Second Place
Looking back, it is a bit of a shock to me that I haven’t posted more often about immigration since starting this blog last August. After the Global War on Terror, I would rank immigration as the second most important issue in American politics. But, it’s a frustrating subject. Enforcement-minded folks have to fend off unfair charges of know-nothing nativism, which is really just a “stealthy and sophisticated” charge of racism.
That reminds me. Do you know how to tell when you’re winning an argument with a liberal?
When he calls you a racist.
As usual, some of the most interesting takes on immigration in America come from legal aliens like John O’Sullivan, John Derbyshire, and Mark Steyn. Steyn’s recent column explains why he doesn’t like writing about immigration. He then promptly demonstrates why he should do it more often:
I hate writing about immigration, really I do. I’m an immigrant myself and it’s hardly my place to say who should or shouldn’t be let into America. I feel like the weekending New Yorker who snaps up the last 18th century farmhouse in Vermont and then goes to Town Meeting to whine about the proposed subdivision on the edge of the village.
Nonetheless, like most legal immigrants, I resent the conflation made by everyone from the President down between the vast army of the Undocumented and those of us who are Documented to our eyeballs (literally: my retinal scan is in the Homeland Security computer, but fortunately it’s incompatible with the FBI computer, so my eyeballs can go on a bank-robbing spree through the Midwest with impunity). . . .I came here, like millions of others, to do the jobs Americans won’t do – in this case, the back page column of National Review (it was offered to Maureen Dowd and Anna Quindlen, but they fled in terror).
* * *
[T]he fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community send so much money back home to their family members that these “remittances†now outrank tourism and oil as Mexico’s biggest source of foreign income. I raised a biometrically scanned eyebrow when I heard that, but it’s true. As a subject of Her Britannic Majesty, I hate to keep walloping you guys over the head with my imperialist pith helmet. But, because you were short-sighted enough a century ago to disdain nation-building in Mexico, Mexico is now nation-building in America.
* * *
Who are we to distinguish between some uptight white-bread Pilgrim disembarking at Plymouth Rock and Mahmoud abu Halima, a hardworking young man forced to live in the shadows because he wanted to live the American dream and do the jobs that Americans won’t do. Fortunately, he was pardoned in the ’86 amnesty. In his case, the dream involved destroying America and the job Americans wouldn’t do was blowing up the World Trade Center, which he did in 1993.
* * *
Never mind Rwanda or Bosnia, think Canada and the United Kingdom. To accede to the bilingualization of your country and to import a population that disputes your border would seem likely at the very minimum to set you up for the destabilizing tribalization that afflicts both Quebec and Ulster politics. If you’re lucky. That seems a high price to pay for a cheap pool boy. It may be an economic issue to Vincente Fox; this side of the border, it’s about sovereignty.
And there’s this from John Derbyshire on the “path to citizenship” in the Senate bill:
What proportion, exactly, of the 11, 12, or 20 million will be eligible for this ticket to citizenship? Nobody knows. Given the scale and sophistication of the fraudulent-document industry (which has just got the biggest boost any criminal enterprise has enjoyed since the passing of the Volstead Act), my guess would be somewhere north of 100 percent. North, because folk will be flying in by the planeload on tourist visas from Bolivia, Bangladesh, and Burkina Faso, stopping off to pick up some phony documents on the street (“You want the $100 packet of just utility bills and rent receipts? Or the $250 deal with church membership, charity work, letters of recommendation from employers, and night-school certificates?â€), then heading for the Immigration Office. This, after all, is what happened after the 1986 amnesty, when two million people were supposed to be eligible, but three million showed up.
It would be nice to know a bit more about that “path to citizenship,†even as it applies to people who resist the blandishments of the fake-document touts and follow the rules scrupulously. Those rules, as set out in the Senate bill, involve leaving the country and coming right back in if you have been living illegally in the U.S.A. for less than five years. The purpose of this requirement is mysterious to me. Apparently it is to punish, with a tad of inconvenience, the less brazen of the law-breakers. The more brazen, the ones who have defied U.S. law for five years or more, are excused this inconvenience. Presumably this makes sense to somebody.
