite his people and create lasting economic change without a huge influx of money and other resources. With that in hand, he might be able to do a lot of head-bashing...but the bashees would probably assassinate him first and steal the money.

So, we have to think realistically: the people who risk everything to come here are desperate and really have little hope at home.

This doesn't absolve them of guilt. It merely indicates that we should be aware of their situation and operate with some degree of compassion.

By contrast, the CEOs deserve no compassion. Their store managers may hire illegals at slave wages, but they wouldn't do it without the permission of the boss. It's kinda like torturing "enemy non-combatants." The little guys wouldn't do it unless they had permission from the Boss. Of course, the parallels here go deeper: our government will only go after the little guys, because going after the Boss gets them in trouble themselves. Especially now that our new Activist Judge Alito cast the deciding vote to eliminate protections for government whistle-blowers. Go after the CEOs and you're dead meat. It's safer to build a fence and blame it on brown people.

Cynical perhaps? You betcha. Do I have a solution? Nope. But, one thing is clear: this situation is way too complex for a simple solution like a fence and the military. We've already tried fences and the military (marines that time) and found that they don't work. Perhaps something else would be good.

[Cephus]

Yes, the little guys and the Big Guys are all guilty. We can agree on that. Ideally, however, you'd try to solve the actual problem. That means eliminating the bait, not chasing the fish. There are limited resources. Spend them where they'll do the most good.

No, it means doing both. This whole misdirection nonsense is silly. Just because there are murderers on the loose doesn't mean the highway patrol ignores speeders.

As you say this, I wonder what the real issues are. I certainly don't know. Why is the US more stable (so far) than many other countries? Here's a thought:

1. It's basic human nature to be distrustful of people who are not part of your group.

It has nothing to do with being part of a group except in legal status. The fact of the matter is that these people have no legal right to the services that they are using. They do not have a legal right to the jobs they are taking, they do not have a legal right to the tax money they are wasting, etc. That's the issue. All of the rest of this nonsense is just a smokescreen.

2. Most geographical regions were settled long ago by migrating tribes--different groups.

That has zero meaning in the modern world. We're talking about the United States in 2006. If you want to talk about hundreds or thousands of years ago, find a history forum.

3. The US is unique in that we killed off the vast majority of the original inhabitants during the Westward Expansion.

Again, outside of a historical context, so what?

4. Many were killed in Central and South America, too, as a result of European diseases, but we did a much more thorough job of killing or rounding up and displacing the original residents.

And none of the people that affected are alive today. Nor are their parents. Or grandparents.

5. As a result, the US is moderately homogeneous, with a common language (except in a few pockets where native languages are still used). We even have a majority religion that is relatively unadulterated by native beliefs in most places.

Not "as a result". The overwhelming majority of countries have a single common language

6. By contrast, poorer countries with less-rapid transportation systems tend to have larger groups of culturally-distinct people, largely descending from tribes of indigenous peoples. There are lots of native american groups in Mexico, Central America, and South America. In the same way that there are differing groups held together by separate warlords in Afghanistan, so there are different groups south of our border.

Again, this affects the United States in 2006 how?

7. So, it seems to me, that it's pretty likely that such hetergeneous populations will have a really hard time becoming united in common goals. They perceive themselves, perhaps, as Tarahumare or Huichol or Zapotec first, and Mexican second. We don't have such affiliations for the most part--I'm an American first, and a Hoosier second (and a displaced Californian third, and maybe, somewhere around 17th, a Scot).

I'm an American first and don't even bother to think about where my ancestors came from. It's totally irrelevant to me. My ancestors, when they came to America, became Americans. They were proud to do so. They wanted to adopt the American way of life and be loyal citizens of this country. Most of the illegal aliens don't though, which is yet another problem.

It's as Orson Scott Card said: Ben Franklin's major invention was The American--giving everyone present at the time a common identify.

Orson Scott Card is an idiot, but he did get that right.

So, where Alfred E Neuman (I mean GW Bush) can unite people enough to get re-elected, there's probably no way that a Vicente Fox can unite his people and create lasting economic change without a huge influx of money and other resources. With that in hand, he might be able to do a lot of head-bashing...but the bashees would probably assassinate him first and steal the money.

