Do you believe it?
By Paul J Cella Posted in Immigration — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One of the curiosities of the immigration debate in this country is the hidden rhetorical premise that so often at back of the “comprehensive immigration reform” position. “Comprehensive” in this case is implicitly set in opposition to “enforcement first,” and in general indicates a desire to address, simultaneous with border security, the problem of the huge undocumented labor force. But rhetorically, “comprehensive” is often linked with “solution.” The immigration problem, this argument goes, cannot be fixed without a solution that embraces the whole problem, and thus a solution that, as Rudolph Giuliani recently put it, seeks to “regularize” the masses of immigrants currently working in America. “Enforcement first,” in this formulation, fails a vital test of utility or practicality; and superiority of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is evident in contrast to this.
The hidden or latent premise here, of course, is that Comprehensive Reform will, indeed, usher in a solution that will put the immigration problem behind us. But will it? Upon passage of “comprehensive” legislation, along the lines of the Kennedy-McCain bill last year, will the immigration situation in this country improve? Will hospitals, schools, and police departments across the country be relieved of the increasingly burdensome demands of mass immigration? Will the illegal prison population decline? Will the depredations of foreign criminal gangs be checked? Will the border be secured? Will immigrants be forced to assimilate? Will bilingualism decline? Will radicalized ethnic politics diminish?
The proponents of Comprehensive Reform ask us to believe that after passage of their preferred legislation, the immigration will gradually diminish as a source of contention and bitterness in the Republic. They ask us to believe, in short, that in a few years we will be delivered from this strife by virtue of their legislation.
Do you believe it?
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | On Inmates and Asylums — Comments (23) »
Do you believe it? 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I saw that "arrows in the back" business. Amazing. The House took a stand to block the legislative dispossession of the country, and the President feels betrayed. Boohoo.
In a previous age, Presidents understood their sworn duty to enforce even laws they disagreed profoundly with (witness Eisenhower sending in active-duty troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Ed., despite his disagreement). No longer. Yet it is still asserted that we owe this President some loyalty. Risible.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
But will it [put the immigration problem behind us]?
- Sort of. It will give the chattering political class the ability to say "we've done something, just watch how well it works" and move on to other problems that need "solving". Just like the last round of "comprehensive reform" in the '80's. Nobody will be willing to "do" anything because we have to see if there are "problems" with CIR and then solve those, as opposed to admitting we bought a bottle of snake oil and starting over.
Upon passage of “comprehensive” legislation, along the lines of the Kennedy-McCain bill last year, will the immigration situation in this country improve?
- Depends on what you mean by "improve". We certainly will have a whole bunch of new "citizens" willing to do those jobs that "people formerly known as Americans" wouldn't do. We'll also have a bazillion family members of our "new citizens" headed north, and LaRaza will be holding reunification rallies demanding that the family members of our "newest" be "regularized".
Will hospitals, schools, and police departments across the country be relieved of the increasingly burdensome demands of mass immigration?
- Nothing will change on that front. Except the clamor for "free" healthcare will grow louder and you'll have to be multilingual to address the new class of complainer/demanders.
Will the illegal prison population decline?
- Sure. There won't be any more illegals. The total prison population won't go down, however.
Will the depredations of foreign criminal gangs be checked?
- Well, they will now be domestic criminal gangs, so sort of.
Will the border be secured?
- It won't need to be. CIR will find a way, in the details of implementation written by bureaucrats with the help of LaRaza, to "regularize" the entire country of formerly known as Mexico so that people coming north will have automatic legal status in the US.
Will immigrants be forced to assimilate?
- Heh. More likely they will be hired by school districts to teach Spanish as a Second Language which will be a requirement for renewing your current drivers license.
Will bilingualism decline?
- See above.
Will radicalized ethnic politics diminish?
- No. But the face of it will change. Radical ethnic politics will become the purview of people formerly referred to as "white folks" and will consist of things like trying to have their children taught by English speakers.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I now do not.
Enforcement first is the only right thing to do.
Those who have been here, and have lived, except for their illegal immigration status, credit fraud, governemnt document fraud, and ID theft, yet have not committed other felonies, should be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether they stay or leave.
The ICE and border law enforcement should be give the broadest support required to enforce the border. That disreputable federal prosecutor who is persecuting border law enforcement, must go now.
"Enforcement First" conservatives should use the "comprehensive" side's tactics for our own purpose. We'll keep "promising" some sort of earned legalization once the border has been sealed, and the existing immigration laws are enforced.
