I’m not entirely surprised, but a number of right-leaning sources, particularly libertarian-oriented, are objecting to Arizona’s new law to have their state enforcing Federal immigration laws. Jeb Bush is against it. So is Karl Rove. Lindsey Graham and other prominent Republicans are attacking it.
Jason Pye at United Liberty has a pretty good piece about it. Michael Gerson, former George W. Bush speechwriter, says, in this Washington Post piece:
This law creates a suspect class, based in part on ethnicity, considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny — but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command “Your papers, please,” however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be “Go to hell,” and then “See you in court.”
Of course, the bill is not without its defenders. Byron York, for example, gives a pretty good response to Michael Gerson, saying, basically, it’s no big deal, we have to produce ID in all sorts of circumstances even to do routine things like cash a check.
What it does do, inevitably and undeniably, is increase the power and the intrusiveness of government, which cannot be denied. It is also, I think, an inevitable result of forces that started back when we started requiring everyone to get a Social Security Number and a photo driver’s license. It’s also an inevitable result of generations of ratcheting up enforcement on the Mexican border to deal with an unprecedented wave of Mexican immigrants, something totally unique to American history; previous waves of immigrants came from overseas and were relatively easy to control. Stopping waves of tens of millions of people coming here on foot across a 2,000 mile border and at random beaches along the seas to our south is something we’ve never dealt with before, and we’ve increasingly ratcheted up budgets and resources for the Border Patrol and Coast Guard and increased demands on Americans to prove they’re American before they’re allowed to do basic things like hold a job or run a business. Those increased resources and increased intrusions into the lives of everyday Americans have not been enough, so we’re continuing a process of ratcheting them up still further; I expect we’ll see further laws requiring that all Americans be able to prove they’re American, and increasing the already massive Border Patrol and Coast Guard still further.
Most of it will fail in its goal because the border’s too big and too porous. Claims that “other countries secure their borders” are nothing but arm-waving generalizations; very, very few countries have borders as big as our border with Mexico, and fewer still have a problem with literally millions upon millions of people wanting to cross and willing to walk, ride, swim, even die to do it. In the few countries where you do see such situations–say, the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan–the results are the same: complete bedlam, and very little ability to do more than just slow the tide.
For the record, I don’t much care that Arizona is doing this; I don’t think it’s against their Constitutional prerogative to try to help the Feds. I also don’t see how you can do it very effectively without harassing American citizens, but I’m generally inclined to agree with Byron York that Americans are now used to being asked to provide government documents upon demand. I’m not very happy about that reality, but it’s reality nonetheless, and probably a trend that’s irreversible. I suppose the next step is probably to have the Federal government start issuing Licenses to Work and Licenses to Own A Home and Licences to Own A Business. Which I wouldn’t be happy about either, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see happen.
Because when it comes to illegal immigration from Mexico, most of the responses people demand are silly. The Border Patrol is already massively funded and has excellent equipment; it’s just not enough, so we’ll need to triple or quadruple it at least. It will still only be partially effective, about as effective as the fences that people vault over, dig under, or cut through. And we’ll ratchet up employment verification and I.D. requirements even more than they are.
On the whole, nothing’s really going to change with the illegal immigration issue until fewer Mexicans want to come here illegally. In the meantime, our trend toward requiring we register ourselves with the government will continue.
{ 56 comments }
Thanks for linking the York piece to add balance.
I am in the unusual position of being partially allied with the left on this issue. It’s none of the government’s business if I want to hire a Mexican.
1) We can’t afford to beef up the Border Patrol.
2) Let as many Mexicans who are not criminals, ill or insane come here as want to do so – just like most of my ancestors (the Italians had quotas to deal with).
2) Tax all remittances to foreign countries to discourage immigration.
3) If aliens or their children end up on government assistance deport them. We can’t afford to assist them.
4) If aliens or their children need medical care and have no insurance, and their country has a functional universal health care system (like Mexico does – it’s pretty good), stabilize them and deport them. We can’t afford to assist them.
5) Change the law so that children born of alien parents on American soil neither of whom reside here are not American citizens. Citizen employment yes, citizen tourism no.
6) No amnesty. I know people will just go back across the border, get their papers in order and come back. Try to catch some of them, and convict and deport them. This is a matter of fairness.
7) Legalize manufacture, buying and selling of illicit drugs. Increase the penalties on using drugs. Drug use is the problem, after all, but making buying and selling illegal has too many bad side effects. This is a weird compromise, but it just might work. Argue me out of it and I’ll probably fall back on full legalization.
Yours,
Wince
Well, I’ve already posted my policy recommendations to deal with the border. Apparently that 2,000 word comment was still too much of a “vague arm-waving generalization.”
I will repeat again that Arizona’s law is yet another symptom of the federal government’s complete unwillingness to address the problem effectively. And what we are seeing in the press is, once again, the typical demagoguery of the issue with cries of “racism” and “xenophobism” rampant from all the usual demagogues.
Here is a refutation of York.
Yours,
Wince
San Francisco cuts off diplomatic relations with Arizona
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.
