Conservative Republican have been outdoing each other in claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Ironically, however, many conservatives are simultaneously outdoing each other in advocating immigration restriction - a stance Reagan would probably have abhorred.
As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon points out in this book (pg. 119), Reagan proposed a treaty allowing for full freedom of movement for all workers throughout North America in his November 1979 speech announcing his candidacy for the presidency. As early as 1952 - at a time when US immigration policy was still governed by the highly restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 - Reagan gave a speech embracing nearly unlimited immigration:
I . . . have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land . . . [A]nd the price of admission was very simple . . . Any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here . . . I believe that God in shedding his grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land for these people. (emphasis added).
Cannon, pg. 119.
Almost forty years later, in his January 1989 farewell message to the nation, Reagan struck a similar theme:
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. (emphasis added)
As his 1979 proposal and his support for the 1986 amnesty suggest, Reagan did not demonize illegal immigrants as all too many conservatives do today. He sought instead to enable them to legalize their status, and helped set many on the road to citizenship. In a 1977 radio address, he criticized "the illegal alien fuss" and suggested that illegal aliens may "actually [be] doing work our own people won't do."
While Reagan's rhetorical embrace of "anyone" who wants to come the US probably should be taken literally, it certainly indicates a generally positive attitude towards large-scale immigration from all parts of the world.
The fact that Reagan supported something does not by itself prove that it is right, or even that it is the right position for conservatives. Reagan certainly made his share of mistakes, such as the extremely grave error of trading arms for hostages with Iran. But as Cannon notes, Reagan's positive attitude towards immigration was not just an isolated issue position, but was integrally linked to his generally optimistic and open vision of America. I would add that it also drew on his understanding that America is not a zero-sum game between immigrants and natives - just as he also recognized that it is not a zero-sum game between the rich and the poor. Immigration could promote prosperity and advancement for both groups in much the same way that free trade benefits both Americans and foreigners. Reagan probably did not have a detailed understanding of the economics of comparative advantage which underpins this conclusion. But he surely understood it intuitively. Those who reject Reagan's position on immigration must, if they are to be consistent, also reject much of the rest of his approach to economic and social policy. Today's conservatives can argue for immigration restrictions if they so choose. But they should not claim the mantle of Reagan in doing so.
Thanks to a policy that largely ignores the financial viability of immigrants in favor of reuiniting families and protecting political persecutees, most immigrants lack financial resources or valuable skills and are a drain on the economy. Yes, the blame for this lies with various governmental interferences with the marketplace like minimum wage and the entitlement programs, but it doesnt change this reality. Either the entitlements or the illegals will have to go. Unfortunately, the truth is that the two are connected such that we will have to choose either both or neither.
All adding more unskilled immigrants (the vast majority now) does at this point is create a monstrous free rider problem. Due to their socio-economic status, we will be adding a huge number of people that pay very little into the system while benefitting disproportionately from the various "anti-poverty" programs, especially medicaid. This represents a both a huge financial burden and a huge pro-entitlement voting block.
This is not the path to victory.
Actually, under the 1996 welfare reform act, even legal immigrants are denied most welfare and entitlement benefits. Illegals have never been eligible for them.
And even if we completely rule out any chance of aliens directly collecting benefits, what about the indirect ways such as emergency room visits and school enrollment? These create invisible costs that get passed on to the legitimate users of the system.
Whatever happened to conservatism being about less government regulation? Aren't draconian border policies restrictive of the Horatio Alger line that conservatives are so fond of toeing? The whole thing smacks of racism. More sickening still are the intra-party attacks on conservatives like McCain who, being from a border state, realizes that criminalizing or otherwise vilifying immigrants is not the answer.
Unpersuasive though it may be to quote a band, as the White Stripes say, "Why don't you kick yourself out? You're an immigrant, too."
Conservatives are certainly about less government, but have never been about no government, especially when it involves the control of borders. Nor is there anything conservative about lavishing entitlements on those who have broken our laws and will become a net drain on the country. How this "smacks of racism" is beyond my comprehension. Illegal immigrants from Russia are just as unwelcome (and just as eligible and enter through legal means) as those from Guatemala, Mali or Saudi Arabia. To reject "criminalizing" illegal immigrants (they are criminals by definition) or otherwise "vilifying [sic]" them (whatever that means - if criminals are not villains, than who is?) as not being "the answer" has all the vapidity of a bumper sticker but lacks the catchiness.
And in response to the purported wisdom of the thoughtful philosopher Jack White, yes, we are all a nation of immigrants, as we like to get nostalgic about our poor, illiterate relatives arriving on these shores with nothing but the will to work for a better life. Of course, this nostalgia usually involves our long lost relatives being processed through Ellis Island or some other port of legal entry. When was the last time you heard some guy on a bar stool get teary-eyed over his great-grandfather coming over from the old country, smuggled in on a container ship. Our relatives came here legally. We ask for nothing but the same from others seeking to start a life here.
Now if you could find something from the Gipper ca. 1986 stating a belief that the enforcement measures were weak, your point would be much stronger. At the time, however, even Ted Kennedy was selling the enforcement measures as so strong that the 1986 amnesty would be a one-time thing.
I'm not sure why the conservative position on immigration seems so hard for otherwise intelligent people to understand. We ought to regulate who comes in and out of our country; not every foreigner is well-meaning, and if too many (of even the well-meaning ones) come at once, they will assimilate us instead of us assimilating them.
In the spirit of silly "if conservatives believe caricatured position x, they're hypocrites for not believing unrelated position y" statements: Whatever happened to liberalism being about more government regulation? They want to regulate the amount of water in my toilet, but when it comes to foreigners crossing the border it's anything goes!
“Immigration could promote prosperity and advancement for both groups in much the same way that free trade benefits both Americans and foreigners.”