It’s this sort of complete irrationality on the part of otherwise reasonable people that makes this incredibly important topic so unpleasant and unproductive to discuss. It seems like some people just don’t like rules and don’t want to see anyone ever face any consequences for failing to follow them.
related articles
- Huckabee’s Conversion (June 19th, 2007)
- Anti-immigrant Immigrant? (June 13th, 2007)
- The Case Against Adolescence (June 12th, 2007)
- Daring to Criticise Multiculturalism (August 28th, 2006)
- Fox Criticizes ‘Extremist’ Politics (August 23rd, 2006)
May 31st, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Wrong or right, I understand a bit about the reason why a person living south of our border might want to immigrate at all cost (illegally and risking physical life).
If I was poor, struggling to feed my family, living in a poor nation, while the nation to my north horded in a greedy fashion most of the world’s wealth — then I might consider risking my own neck by immigrating illegally into that rich country and chase that “American dream” myself.
But I have a solution to the immigration problem. My solution would help reduce the number of immigrants my giving them a hopeful encouragement to remain in their own country. So here is my solution: Instead of the United States spending nearly $250 Billion dollars over three years for a questionable to senseless war, the U.S. should give $250 Billion to help build up the economy of our Central American neighbors (put into to practice the second greatest command) so that the nations to our south would develop economically and then maybe a few more of the natives might decide an equitable life can be lived in their own country.
Of course this solution would require the wealthiest nation to actually give some of its wealth away instead of spending it for more “Homeland Insecurity” and troops on the border.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:56 am
Rex, how do you think America became one of the wealthiest nations on earth? Was there some great generous neighbor who gave us a hand-out, and bingo, we are rich?
You seem to consistently assume that those who have wealth obtained it illegitimately by victimizing those who do not. I do not make the same assumption.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:04 am
For starters, we had help from the French in the Revolutionary war (would we even exist as our own sovereign nation w/out the French connection?)
How about driving Indians off of their land?
How about going to war with the Spanish so we could take their land?
An economic historian might actually be able to tell us how much our country has bennefitted from the backs of African American slaves which we brought from the “old world” to the “new world.”
Actually, when I posted my comment I had not even gave thought about “how” we became a wealthy nation. In fact, it really does not matter how we became wealthy. The fact is that we are a wealthy nation and we seem to hord most of that wealth for our own priviledges.
As we sing “God bless America” maybe we would do the “Christian” thing and “love thy neighbor as thyself.” by sharing our wealth a little more. Maybe if we spent more money (like the amount we are willing to spend on war) building up the economies of Mexico and other Central American countries then our Hispanic neighbors might actually discover a dream for living in their own country.
Think about it. SUch a solution makes good sense.
How did you like my little jab about “Homeland Insecurities”? I thought it was pretty funny, especially since we are a nation with “God on our side.”
June 1st, 2006 at 10:08 am
BTW:
Extremist asks, “Was there some great generous neighbor who gave us a hand-out, and bingo, we are rich?”
If God took the attitude towards people that I think you are immplying in this question, we all would be hopeless. The grace which God outpours on us should be transferred to us outpouring grace and blessings on others. “Freely give as you have been given too.”
June 1st, 2006 at 11:02 am
Jason, I’d be interested in your comments to my post on this a few weeks ago. Scroll down and find my post titled, “Romans 13.”
I think Rex is onto something true.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pm
JRB,
I think your post neglects to address the basic issues of fairness to those seeking to enter the U.S. who do follow the rules. Amnesty or a “path to citizenship” or whatever you want to call it makes chumps out of the people who followed the rules. That is unjust.
I think you and Rex have an unrealistic view of the world. We can’t help the poor in Mexico and Central America by simply erasing our Southern border. Mexico is not poor because America is rich. Mexico is not poor because it is located south of the Rio Grande. Mexico is poor for many other complex reasons beyond our control. Opening our borders even further wouldn’t fix that, it would just cause massive economic dislocation for our most vulnerable citizens.