Could we build a dome over that city? How is forcefield technology coming along? Or maybe we could get all these jailed illegal immigrants to dig a big moat around the place? Dos pájaros, una piedra.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/28/san-francisco-cuts-off-diplomatic-relations-with-arizona/
We don’t need no stinkin badges:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQR7aBmx8js
San Fransisco cuts off travel to Arizona? Dean, any of this demagoguery registering with you yet?
Okay; if it’s none of the government’s business if you want to hire a mexican, why should it be any of the government’s business what drugs you take?
This does seem legally interesting, at the very least. If I understand it correctly, Arizona basically copied, almost for word, current federal immigration laws and enforcement procedures, and made them into state laws and procedures.
Those laws were previously enforceable only by ICE and specially designated state and local police departments. And Arizona already had many local police departments certified to enforce the laws.
So the net result isn’t really a change in any laws or procedures. It’s just that more officers are now able to enforce them.
Hispanic dude backs into my auto in Home Depot parking lot in 2005 as I am leaving the parking lot. I call police. Policeman arrives. He calls backup policeman that speaks Spanish. Spanish speaking policeman arrives. Both cops get between us. One cop speaks to me. The others speaks to hombre. I tell my story; hombre tells his story. The two cops get in a whisper huddle.
Results:
Hombre has no driver’s license, no auto insurance, no vehicle registration, vehicle is owned by a cousin. Vehicle isn’t registered yet, the real owner hasn’t done so after a few months. Hombre cannot be cited, nor arrested because its on private property of Home Depot. He also cannot drive auto on the street because he will be arrested. I ask Spanish policeman, is he illegal. Spanish policeman says, we don’t ask that question, he hasn’t broken the law, besides IT IS SJPD policy NOT to report these guys to the ICE because they’re really, really busy. Meanwhile SJPD chief ,later, becomes the San Diego chief where he initiates the continuance of the same policy.
My auto insurance company coughs up 2500 dollars to repair my vehicle and sends me a letter that they will try (cough) to retrieve monies from hombre. Six months later, I get letter from insurance company. They can’t find hombre.
To date, I have not found a law or a policy that address’s these issues either in California, nor in the new Arizona law situation.
What’s wrong with this picture ? Why is it only federal officers that can arrest illegals and why is it police department policy in sanctuary cities all over California can set such policies. Unless, a crime is suspected, illegals (if we call these people law breakers) can walk free.
I personally think “Sanctuary Cities” are a travesty and do nothing but encourage scofflaw behavior. When you have the supposedly responsible Mayor and city council openly defying Federal Statute, and when the Federal Government actively supports and encourages the defiance of federal statute, what message do you think we are sending to our kids about the importance of obeying the law? And we wonder why people drive like maniacs, drink underage, smoke pot and run red lights…
> Okay; if it’s none of the government’s business if you want to hire a mexican, why should it be any of the government’s business what drugs you take?
Cause the majority rules and I don’t think the majority will go for full legalization. Full legalization will result in more dope addicts. Dope addicts (including alcoholics) impose significant costs on the rest of us, including committing a lot of crime, so increasing their numbers is not a popular idea. Small changes (half legalization) are easier than large changes.
Yours,
Wince
I see several problems with this law.
What form of ID actually proves you are legally in the country? Immigration paperwork is very complicated. There are people who actually have no current paper work, because the INS is so slow, but the INS considers them in the country legally. When you are waiting to get your green card, which can take a long time, people just have a paper form with no picture or anything. Would be very easy to forge those forms. Most US citizens only have a drivers license, but that does not really prove you are in the country legally.
This law is going to make Hispanics more reluctant to report crimes to the police, making it more difficult to catch criminals in Hispanic neighborhoods.
Aren’t police overworked enough? Does Arizona really have enough police resources to enforce this law so it really reduces the number of illegals in Arizona? I doubt that they do. They will make some effort to enforce it, but not enough to make much of a difference.
mikeca,
As I understand it, the new law isn’t really new. Arizona basically duplicated federal law. So all the problems you are complaining about in your second paragraph already exist.
> This law is going to make Hispanics more reluctant to report crimes to the police, making it more difficult to catch criminals in Hispanic neighborhoods.
Can’t be helped. This is already true. Illegals are afraid of the cops. This is true of illegal Chinese immigrants too. It’s true of illegal immigrants in Europe. Illegals are afraid to report crimes everywhere. Being an illegal immigrant sucks. There are probably zero countries which allow basically unrestricted immigration as I proposed above. That’s why I’m probably wrong that we should allow it.
> Aren’t police overworked enough? Does Arizona really have enough police resources to enforce this law so it really reduces the number of illegals in Arizona? I doubt that they do. They will make some effort to enforce it, but not enough to make much of a difference.
I think Arizona police may well use this as very effective crime fighting tool. If you have an M-13 gang member who is an illegal it’s alot easier to prove he’s illegal and ship him south than it is to catch him committing a crime.
I don’t trust many critics of Arizona. Linda Greenhouse, for example.
Yours,
Wince
Mike,
The law says that any State driver’s license or official ID card is considered proof that the person is a legal citizen. If the person can’t produce an ID, then the police officer must contact INS/ICE, and those people will make the decision whether the person is here legally or illegally.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
Also, I’m pretty sure it’s been a federal law for 50-60 years that every alien legally certified to be present in the US must carry proof of their legality at all times. I’ve read that from several sources, but haven’t checked into that law myself yet.