Free trade in goods is not the equivalent of unrestricted migration. Goods don’t have anchor babies. Goods don’t demand other goods be admitted, and goods don’t commit crimes. Goods don’t have to be educated. Approximately 27% of the inmates in our jails are illegal aliens.
Moreover free trade means exactly that—a symmetrical relationship. If another country refuses to admit our products and services then we don’t have a free trade relationship with it. Many other countries won’t accept migration from the US. For example Korea. If you call the Korean embassy, you will find they don’t have immigration to their country. You might get a temporary work permit, but you can’t move there and become a citizen.
4th comment: "The whole thing smacks of racism."
I thought it was conservatives who are doing the demonizing? Instead we have people who feel free to characterize others who disagree with them as bigots and racists.
Does not compute ... Does not compute ...
Reagan came from Hollywood. Before that, it was a difficult but traditional--traditionally difficult--life which included a college education. Hollywood, as some have noted, then was sweating bullets to portray a version of America which was as traditionally American, exaggeratedly traditionally American, as could possibly be managed. Reagan lived it as a child and young man, promoted it in his movies, and loved to see it.
It would be odd to think of Reagan approving of Balkanization as a social policy, as sneering at assimilation "to what? white picket fences? racism?" and if he thought of English-as-official regulations, it would probably have been sorrow that they were even necessary.
The plan to import permanent voting blocks and semi-autonomous ghettoes didn't figure in any of his speeches.
First you want to color them as racists, or at best protectionists, then you want to speak as a holy preist, intoning the deity's true meaning from his plain words.
He said simply that if his city should need walls, it would have gates that were open to all. Now did he mean all as in every child rapist, meth smuggler, and non spanish speaker who came from a radical muslim country? No he did not, Reagan new there was evil in this world, and he knew that a city may need walls to protect itself against that evil.
No conservative that I have heard (I do not pay attention to Buchanan or those of his ilk) have spoken against allowing immigration to this country, but it should be regulated such that America can retain that which makes it America. It's immigration laws should be fair to those who follow them, they should be fair to the citizens who support the government through taxes, and it should not be manipulated by inside the beltway power brokers for political advantage.
So please spare us the hypocritical attitude regarding anti-ILLEGAL immigration conservatives and at least discuss the issue with some degree of intellectual honesty. I do not see all of these amnesty proponents willing to allow a flood of Indian doctors, engineers, or scientists in, only unskilled, uneducated immigrants are welcome eh?
Since when was it rascist to hate white male politicians who screw the citizenry for their own benefit?
“Whatever happened to conservatism being about less government regulation?”
Conservatism was never about complete lack of government regulation. Upholding the sovereignty of a nation is well within the legitimate functions of government.
“The whole thing smacks of racism.”
How is controlling your borders “racism?” In that case the whole world is racist.
“… intra-party attacks on conservatives like McCain who, being from a border state, realizes that criminalizing or otherwise vilifying immigrants is not the answer.”
McCain gets attacked on the issue of illegal, not legal immigration. Illegals criminalize themselves by unauthorized entry, by tax evasion and by identify theft. Illegals from Mexico (the source of most illegals) get vilified for contributing to crime. Their rate of murder, rape and robbery is three times the norm.
McCain gets attacked for making statements like “Americans wouldn’t pick crops even for $50 per hour. He gets attacked for being obnoxious to his fellow senators, like telling Senator Cornyn “fuck you,” or telling Romney to "get his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn" McCain shows signs of personal instability and lack of anger control.
He's not that scary... if you squint just right, you don't even notice the horns.
But most importantly, as bad as "free trade" has been for this country, it has been even worse for certain segments of the poor countries it was supposed to help most, especially small farmers. With the influx of cheap American food and other agricultural products (which of course are always exempted from free trade agreements) small farmers are driven off the land and forced into factory work or driven to migrate to the U.S. to seek work. This is exactly what has happened in Mexico, made worse because the factories that sprang up along the border after the passage of NAFTA have now been mostly been shuttered as the jobs have moved to the even cheaper labor China.
It is not merely a matter of "changing the rules"; the right to citizenship to people born in this country is a constitutional one.
The facts, if you care about facts, are that illegal immigration and free trade has been great for America (look at our unemployment rate). They've also been great for other nations that try them (e.g., Ireland). And immigration will be increasingly vital to America as our demography ages. Better if legal, but if we don't sanction millions legally, illegal is better than nothing
Let me make clear that I'm not calling the anti-immigration folks racist, just nativist and oblivious to economic reality.
The laws of this country are structured so as to discourage legal immigration and encourage illegal immigration, and chief among those laws is the strange concept that the best shortcut is to sneak across the border and have a baby at public expense. Another, of course, is the requirement that employers accept documents which are not "obviously" fraudulent, meaning that you would have to be an idiot to try to play by the rules, when for a relative pittance you can get forged documents at your local flea market and not have to trouble yourself with the IRS (or INS, for that matter). Bill Quick's latest essay at brings up the Prisoner's Dilemma, pointing out that not only the existing situation but the proposed "solution" reward lawbreakers and punish those who do not attempt to game the system.
Any real immigration reform should start by amending the Fourteenth Amendment by adding "to a legal permanent resident" after the words "United States" in the above-cited sentence.
I don't think having a 3rd-generation underclass would be a good idea. Would Mexico even take those people if we tried to deport them?
"It makes one wonder about the illegal-alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal-alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."
Is there some kind of frisson to seeing illegals? Are legals bourgeois and boooooring?
Or someone explain to me exactly why we should think the current legislation will work any better than the "once and for all comprehensive reform" of 1986, where Congress really, truly, pinky-swore to close the border and fix the illegal immigrant problem.
One of the things that most bothers those of us who aren't in favor of open borders is the lack of enforcement of current law. I have seen news reports in Houston of entire subdivisions under contruction being vacant of workers because of the rumor of an INS enforcement raid. I can't remember the last time I saw a framing or roofing crew that wasn't entirely manned by lean young men from origins south of the border.