We'll keep pushing Congress to build more fences, more cameras, more drones, more border agents etc. We'll demand the government goes after corporations that hire illegal immigrants by making background checks mandatory.
In the end, we'll never give an amnesty, we'll just keep pretending that once we get what we want, we'll give in.
This is how the comprehensive crowd has been sucessful in the past. They promise greater enforcement and security AFTER they get their blanket amnesty.
The goal is to make life miserable for Illegal immigrants. If those who entered our country illegally find they can't get a job, can't rent an apartment or buy a house, can't send their kids to school, can't get the rest of their families over here, can't get Social Security or other government entitlements, etc. , eventually we won't have to deport them, because they will leave on their own.
Republicans just have to be careful about how we pursue this because we don't want to look like we are going after Legal Immigrants and we don't want to come off as racist.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
A lot of people are asking: “How can
we enforce a new law when we can’t enforce
the laws that we already have? Let’s enforce
the law that we already have before we
have a guest worker program.” I would
suggest that those who are saying that
should come along with me and the INS
and the Department of Justice to any resort
in Phoenix or to any roofing contractor,
drywall hanger, or landscaping company,
and arrest the employer and put the employer
in jail or assess a fine of $10,000 per
occurrence, as the law requires.
If anybody actually wants to do that,
and would feel good about it, then I would
agree and say, “Hey, let’s enforce the law
as it is.” The truth is we have a law today
that simply isn’t going to be enforced. We
don’t have the political will. Right now we
have a law that is divorced from reality.
And so we need to enforce the law. But
first, we need a law that we can enforce.
This is a US Congressman speaking, Rep Jeff Flake. Perhaps what we really need is a Congress that is not in the back pocket of K Street.
I can recruit 100 people before the end of the day (it's now 1:09pm MST) who will volunteer one or two days a week to enforce immigration law in Metro Phoenix. I don't even want a cut of the fines.
Rep Flake, if you're reading this, you can contact me via my contact form.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
mostly poor, many illiterate and innumerate, disproportionately prone to crime and to out of wedlock births, will have an entirely predictable effect on America, both economically and politically.
But a large number of Republicans have their heads buried in the sand on this. I've never seen Adam or blackhedd or Pejman even bother to respond to these issues, and they represent the type of people pushing the GOP to the left on this matter. The general feeling in those ranks seems to be that the future will somehow take care of itself.
...will the immigration situation in this country improve?
Of course it will. The percentage of the population who are reactionary knuckle-draggers will be reduced as the enlightened noble savages assume the rightful positions in society that the racist, sexist, male patriarchs have thus far prevented them from attaining.
Will hospitals, schools, and police departments across the country be relieved of the increasingly burdensome demands of mass immigration?
While the numbers of people using these services will not increase, because an increasing number of repressed peoples will be able to vote to elect people who will truly give voice to their wishes in the corridors of power, we will be able to redirect money from the greedy capitalist companies (that are destroying not only our precious water resources but also polluting the air with noxious carbon dioxide emissions that will start an unstoppable global warming cascade resulting in the desertification of the entire planet) to the more desireable ends of assisting those the racist patriarchy have oppressed for centuries.
Will the illegal prison population decline?
It will, but first we must replace the the facists the rightwingnuts have seditiously placed on the bench with judges who understand the horrible impact the right wing neoconservative neanderthals have had on social justice in this patriarchal society. Since more new US citizens will be able to ensure progressives who care about comprehensive immigration and child issues are elected to their rightful positions in government.
Will the depredations of foreign criminal gangs be checked?
There will be no depredations once enlightend progressive thinking has replaced hateful reactionary right wing neoconservative propaganda. We will all be able to join hands around the universal multi-cultural campfire and sing Kumbuya (in Spanish, French, and Canadian).
Will the border be secured? Will immigrants be forced to assimilate? Will bilingualism decline? Will radicalized ethnic politics diminish?
These questions show a shocking lack of understanding of good enlightend progressive thinking. There is no need to secure a border when the noble peoples of the world who have been oppressed by the rightwing hatemongers can freely move whereever they wish and share their enlightment with all the less fortunate people of the world. Indeed, the word "border" has no meaning within proper progressive thinking. Why should bilingualism decline when it would do the racist sexists patriarchs some good to learn other modes of communication?