Then why shouldn’t it likewise be the government’s business if you want to hire a mexican? Why doesn’t the similar majority unwillingness to go for completely unregulated immigration (i.e., comparable “full legalization”) ‘rule on that’ as well for you?
In the same way, completely unregulated immigration will result in more illegal aliens. Illegal aliens (including those who shop locally and pay sales tax yet consume more in civil services than they contribute) impose significant costs on the rest of us, including committing a lot of crime, so increasing their numbers is not a popular idea. Small changes (criminalizing your ability to hire illegal aliens) are easier than large changes.
It appears that your justifications for the one apply just as well, if not more so, to the other, so you’re still contradicting yourself.
Therefore, again: if it’s none of the government’s business if you want to hire a mexican, why should it be any of the government’s business what drugs you take?
mikeca,
The Arizona law reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a REASONABLE attempt shall be made, when PRACTICABLE, to determine the immigration STATUS of the person…”
> It appears that your justifications for the one apply just as well, if not more so, to the other, so you’re still contradicting yourself.
No I’m not. Political capital is not infinite. I don’t think we have the political capital to do both. In fact, I don’t think we have the political capital to do either. Now you are starting to convince me that we should just ramp up enforcement on both things, a la Arnold.
You aren’t very persuasive, particularly by these methods. I could end up anywhere.
> Therefore, again: if it’s none of the government’s business if you want to hire a mexican, why should it be any of the government’s business what drugs you take?
Too much drug use is not good for people. The law has a teaching function. I want people to learn that too much drug use is bad for them.
See, you’ve already convinced me to change my position. It should be illegal to use drugs to excess, but buying, selling and moderate use should be legal. There’s no way we have the political capital (will, if you prefer) to do this, though.
Hiring too many Mexicans rapidly corrects itself, as they won’t work for you any more when you run out of money, so there is no need for the law to teach you not to do it.
Yours,
Wince
It is the INS and border patrol that enforces the currently law. They presumably are trained on INS paper work. The local police are not currently trained.
What the law says is any Arizona driver’s license or a driver’s license from another state that verifies legal status before issuing the license, is proof the person is legally in the country. California does verify status before issuing a license the first time, but not when renewing it, even though the original status was a temporary visa. I believe some states do not verify legal status before issuing diver’s licenses, so licenses from those states would not be acceptable. Some illegals in California have valid California diver’s licenses issued when they were legally here. Most others have fake ones. In fact many illegals have fake green cards. That is how they are able to get work.
mikeca, were you aware that Arizona essentially did nothing but write the federal statutes into its state books for the sole purpose of allowing their state resources to enforce the law?
Or do you feel the existing laws on the books have “several problems”? I don’t recall you mentioning that you had a problem with the federal laws until Arizona turned them into state laws.
This, by the way, is why I get so fed up with the Left. You’ve got Al Sharpton marching in the streets, doing his best to create racial division in Arizona as he has done for so many years on the east coast. You have the Mayor of San Francisco pontificating how he will boycott Arizona on his flights to Washington, which has exactly the same laws on its books. You’ve got race-bating pundits calling this a racist law, and frothing at the mouth across the liberal world because Arizona has made the existing federal laws state laws so they have some hope of having them enforced.
All of this is pure demagoguery. It’s political posturing and opportunism by politicians and public figures who measure their clout by how high they can drive racial tensions in this country.
Actually, now that I’ve read what the Anchoress wrote, I can see I’m being completely stupid about immigration and illegal drugs.
We are going to have to have an amnesty, and it will be the right thing to do. If we don’t respect our laws enough to enforce them, or even, in many cases, to pay lip service to them, why should illegals? If you don’t keep the trim painted, the window sills rot. (And we were happy to ignore illegals during the go-go-go good times since Reagan.) As long as there is a large minority in this country that believes that we are racist persecutors of Hispanics and they should all be allowed here we aren’t going to be able to enforce these laws. We are not similarly conflicted about burglary, for example.
I need to buck up, stop proposing wild eyed radical liberatarian utopianisms and come up with a staid, conservative position which makes Democrats lose in November. Same for Arnold and his wild eyed death machines. Nothing like convincing independants you are all a bunch of kooks. In this vein Linda Greenhouse strikes me as a kook. I strike myself as a kook.
Was that last bit CC’s last point? I think it was.
This all means a sensible amnesty and a sensible guest worker program and a sensible national ID and a sensible increase in paperwork and I’ll have to sensibly carry around ID everywhere I go, just like they do in Europe.
Oh, and the government can sensibly tell me I can’t hire a Mexican unless I fill out all these wonderful forms and get sensible approval. And they can sensibly tell me that no, I can’t use heroin.
Anger is so much more fun than being sensible.
We still can’t afford to increase the Border Patrol budget until we cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. That’s math and it’s always sensible.
Raise my retirement age!
Yours,
Wince
Wince,
All things are possible in America.
How about we pass a law that all voters must present evidence that they are US citizens.
That would be a good start.
Yes it would.
Re, the demagoguery aimed at Arizona
There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do.
Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before, political messages are now able to reach those who are both serious and seriously disturbed…
Here we go again, on the same never-ending argument.
I do not agree that we cannot control or even seal the US border with Mexico. But we need the US Army to accomplish this, not the US Border Patrol. We are dealing with an invasion of our country, which, if left unchecked, will replace our european-american population with a predominantly spanish american population in much of the southwest, and many or most of the formerly beautiful american cities out there will wind up looking like third world Detroit. I want none of that. Where cops are insufficient, send in the real army.
It is not easy to change our thinking, but we must. The world since the breakup of the Soviet empire has come to be clearly delineated by some eight or more separate and frequently mutually hostile civilizations. In other words, clusters of related cultures. Our border with Canada is friendly and relatively lightly policed, because it is a border between two countries belonging to the same civilizational cluster of cultures. In starkest comparison, our border with Mexico is unfriendly and now requires outright military attention, because it is a border between two countries belonging to separate and not infrequently mutually antagonistic cultures belonging to a very different civilizational cluster.
We can let in all the Canadians we want to come here, including the Quebeqois. Even with linguistic differences, they are all North Americans and so are we. But we and the Mexicans do not dream the same dreams. Our history is nothing like theirs. Our kinds of government is radically different from theirs. They are different from us, and unless those people can be americanized, we will have permanent civil unrest in this country, and the USA will one day break apart because of it. They can in fact be americanized in relatively small numbers of people homogeneously distributed among our main population. The same for relatively small number of moslem immigrants. But crowd them all together in rat-holes such as all of Detroit has become, or large parts of the southern California cities, then we are acquiescing in the planting of the seeds that will spread into civil insurrection and national disunion one day. That is almost what happened when the forefathers allowed large numbers of african blacks to be brought into our new society for purposes of slave labor in order to maintain the plantation system of the southern states. Either we stop this trend now, and reverse it, or this country will be finished. Possibly in the lifetimes of some people reading this message.
This is a key reason I absolutely positively want Barack Hussein Obama removed from power as soon as this can legally be accomplished. I see him not at all as an american president, but as a leader of a third-world movement to take this country away from the european Americans who founded it and to turn it into something that would be easily recognizable in the Kenya of his father or the Indonesia where he was raised and taught Islam.
So count me in for the civil war.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632:
We could take a lesson from Mexico re “our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
So Mexico protests?
My son hangs with a Mexican crowd, one of them ate dinner here tonight. I mentioned the Mexican laws, he replied that if you get stopped in Mexico for being an illegal, you pay the policeman and go on your way.
Arnold,
Too kooky. There are lots of ideas which are attractive because they are simple to describe, but politically they are too kooky. Like putting the U.S. Army on the Mexican border (your simple to describe idea), or allowing in as many Mexicans are want to come (my simple to describe idea).
Politically people seem to want a wall, strong enforcement and large numbers of legal guest workers. The politicos in Washington don’t see any difference between legal and illegal immigrants, probably because familiarity (with their own humanly flawed product, the law) breeds contempt. The rest of us want people to follow the law.
Will this work? Actually, all Dean’s verbiage considered, I think we should try it. We don’t have to have an amnesty (which drives me crazy because I can argue both sides and never pick one) since many of our illegals can simply come back over the border again with a valid identity this time – and I don’t think we will put too much effort into catching them. Passing a plan which actually tries to be popular with the electorate sounds pretty good right to me about now. It certainly would break new ground for the current Administration, who doesn’t care what we want.
Yours,
Wince
i guess I should weigh in with the obligatory opinion on the immigration thing. here’s my solution:
1. extend RICO to apply to employers who hire illegals. cut the drug war in half, assign the enforcement to policing employers in the border states
2. create a resident worker program for everyone here illegally who
a. can show documented proof of having been here since the Reagan Administration amnesty
or
b. has US citizen family here
resident workers may reside here – they get a “blue card”, akin to a green card but requires them to pay an extra 5% tax on their income for 5 years
resident workers may apply for green card status after that 5 years
3. require all blue card holders to join/create unions
I want the unions to do what they do best: muscle out scabs who work for cheap. I want every immigrant laborer to be making the same mnimum wage as citizens do, not one cent an hour less.
by combining punshment of employers with pressure from unions, we’ll have zero ilegal workers here in 5 years. And the workers who are here will have to go thru th eline like everyone else to get citizenship. Meanwhile, they can work – but they have to be paid at wages that dont undermine our domestic labor market
yeah yeah i know Im an idiot for reasons XYZ… :P
The problem is that the federal government, not the state governments, decide who is in the country legally. Having the state law enforcement attempt to enforce federal law is problematic.
Do you thing passing this law was not political theater?
By the way this law apparently allows Arizona citizens to sue their local police for not enforcing this law vigorously enough. Hispanics who are in the country legally or are citizen can sue for racial profiling when they are stopped. Sounds like this is a stimulus bill for Arizona lawyers.
Democrats are setting up 2010 to be another 2006 where they got the Republican base all riled up about immigration so that they could present Republicans as racist hate-mongers. It worked then, and it’s likely to work now. Obama may be a dirty, rotten, stinking liar, but he’s not stupid, and neither are the rest of the Democrat leaders. Republican leadership may not be overrun with liars, but they are overrun with stupidity.