I have no desire to attempt to send all of these hard working people back to where they came from. I am even in favor of granting them legal residency if they come out of the shadows and sign up for it. However, people who have broken our immigration laws shouldn't be rewarded with citizenship.
Many people who oppose illegal immigration would be OK with what I outlined above if we believed that our government would actually enforce the laws on immigration. No enforcement, no amnesty.
Unfortunately, current and proposed legislation is in accord with none of these principles and is doomed to defeat unless undemocratically imposed. The citizens of this country recognize, even if its politicos and elites don't, that republics which cannot control their own borders are doomed. They intuit the lesson of the Roman Empire which fell only when it could no longer restrain the barbarians on its border.
Most of the demonization seems to be coming from the
alliance of illegal immigrants and far-left organizations
such as ANSWER. Just do a search on youtube for "Maywood
Post Office" to see the Mexican flag being raised over
a US government building, and an angry, primarily Latino
crowd chanting "guero, guero, guero" repeatedly.
Anti-illegal immigration protestors are careful not to
engage in racial rhetoric -- it is the pro-illegals
who are demanding that whites go back to Europe, and
the return of the Southwest to Mexico. Again, just do
a quick web search for photos from the immigration rallies
to prove this.
You cannot understand the adverse impact of uncontrolled
immigration unless you have dealt personally with the
public education and health systems in a place like
Los Angeles. How many pro-amnesty folks have children
in private schools?
Most Republicans who reach for Reagan's mandate are trying to claim the legacy of the last popular president not to have multiple sex scandals, not to demonstrate any actual affinity with his positions or actions.
Would the left (including elements of both Democratic and
Republican parties) agree to the following compromise?
1. Amnesty for illegal immigrants similar to 1986.
2. Absolutely abolish bilingual education.
3. Abolish all ethnic and racial preferences (by strict
enforcement of Titles VI, VII of the Civil rights act.)
4. Establish government educational standards mandating
that public schools encourage assimilation. Do this by
eliminating ethnic studies courses and replacing with
courses on civics and patriotism.
If we can't agree on 2-4, then I believe no compromise
is possible.
Actually, IIRC from the many notices received and paperwork signed for since 2003, legal immigrants are barred from all welfare and entitlement benefits until such time as they have 40 weeks full-time employment under their belt. That's from a Fiance visa, but it could be different for other immigrant classifications. There was also a provision that I swear to be financially responsible for a period of, I think, two years.
Amazing to see someone cite such an obviously ludicrous statistic and not a soul speak up in disagreement.
I just can't believe the irony of this statement. Reagan is the one responsible for the current state of the party.
I do live in Los Angeles, my children did attend public schools (in fact, my older daughter now teaches at one), and I think I have just as good an understanding of the impact of undocumented immigrants as you do. I don't believe your views represent a majority in LA; not even close.
One thing which always strikes me about those wanting to seal off our borders is that they show no sense of long term benefits. The argument always takes place in the short term: immigrants don't contribute enough to our public services. While the evidence of this is mixed, the argument completely ignores the long term impact of immigration. The children of those immigrants become productive citizens. Their children become business and political leaders. That's been the story of immigration to this country since 1607.
Ed O: How many of these illegals are imprisoned under unjust drug laws? I'd like to hear that too.
And the Wall Street Journal recently reported data that showed that cities with more immigrants had much lower crime rates. I think the 27% figure may be accurate (but most of these people are jailed for being illegal immigrants not for any other crime).
I'm all for more legals -- but I don't see the anti-immigration people proposing a massive expansion in legal immigration. If they did, I'd be with them
Most Republicans who reach for Reagan's mandate are trying to claim the legacy of the last popular president not to have multiple sex scandals, not to demonstrate any actual affinity with his positions or actions.
This is at least partly true, but I can't help commenting on the "not to have multiple sex scandals" caveat. Because, of course, Clinton was and is tremendously popular. More generally, there has been a consistent move among Republicans to quasi-deify Reagan (including, but not limited to naming everything they can in DC after him) because he was the only popular Republican President since, well, Eisenhower maybe, and if you don't count him. . . ?
No sex scandals, just illegal gun and drug-running to Iran and Central America, supporting nun-raping death squads and funding and training Islamic terrorists (after all who do you think taught them how to bring down a helicopter with an RPG) in the name of fighting commies which eventually would lead to the emergence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Not to mention cutting and running from Beirut and unnecessarily invading Grenada to distract attention from the debacle of the Marine Barracks bombing.
Exactly. What is even more bizzare is that you do not see many people on the Left making a big deal out of this? You would think that the Left's concerns about income inequality would be more central to the discussion. However, I have seen only a few people on the Left even mention it. Eric Alterman is one:
In dogmatically following your open borders, free labor agenda you're killing off any chance of expanding libertarian values. You're not just allowing workers to "move freely," you're importing future citizens. Voters. Voters who also happen to be tax liabilities. Brilliant idea!
As for Reagan, I don't particularly care what he thought about immigration, but let's be honest--he was talking about immigration. Today the situation, with such a large percentage of immigrants coming from one source, Mexico, the situation seems closer to colonization than assimilative immigration. The percentage of foreign born is now right around historical highs, and at least in the past we didn't have multiculturalism and bilingualism to contend with.
But we don't have to quess where this all will take us. Just take a look at California, a state that is hemorrhaging natives and is a good 20-30 years ahead of the nation as a whole. Is California an example of Reagan's "shining city on a hill"? It was. Once. Before all that wonderful immigration. That immigration that people just can't wait to move away from.
