Congeries of cross connected concepts
I have written all my Congressmen expressing my strong opposition to the current immigration “reform” bill, which it seems to me will “reform” immigration in the same way the McCain-Feinbold legislation “reformed” political advertising. Oddly, my opposition was cemented by a post at Brothers Judd where Judd writes very insightfully
It’s practically the ideal bill for a president to be pushing because none of the details matter and all compromises are allowable, so long as the final product includes de facto amnesty for the folks already here.
Exactly. Without serious border control, none of the details matter, something other pro-amnesty agitators either don’t understand or deliberately conceal. That’s why policy wonk discussions about the precise details in the current legislation have no effect. No one who is opposed believes any of that will actually happen, just like no one believes in offsetting taxes1. Judd, to his credit, is honest enough to state this outright.
Unfortunately for the pro-amnesty agitators, the admission that this series of amnesties coupled with lack of border security means that the USA effectively has no immigration law isn’t something that’s popular politically. Therefore they are reduced to arguing either (1) racism or (2) strawmen.
The racism / nativism argument is beneath the dignity of a response, but there is one strawman that is so common yet so silly that I will address it. This is that claim that anti-amnesty is anti-immigration2. One can see the primary thrust of it in the constant elision of the word “illegal” in discussing immigration (the entire point of using the term “undocumented” in its place). Even otherwise well-argued proponents fall in to this trap. But it seems a reasonable position to take to be in favor of moderate amounts of something, instead of it being a dichotomy of either none or unlimited amounts.
I think this happens because, at some level, even proponents realize that the real argument is about border security and that’s a losing issue. Winning requires obsfucating that as much as possible because it’s easy to favor border security and increased immigration. In contrast, the only valid position on immigration for the anti-border security view is unlimited immigration. At least Judd has the courage of his convictions in making that point directly3.
P.S. One thing that peeves me is how much effort the Bush administration is putting in to this instead, of say, validating our efforts in the Long War.
1 The same way no one believes the promise to cut tax A in exchange for raising tax B. Odd, isn’t it, how so many people who would never fall for that believe in the enforcement provisions of the current immigration bill despite the same sort of history of broken promises.
2 There are, of course, anti-amnesty agitators who are also anti-immigration. But if one wants to go there, why not tar the pro-amnesty types with their Tranzi support?
3 Although perhaps that’s because he is so invested in the tarring of his opponents as racists.
| Bret Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 12:33 |  |
Is it possible to have real border security? I’ve been four-wheeling out in the desert east of here and I’ve accidentally crossed the border into Mexico (and back). It’s hard to believe they could make it non-porous.
| h-man Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 13:31 | |
Bret Employer sanctions, even under present law, if strictly enforced should cut 70% of the illegal crossings. Clinton and Bush have not made a good faith effort for the last 15 years. I talking about 1000 or so criminal prosecutions against franchise restaurants, manufacturers, and construction companies per year. Legitimate companies would cave and seek to have the law enforced on their competitors. It would be expensive but the president needs to ask for the money and I think he would get it. Only then could an agreement be reached on amnesty. (Which I support!!) I’m not suggesting that the law couldn’t be improved. A wall would help, but isn’t a necessity.
AOG
No borders, no country. However arguments of reductio absurdum don’t work with OJ, since he readily accepts the conclusion apparently. He’s a sideshow, politicians are the ones who need to feel the pressure.
| Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 13:44 | |
Bret;
Perhaps we could try securing the border? What I don’t understand is the (not on your part) vehement objection to even trying. Look at the resistance to the border fence even after the money was appropriated.
Moreover, as h-man points out, while we won’t ever have perfect border security, we can certainly do enormously better than we are now at a reasonable expense.
h-man;
Yes, I think we could have a far more reasoned and rational discussion on immigration if the borders were secured. At a minimum, you could then much more easily separate the actual nativists from the patriotic.
| Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 13:46 | |
Woops, one more point — there has been much discussion about what a desirable rate of immigration is. Yet such a discussion is angels on the head of a pin without border security, because it won’t be the USA deciding what the rate is.
| Bret Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 15:20 | |
I can’t support Employer sanctions. I just can’t see it being criminal to hire somebody. If anything is illegal it’s coming into the country illegally. To punish other, innocent people who happen to accidently hire them is completely unjust in my opinion. Of course, I’m an employer, so I am, no doubt, biased.
I’m also surprised that Employer sanctions would be so effective. We work with fruit growers and they never hire anybody to pick directly. Instead, they contract that out to a subcontractor. But the subcontractor is just some guy (legally here) who is basically just a go between. If the immigration guys come to the field, that person isn’t even there and just takes the money and runs, that particular subcontracting “company” closes down, a new one takes its place, and it gets back to business as usual within a few hours.
| h-man Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 17:45 | |
I’m an employer also. If you have a photocopy of a “fake” resident alien card and a photocopy of a “fake” social security card then you’re clean. The point is though, after the descrepancy is pointed out to you, then it is you’re decision to let the employee go or be prosecuted. Nothing innocent after that.
Wal-mart quickly disengaged from “subcontractors” who were doing work for them, after the government unearthed the illegal aliens. I don’t know which restaurants are in your area, but here I can walk into the kitchen of Outback Steakhouse, Red Lobster, or any other restaurant chain and point out illegals by the dozen. Would not potential prosecution jeopardize the investment those companies have made?
In the agricultural sector, when a grower is found to have been “inadvertantly” using subcontractors who have broken the law, don’t you think he would be willing to sign an agreement with the government to have pre-approval of employees and subcontractors as to legal status?
The whole point of the exercise is to stop the continuing movement of illegals from Mexico. Amnesty would then be a viable option for alleviating commercial disrupttions. I’m not suggesting war against the economy, but obedience to the law.
| Bret Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 18:03 | |
h-man wrote: “I can walk into the kitchen of Outback Steakhouse, Red Lobster, or any other restaurant chain and point out illegals by the dozen.”
How?
| h-man Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 19:00 | |
First off, in the case of Red lobster, they are housed in apartments not more than a mile from my factory. They work at night and have applied to for work for a day job with me. They have used resident alien cards with names and pictures of former employees, who had worked for me. I’m not Sherlock Holmes, but duh.
| David Cohen Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 19:38 | |
AOG: First off, I was responding to Harry, who was clearly not limiting his comments to illegal immigration. See here and here.
Second, statements like h-man’s No borders, no country just can’t be taken at face value. The United States has never had “borders” in that sense from colonial days through today.
Third, as I said in the post, I’d like to have secure borders along with large number of (preferably legal) immigrants. But America with unsecured borders and open immigration is America in a way that a nation with secure borders and no immigration (our current legal regime counts as no immigration in my book — fewer than half a million new legal immigrants is derisory) is not America.
| Hey Skipper Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 19:51 | |
AOG:
Woops, one more point — there has been much discussion about what a desirable rate of immigration is. Yet such a discussion is angels on the head of a pin without border security, because it won’t be the USA deciding what the rate is.
Exactly.
I think it is also worth noting that Mr. Judd plays the racism card for exactly the same reason he, and anyone else, plays the nazi card: it completely ends debate, without the bother of having to delete posts.
| Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 May 2007 at 21:22 | |
Mr. Cohen;
For (1) and (2), I didn’t read those comments that way, but since you weren’t writing at me, I will let Mr. Eagar defend his statements.
As for (3), I think an America with closed borders and low immigration would be very temporary. Proponents of increased immigration would (IMHO) find such arguments much better received if the American Street thought it was something under our control.