Obama is already trying to paint Republicans and conservatives as hateful, racist xenophobes and trying to pick a path the allows him, and by extension Democrats, look like the reasonable ones while Republicans froth at the mouth and get every photo or video of a Republican attacking the “brown folk” on the front page of every newspaper and website in the country.
And there is so much frustration and anger on the right over this, that it will probably work again.
And another thing, related to the fact that so many prominent Republicans have come out against this law. For example, as Dean has cited, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Lindsay Graham, Michael Gerson etc…
IMO, this is one reason the Tea Party has sprung up, and been so successful.
Neither existing party is addressing the desires of a huge swath of Americans on this issue. And both will pay.
CC, this Arizona law was an unforced error by the Republicans from a political perspective.
George Bush and Karl Rove planned to make Republicans a permanent majority party by championing immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for illegals that have been in the country for many years. John McCain co-sponsored that immigration reform measure. Hispanics are socially conservative, pro-life and a natural fit for the Republican party. Unfortunately the nativist wing of the Republican party would not stand still for it, and blocked it.
It was Republicans in Arizona that proposed and passed this law. It was a totally unforced error, like prop 87 in California. Can’t blame Democrats for accepting the gift that Republicans have handed them.
Wince:
Seriously, you really need to review your premises.
Let as many Mexicans — blah, blah, blah — come here —blah, blah, blah, —but you fail to tell us they ought do it through the LEGAL process. California has thousands of legal immigrants that do not want there jobs in agriculture and in the construction industry to be jeopardized by illegal workers.
The Arizona law was written to withstand judicial scrutiny. The people that wrote the law had this in mind. So, York doesn’t need to be refuted, except in a court of law, unless some blurb from some internet site told you.
Drugs aren’t the issue. Dead Arizona ranchers and crime are the issues. The inability to stop border crossers by citizens or local sheriffs are the issue. Intruders on local rancher property is the issue. Mexican truckers that have access to every state to bring in contraband is the issue. Of course, the ICE/border police cannot do their job.
And, yes, you are wrong, illegals are NOT afraid of the cops. That’s why they come here.
They know every game and all the laws and every twitch between.
Arnold isn’t kooky, just yet. . But, he does need to realize that the real border runs thru every law enforcement agency and every state and every locale except mostly their hands are tied. because ONLY the federal government ICE office can do anything. And guess what they work with — paper work. Get it ? They ain’t street people.
Clinton told us to let those with driver licenses vote — automatic sign-up to vote if you have a drivers license. Like it isn’t hard to get one.
George Bush told us —there are NO Americans that WANT jobs to pick cherries in Grand Traverse county, Michigan, nor corn in Illinois, nor butcher cattle in Omaha or Chicago and no grapes in Napa County, USA or pick lettuce or tomatoes in Salinas nor do tech JOBS with internet service providers.
He was a little wrong by the way.
Are you starting to get the point ?
So mikeca, you’re willing to give Republicans blame/credit for passing this law?
I think they’ll gladly take credit for that. They’re on the side of 70% of Arizona voters.
That’s enough to win elections even in a rigged machine state like Illinois.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/042110_immigration_poll/
George Bush and Karl Rove planned to make Republicans a permanent majority party by championing immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for illegals that have been in the country for many years. John McCain co-sponsored that immigration reform measure. Hispanics are socially conservative, pro-life and a natural fit for the Republican party. Unfortunately the nativist wing of the Republican party would not stand still for it, and blocked it.
Actually, George Bush created a coalition of interested parties to facilitate that process
So show, mikeca, your evidence that:
“Unfortunately the nativist wing of the Republican party would not stand still for it, and blocked it.”
Prop 87 passed in California with almost 60% of the vote in 1994. It motivated Hispanics to be come US Citizens and register to vote in California. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only Republican to be very successful state wide since 1994. Most people think Prop 87 is a big part of the reason Republicans have had difficulty winning state wide elections in California since 1994.
Well, mikeca’s pejorative terminology aside, I’d have to more or less agree with him on this. Bush’s main opposition to the immigration reforms he wanted were from Republicans and if the Republican party had been fully behind it, it would probably have passed.
I also agree with mikeca from a purely political perspective that this Arizona law plays right into the hands of the Democrat’s play book. They were planning on demagoguing this immigration issue as a way to regain some of their lost popularity anyway, and this just gave them what they see as a perfect opening to do so. But to call it an “unforced error” would mean assuming that the only motivation here was political when I firmly believe that most of the Arizona politicians who voted for this consider the threat to their border citizens to be imminent and potentially fatal.
mikeca, sometimes politicians do something because they actually believe it is right. I know that’s a hard concept for partisan ideologues to comprehend, but it explains many “unforced errors” quite well.
Well. mikeca, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with that last statement.
But what is clear is that you are equating Hispanic = illegal immigrant. And that seems to be a common theme coming from the left/Democrats (racists?) and not from the right.
In my area, a large percentage of illegal immigrants are European and Asian.
[snipped challenge replaced]
Again, then why shouldn’t it likewise be the government’s business if you want to hire a mexican? Why doesn’t the similar majority unwillingness to go for completely unregulated immigration (i.e., comparable “full legalization”) ‘rule on that’ as well for you?