There are millions of industrious and educated people in other countries (e.g., China and India) who would love to come here, contribute, assimilate, and join the American way of life. Even ignoring the normal anti-illegal immigration arguments (security threat, some percentage being criminals, emergency care and other costs, etc.), I'd prefer a policy that's fair and gives a shot (and a preference) to immigrants of any nationality, not just Mexicans who seem to benefit from being on our border. We should be able to have some say about who comes to our country, and I'd prefer to make things fair and equitable for immigrants of any nationality who truly want to become Americans and who aren't here just because of better wages.
There is another link at the first site below that will take you N.Z. Bear's online version of the draft immigration bill. That should be a good resource for the legal eagles on the thread.
Link to online version of the bill and Hugh Hewitt's legal analysis of it
First part of the analysis that is worth reading.
Reading The Fine Print, Part 1: Does The First Exception Swallow The Triggers Whole?
There is some evidence that suggests immigrants have a lower crime rate than natives of the same ethnicity. Lack of reporting could explain some of it (e.g. immigrants from countries where law enforcement cannot be trusted or illegals worried about being sent home). But let me concede that immigrants commit less crime than their children. Now, please explain to me why that's encouraging for the future of America, that each generation becomes successfully more crime prone? This is the same sort of obfuscation which is pulled with entitlements. The open borders cheerleaders prattle on about the lack of liability without factoring in the American citizen children the illegals have, which are fully entitled to the panoply of benefits any other American citizen can receive.
It tends to wink at those who illegally enter the US to do low value work.
If the comment made by Mark Steyn is accurate it neatly illustrates this problem.
I too saw that in the in the Zarakia piece. Yeah right, our immigration policies should first and foremost ensure that no crops will rot in the fields for lack of harvesters. Personally, I feel strongly that this country would be much better off allowing in more of the highly educated and far fewer equipped only to do low-level manual labor, even if that does mean some crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.
For me, Reagan's vacuities about immigration only bolster George Will's arguments on the subject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301417.html (for the link, drop the spaces)
rel="nofollow" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301417.html">
I guess his mistake was
1. Being a highly educated professional
2. Following the rules
As someone who was a strong supporter of the 1986 amnesty program I can't help but notice every time the congress attempts to fix the "immigration problem" they always make it worse.
The 1986 amnesty agreement was supposed to fix the problem. As citizens we got three things out of the 1986 agreement.
1. A requirement to show ID to get a job.
2. A massive underground economy that forged documents required to get a job
3. Steadily increasing population of illegal aliens.
This bill will give us a requirement to
1. Have a national ID card
2. Show it in order to get work
3. I suspect it won't take long for the forgery proof national id card to get forged.
I suspect actually enforcing the regulations of the 1986 amnesty bill and slightly improving border security would eventually solve the problem through attrition via aging of the current population of illegal immigrants.
I understand in the nominal sense, they are "illegal," but that is why Congress is addressing the matter (hence with a bill and a stroke of the pen, they're no longer illegal - which aught not effect the morality of the issue). As a moral sense, nobody is "illegal" and living in the United States without papers is no more morally wrong then allowing the free flow of goods without allowing the free flow of labor.
And the argument that, "they're cutting in line," is not true, because there is no line for non-skilled workers, only relatives, and if they're lucky.
I don't mean to be a smart-ass, I just want to know, what the harm would be to our economy and/or national interest, if we allowed a pathway to citizenship, conditioned on paying a fee, and learning english inter alia.
The only possible draw back I can think of, is that it would create incentives for even more illegals to come here in the short term and gain access to the pathway, but that could be off-set by sensible legislation (such as, only those who are here on date X and register for program Y by date Z are eligible for the favorable pathway to citizenship, all arriving afterwards have to go through a more cumbersome process).
It seems the debate is almost subsumed by heavy rhetoric on both extremes, and to the best that I can tell, in my life I have never been encumbered by illegal immigrants collectively or by an illegal immigrant individual. Most of the harm from individuals in my life, have come from friends, ex-girlfriends, professors, or really from myself; who were all US citizens.
And:
And:
LAWL
Hard to see how a child born in the US is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." To which laws are they immune? Do the local courts have no personal jurisdiction over the child? The text refers to the person born in the US being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, it doesn't say anything about whether the child's parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I doubt the constitutionality of a law purporting to revoke the citizenship of a person born in the US on the grounds that the child's parents were here illegally. Of course, the fact that a person here illegally has a child who is a US citizen doesn't automatically entitle the person to remain here as a constitutional matter. That's an entirely separate issue.
<blockquote>
Can somebody please elucidate the harm to our national interest in allowing a pathway to citizenship for the 11M+ Illegal's living in the United States?
</blockquote>
Sure.
1. Because it's not 11+ million. It's more like 30+ million.
The fact is that approx 1+ million illegals, according to the Border Patrol, sneak into the USA each year, not including those that come in using a valid tourist, business or student visa and then simply overstaying. This has been going on since at least the early 1990's. So, logically at least, it's frankly ridiculous to even consider the "11+ million" number.
2. The current amnesty will allow the chain immigration of spouses.
My assumption is that there are 30+ million illegal aliens in the US today of which 10 million or so are discrete family groups while the remainder of 20 million are single or married men with family living back home. Under this amnesty these Z-1 visa holders would be eligible to chain immigrate their spouses adding *another* 20+ million to the total resulting in 50+ million.
3. The current amnesty will allow the chain immigration of minor children either born or adopted.
Assume 20+ million Z-1/Z-2 couples with an average of 3 minor children, either born from the couple or adopted. That's not unreasonable is it? That would result in the inclusion through chain immigration of 60+ million minor children under the Z-3 visa program. All of whom would require public schooling and the additional expense of having to teach English to largely non-English speaking students, which will up the costs.