As you seem to have forgotten your basic catechisms, back to re-education camp with you now!
The hidden or latent premise here, of course, is that Comprehensive Reform will, indeed, usher in a solution that will put the immigration problem behind us.
That's a severe overstatement. No one is promising utopia from some kind of comprehensive reform -- not Giuliani, not Bush, not me. We simply argue that it is better than the alternatives.
And so, to answer the your specific questions:
Will hospitals, schools, and police departments across the country be relieved of the increasingly burdensome demands of mass immigration?
In the short term, it is unlikely that they will be relieved -- but neither will the situation be worsened. By contrast, reform that provides enforcement but not a route to normalization for at least some workers will impose significant burdens on local, state, and federal police, as well as marginal additional burdens on hospitals (who will need to weave a minefield of patient care, reporting, privacy, etc.) There may also be minor effects on schools as they attempt to determine who should properly be taught -- and respond to the inevitable complaints and lawsuits when they make the expected mistakes -- but I think that most reasonable persons will agree that the primary additional burdens created by an enforcement-only approach will be put on law enforcement first, and the medical community second.
These problems will linger until comprehensive reform is put into place and the grey- and black markets for labor are eliminated.
Will the illegal prison population decline?
Yes in the long term, assuming illegals are appropriately incentivized to either normalize -- allowing greater opportunities in the legitimate market -- or return home. Incidentally, I do favor strict application of the criminal laws, including deportation, to immigrants (legal or illegal) who commit serious crimes.
Will the depredations of foreign criminal gangs be checked?
I don't know, but I do know that more law enforcement resources will be freed to combat criminal gangs rather than to deport workers.
I also find this focus on criminal wrongdoing to be irrational and not based on relevant evidence. Accepting that there are foreign criminal gangs and that they do commit depradations, crime has (on net) steadily decreased during the period that net immigration has increased. Crime will always exist and immigrants (illegal and not) will be part of the criminal population. But there is no basis of which I'm aware to suggest that the recent increase in immigration has created a net and proportionate increase in crime. This particular complaint seems to have a bit of hysteria about it.
Will the border be secured?
Yes. Again, an effect a comprehensive plan is to free law enforcement resources to secure the border, fight crime, and protect the US from terrorism. An effect of an enforcement-first plan is to focus limited law enforcement resources on enforcing labor laws and deporting workers who are not charged with a crime other than their status as an illegal immigrant. Enforcement force, unlike a comprehensive plan, will require either diversion of law enforcement from other tasks (e.g., fighting other crimes) or the hiring of more officers (at greater public expense). It will also have the perverse effect of increasing the size of the underground economy, as illegal immigrants and their smugglers and employers are driven deeper underground.
Will immigrants be forced to assimilate?
Assimilation is much easier for a legal immigrant than an illegal immigrant.
Will bilingualism decline?
Bilingualism is largely the result of international trade. I expect bilingualism to increase, as it conveys a comparative advantage. (I also don't know why bilingualism is objectionable, so long as the primary language remains English. At one point, I could speak a fair amount of German and more than a little Latin. [That point was more than 10 years ago, sadly.] I'm currently doing my best to learn Spanish, and hope my son will have a chance to learn Chinese. What's the basis for objecting to any of that?)
Will radicalized ethnic politics diminish?
The best cure for radicalism of any type that I have found is a home, a steady job, and a family. (You will always find exceptions, of course.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
No one is promising utopia from some kind of comprehensive reform -- not Giuliani, not Bush, not me. We simply argue that it is better than the alternatives.
You fail to make the case for this in your remaining remarks. What are the drawbacks of enforcing the lasw currently on the books? You don't say, other than " An effect of an enforcement-first plan is to focus limited law enforcement resources on enforcing labor laws and deporting workers who are not charged with a crime other than their status as an illegal immigrant."
Why is this supposed to be a problem or a bad thing? You seem to imply that the current problem stems from the inability of "limited" law enforcment resources to deal with the problem. That is simply untrue. The crux of the matter is that the politcal class does not want to enforce the law in this area. These laws could be enforced quite easily with existing resources, if our politicians were interested in that taking place.
You also do not address the problem I raise above. The arrival of forty million poor new American citizens will have a dramatic effect on the political and economic landscape of this country, and it won't be in a direction that any classical liberal will enjoy. I'd like to see you respond to this issue.