Okay,
I guess I’m wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjfEKTGb1_w
Democrats have for at least a decade seen the immigration issue as a way to gain a permanent political majority in this country by demagoguing the issue and painting Republicans as racists just as they’ve convinced the black voting bloc of the same thing.
And it’s probably gonna work folks. I certainly don’t see the current “brain trust” of the Republican party figuring out a way to out-maneuver the Democrats on this issue.
I think we mostly agree on this point too. Sometime politicians do things because they actually believe it is the right thing to do. Some Democrats are taking up immigration reform not only because they think it is to their long term political advantage, but because they think it is the right thing to do.
A lot of illegals want to do noting more than work hard, support their families and pay their taxes. Yes they violated the law to come here and stay here, but their employers where happy to hire them and profited from their labor. Yes there are many others who want to come here, but didn’t violate the law and are waiting for a chance to immigrate. Are we really going to uproot millions of illegals who have lived here for many years and send them back?
There are no easy answers.
In case I haven’t made it clear, I am not an anti-immigration person. I don’t like the illegal entry into the US, but I blame both the US and Mexican governments for most of the problem. I’ve met and worked with a number of Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, and for the most part I found them to be decent, hard-working, family oriented and frequently quite religious. In fact they are by and large the “good people”. I am not concerned about the demographics here, I think Hispanic culture is by and large quite complementary with traditional USA culture.
That’s one major reason I support reasonable guest worker programs and feel the USA should be doing more to help Mexico with their economic problems. It is quite literally in our best interest to do so.
Update: Plus, a lot of the chicks are HAWT and they don’t wear Burkas… :)
However, I find the Democrat tactics of demagoguing the situation and deliberately painting Republicans as evil racists to be absolutely reprehensible, but then I find a very large fraction of current Democrat tactics and leadership to be utterly devoid of principle and completely reprehensible, and am quite convinced that they will destroy what remains of the greatest nation on earth, reducing it to a beggar nation that won’t have an immigration problem when they get through, except maybe in the opposite direction.
Wince, McK, Aziz, Dean, et al, let me restate my case for a protected border and for keeping an american America.
1) I want NO foreigners at all roaming around or nestling into any part of this country without some official identification and authorization on file with authorities who can locate them when and if needed, and who can expel them if necessary. This can be a temporary visitor’s visa, a longer term student visa, or an immigration visa, all of which must be properly issued by a duly authorized consulate of the United States in that person’s country of origin. No visa, no entrance to the United States, no exceptions.
2) Our long southern border with Mexico, unlike the much longer but totally peaceful border with Canada, is obviously no longer under complete control of our civil authorities. Therefore, there is no realistic answer except to militarize that southern border and put it under control of our armed forces. Unlike the wasted billions (trillions, maybe?) of dollars spent on more or less futile attempts to pacify, democratize and stabilize a large part of the islamic civilization in the Middle East and elsewhere in southern Asia, it is far cheaper to maintain an army at home. Moreover, most Americans will fully understand the need to guard that border. Will some people be killed by all those soldiers? Only those who try to illegally cross that border and who resist arrest. More importantly, will our soldiers suffer casualties guarding that border? Very few, I think. Because very soon, the idea will sink in across the border that this time our intentions are for real, and their government will begin guarding their own side of the border to keep their illegals away from the armed gringo armies of trained killers. I like taking advantage of fear. It is the single most significant motive that keeps people in line.
3) As suggested by some of you, our country needs a system of cracking down on employers or anyone else who harbors illegal alien persons. To control this problem, I would use the same legal tactics that are applied by the US Drug Enforcement Agency, which routinely seizes and presumably sells automobiles, homes and other personal property of dealers of illegal drugs. I would break the financial back of any company or farm that hires illegals, simply by confiscating their property.
4) We must have a viable system of national identification for every person in this country, with non-counterfeitable identity cards of every person, based on that person’s social security number, and verifiable by the present and instantly accessible computer systems maintained by the US government both for social security and tax purposes. Any and all law enforcement officers would be permitted to require any person to produce their identity card for inspection, and to take into custody any person lacking such a card. Custody would not necessarily mean arrest. But they should be held in custody until the authorities could verify the identity of the person so held.
5) The public school systems of the United States, which in any case are funded to a large extent by federal or state tax dollars, must get rid of language training programs that reinforce non-americanization or even un-americanization of persons in this country who speak only a foreign language. We cannot long maintain a multi-national commonwealth and still remain a united United States of America. Likewise, all the foreign language signs should be removed, which will further compel the foreigners to learn at least the basics of our national language.
6) I do not like the idea of “guest workers”, and I do not like that idea at all in a time of a great economic depression such as the present one. Anyone employed in this country, for stoop labor or for any other purpose, should be entitled to some degree of protection of their jobs, and whatever social security benefits they need in order to live here under american economic standards. And I basically see the way the Mexicans are being treated here is basically the same as the handling of the black slaves brought to these shores from west Africa for purposes of helping a plantation aristocracy maintain that status. And I do not want our country to repeat with the Mexicans the same multi-century system of national degradation that was experienced by those Blacks and their descendants at the hands of this society.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Oh Cosmic, I knew it was only a matter of time before someone slipped in a “Burka” reference in there. :D
Aziz,
Unions already have far too many political advantages under the law. I dread the day when the progressives in Washington achieve their labor dreams and I am forced to join a union and work under the typical work rules. I don’t know why you always want to force people to do things your way, but here you are forcing people to join unions.