Currently there are approximately 50+ million students in the public school system across the country. At an average cost of $10,000 per student per year, this amounts to about $500 billion a year, every year. Adding 60+ million new students wouldn't just cost an additional $600 billion because the necessity of building new schools to house these students and the additional cost in teaching them English or having bilingual teachers or interpreters. So you could reasonably add a couple hundred billion more so we'll call it $800 billion added to the current $500 billion for an education cost of $1,300 billion per year, every year for the next couple decades.
4. There are zero ( 0 ) population limits on who can be included by this amnesty.
There is a date cutoff, which can be extraordinarily malleable, but no specific number. Which also means that there are no ceilings on how many people can become legal residents under this amnesty. If it's 50+ million, then it's 50+ million. If it's 150+ million, then it's 150+ million.
Should I continue?
1. Professor Cross: You might well think illegal immigration is great for Austin, and for you it might be so. But what are the odds that a relatively privileged professor of law actually will bear the bulk of costs or burdens that opponents of the proposed immigration reform claim will result? Please note, professor, I do not intend this comment to be snide or insulting. I practice law here in Austin. So I might be lumped in the same general category. What I am really asking (and I am asking) is whether folks like you or me are likely to bear the brunt of problems allegedly associated with illegal immigration. For example, these illegal immigrants don't reside in the neighborhoods of the privileged; the children of illegal immigrants do not attend the schools reserved for the elite (whether public or private). On a far more marginal point, I have real doubts about the utility of Ireland as a model or comparator for U.S. immigration policy.
2. It probably is mistaken to think that this issue is completely divorced from issues of race/ethnicity. When it comes to illegal immigration, the real issue seems to be Mexican illegals. Since 9/11, folks also talk about border security in terms of national security; but, the general impression that I have is that those who oppose the proposed immigration reform usually are none too fond of the latest arrivals from Mexico in general. (Maybe this sentiment is not shared outside Texas?) But it also is uncharitable to just assume those opposed to immigration reform are racists. A lot of the animus directed against Mexican immigrants, illegal or otherwise, strikes me as being cultural in nature. There is a world of difference, for example, between Brownsville, Texas, and Austin, Texas, and it is not necessarily racist to prefer Austin. Worries about cultural friction and assimilation into the mainstream of American culture should not be out of bounds. Folks who are pro-immigration and support the proposed reforms would be better served by addressing these concerns on the merits rather than accusing opponents of just hating Mexicans.
3. Someone questioned a crime statistic offered above. I have not done a lot of research in this area, but I suspect the figure is not too outlandish, depending on what prison system you are looking at and what you think the statistic shows. For example, a 2005 GAO study did show that about 27% of the federal prison population is made up of "criminal aliens" and the report appears to at least suggest that the bulk of these are Mexican in origin. The term criminal alien includes non-citizens here legally as well as those here illegally. So it's not clear from the report what percentage are illegal immigrants. From a quick skim of the report, comparable statistics seem to be lacking for the states (at least in this report). No doubt it varies considerably depending on which state one is looking at. (If anyone thinks I am misreading the report, please do not hesitate to correct me.) Of course, what these statistics prove or do not prove is another matter. For example, how much of this 27% is made up of those convicted of an immigration offense, e.g., illegal reentry? And what percentage of those have prior U.S. criminal records? It seems to me we would need to know more about this 27% figure before drawing too many conclusions.
Why wouldn't he? It didn't do what it claimed it would do.
Frankly, I think it is pathetic that you again slur the borders between legal and illegal immigration. After no doubt seeing the difference pointed out, it must be intention. Do you even recognize border? Or do they not even fit into your dogmatic libertarian ideology?
What do you think, hypothetically, if we stuck the entire population of Latin America into the United States tomorrow? Think it might hurt the country?
What do you know, borders might actually matter then.
Current immigration practices, both legal and illegal, operate like a system of trans-national welfare outreach bringing millions of fiscally dependent individuals into the U.S. This policy needs to be changed. U.S. immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general, government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers.
Current legislative proposals that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and increase future low-skill immigration would represent the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years. Such proposals would increase poverty in the U.S. in the short and long term and dramatically increase the burden on U.S. taxpayers.
I'm not, however, in favor of rewarding criminals while punishing the law abiding.
How many legal "immigrants" get kicked out of America each year (because their visa expired)? How many of them would have liked to stay, but weren't allowed to? How many of them just quietly left, like the good, law abiding people that they are?
Why are we saying to them "screw you, get out of here"? Especially, why are we saying that, while telling the illegal "immigrants" "hey, welcome!"?
Who adds more to America's economy: one legal immigrant, or one illegal one? I would bet just about anything it's the legal ones.
So why are we showing preference to the illegal ones?
What in the world is "Reaganesque", forward looking, optimistic, or even remotely intelligent about doing that?
The forces driving current illegal immigration, economic and political, have no cap. Businesses will still want illegal immigration (not legal immigration, and not protected guest workers) 10 years from now as well. The demands are limitless.
So too are the amount of people that would come here if they wanted to. This may grate on your emotional and ideological sensibilities, but it is also clearly unsupportable.
wanted to*are allowed to
*Hard to see how a child born in the US is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."*
Because not everyone born in the USA is subject to the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" such as foreign nationals within the US covered under diplomatic visas. Since the individuals covered by the diplomatic visa isn't actually "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" their children if born in the US aren't US citizens.
Another argument, an as IANAL I make no representation as to the validity of it, is that children of illegal aliens should be treated akin to the children of Native Americans.
Frankly this mess might precipitate a Constitutional Amendment to redefine birthright citizenship.
You cannot conclude from that study, that immigrants have a low crime rate. What happened in those cities is that high crime Hispanic immigrants have replaced even higher crime rate blacks. The study’s authors forgot to point that out.
@ Bob from Ohio
"It would be helpful if people like Ed would not make up wild stats. There are only 100-105 million people in Mexico. Yet 30 million immigrated since 1986? That is 1.5 million per year. I am sorry but it just is not credible."