Fox has no intent to unite his people, he doesn't want that. He wants the rich to stick around and the poor to go away. And even if it is impossible for him to actually run the country he was elected to run, and by all accounts he's almost as big a failure as that moron we have in the White House, that *STILL* isn't our problem. It isn't the job of the United States of America to fix the problems of incompetent governments around the world. We have a plenty incompetent one of our own to deal with.

So, we have to think realistically: the people who risk everything to come here are desperate and really have little hope at home.

Not our problem.

By contrast, the CEOs deserve no compassion.

Neither the CEOs nor the illegals deserve compassion.

Cynical perhaps? You betcha. Do I have a solution? Nope. But, one thing is clear: this situation is way too complex for a simple solution like a fence and the military. We've already tried fences and the military (marines that time) and found that they don't work. Perhaps something else would be good.

We haven't tried a fence or the military. Oh sure, we said that we'd control the border, then spent 20 years looking the other way. We have never put forth a concerted effort to control illegal immigration, we've just paid it a lot of lip service and pretended we cared, all the while keeping a blind eye to the border.

That needs to change. How do we know it doesn't work if we haven't even tried it?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The fundamental attraction is that they're going to get treated as slave labor. The whole amnesty argument is utter crap. Suddenly, all of these people will have legal status, they'll be protected by labor laws, get better wages and... they won't be employed anymore because the employers don't want people with legal status, protection or decent wages! That's why they employed illegals in the first place! Suddenly, you're going to get 12 million illegals getting welfare and the employers will hire the next batch of illegals that flood across the border.

First of all, there won't be any new batches of illegals. Everyone on American soil will automatically be a citizen. Period.

Second, what is the issue with 12 million new citizens? An over-saturated Blue Collar workforce? Great, all the more reason for the government to invest more into the education system (which will happen eventually regardless, once India and China get too close for comfort).

The benefits remain the same. Before, American workers had to compete with immigrants working two dollars an hour. Now all wage disparity is eliminated. Before, illegal aliens were stressing the health care and education systems (beyond what the government's incessant lack of funding was all ready doing). Now their taxes are paying for the services they use. Win-win-win-win.

I find it highly doubtful that these new immigrants will ever find themselves without a job. To them, minimum wage is a royalty. I wouldn't put it past them to force in 100 hour work weeks (doing anything and everything under the sun, as they have been doing the past 10-20 years).

Americans won't shovel manure for a living. Mexicans will.

That doesn't excuse people ignoring the law for their own personal benefit. I don't care what they're risking to come here, I care that they are violating the law. I care that they care so little for this country that they've decided they have no obligation whatsoever to respect our most fundamental and basic legal concepts. They can all dive out of airplanes carrying concrete parachutes for all I care, it doesn't make their violation of our laws any less important.

But that still doesn't excuse the criminal acts that illegals have perpetrated just by being here. There's plenty of blame to be spread around, it's sad that the pro-illegal crowd are pointing at everyone but the ones who are most flagrantly breaking the law.

No, punish everybody. Just because you've got a bigger target over there doesn't mean you ignore the little guy. They're *ALL* guilty and they *ALL* need to be punished.

What is all this "crime" you speak of?

The offense of chasing freedom? Fighting for a better life?

Some people see such acts as abominations worthy of retribution. Silly Americans. There is only one viable code of laws; the law of morality. When these laws clash with the "law of the land", the American government becomes obsolete.

You live in Mexico. There is no work. You have a family to feed. Opportunity lies north.

By which laws do you choose to abide?

Cephus, do you honestly mean to tell me that you would "respect America's laws" under such a situation? Don't give me any do-good obey the law bullshit. You would be pushing a wheelbarrow at Joe's Landscaping Services before Frank the border patrol guard even has a chance to fire up his jeep and chase you down.

American laws? Sorry, wife and kids come first.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men (not just the naturalized ones) are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

American lawmakers sure got one thing right.

I'm sorry, but the immigrant's choice is not our problem.

An attitude that the world's malnourished well recognize, given the United State's laughable foreign aid figures.

Yes, those living in poverty are well aware that international strife "is not our problem". Therefore, they are sneaking across our borders and making it our problem.

Good for them, I say. It's about time our pampered working class got a taste of real hardship. Try a life where $2 an hour at Home Depot is a comparative royalty.

I'm sick of America; but most of all, I'm sick of nationalism. After thousands of years, you would think societies would start to realize that selflessness and self-interest are one and the same.

Alas, I shall continue to hold out hope.