Mc Kiernan,
> Let as many Mexicans — blah, blah, blah — come here —blah, blah, blah, —but you fail to tell us they ought do it through the LEGAL process.
I certainly must have failed to tell. I thought that was obvious from my comments. I am against illegal immigration. I am very much for legal immigration. My inner libertarian says pretty much all immigration should be legal. My inner politician says that’s kooky. It’s our politicians in Washington who are perfectly at home with corruption and don’t really care whether immigration is illegal or not. I believe a strong majority of Americans are against illegal immigration and for legal immigration. Our biggest point of political contention, and one thing I’m having a hard time figuring out is amnesty. It sends the wrong message, but it’s not fair to ignore the problem for years and then suddenly squeeze people. Our second biggest point of political contention is how much legal immigration.
Arnold,
It’s kooky. Politically it’s especially kooky. Various nativist kooks (which you are not) will take advantage and demagogue your plan in the worst possible way. The Democrats will have a field day and the independants will support them. CC is right.
Acksiom,
The problems aren’t the same. Too much drug use is bad for you and bad for society, and, due to addiction, does not self correct. Hiring too many Mexicans is not similar to too much drug use. For one thing, hiring too few Mexicans is also bad for society. The teaching function of the law does not suit the problem as well. We really don’t want to teach people not to hire Mexicans.
OTOH the teaching function of the law is well suited to reducing drug abuse, and people are loath to abandon it. People want a real authority they can quote when they tell their kids not to do drugs. In this country the government can’t coopt religion for this purpose. Our best bet would be strong social institutions, but the multi-culti philosophy taught in the public schools messes that up.
Yours,
Wince
I visited a friend in Switzerland in the 1980s. When I arrived at her apartment, the first thing she did was take me down to the local police station to show them my passport and register that I would be staying with her for a couple of weeks. She said all foreigners in the country had to register where they were staying each night with the police. If you stayed in a hotel, the hotel would take you passport or passport information and take care of this for you.
Is this the sort of thing we want in the US?
Our Canadian border is no more under control than the Mexican border. People illegally cross the Canadian border all the time. The only difference is that the number of people who want to illegally come into the US from Canada is small.
Asset seizures are one of the worst parts of our disastrous war on drugs. Since law enforcement usually gets a cut of the assets seized, it changes the whole priority from catching criminals to seizing assets for the money. Someone with a lot of assets to seize is more likely to get raided, even if the evidence to justify the raid is very weak. In many cases where assets are seized, no criminal charges are ever filed. If your assets are seized, and no charges are filed, you have to prove the assets were not the proceeds of illegal drug sales to get them back, rather than the government proving that they were.
California repealed its asset seizure law a number of years back when it became clear the typical seizure was a few hundred dollars in cash from someone who was never charged. The police were stopping and searching people. If they found a few hundred dollars on them, they would seize the money and arrest the person. The person would then be released the next day with no charges, but the money would never be returned. To get the money back, the person would have to go to court to contest the seizure. Lawyers typically charged $10,000 to contest a seizure. If the seizure was less than $10,000, it simply made no sense to contest it.
The asset seizure laws were simply be used as a legal shake down racket by too many of the local police.
Americans have long resisted national identity cards. Look what happened to the Real ID act, which attempted to force states to standardize some aspects of divers license. I think half the states have voted to exempt themselves from that law.
Also, I don’t think there is such a thing as a non-counterfeitable ID card. Anything can be counterfeited. You can have a ID card with a picture and perhaps thumb print. The card could be electronically verified against a data base to check it is valid and the picture and thumb prints had not been altered.
We got rid of those kinds of programs in California. I don’t know how many other states still have them.
We have lots of “guest” works on H1-B visas too. These are common here in Silicon Valley. An H1-B visa allows you to work for only the one company named on the visa. If you quit, fired or laid off from that company, you have 30 days to leave the US. There are companies here that hire H1-B workers at far below normal salaries, and use the threat of deportation to make them work long hours. These companies though are the exception. Most companies treat their H1-B workers fairly, and are hiring them because they simply cannot find other people capable of doing the job.
Silicon Valley was largely built on its ability to attract the best and brightest from all over the world. That is part of what made it a center of technology innovation. I’m a native born Caucasian American, but I’m a minority in the engineering ranks of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is a result of American willingness to take big risks for big rewards combined with outstanding educational institutions and a pool of very talented engineers. While that combination may be uniquely American, the workers that make it happen come from all over the world. Silicon Valley has many competitors both in the US and outside, but it is the pool of highly talented engineers from around the world with entrepreneurial vision that still makes Silicon Valley the home to many startup companies.
America is a country that was build by attracting the best, brightest and most ambitions from around the world. America was built by people that wanted to be given a chance to succeed on their own merits, and not held back by class, social or racial barriers. That is what has made America unique. When America refuses to allow the best, brightest and most ambitions the chance to succeed here, that will be the end of American exceptionalism.