Did I say "Mexico"? Did I infer at any time that the entire population of illegal aliens were Mexicans? Did I state categorically that any and all illegal aliens covered under the Z-1 visa would be Mexicans? Did I hop onto a soapbox and scream out "Mexico!!"? Did I state at any time that the Z visas were restricted to Mexicans? Was the noun "Mexico" used anywhere in my writing? Was the adjective "Mexican" used by me?
If not, and it is not, then you bloody well owe me an apology.
And, any free movement would be disastrous, as the actions of the MexicanGovernment show as regards gaining PoliticalPower inside the U.S. via MexicanPartisans such as FabianNunez, maintaining constant contact with those behind the SenateAmnesty (Mexico said that a few days ago), having links to FarLeft organizations, having links to those who helped organize the IllegalImmigrationMarches, and on and on.
However, Reagan's dream might become a reality, considering the very powerful forces pushing for "NorthAmericanIntegration"/"NorthAmericanUnion", i.e., joining the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into one country: tinyurl.com/22o3w3
Since the population of CA continues to increase, I can only assume that the word "people" in your last sentence means "the only people who really count, i.e., white people".
I agree with this.
I appreciate your effort to quantify just one aspect of the harm to our economy/national interest wrought by illegal immigrants.
Your post did raise a couple questions in my mind.
I just googled it, but according to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are now 12M illegal immigrants. The number 30M comes from the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders. Personally, I would trust the 12M number, since Pew, to the best of my knowledge, is non-partisan, and the Minute Men are advocates, so their number is more susceptible to bias.
But to address the substance of your post, even if there were 30M illegals, you express concern that they'll "chain" and then bring even more people. But isn't that something that could be addressed in legislation. Congress would have to do some fact finding (if they haven't already), and if there is indeed the concern that the illegals are gonna bring in their spouse, kids, dog, and in time the whole village, couldn't we condition legislation that does not allow those situations. Actually, isn't that one of the triumphs of this new immigration bill, that we're placing an emphasis on skills and down playing familial linkage? (mind you the biz community is pissed about that, b/c the gov't isn't in the one's who should determine what skills we need, it's the biz sector)
Addressing the economic aspect of your post:
firstly, who do you think's gonna build those buildings?
I must say, the prospect of adding $1.3 trillion to our educational costs does seem a tad high, but I wonder, isn't there a trade off that is not being considered?
1. The economic benefits of having "these" people brought into the fold. Firstly if those without papers, could get papers, wouldn't we see a rise in tax returns. Secondly, aren't the illegal immigrants contributing to our economy right now? I know there are a lot of stereotypes about illegals, but lazy, is not one that I've heard. I doubt it's as high $1.3 trillion, but there is some sort of return.
2. Don't we want to educate the illegal immigrants? Don't call me johnny blue skies dreamer, but I mean, wouldn't we rather have illegals in schools, learning about America, English, our history and values. When I finished 8th grade, (and no, that wasn't the last grade i finished), was when I loved this country and our rich history the most. Hence, the oft heard complaint among those who have become disenchanted with American FP over the last few years, "I want to love this country like I did when I was a child." Well I submit, let's have them in school and pledge the flag.
2 points on why I'm so optomistic about illegal immigrants and providing a pathway to citizenship.
1. The dynamic of our economy. Our economy is the shit, straight up. Certain sectors lag (I'm originally from Detroit), like manufacturing it seems, but that's the beauty of the market. When Detroit's economy went south, I moved to an area which placed a premium on the skills I possess. We need non-skilled labor which the Illegals comprise a large segment. What's the right number? I don't know, but we certainly need a lot of them. Which leads me to my second point
2. We cannot deport all 12M of them. It's just not feasible, ask the business sector, they're in favor of them (albeit, they do some exploiting). If we deported all of them overnight, I wouldn't be able to eat at my favorite eatting spots, get my sheets changed at the hotel, and the cleaning service at my office we cease to exist. If all the jobs performed by illegals were performed by US citizens or existing permanent residents, the price of everything would sky rocket. While the $1.3 trillion per year education cost you proposed does seem a bit high, I submit to you, that there's a comparable diminution borne by us as consumers and savers (my money in the bank is worth more when inflation is low), by illegal immigrants acting as a bulwark against inflation (inflations still low and oil has doubled or nearly tripled in the past 6 years, the illegals must have a part in that).
In closing, the reason I think a lot of people call those in the anti-immigrant camp as racists is because those casting aspersions believe that the anti-immigration camp takes issue more with the cultural aspects then the econmic aspect. In particular, the sight of seeing an influx of western union's and taqueria's in one's neighborhood. I'm agnostic on that issue.
NattyB
In the last 20 years the US has had an economy that has grown very well. In contrast the Mexican economy has made occasional progress with occasional fits of recession coupled with devaluation of the peso. The rich getting richer is bound to attract citizens of areas where the local politicos just can’t get their economic house in order. And Mexico is a positive poster child of economic reform compared to the countries to it’s immediate South.
I talked to a business associate in Changchun, China, not far from the North Korean border a few weeks ago. He was talking about how much cheap labor comes available in that area because of the collapse of the NK economy. The relative riches in China are enough to bring border crossers despite it being one of the most guarded borders in the world. I’m not sure we could stop the traffic completely even if it were a top national priority.
Transportation advances in Mexico are another area that has aided illegals. Anybody who traveled in Northern Mexico in the 1970’s remembers the small roads, no intercity bus service, no businesses, and general lack of infrastructure that was present then. That has changed considerably. Some areas have highway systems that are pretty good now. Also bus and train service is readily available to most cities of Northern Mexico. These improvements are a result of NAFTA and the need to ship goods quickly. It also makes it easy for border crossers to get into position for the crossing with much less hassle.
So there was a change in immigration law in 1986 and there has been an increase in illegal immigration since then. However I’m not sure a credible causation link is there.