You fail to make the case for this in your remaining remarks. What are the drawbacks of enforcing the lasw currently on the books? You don't say, other than " An effect of an enforcement-first plan is to focus limited law enforcement resources on enforcing labor laws and deporting workers who are not charged with a crime other than their status as an illegal immigrant."
Law enforcement resources -- by which I include border control agents, cops, regulators, prosecutors, judges, and the like --are scarce resources. Law enforcement imposes costs in time, as well as transactional costs in the form of (among other things) the payment money to private attorneys hired to defend businesses and individuals accused of immigration officials. There are approximately 10-12 million illegal immigrants in this country at the moment. An enforcement first policy -- or an enforcement only policy, which is what you seem to want -- renders each of these immigrants a central target, and diverts all of these resources to enforcing labor laws. These individuals who are diverted to enforcing labor laws are not addressing other crime. Moreover, as I noted (but you must have missed), enforcement -first or -only drives illegal immigration deeper underground, strengthening the underground economy and the hands of criminal enterprises.
Enforcement coupled with a route to normalization, on the other hand, will essentially eliminate the illegal labor market and free up scarce law enforcement resources.
Why is this supposed to be a problem or a bad thing?
My philosophical perspective is to prefer less government, lower taxes, market-based solutions, a strong national defense, and compassion for those less fortunate than I. Enforcement-first is contrary to each of these principles, in that it will increase the size of government, require more taxes or more debt, work contrary to the market, weaken the national defense by diverting scarce government resources, and penalize employers and employees for engaging in transactions where each perceives a benefit and which, through better service or lower prices (or both), benefit us all.
We need a policy that monitors the migrant labor force to identify the miscreants and wrongdoers among them, requires migrant laborers to pay their fair share, and allows police the time to focus on protecting the US from crime and terrorism. Comprehensive reform offers this. Enforcement first (or only) does not.
You seem to imply that the current problem stems from the inability of "limited" law enforcment resources to deal with the problem. That is simply untrue. The crux of the matter is that the politcal class does not want to enforce the law in this area. These laws could be enforced quite easily with existing resources, if our politicians were interested in that taking place.
And I'll sell you the Brooklyn bridge for a song. What evidence exists that locating, arresting, processing, and deporting 10-12 million folks is something that can be done "quite easily with existing resources"?
You also do not address the problem I raise above. The arrival of forty million poor new American citizens will have a dramatic effect on the political and economic landscape of this country, and it won't be in a direction that any classical liberal will enjoy. I'd like to see you respond to this issue.
Are you assuming that 40 million more individuals will emigrate to the US from Mexico if comprehensive reform is enacted? I have no idea where this number comes from. I know that Samuelson has argued that enacting comprehensive immigration reform will increase the rate of legal immigration from 20 million to 40 million -- say, about an 8-15 million net gain depending on how many of these former legal immigrants were illegal. But most of these individuals will not immediately become citizens, a process that necessarily takes many, many years. (Indeed, some may not stay at all.) In the kind of comprehensive reform that I would like to see, these new citizens will become part of the great American melting-pot -- which will be a good thing.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
An enforcement first policy -- or an enforcement only policy, which is what you seem to want -- renders each of these immigrants a central target, and diverts all of these resources to enforcing labor laws.
This isn't about "resources." We aren't enforcing the law because we choose not to be serious about it. We choose not to build a barrier. We choose not to give employers the tools they need. We choose not to enforce the law outside of a few photo ops jobs when we feel the political need. We engage in meaningless gestures (NG on the border) that do nothing at all to combat the problem. We have plenty of resources to do whatever we want. If only the people in power had any interest in enforcing our borders, it would be done.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
where we discussed classical liberalism, you seemed indignant that I suggested that there were people who sought to dissolve the borders. So its odd that you basically embrace that position here.
scarce law enforcement resources.
You have not made a case that there is any scarcity of law enforcement resources.
My philosophical perspective is to prefer less government, lower taxes, market-based solutions, a strong national defense, and compassion for those less fortunate than I.
Thats very nice. The proposal you are advocating does the opposite of all these things.
Enforcement-first is contrary to each of these principles, in that it will increase the size of government, require more taxes or more debt, work contrary to the market, weaken the national defense by diverting scarce government resources, and penalize employers and employees for engaging in transactions where each perceives a benefit and which, through better service or lower prices (or both), benefit us all.
