How Do You Feel About Immigration?
Nick Gillespie | April 11, 2006, 7:08am
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that three-quarters of Americans think the government is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration. But three in five said they favor providing illegal immigrants who have lived here for years a way to gain legal status and eventual citizenship. The idea received majority support from Democrats, independents and Republicans. One in five Americans embraced the House bill, which includes no guest-worker program and would make felons out of those in this country illegally.
More about yesterday's pro-immigration rallies in DC, New York, Phoenix, and elsewhere here.
The Washington Times puts the total number of marchers nationwide yesterday at "more than a million" and says "Protests provide boost to Democrats."
That last point strikes me as pretty debatable--and not simply because there's a vast majority of Americans against illegal immigration. More important, to the extent these immigration rallies will be effective at reshaping the public debate (especially on questions of guest worker programs and amnesty/citizenship for current illegals) it will be precisely because they are seen as non-partisan (this despite the lurking presence of the Service Employees International Union, a pro-Dem group).
sgtbilly | April 11, 2006, 9:04am | #
It?s beyond my comprehension why people feel that illegal immigrants deserve amnesty? Or for that fact why they have to right to even protest? Especially when the bottom line is they are here illegally. The moment they decided to set foot on our soil and circumvent the immigration system, - they became illegal. Why? Because they claim they want to better their lives?
My wife was also someone who wanted to come to the United States. After being married for more then 15 years, we decided to move back to the US, (I'm in the military) she went through the necessary visas and permits to enter the US. She has since given up her German Passport and become an American Citizen! But if she had to go through that process, why should we allow amnesty to those who have openly circumvented the law?
And if my wife had to go through that process why shouldn't the Mexicans? Just because you have illegials that scurried across the border during the dark night hours and are now demanding a way to become Americans and have the same rights as Americans- well thats pure "Poppycock!!"
What have they done for America? The excuse they use is that are they are there to work jobs that most American won't work. But when they get paid for those low paying jobs, they take their money they've earned illegally, - don't pay taxes, allow us to pay for their medical care and the cost to educate their children. Then they demand the entire time not to speak the national language of English, and wave their Mexican flag around, chanting they are Americans!
And year after year most cities and state taxes are increased to burden property owners.
Give me a break Anna, I say make it a felony to be here illegally, put those that are caught to work helping the elderly or to work on a national assistance plan and then issue a national ID card for those who live here legally.
The final answer, - I say put a few claymore mines along the Mexican -American boarder and we can eliminate all of the problems with illegal aliens.
tarran | April 11, 2006, 9:15am | #
Rub our noses in what?
Frankly, I've seen very few libertarian comments on this thread. If you believe in respecting private property rights, the freedom of association, and the freedom to contract, all of which all serious (as opposed to fraudulent statists in sheep's clothing) libertarians do, then immigration is a non issue.
A border is a line drawn in the sand. Period. Let us imagine that the Castellano crime family was preventing shop-keepers from moving into or out of their territory from/to the territories controlled Gambino crime family. Now would we be having any debate on whether free movement of these shopkeepers should be permitted or not? Would we be debating how much protection money they must pay, or what earning power they should demonstrate before making the move?
Jersey is right. Opponents of immigration are ethnicists. When you scratch them deep enough you find the old ethnicists fears, that they will breed with our children, that they don't talk the same language as us and must be making fun of us, that they'll outbreed us and make us poor, that they are going to ruin the stuff my parents made.
As long as someone is not stealing or bilking innocent people, they are welcome in my neighborhood. That's the proper libertarian postion.
Lest the fan-boys of the Democratic wing of the Boot-On-Your-Neck party start feeling too good about themselves, your masters want to limit immigration too, can't have those cheap laborers competing with your unions now can you? The whole legalization push is to force employers to pay the minimum wage, which throughout its history has been a move to reduce the comparative disadvantage union labor suffers under (namely that the price themselves out of the market). So in the end, you want to legalize them, but make it harder for them to find work. how very nice of you.
If it weren't for the millions of people who suffer because of the willingness of people to use the violence of the state to further their agenda, this debate would actually be comical.
Jersey McJones | April 11, 2006, 10:51am | #
I've seen rambling, nonsensical rants before, but this one sounds like the grumblings of a half-sane street bum. In one sentence you link the need for skilled people with both individualism and "the liberal arts curricula". My, oh, my, your mind is a veritable cornicopia of crazy.
You know JMJ, Evan's not wrong.
I just re-read your post:
like rabid individualism which has led to the decline of the family
Are you injecting crack into your eyeballs again JMJ?
Comment by: Mark at April 11, 2006 10:40 AM
---
Mark, the scumbag, selfish, spoiled "me" generation that manifested it's scumbaggery in Reagan, will destroy the American family. I firmly believe this. These scum have even managed to get their Me-ism into relgiion with their creepy "personal relationship with God" bullcrap idiocy. We are self-absoebed assholes of the lowest order and it's why the world looks at us as barbarians. We will eventually become a pathetic third world state with our self-centered, incurious, egotistic, narcissistic, arrognat, uneducated stupidity. We have failed the family unit and, as Marx warned us, allowing the state to be coopted by big money, we have disintegrated into little "ones," powerless in our one-ness because we have no true groups for advocacy of our needs.