I suspect were there a way to figure in the underground economy--and I stipulate that such an economy exists--that economy is really a net plus--yes, taxes arent generated by it directly--but overall it does intangible things like create job skills which eventually will be subsumed into the economy.
if I am correct in my thinking, and I may not be, the NET component of increase in economic growth from illegal immigration will be recouped later in the economic cycle.
Clearly there are other reasons, to oppose illegal immigration--but economic growth doesnt seem to be one of them to me.
It’s more insidious than that. Law enforcement does not routinely check the immigration status of offenders and many so-called “sanctuary cities” have laws forbidding the police from checking and reporting illegal aliens to immigration authorities. In which case it is unlikely that the “researchers” had any accurate data on the crime rate of immigration to begin with.
Oh and FYI, the FBI which tabulates national crime statistics for the Uniform Crime Reporting doesn’t have a “Hispanic” category. They’re counted as either White, Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Asian or Pacific Islander for arrests and White, Black, Unknown, or Other in the case of homicides. In which case any “study” that purports to compare those crime rates is going to be relying on how the offenders are classified locally which invites even further disparities.
This is the heart of the matter — a big driver of our current open borders policy is the belief that a nation with a white minority will magically become a more just society, in the context of the "social justice" taught in schools of education. Indeed, whites are not longer a majority in California, which personally by itself would be
neither good nor bad, if the majority of
immigrants were actually assimilating and succeeding educationally.
The problem with the Sontag/Wise/Ignatiev view that "abolishing the white race" leads to social justice, is that ethnic/racial conflict is universal around the world. Such conflicts are bloody and awful in societies without whites from Rwanda to Sri Lanka. Malaysia, Fiji, Indonesia, Bolivia, etc. all have ridiculous conflicts between groups that we would view as "people of color" and who should not be fighting against each other.
The real argument is about culture. Not all cultures are equal, and in fact "white anglo saxon" culture is not superior in every way to others. For example, the high school graduation rates in California are about 50% for
Latinos, 75% for whites and over 90% for Asians. Thus one can argue that educational values are superior among those of Asian ancestry in California compared with whites.
But too many immigrants, both legal and illegal, bring values that are damaging to our economy and social systems. An extreme case is the survey of American Muslims which revealed a 25% approval rating for suicide bombings in the
18-29 year old cohort. But Latino attitudes to education,
and in particular racial/ethnic chauvinism of the La Raza
variety are equally damaging to the U.S.
For a view on problems in Latino educational achievement, that you will not be taught in schools of education,
see
Herman Badillo, "One Nation, One Standard"
and
Ernest Caravantes, "Clipping their own wings, the
incompatibility between Latino culture and American education"
"Thanks to a policy that largely ignores the financial viability of immigrants in favor of reuiniting families and protecting political persecutees, most immigrants lack financial resources or valuable skills and are a drain on the economy."
This may be (and I have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is) true for the LEGAL immigrants coming in under refugee and family-reunification provisions, but not, in my experience, with the illegal immigrants, who are here because there are jobs to do that others do not want to do (agriculture) or lack the skills to do (building trades). The problem in my view lies with our current immigration policy that does not address the serious shortage of workers in certain industries, which shortage creates a vacuum drawing workers into the U.S. even if they cannot get visas to work here legally.
I agree with the argument that illegal immigrants are jumping the line ahead of all those who have applied for legal admission and are still waiting. That to me is the main injustice of illegal immigration, not the hard-working people without "papers" here working hard.
The latest immigration proposal is a first step in the direction of shaping our immigration policy to our economic needs. It's not perfect, but it is far better than what we have today, and a realistic alternative to the two totally unrealistic extremes of "open borders" or of "seal the borders, round 'em all up, and send 'em all home."
"[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The Pew Hispanic Center is anything but non-partisan. While the founders The Pew Charitable Trust were quiet conservative people, current organization is solidly to the left. You can find details here.
Their estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the US come mainly from their senior research associate Jeffrey S. Passel. Passel was formally with the liberal Urban Institute. He estimates the number of illegal aliens (which he calls “unauthorized migrants”) resident in the US from Census Bureau’s Current Population survey by subtracting the legal foreign-born population from an estimate of the total foreign-born population as reported by the CPS. He has to make a correction in the CPS data for people who don’t correctly identify themselves. I have not seen the details of how he makes this crucial correction. Remember everything is an estimate, based on a sample, so errors are magnified when projecting to the whole population. Until I see the details I’m extremely skeptical of that figure of 12 million. It’s likely to be much higher.
I am sorry that I thought you were talking about mass Mexican immigration. Every one else here is, so I assumed you were. Let me rephrase:
Better?
Not to sidetrack this discussion, but "Larger majorities of Iranians than Americans reject terrorist attacks against civilians, though both publics are quite opposed. Asked whether “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” can be justified often, sometimes, rarely or never, 80 percent of Iranians select never. Forty-six percent of Americans say such attacks can never be justified and 27 percent say they rarely can." Link.
I guess this does prove that not all cultures are equal.
Yes it is indeed ridiculous since illegal aliens aren’t Americans.
If we "need" so many of them, why are their wages so low (and going lower)? The sectors most saturated with illegal workers are areas which have seen wages fall in the last 20 years (meat packing, construction, food service, etc). If there were a true economic shortage (i.e. we "needed" more unskilled workers), then we'd see wages RISE (and why is it a bad thing if our working class actually prosper?). Falling wages, on the other hand, are a sign of a surplus of workers. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF UNSKILLED LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES.
By importing millions of Mexican workers, we're effectively holding our economy back by making it reliant on cheap low-skilled labor rather than pushing what our technology and ingeniunity can do for us. If cheap labor was the secret to success, the American South would have prospered in comparison to the high wage Northern economy. And, hey, if Mexicans have a comparative advantage in growing lettuce, then let's trade them for it. It makes more sense to import the lettuce than it does to import Mexico.
