Critical Mass

Cody,

Welcome to the blog. I don't think that any reasonable person who is concerned with the current state of immigration is saying that immigrants are bad for the economy, or suggesting that they should be looked down upon for performing low-paying jobs, or calling for a higher minimum wage. I certainly do not subscribe to any of those views.

Immigration is what has made our country so great--we attract the best and the brightest, as well as hard working people in pursuit of the American dream. It's the *illegal* forms immigration that bother a lot of people. It's unacceptable that millions of people disregard our laws and cross our borders with impunity. Not only is this a law and order issue, it's a national security concern. If honest and industrious Mexicans can illegally gain access into the United States, so can others--some of whom may have murderous intentions.

Guest worker programs, amnesty issues, and other questions surrounding the 12 million illegals already within our borders are important, and must be addressed. But let's start with the basics: Let's clamp down on the southern border right now. Only after we've stopped the bleeding, can we reasonably consider the various options of dealing with those who are already here.

-GB

Guy,
Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to blogging here.
Perhaps the situation is different in your part of the country, but where I go to school in Arkansas there has been a huge influx of (mostly legal) immigration from Mexico. Accompanying their introduction to the area has been a rise in racially instigated problems. Perhaps many rational people are not suggesting that they be looked down upon, but they are often pushed to the side, considered inferior, and resented for "taking" factory work from members of the community. Granted, I live about 2 hours from the headquarters of the KKK, so take that all with a grain of salt, but social Darwinian thinking of the supremacy of certain races over others is alive and kicking here, as is the notion that those horrible immigrants are driving down the wages by taking lower paying jobs.
I agree with you that illegal immigration is the problem. However, there is obviously something wrong with our current system that needs to be fixed, and I don't think merely issuing ID cards or requiring passports to cross the border is going to resolve the situation, though those ideas seem to persist through the ages. What is needed is a good hard look at the problems with immigration, the value of open borders vs. the national security issue, and either the guts to stick up for the law or new legislation loosening the border. Simply not enforcing the law is what has created the issue as it stands today.

Cody,

Well in that case, you're not dealing with reasonable people. You're dealing with racists and xenophobes.

Overall, I don't think we're disagreeing all that much.

-GB

Cody,

Guy is right that you are describing the outliers on the far ends of the bell curve.

You cover alot of ground.

" . . . but social Darwinian thinking of the supremacy of certain races over others is alive and kicking here . . ."

Blatant BS but not surprising; such ideas do have their following.

" . . .as is the notion that those horrible immigrants are driving down the wages by taking lower paying jobs."

This one has a better basis for argument. The President has lately been fond of claiming that the illegals do the jobs Americans won't. True as far as it goes perhaps, but also perhaps a bit misleading. Americans may not be willing to do the work at a given wage, but might be willing if the going rate was higher. If the labor pool expands, the rate will go/stay down. So the President's claim becomes self-fulfilling. Though unemployment in the US is low, it is not no-existent, and those most affected (young black males the worst) tend to have the same employee profile as most of the illegals: poor, uneducated/illiterate (at least in English), and seeking or at least suited to generally unskilled or menial work. If the 11-12 million illegals were taken out of the equation, the commodity (labor) would be scarcer, and the price (wages) would have to rise. It is not possible to inject 12 million people into the labor pool without effects on wages. I admit I seriously doubt the people you describe in your comment have done that much analysis though.

Part of the resentment you note is undoubtedly based in the casues to which you assign it. But nationwide, and in your location, I think the contribution of illegals to adverse public opinion cannot be overlooked. You noted a recent influx of Mexican labor into the area. You may be correct that the majority are legal, but how can the locals tell? The illegal ones aren't going to admit their documents are fake, and won't be wearing "I'M ILLEGAL" signs. Our failed system of immigration and border control, and the ease with which controls can be evaded or flaunted tends to taint all immigrants with suspicion.

This matter has festered in American politics for decades, and the public is losing patience even if the President and Congress are not. The open admissions by Vincente Fox and other government officials that they are engaged in the "reconquista" of the southwest, and the recent incidents of attacks on US Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement by personnel from or with connections to the Mexican Army are quietly being ignored in Washinton, but not by the voters.

Americans have a history of ignoring problems for far too long hoping they will go away. But when the problem doesn't go away and they get pissed, something will happen and quickly, and we may be reaching that point. If so, our politicians better get with the program or there will be alot of early retirements.

R.J. has hit on the key phrase here:

"Americans have a history of ignoring problems for far too long hoping they will go away."

I'd like to slightly amend that statement: American *politicans* have a long history of ignoring problems. And that's precisely what's happening today.