By the way, why stop at Mexico? Why didn’t you propose that we fly half of Africa here too? Are they less deserving of a shot at the American dream because of a mere accident of geography?
June 1st, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I think you may have missed my point. I don’t suggest any of the radical things you think I do. I don’t propose easing up on people who break the rules. I propose changing the rules to reflect reality. If we realistically had 11 million African immigrants here illegally with thousands more crossing the desert to get there, I would have addressed them.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Okay, then what about the issue of fairness?
By changing the rules to “reflect reality,” I believe you are being unfair to those followed the first set of rules. The reality you are reflecting is that millions have broken the rules and we have allowed it for far too long.
What is amnesty if not easing up on people who break the rules?
June 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Fairness? You should know better than to resort to that argument. Laws constantly change; situations constantly change. We do not and should not consider ex post justice for those who kept the law past when we change laws to fit the present. That would be some sort of warped unjust unrichment argument; I don’t follow the logic. Repealing Prohibition was not wrong just because some people didn’t drink for a few years to abide the law. That’s akin to saying we should continue fighting a war that we might otherwise quit only because some soldiers have died fighting it so far. That logic is dangerous.
Amnesty practically may “ease up” on people who have broken the law, but I’m comfortable with that if the law wasn’t good to begin with AND can be made right in the present. Leniency or amnesty may be the price with pay to get it right. I don’t think those are abhorrent concepts, and I don’t understand their current taboo.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Wasn’t NAFTA supposed to fix all this? It is unfair to show preferential treatment to those who jump in line just because they have a shorter distance to travel.
I think the laws were o.k. (though I admit I’m no expert by any stretch on immigration law). The laws simply were not enforced. Since the last amnesty, we had the opportunity to make changes to our border enforcement but either the changes were not made or those made were ineffective. The most basic definition of a nation-state is that it has definable borders. The most basic function of government is to defend those borders. No, I’m not willing to go so far as to say that we are under invasion. But we seem to be awfully concerned what the government of another soveriegn nation & it’s people think of what rules, rights and obligations we set for our own domestic policy. It’s as though we want to be annexed.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Great minds think alike?
June 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I am not talking about erasing the border. I am only talking about our “Christian” nation (which envokes God’s blessing at almost every sporting event) acting Christian towards our neighbor by loving our neighbor as ourself. One way to do this is to take some of the rediculous amounts of wealth that we have emassed and spend it on building the economy of Mexico and the other cental American countries. But my point is not to necessarily exlude other poor countries of the world, it is simply to say that here is a humanitarian solution to the immigration problem.
I am just so sick and tired of seeing our rich nation put itself first in everything, believing we cannot live properously unless we remain king of the mountain. The world view I have is not unrealistic. It is a world view shaped by my theology of the Kingdom of God. And guess what… Jesus died and rose again in order to demonstrate that all other social-political worldviews are unrealistic, defeated and destined to failure because God alone is the Lord of time and history.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I believe God must want to puke when he sees one nation hording so much wealth and another to the south in utter poverty and the only response the wealth nation can think of is the selfish act of protecting its own interests first by building fences and guarding the border with military power.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Wealth is, of course, a matter of perspective. Maybe we should start by first taking all the scholarships that people are receiving to do graduate theology study and disbursing it evenly among illegal immigrants? I think it could be argued that spending $20,000-80,000 on a graduate education is more of a “conspicuous consumption” than someone who spends $25,000 on a used Lexus.
As for immigration, those people broke the law. They (mostly) knowingly came into the country illegally and are now wanting something for that. I fail to see the complexity in that. When other people break laws, do we reward them?
ALso, to argue that they came because they want a better life and then to say the life they want is evil sure seems to be talking out of both sides of the mouth.
June 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
I am not talking about graduate education and used Lexus’s. I am talking about a government that can spend 250 billion in 3 years for war but spend a minute fragment in comparrison for poverty. I am talking about a realistic manner for improve the immigration problem in a way that does justice for all, including the poor. And you and I might immigrate illegally too if we were the one living in a poor country, sruggling with little hope, while the country to the north basks in the delight of wealth.