In technical parlance, this is called "poppycock".
increase the size of government
Why?
require more taxes or more debt
Why?
work contrary to the market
Why?
weaken the national defense by diverting scarce government resources
This again?
and penalize employers and employees for engaging in transactions where each perceives a benefit
The employers and employees are both breaking the law, and would be penalized for that, not for "engaging in transactions where each perceives a benefit". But your philosophical perspective does not consider that to be a problem, as I understand it.
We need a policy that monitors the migrant labor force to identify the miscreants and wrongdoers among them, requires migrant laborers to pay their fair share, and allows police the time to focus on protecting the US from crime and terrorism.
Why do we need this?
What evidence exists that locating, arresting, processing, and deporting 10-12 million folks is something that can be done "quite easily with existing resources"?
The last refuge of the immigration doves is to trot out the hoary old line about the impossibility of "locating, arresting, processing, and deporting 10-12 million folks ". On some level you must know you are throwing out the weakest of strawmen, but you can't stop yourself.
Are you assuming that 40 million more individuals will emigrate to the US from Mexico if comprehensive reform is enacted? I have no idea where this number comes from.
I'm assuming that there are about 12 million illegals currently in the US, and that the plans afoot at present will award them US citizenship. That alone will tilt our politics decisively to the left, and away from the sort of policies that you claim to favor.
In addition, all US citizens have the legal right to be united with their immediate family, and to be united with them in the US. In other words, each illgal who is granted US citizenship will be entitled to bring their brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, to America, and to have them be given citizenship also. The forty million figure is a conservative estimate of what this will look like in practice.
These people will be net consumers of government resources, as poor people are already. So it is you who is proposing a plan which will " increase the size of government, require more taxes or more debt, work contrary to the market," etc. The "comprehensive reform" plan has been estimated as costing the Federal government two trillion dollars in increased costs for healthcare, education, etc. The people in question will not pay a dime in taxes, just like other low income Americans.
But most of these individuals will not immediately become citizens, a process that necessarily takes many, many years.
In the prior rounds of "amnesty", citizenship was much granted almost immediately, so I have no idea where you get this notion from. And is that the best you can offer? It is a problem, but we can kick it down the road a bit and not worry about it now?
In the kind of comprehensive reform that I would like to see, these new citizens will become part of the great American melting-pot -- which will be a good thing.
There is no "great American melting-pot" and there has not been for several generations now. I take it from this that you are supposing that "comprehensive reform" would include placing some pressure on immigrants to assimiliate. There is no chance of such measures passing Congress.
If law enforcement is to be employed on a cost/benefit basis, let me suggest that the burdens and cost-shifting of illegal immigration far exceeds:
All traffic offenses with the possible exception of DUI;
Marijuana possession;
Many tax offenses;
Failure to register for the selective service; and
Almost all misdemeanors.
Please, as a lawful citizen of the United States, provide the list of laws that should not be enforced against me due to the horrible burdens on the government. I do hope that includes not filing taxes as I dread preparation of my federal form in a few weeks.
I mean, if the Rule of Law means little or nothing even to Republicans, American citizens should get a fair shake, too. We need to have every law in the United States examined to see if its costs are exceeded by its benefits, and send the people of this country that list. I know the United States Senate didn't believe the felonies of forgery, tax evasion, identity theft, document fraud and so forth should be prosecuted against illegal aliens. I am sure, as a fair person who believes in the Senate approach, you would extend the same courtesies to those who are here legallly either as citizens or lawful permanent residents.
I await my list.
Unfortunately, "comprehensive" has come to mean fixing other problems while leaving the enforcement as it is (ineffective), or making symbolic and ineffective "improvements" to enforcement.
This is not acceptable.
However, I'll take any bill that has true, effective enforcement provisions- even if that means other issues are addressed in the same bill.
Enforcement won't even be considered, and any "comprehensive reform" seeks to allow unimpeded illegal immigration.
President Bush met recently with House Democrats. They urged him to guarantee that at least half of the GOP caucus would go along with a McCain-Kennedy type bill for political cover. I plan to blog that nonsense in the near future, but the president said the last GOP-controlled House "left arrows in his back." Imagine that, Bush as martyr on immigration.
The fact enforcement and status adjustment won't be bifurcated tells us all we need to know. Those who advocate comprehensive reform want status adjustment and hate enforcement. It's a sham, the public knows it is a sham, the president knows it is a sham, and apparently the House Democrats who know it is a sham realize the electorate does as well. Therefore, they have demanded "bipartisan" cover from their House colleagues.