The House bill ignores the hard reality that it's simply impossible to deport 11 million people, many of whom have children and ties to local communities. That being said, the House legislation is much more coherent than a proposal in the upper chamber of Congress.

The Senate bill smacks of amnesty and is almost laughably complicated. One finds oneself wondering how in God's name the Senate's "breakthrough" compromise could possibly be enforced. We don't even enforce the relatively simple laws currently on the books. Do these Senators actually believe that illegal immigrants (who have already broken our laws at least once) are going to trip over eachother to register in order to:

a) be deported
b) be deported, but with assurances of being readmitted after clearing background checks and paying fines
c) filling out paperwork to begin an 11-year process toward citizenship

These are all contingency plans within the Senate bill, and the basis for deciding which immigrants receive which fate depends--wait for it--on the length of time he or she has been in the US illegally. So think about this-even if most illegal immigrants decided to abide by this law, how in the world would anyone be able to prove exactly when it was that they illegally entered our country?

"So Mr. Sanchez, can you provide us with hard evidence proving that you did, in fact, cross the Mexico/Arizona in 2000, not 2003? Did you save a receipt from your coyote?"

I don't want to come off as overly cynical, but I just do not believe that anyone actually believes this is a feasible, realistic, and enforceable plan.

Which brings me full circle. R.J. is right on target. The press conference we saw today was political theater. The show starred a bipartisan lineup of top rate BSers trumpeting their new plan that will once and for all "solve" the problem.

Of course, they're not solving anything at all, which is upsetting. What really gets me steamed is that I believe they know full well that it's not a genuine solution. They're pandering, plain and simple. These politicians are feigning tough talk (to attract today's voters, who overwhelmingly disapprove of illegal immigration) while essentially sweeping the problem under the rug and appeasing tomorrow's voters in the process.

This is a politically-driven quick fix that will solve nothing. Let's hope this bill doesn't make it to the president's desk until some drastic changes are made.

Guy,

The American public is ultimately at fault for ignoring problems. The politicians only ignore them as long as we let them.

"What really gets me steamed is that I believe they know full well that it's not a genuine solution. They're pandering, plain and simple."

Absoulutely. They don't want to change anything, but, are trying to camouflage their complicity in the crime (yes, crime - it is ILLEGAL immigration) from the voters.

Playing with fire hoping the voters are gullible enough to buy it.

I fully agree that the American public is ultimately responsible for holding elected representatives responsible for their actions. We the people are ostensibly in charge of this country, and we can affect change through our votes.

On the other hand, it is no easy task for Joe and Sally Smith, who are both working people trying to raise three kids, to follow and analyze every development in Washington. The beltway crowd has perfected the smoke-and-mirrors act of getting their "solutions" featured in 45 second stories on the news.

Those of us who closely follow politics are a small minority. Unless we can convince everyone in America to make daily visits to nationalreview.com, the soundbyte culture in Washington will prevail. And the "drive-by media," as Rush Limbaugh calls them, will blissfully continue down their path, as well.

-GB

A couple of quick thoughts:
One, I didn't claim that the thinking was rational; however, much like beauty, rationality is in the eye of the beholder. It does not seem rational to us for terrorists to go around chopping people's heads off on international television, but to the one doing the act, it apparently is rational. Much the same, delusionary thinking about those of other races is not rational, but to the one who holds the ideas it must be considered not only rational but right as well.
Two, I think RJ is right in placing the apathy squarely on the shoulders of the American populace. Take a look at the last presidential election: we as a nation were absolutely elated to reach the 61% or so who voted, yet in countries where freedom is recently achieved voting rates are often upwards of 85% (I know I have seen some hard date on this somewhere, but I don't have it at my fingertips at the moment). As another example, take a look at my home state of Iowa. As one senator we have Chuck Grassley, known for his corruption busting and down home Republican politics. On the other side we have Tom Harkin, who is right up there with John Kerry in fabricating Vietnam stories to gain voters. Both have been in the senate for over twenty years (Grassley since 1980, Harkin since 84). Americans as a whole do not look into the issues; they just want to maintain the status quo, unless the media brings something to their attention
Even we as bloggers are largely limited to what we can pick up through internet and television news outlets; it is only in caring and looking in more than one place that we can become better informed. Most people are content to sit back and allow their elected officials to keep doing whatever it is they are doing off in far distant Washington, so long as money keeps coming to the state and CNN doesn't run any stories on their involvement in child pornography or something (sorry, couldn't resist throwing that one in).
That's all for now. Carry on.

Cody,

"so long as money keeps coming to the state and CNN doesn't run any stories on their involvement in child pornography or something"

LOL!

(sorry, couldn't resist throwing that one in).

Don't be sorry - good one!