Is spending a little less on war and a little more on poverty so unrealistic? The alternatives which so many Americans seem to favor is only realistic to them because they are the bennefactors of the wealth.
As I said earlier, God must want to puke his brains out.
June 1st, 2006 at 6:09 pm
We don’t hoard wealth; we create it. There’s a big difference.
If you’re looking for an example of a government that is rich by pure accident rather than productivity and hoards the good fortune for itself, check out the Saudi royal family.
It’s always about the war with you isn’t it? No matter what the topic.
Okay. Let’s do some math. $250 billion over three years. That’s about $83.3 billion per year. The Department of Education this year will spend about $78 billion on student aid. That’s in the same ball park, and unlike the temporary expense of a war — the student aid funding will go on and on.
In neither case is all that money wasted. There are benefits to liberating millions of foreigners from oppression just as there are benefits to sending millions of Americans to college. I would argue that the former is a more selfless, altruistic use of the funds than the later. So, if you want to argue for doing the more selfless thing — it would be to stop spending so much money making sure our own citizens are so well educated. Who is the beneficiary of that wealth? The academic class: students and professors and administrators. How much wealth do they produce?
I would also argue that both uses are more wise and productive than simply giving the money away. And by the way, we do that too.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:04 pm
No it not always about war. But when our president calls a war (considered unjust by even many “just war” ethicists) “justice” but then ignores places like the Sudan or the Congo (and thereby practices selective justice), I have good reason to question then where my taxes (and yours too) are being spent.
I have simply mentioned the war in this post as an example, in my opinion, of poorly spent tax money. Again, I am not questioning how big our houses are, how luxureous (sp?) our cars are, how gaudy are clothing is, how expensive our vacations are, etc… The ethics of how each person spend money is another subject. I am questioning the ethics behind the spending of our taxes by our elected officials (whom we potentially support with a vote).
So in regards to the problem of immigration (and the poverty tied to the problem), which seems to be more consistent with a Christian ethic. Spend money for military power and walls on the border or spend money to help build a stable economy in Central America in hopes that the residents of CA would begin to see the potential for experiencing a true “quality of life” in their own country?
Extremist, you are correct to point out that many other countries also have a wealthy class hording the wealth as well. If we lived in these countries, then we would need to speak out more on their injustice as well.
Bottom line, the current political discussions taking place in D.C. about immigration reform must make God very sick to his stomach.
Let those who have been blessed seek to become channels of blessing to the rest of the world! God bless the world!
June 1st, 2006 at 8:22 pm
The charity of others does not generally produce economic prosperity. It more frequently comes from stability, security, work, productivity, and the rule of law.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Look at Japan! I am not an economics guru but I know that somehow our contributions after WWII help Japan develop an economy that rivals our economy and may one day be more dominant than the U.S. economy. And the rise in Japans economy seems to be spilling over into a few other Asian countries.
Again, all I am suggesting is that maybe by spending our “immigration reform” funds on helping further the development of economy in Central America may help alleviate some of the gross poverty and by doing so would also create the desire among residents of CA to remain in their native countries (which then would bring some resolution to our immigration problems). Of course my suggestion may not be an effective help but it sure seems more ethical than the current practices being considered by our elected officials.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:20 am
I’m perplexed. I do not see the difference between questioning the spending of the government of a “Christian nation” and that of a “Christian”. If it’s OK for an individual Christian to use or take scholarships to fund a graduate education (which is a “luxury” and the equivalent of which could sustain a 3rd world family for 5-50 years), then why is it NOT OK for a government to use it’s money in the way that the elected officials see fit? Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:27 am
Apples and oranges, apples and oranges!
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:02 am
No, it’s your apples versus my apples. You appreciate the benefits of education spending, so you don’t call for cutting it. I appreciate the benefits of military spending, so I don’t call for cutting it.
Again, however, this has little or nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is driven by economic inequality, but that is not the same as poverty. Are millions of Mexicans literally starving and naked? If so, I missed that news report.