So, are the best and brightest being represented by the millions crossing our Southern Border every year? Will we be able to reinvigorate the Silicon Valley with the sheer ingenuity of unskilled labor by the millions? Just saying…
People like to talk about illegals being cheaper, but there are other costs which make illegals atractive. Right now the costs of all kinds of regulations are pricing people out of the job market. Obamacare will price more people out of the job market. We should take advantage of his election as proof that job discrimination is low enough to cancel the EEOC. That will lower cost of employment and therefore increase employment.
It is possible that the regulations needed to control illegal immigration will be costly enough that employment will be further suppressed.
Yours,
Wince
Wince,
As you say, I am not a nativist kook. I am in fact a culturalist, and now that I think I understand fully the paradigm of the post-cold war world as analyzed by professor Samuel P Huntington, I am a civilizationalist as well.
But it would indeed be accurate to characterize me as a radical. A combination of educational experiences in journalism and communications, followed by urban and regional planning, plus upbringing by a small-town bred hardened middlewestern man of the first half of the 20th century, and having been married to a wife of very similar temperament for almost 40 years, all wired me toward believing little or nothing in the way of untested dogma, but driven to examining the core issues as the base of every problem and looking for ways to fundamentally correct each such problem.
This is why and how I came to disregard property rights as opposed to community and regional interests in Dane County, Wisconsin; while at the same time furiously and unforgivingly attacking our present liberal president and demanding the kinds of emergency reforms to our border control and protection, along with related reasons that this country is now awash in a mob of frequently sullen, hostile aliens who came into this country illegally, and with some even more sullen, hostile and very dangerous people who came here legally from the islamic states.
Only a man with a mindset such as mine could enthusiastically support the Evangelical Christians as the core idea upon which the common american social structure should be based, and with equal enthusiasm sign up as a member of Christian United For Israel, and all of the above without claiming particular belief in the divinity or semi-divinity of Yeshua M’Natzrat, which is what Jesus almost certainly called himself. To me, American nationalism and the centrality of jewish Israel to the Christian world order are as natural as the proverbial applepie, motherhood and God. (Actually, I can’t stand apple pie, and greatly prefer mincemeat or cherry.)
One day, when I find the time, I will begin seriously posting stuff that Stefi and I do around Dane County, Wisconsin, in the name of the Western Dane Coalition for Smart Growth and Environment, which we helped co-found. That is a facet of both of us that few people ever get to see or hear about outside our southern Wisconsin locale.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Tom, I WISH the EEOC would get “canceled.” I have prayed for that since the 1990′s. I don’t have my hopes up, though.
Arnold,
> But it would indeed be accurate to characterize me as a radical.
Can you come up with a radically creative plan than is politically attractive?
> examining the core issues as the base of every problem
Well, you haven’t driven far enough or radically enough then. The (relatively) disfunctional Mexican political system is a core issue which you have not addressed at all.
BTW, mincemeat and french silk are my favorites. More pie!
As long as we are adding to the regulatory burden, we need some regulations requiring a good slice of pie with every fast food value meal! (I’m kidding, Aziz.)
Increase my retirement age! More pie!
Yours,
Wince
“Can you come up with a radically creative plan than is politically attractive?”
It was invented in the late 18th century, by a French physician, Dr Joseph-Ignace Guillotine, and proved a relatively effective and painless way of getting unsuitable politicians out of office.
“Well, you haven’t driven far enough or radically enough then. The (relatively) disfunctional Mexican political system is a core issue which you have not addressed at all.”
The (relatively) disfunctional; Mexican political system is best addressed by a good old fashioned Mexican revolution. Wait a while. It will come again.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
wrong thread, sorry.
Arnold,
1) Are the radical solutions proposed by the Western Dane Coalition for Smart Growth and Environment so uniformly bloody?
2) I presume you were actually being a smart ass. For me, politically attractive does not equal uniformly bloody. Got anything a Jacobin or a Marxist would eschew because nobody was killed / no eggs were broken? If I had a literal bent I’d be put off omelets, you know.
3) If you have a rather macabre sense of humor and I’ve been taking you seriously all these years because I couldn’t see your face I’m taking back your title as “A Force of Nature”.
Yours,
Wince
Wince,
You presume correctly. I was actually being a smart ass; humor with me always is forced. Later this summer, after we get our own website in order, Stefi Harris and I hope to beging posting our local coalition’s radical solutions for urban sprawl, regionwide transit needs, preserving farmlands and other open spaces, protecting the environmental quality of our lakes and watershed resources, and consolidating local public services on a countywide basis. Are these concerns radical? Relative to the perspectives of a vociferous minority of Dane County power holders, you can bet your ass they are radical.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
> Later this summer, after we get our own website in order, Stefi Harris and I hope to beging posting our local coalition’s radical solutions for urban sprawl, regionwide transit needs, preserving farmlands and other open spaces, protecting the environmental quality of our lakes and watershed resources, and consolidating local public services on a countywide basis.
I bet Dean would give you front page posting rights. I’d love to see it.
Yours,
Wince
Comments on this entry are closed.