Your observations on the problem of informing the electorate are, unfortunately, pretty sound. That makes the politically aware few more important in the mix, perhaps more than is healthy or at least more than we would like. Unfortunate but true.

In the end it is the public, at least that part that votes, that matters. In some cases the public forces the hand of the politicians, in others not. FDR, though not my favorite president, was correct about the threat from what would become the Axis, but getting public support for rearmament was like pulling teeth. Eventually the public caught up (on December 7th). This time, with immigration and border control, it will have to be the other way if anything is to get done.

Voter apathy is always a convoluted subject. We have seen a huge expansion of the voting roles, but not of the vote. In 200+ years we eliminated property requirements, poll taxes, added blacks and women to the list, and dropped the voting age, but it dosen't seem any more people really vote. In colonial and early national elections it was not unusual to have 70-90% turn out, even when some voters had to travel long distances to the polls (we're talking a couple of days in the boondocks). While we have expanded the franchise, the percentage of registered voters that turns out seems to drop as fast as the number of registered voters rises. I'm not at all sure that there are any more people voting now, as a percentage of the whole population, than there were two centuries ago.

Even ancient Athens seems not to have gotten a big turn out on a routine basis - a real problem since the voters didn't elect the legislature, the WERE the legislature. It's not a new problem (if it is a problem) but a clear grasp of the issue still seems out of reach.

The solution to our immigration is both simple and complex. The idea that the U.S. should (or even could) round up and deport 11 million people is preposterous (although I think it was Jay Leno who observed that if we hired illegals to do it, we’d save half the cost of the job). As much as we can be angry with immigrants for coming here illegally, America is just as much at fault for letting them come in the first place, and with no apparent consequence. The borders should be strictly protected—starting NOW. However, for reasons practical, compassionate and (I’ll be honest) political, I say just let anyone within our borders stay within our borders. Assuming they don’t pose a national security threat, just let them be. Perhaps this way we won’t alienate a huge future voting block by applying unfair retroactive enforcement, while we can still make a statement about our intentions to secure our borders and enforce our laws.

The point to hammer home to all the race-baiters (if they respond to logical discussion at all) is that this issue is not about immigration. It’s about ILLEGAL immigration.

Powerline Blog News has an unscientific poll up about immigration, with 8 options of what should be the most important factor in formulating a policy. The poll is on the main page.
http://www.powerlineblognews.com/
The results are at the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/j62ls

Seth,

You're right that simply rounding up 11 million and deporting them is not realistic. Not that it couldn't be done; the logistics could be worked out. What would be lacking would be the will. It would take a lot of dedication, and I don't see it.

A more practical solution would be to screen those already here, weed out the felons and such, and and regulate the rest.

This requires, however, one essential condition: you have to shut off the flow first. The task is simply impossible if you keep adding to the pool , and it would be politcally impossible as well - the public has reached a point where it won't support any solution that allows the flow to continue. The tap has to be turned off.

I fully agree the tap needs to be stopped.

"Not that [rounding up and deporting 11 million illegals] couldn't be done; the logistics could be worked out. What would be lacking would be the will. It would take a lot of dedication, and I don't see it."

So, if there was a public will for it, and if the logistics were worked out, would you actually support exporting all those people?

The writers of Review and Outlook at OpinionJournal.com weigh in on the economic ramifications of closing the borders: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008201

Seth,

"So, if there was a public will for it [deporting all illegals], and if the logistics were worked out, would you actually support exporting all those people?"

No. My stating that the logistics could be worked out was a response to the idea I've seen in several place lately that deporting 11 million people is simply not possible. To accomplish full deportation we would have to locate, collect, process and transport 11 million back to their countries of origin; the majority to Mexico, and most of the rest to other parts of Latin America. In fact, we have accomplished larger tasks before with fewer resources.

Our armed forces by the end of the Second WOrld War totaled about 12 million. They had to be located and collected, then fed, clothed, trained, and moved to the far ends of the earth where they then had to be supported with food, clothing, ammunition, fuel, medical care, and vast numbers of vehicles, aircraft, and ships for years (and then moved home again at the end). All this was done in an age before cell phones, satellite communications, and computers.And the problem of moving DPs post-war was as big or bigger.If we could manage that effort with pencils and index cards,the current problem is easy by comparison.

On the other had, the fact that we can do it doesn't necessesarily mean we should do it; there are a number of reasons not to. The fact that we have ignored the issue for so long means that many illegals have children and even grandchildren here hwo are citizens. I think that would be the biggest single problem - splitting families like that would be a bad idea and one the public wouldn't support any way. I also doubt total deportation would be needed. Obviously felons need to be shipped home - those that had records before they came, and those who committed crimes here. As to others, we need to consider carefully what criteria to apply and go from there.