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:33 am
Maybe we have a moral (Christian?) duty to tell the immigrants NOT to come to the US, because we are such an evil and corrupt nation. If they come here, they are likely to become focused on earning money, wanting educational advantages for their children, and may even aspire to buying a large house or car. Yep, I think we need to send missionaries to the boarders to preach against the moral evils of coming to this country.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
You have read into my something that I have not even said. I could care less in this post how big your house is, how expensive of a car you drive, etc…
The problem is about the policies the U.S. takes towards immigration, which ignores the larger problem of poverty/economic inequality (whatever you label it).
As for my education (and yours as well)… While I wish the cost were different, I happen to believe the investment is a wise ethical choice that will hopefully bennefit the people I serve throughout my lifetime. Of course you might have a point in questioning my use of sholarships if I had a personal net worth in the millions but still took the handout AND THEN supported policies which prevented the less forunate from having access to the scholarships.
You see this is the problem. The U.S. does not want thousands of illegal immigrants entering our country (and I do sympathize with their reasons). However, this problem is only the result of the larger problem of poverty and the dispproportion of economic stability between our country and their country. So instead of the U.S. making policies that would develop their economies (addressing the larger problem), the U.S. simply wants to makes policies which solves its immediate problem but does nothing to alleviate the problems of those who want to immigrate.
Again, if we can help Japan develop a world class economy then why can we not do it for our neighbors to the south. Or does it takes us dropping and A-bomb on them first to finally garnish enough sympathy to adopt some policies that would actually help them?
Summing up, this is not about wealthy vs. poverty, rich vs. poor, etc… The problem is about the policies being adopted by the U.S. in response to the problem of immigration and the larger problem that causes immigration.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Rex - How can you want the immigrants to come here if you think this country and its decisions are so bad?
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:25 pm
I never said that everything about this country and all of its decisions are bad. In fact, there are many good things about this country just like there are many good things to be found in all other countries and governments. But there are some bad thing, bad decisions made by this country just like there are some bad things and bad decisions made by all other countries. Why? Because our government and all other governments are fallen kingdoms.
I just happen to think that our foreign policies ussually only reflect a selfish interest and often do not take into considerration (at least in part) the needs of others outside this country.
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Rex - I’m still puzzled then. Why do you think people in Mexico are better off in the US than in Mexico? If it’s for economic reasons, do you think that is OK? I may have you confused with someone else, but it seems that I read some fairly lengthy discussions about how living with little or “just enough” is a more spiritual, Christlike way than living the middle class dream. I think Ex made a good point in that I do not hear that MOST of the illegals are crossing the border because they are starving or because they are persecuted politically. It’s mainly because they want better jobs so they and their families can eat better, wear better clothes, have a car, etc. I am just still puzzled by why you think that is OK for illegal immigrants to pursue that when you seem to indicate those same pursuits by Americans are not OK.
As for governmental decisions, I think you have already pointed out above that in this country we have a vehicle when we do not agree with the policies of our government: elections.
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
You deffinitely have me confused with someone else. As for what Ex says about the reasons why people are immigrating… I think that is an easy position to stand on when we are the middle class of America (upper class of the world). I have not been to Mexico but I have been to Brazil and believe me when I say that poverty is a bigger problem in Brazil than we realize (and Brazil is considered a 2nd world economy rather than a 3rd world).
But lets run with this for a minute. Imagine caring for a family in a poor economy and community (urban slum or rural farm community). Now you are offered an opportunity to immigrate (legally or illegally) to a place where you are told better opportunities for work exist (thoug I believe many immigrants find the grass to be less green than they expected). Do you take the opportunity, risking everything including your own life, for the opportunity to possibly make more money that can help provide for your family back home? Or do you remain put, knowing the children of the family will grow up with the same economic struggles of your generation?
There is a reason why so many want to immigrate to the U.S. and I believe the reason is more noble than selfish greed. I believe the reason is probably similar to the same reasons the Irish, Italians, and Polish had for immigrating in the late 19th/early 20th century and the same reasons for the influx of oriental immigration after WWII.