@ NattyB
1. "I just googled it, but according to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are now 12M illegal immigrants. The number 30M comes from the book Minutemen: ..."
I use the 30+ million number because the Border Patrol itself reports that approximately 1+ million illegal aliens cross our borders each year. This does *not* include those that enter the USA legally on a tourist, student or business visa and then refuse to leave.
I'd suggest that 21+ years of 1+ million border crossing illegal aliens, excluding visa holders who overstay, per year is sufficient cause to assume that the number in question is rather more than "12 million".
2. "But to address the substance of your post, even if there were 30M illegals, you express concern that they'll "chain" and then bring even more people."
I include it because *it is in the current amnesty bill*.
Z-1 visas can be awarded to any illegal with documentation, what a joke, showing residence prior to Jan 1, 2007.
Z-2 visa can be awarded to any *spouse* of a Z-1 visa holder.
Z-3 visas can be awarded to any *minor children* of a Z-1 or Z-2 visa holder. And that can include adopted children so it's perfectly permissible for John Doe Z-1 visa holder to bring his 3 kids, adopt his brother's 2 kids, his sister's 3 kids and the assorted 6 children his cousins want him to bring into the USA. Why? Free education, benefits and citizenship. Plus the law will probably be changed to make it easier for relatives to chain immigrate.
Capice?
I'm not discussing what *might* be in the current amnesty bill. I'm discussing what **is** in the current amnesty bill. There is no theoretical involved here.
Similarly Hugo Chavez could use Venezuala's oil money to fund the migration of 10+ million Chavistas from Venezuala to say Oklahoma and to settle there. Given time the 10+ million Chavistas would become citizens, eligible to vote and could takeover the state government of Oklahoma. And there's absolutely *nothing* we could do about it because it is entirely allowed under the current amnesty.
3. "firstly, who do you think's gonna build those buildings?"
Firstly who do you think is going to *pay* for those buildings? Hmmmm?
Due to financial mismanagement and overly generous work contracts with public employees many cities and municipalities are living on borrowed time as their underfunded liabilities are starting to catch up with them. On top of which most Americans are living on credit and so have little "fat" available to provide for a critical situation like this. So the cities and towns are going to have to offer bonds in order to build these new schools which will be forced by the judiciary since it's a rare thing for a judge to rule against spending vast amounts of money on education.
Now imagine 50,000 cities and towns all offering school construction bonds at the same time. How about 500,000? How about 5,000,000? The municipal bond market can easily be saturated and so the rates these cities and towns will have to offer will absolutely beggar their residents. Now perhaps they'll scream at their respective states? Most states aren't operating with tens of billions in surpluses so some retrenchment will take place plus large scale tax increases. Which will do what to the economy? Then there's the states who will scream for help from the federal government, who will then have to either put out bonds, again, or pay for this in a saturated bond market.
Then there's the annual payroll, benefit and operating expenses. For many cities and towns the public education budget is the largest part followed by payroll, benefits and retirement plans. How will they pay for the expenses of having twice as many schools and teachers as they did before? And remember that most of the new students won't be fluent in English so there will be added expenses for bilingual teachers and interpreters. That doesn't include the costs involved in the massive competition for bilingual teachers and interpreters of course which will drive up costs across the board.
Consider Middletown, New Jersey. I use it because it's close to where I live and because it was an example I used in another argument. The effective property tax rate is 3.558%. The average home price for home sales in 2006 was $472,000. The *annual* property tax is about $16,500.
Now double it. Or triple it.
4. "I must say, the prospect of adding $1.3 trillion to our educational costs does seem a tad high, but I wonder, isn't there a trade off that is not being considered?"
Not adding $1,300 billion. The new total will be around $1,300 billion. $500 billion for the current number of students + $800 billion for the new students covered by the Z-3 visa or not covered by anything but still in this country.
There is no tradeoff. Ziltch. Zero. There is no positive from this. Why? Because how will the economy grow fast enough to deal with the millions of extra adults graduating, or not, from these school systems. If they get jobs, great! If they don't, then they could turn into a permanent underclass with all the problems attendant.
5. "The economic benefits of having "these" people brought into the fold. Firstly if those without papers, could get papers, wouldn't we see a rise in tax returns."
No. Because we have a "progressive" tax system that doesn't tax equally at all income levels. In fact at $14,000 a year gross income, particularly with dependents, the Earned Income Credit applies and you can get more money from the federal government than you put in.
6. "Secondly, aren't the illegal immigrants contributing to our economy right now? I know there are a lot of stereotypes about illegals, but lazy, is not one that I've heard. I doubt it's as high $1.3 trillion, but there is some sort of return."
If we assume 20 million Z-1 visa holders (adults) + 20 million Z-2 visa holders (spouses) all work and contribute $10,000 in taxes per year per person then they would generate about $400 billion in taxes.
7. "Don't we want to educate the illegal immigrants? Don't call me johnny blue skies dreamer, but I mean, wouldn't we rather have illegals in schools, learning about America, English, our history and values."
I'd rather be successful in instilling that education and those values into the children of citizens and legal aliens.
Once that job has been done to perfection, then you let me know.
8. "When I finished 8th grade, (and no, that wasn't the last grade i finished), was when I loved this country and our rich history the most. Hence, the oft heard complaint among those who have become disenchanted with American FP over the last few years, "I want to love this country like I did when I was a child." Well I submit, let's have them in school and pledge the flag."
And who says that their allegiance will be to the US? With the probable numbers it's entirely possible that entire cities or sections of states could be settled entirely by one group or another. With dual citizenship normal now and the ambiguous value of an American citizenship, where precisely would these newcomers place their allegiance?
Don't you remember the pro-illegal alien rallies where every flag in the world *except* America's was