Get it yet? (If you think that sounds like I';m on drugs then you just proved everything I wrote above).
JMJ
Evan | April 11, 2006, 10:52am | #
"You missed the point. The point I was making is that if we need skilled labor then we therefore have a lack of skilled people and therefore we have social and academic problems that we need to address."
No, Jersey, I got your point. It's simply that I disagree with the assertion that gave rise to this statement in the first place: namely, that we "need" to import skilled labor. It has nothing to do with "need", it has to do with basic economics. If we are too "good" or "spoiled" to do this labor here, then yes, it does have to do with our wealth. Honestly, Jersey, this is a mighty big red herring you've unveiled. Even if I were to accept your assertion that we "can't" do skilled labor here and thus need to import skilled labor from other countries, it is quite unrelated to the topic at hand, which is: importing
unskilled labor from Mexico. And, again, this is not so much out of "need", but for economic gain. We don't hire the Oaxacan daylaborer for $5/hour to do shitty, hot work because nobody here is able to do it---we hire him because he'll actually do that work for $5/hr, while us Americans are, on the whole, too "spoiled" by our wealth to do so.
"This has nothing whatsoever to do with rising wealth (in the case of importing skilled labor) and everything to do with a society in decline. Get it?"
Get what? How does importing skilled labor speak
anything to "societal decline"? You've attempted to make several weak links, but they make absolutely no sense---especially since the entire situation is hypothetical---we're importing
unskilled labor, not skilled labor.
In serious intellectual debate, you've simply got to do better than "the liberal arts school curricula has resulted in a lack of skilled labor, thus illustrating the demise of our society".
Jersey McJones | April 11, 2006, 11:00am | #
Evan,
"No, Jersey, I got your point. It's simply that I disagree with the assertion that gave rise to this statement in the first place: namely, that we "need" to import skilled labor. It has nothing to do with "need", it has to do with basic economics. If we are too "good" or "spoiled" to do this labor here, then yes, it does have to do with our wealth. Honestly, Jersey, this is a mighty big red herring you've unveiled. Even if I were to accept your assertion that we "can't" do skilled labor here and thus need to import skilled labor from other countries, it is quite unrelated to the topic at hand, which is: importing unskilled labor from Mexico. And, again, this is not so much out of "need", but for economic gain. We don't hire the Oaxacan daylaborer for $5/hour to do shitty, hot work because nobody here is able to do it---we hire him because he'll actually do that work for $5/hr, while us Americans are, on the whole, too "spoiled" by our wealth to do so."
This is semantics, Evan. Whatever. "Need" is very subjective, and I, like you, may not see a need where others do.
"This has nothing whatsoever to do with rising wealth (in the case of importing skilled labor) and everything to do with a society in decline. Get it?"
"Get what? How does importing skilled labor speak anything to "societal decline"? You've attempted to make several weak links, but they make absolutely no sense---especially since the entire situation is hypothetical---we're importing unskilled labor, not skilled labor."
Anyone who doesn't get why needing to import skilled labor is sign of social decline are themselves a sign of social decline. Look at engineering and medical grads from the universities. Go. Look at the numbers. Americans ARE NOT LEARNING. Look at our education achievements vs other countries. We have become fat, stupid, and lazy - looking for easy answers, like Libertarianism, instead of finding real solutions.
JMJ
Evan | April 11, 2006, 11:25am | #
"Look at our education rankings.
I'm looking. What about them? We're still smarter on the whole than we were a century ago. No, we don't test as well as other countries, but I'm just not convinced that there is a link between this and "rampant individualism".
Look at our crime.
Violent crime rates have been falling for years. Most of the prisons are chock full of inmates who were convicted of a drug-war-related crime. But, yeah, it's "rampant individualism".
"Look at our elected officials."
This is more a problem with the rise of the "political class", not with society as a whole.
Look at the level of discourse - Fox, Hannity.
Right, because the MSM talking head retards are indicative of our overall societal level of discourse. Hehe.
"Look at our entertainment."
Yep, look at it. Lots of brilliant stuff out there. What are you referring to, anyway?
"Talk to an f'n kid, Evan. Ask them how many presidents they can name. Ask them how many amendments there are in the constitution."
First off, who cares how many presidents one can name? How is that some kind of indicator of societal health, that we can memorize the names of these asshats that everyone worships like gods? Please. As for naming the amendments, yes, that is a problem---but, yet again, I don't see a connection between this and the demise of society.
"Look at our "productivity," measuring now service sector bullshit jobs. Look at our industrial base. Look at the trade deficit and thdebt."
Look at my goddamned nuts, Jersey. You
still think that you can simply post a list of bad things, with no explanation of each bad thing's direct link to said decline or explanation of what it says and why...and that that is going to be enough?