So again, I think the problem of immigration is only simptomatic of a larger problem. So one meaningful, and humanitarian, way of solving the problem is to seriously start investing in the economic structures of Central and Southern America. If we were able to contribute to Japan developing a strong and stable economy, then why can we not do that in Central and Southern America? To only spend money on military presence and walls for the border is to only address our immediate problems and ignore the problems of our neighbor, which I believe is immoral. Further more, if we as a country are going to daringly continue to be world leaders then we have a responsibility to our neighbors who have less then we have.
I also think we could spend a little more effort in debunking the myth that if a person immigrate illegally that they are going to find an economically prosporous life. Our neighbors to the south need to know that as an illegal immigrant (who probably does not speak English well), they are going to find life to be a struggle because of the structures of our own society (regardless of whether those structures are right or wrong).
Summing up… I am aware of the immigration problem and it is a serious one. I simply want to find a solution that does not just bring a resolution to our greatest needs but also will bring aide to the needs of our fellow humans living in poverty striken nations.
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:26 pm
What do you call this?
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:30 am
A good start — but certainly not enough. We have spent 285 billion for war in three years and call it justice. Whether the war is justice or not, until we match our spending on foriegn aid per year for our spending on war we then reduce the concept of justice to primarily an act of war. Theological ethics aside, I think you and I would both agree that justice, as far as God is concerned, is more than just an act of war.
However, I have a suspicion that most Americans would begin voting differently if the politicians they support began giving nearly 100 billion away per year for foriegn aid.
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 am
How much do you think the USAID budget is? How much do you think it should be?
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:31 am
I don’t know how much the budget is. I looked at the link you provided (btw, thanks for the link) but did not see any actual figure.
I am not sure how much the budget should be but I do know this… If as a country we are going to invoke God’s blessing, then we ought to be about the sort of justice in the world that God is about. And from my viewpoint, we fall very far short of seeking the sort of Justice that God is concerned about. It seems the U.S. is more interested in protecting its own interests (which is sort of ironic, since we believe God is on our side).
But it is not just the financial contributions, what about the physical manpower? How many soldiers are in the Middle East? Would we dare put that many soldiers in Africa during peace-time to build irrigations systems and better structures for farming?
I never have said that the U.S. does not give. And we probably are bigger givers percetage wise than other 1st world countries (which is to their shame as well). Nevertheless, I think we could do A LOT more.
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:33 am
It’s about $9.3 billion. There are other forms of aid, including private charity, so this is not the total measure of the generosity of the American people by any stretch. But assume it is for the sake of discussion.
As we established earlier, we give about $78 billion dollars per year to college students. That’s more than eight times what we distribute through USAID. One could argue that all this subsidy of higher education increases the tuition prices because the schools will charge whatever the market will bear. Tuition has increased about a quickly as the federal aid available to pay for it. If the subsidy were removed, schools would have to become more efficient and more attentive to the needs of their students in order to attract enough of them to stay in business. And how much of that money is currently used to just prolong the adolescence of young people who don’t want to grow up and get a real job. How many years of college education are treated as four-year drinking vacations?
Given all that, would you support shifting some or all of that $78 billion to USAID (obviously there are much better options for shifting federal funding, but for the sake of discussion, assume that this is the only one)?
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:07 am
Ah! The evils of Capitolism :-).
Hypothetically speaking… Yes, I do think the price of education (along with other industries) is way to much and if the was some way to fix that without creating an economic anarchy I would. I further would love to see the private sector provide more money for tuition scholarships, which then would not only relieve some of the federal government committments but also might even provide even more tuition grants for economically underpriviledged college student. However, given the ability of even private citizens to hoard wealth this seems unlikely.
Having said that, I do believe in education and believe that the cost (not matter how much the dark side of capitolism raises the cost) is a worthwhile investment. What I wish is that more students (especially at the Christian universities) would be taught to use their educations in service to others (for the sake of the Kingdom) and not simply as a means to climb the ladder of sucsess and wealth.
Obviously since my vocation is theology/ministry I have my biases. But I believe the theologian is needed in this world as much the physicians, attorneys, engineers, teachers, etc… In each profession you have both the good and bad apples. Hopefully the money we have spent on our education will produce good apples in both of us.