I'm tired of getting the broken record routine from you. It's time for lunch now. Feel free to actually post some kind of intellectually rich description of the relation between these things and "societal demise" that you speak of, rather than simply listing a bunch of bad stuff.
Jersey McJones | April 11, 2006, 11:33am | #
Evan
"Bullshit, Jersey. Bull. Shit. There is a substantial, and not just semantic, difference between importing labor for economic gain, and importing labor because of an actual shortage of skill."
Yes, I know. That's where the "need" thing gets subjective. The point I was making was that we do import some skilled labor (probably about half, but I don't have the numbers in front of me) because we lack those skills.
MP,
"I doubt that you are old enough to really have a relevant subjective interpretation of history. The past is always more appealing for those who didn't have to live through it."
I'm almost 40, was a history major, am married to a history teacher and work in international trade. Any more you want to know, MP?
Mark,
"Reeelllaaxxx. America is just fine."
That's what Patrick Henry's cabin boy said about the leak in the hull.
"First off, who cares how many presidents one can name? How is that some kind of indicator of societal health, that we can memorize the names of these asshats that everyone worships like gods? Please. As for naming the amendments, yes, that is a problem---but, yet again, I don't see a connection between this and the demise of society."
You don't see why a civilly illiterate culture is bad, huh?
JMJ
coyote1284 | April 11, 2006, 11:45am | #
"I'm quite sure that the citizens of Cambridge, MA have quite a different opinion about the proper responsibilties of "guests" than the citizens of your fine burgh. In your metaphor, who is the "owner" - all Americans? Citizens of Massachusetts? Middlesex County? Cambridge? Please square your answer with your general opinion about federalism and distant government.
Also, do you really think the government should have the same degree of control of people within the territory of the United States that a homeowner has over the people in his house? Please square your answer with your general opinion about the proper role of government in general, and restrictions on smoking in particular."
Working backward. I don't recall mentioning smoking in my earlier post, but I'll entertain the thought anyways. Are you suggesting that it's not in the US government's perview to completely outlaw smoking just as it is a homeowner's/renter's/landlord's (henceforth merely "homeowner") perrogative to allow or deny smoking in their home? It's a homeowner's choice to allow or deny drinking of alcoholic beverages by anyone in their own home, even though it is legal for persons over 21, however it is (almost) always illegal to provide alcohol for persons younger than 21 (some exceptions in some states).
It is also illegal for a homeowner to provide or allow use of controled substances. However, a homeowner has the right to allow whom they choose into their home, and I believe has the right to arbitrarily deny entry and use any means (ANY for actual homeowner, to include booby trapping; lethal force/firearms for landlord; physical force or weapons (if allowed by landlord) for renters) to prevent entry. Do I believe the government should be allowed to arbitrarily ban things because they are "bad for us"? No, but realistically they are allowed that power. Do I believe the government should use any means possible to defend its borders and arbitrarily deny entry to anyone? Yes, but realistically we don't have the resources.
The previous post was a metaphore for the United States in general. The "home" is the United States. Those for open borders or against being tougher on illegal immigrants should put themselves in the position of the "owner". The "doors and windows" are the borders. "Unlocked" and "not questioning the intentions of guests" suggests open borders. The "uninvited guests" are illegal immigrants. The "knockers" are legal immigrants. "295 kinds of giberish" reprents anyone that would take advantage of the open borders, not just Mexicans.
Sure, people in small towns may actually leave their doors and windows unlocked, because have feel there is no reason to suspect that someone may take advantage of that, yet daily there are those that take advantage of US's insecure borders and there IS reason to suspect the intentions of some of the "uninvited guests".
tarran | April 11, 2006, 3:37pm | #
Coyote, joe has your number:
There is no person named United States. Nor is there a partnership or business named the united States that is owned by anybody.
Now, if all of the property owners in the United States were to band together and decide to limit the number of people they would allow on their property, you might have a point, but that is not what is happenning is it? Otherwise you wouldn't need laws to stop immigrants from coming in.
The fact is, while some property owners do want to stop others from immigrating, others do not. And these others are happy to sell stuff to these immigrants, rent stuff to these immigrants, and buy stuff from these immigrants. Basic human rights, & manners means that they should be allowed to.
immigrants are not injuring anyone by their mere status. Of course, you could have the immigrant who commits crimes, just as you can have a native person commit a crime. So you deal with the crimes that get committed and build fences/lock doors/learn to wield a shotgun as needed to minimize such crimes from occurring.
An immigrant who underbids a native has not harmed the native, because there is no "right" to employment. Per freedom of association, the employer has the right to hire anyone he damn well pleases, or even to not hire anyone.
An immigrant who buys a piece of property has hurt no one; obviously the seller is happy with the sale, or he wouldn't have made it.
The same is true for an immigrant who rents a piece of property.
By equating laws locking people out of a piece of territory with the right of a property owner to bar trespassers you are making a serious error. In effect, it is the guys who want laws that are trespassing. By putting up fences and keep out signs where property owners do not want them, they are in effect interfering with the use of their property or trespassing themselves
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
