Forget About Immigration Reform Any Time Soon
Nick Gillespie | May 21, 2007, 9:04am
The Wash Times has polled the Senate about the immigration reform bill crafted last week. As it gets debated in the upper chambers, the numbers aren't looking good:
Senators will be asked to make their first vote on the measure today, on whether to begin debating the bill. It will require 60 votes to pass, and leaders of both parties are urging their members to vote for it, so the debate can at least begin....
The Times survey found 17 senators supporting the current bill and another two who lean toward supporting it; 17 who oppose it; 22 who have concerns; and 32 senators who are still reviewing it. Nine senators' positions couldn't be determined, and Sen. Tim Johnson, South Dakota Democrat, has been absent all year because of a medical situation.
More here.
Given the many stupid and unworkable provisions in the bill (such as the "touchback" provisions and increased fines on employers), its failure is not necessarily a bad thing. Though it's likely that any defeat of a "comprehensive" bill (comprehensive being the keyword for any legislation that doesn't seek to immediately deport 12 million illegals currently in the country), will be interpreted as a win for immigration isolationists. But before the Duncan Hunters and Tom Tancredos of the world get worked up on that score, they ought to remember the '06 midterms, in which immigration foes tumbled readily.
Reason's guide to reality-based immigration policy is online here.
Ken | May 21, 2007, 12:46pm | #
"Which might be a relevant point if any of these immigrants were coming from Spain or Portugal. Mexican culture has some slight differences from Spanish culture."
I agree, it is much, much worse.
"I know! I mean, we already live in Germany/Ireland/Italy/China/Poland/Scandinavia! God, those immigrants always impose their culture on us! When will American culture finally have the weapons to fight back? Poor, defenseless American culture!"
Maybe not defenseless, but fragile. Maybe you've read there was a very strong push to assimilate during those earlier waves coupled with breaks in liberalizing immigration (in fact it was downright nasty at times). Also, other than China, which had a downright negligble influence to this day, all those other nations were part of Europe, a culture I simply prefer to that of South America (before you hyperventilate, yes, Spain is part of Europe, one of the worst parts IMO when considering cultural and political influence and contributions, but South America had small contributions before becoming Hispanic, and that wasn't much of a boost itself).
Culture can actually be forced on folks, in many ways. Ask the Mexicans who lived in Texas back when it was theirs, for example. It can also happen because companies tend to go for broad markets, so they will 'Hispanicize' their movies, tv shows, products, etc., in the hopes of reaching these blocs. Since the number of movie studios, tv networks, etc. are not numberless, there may simply be no 'non-Hispanicized' products in some areas after a while.
Please note what I am saying here. I don't like Mexican or Spanish culture, politics, philosophy, etc. Double for peasant Mexican/Spanish culture etc.. I'm simply not impressed by it. I'm sure many Mexicans and Spaniards are not impressed by it as well (just as many Americans think our culture is boring and passe). I'm also not saying my preferences reflect some cosmic judgment; American or European culture is no cosmic sense "better" than Mexican or Spanish culture. I just really like the former and am not impressed by, in fact bored to tears by, the latter. Don't I have a right to preserve and protect what I like? Libertarians used to talk a lot about how, while discrimination is a bad thing, freedom of association is a higher thing (Epstein wrote a book about this). If private clubs should be able to exclude some people (maybe just for size reasons) and private neighborhoods can freely enter into contractual covenants to maintain the size or 'character' of their neighborhoods, why cant this happen on a national level?
grylliade | May 21, 2007, 1:40pm | #
It's pretty obvious that past immigrants have assimilated, but anyone who lives in SoCal knows that the same is not true of the current wave.
Again, can't you guys find new arguments? You said the same thing about every. Immigration. Wave. "This time it's different! Those Germans and Scandinavians aren't English! Those Irish are Catholic! Those Italians are from Southern Europe! Those Poles are from Eastern Europe! They'll never assimilate, in spite of all evidence, because it's just different this time!"
even more PoliticalPower inside the U.S. for the MexicanGovernment
The Pope is sending Irish Catholics here so he can take over the US — I mean, the MexicanGovernment is sending IllegalImmigrants here so it can take over the US!!! ZOMG!!!
importing massive numbers of people from countries with absolutely no libertarian tradition of any kind
This is different from previous waves how? The only ones I can think of that had any real libertarian tradition were the Germans and Scandinavians, yet somehow we've remained freer than Europe, with all its myriad restrictions on immigration.
Maybe not defenseless, but fragile. Maybe you've read there was a very strong push to assimilate during those earlier waves coupled with breaks in liberalizing immigration (in fact it was downright nasty at times).
As I've said before on other threads, I don't see how you can consider American culture — a culture so strong that people all over the world feel its pull strongly — is "fragile." People who live under the rule of the ayatollahs in Iran want to imitate American culture; why would Mexican immigrants be able to resist the pull?
before you hyperventilate
Why would I do that?
It can also happen because companies tend to go for broad markets, so they will 'Hispanicize' their movies, tv shows, products, etc., in the hopes of reaching these blocs. Since the number of movie studios, tv networks, etc. are not numberless, there may simply be no 'non-Hispanicized' products in some areas after a while.
The number of movie studios, TV networks, etc., is not numberless, you're right. But it's also nowhere near saturated, given the new technologies that are proliferating. Culture is becoming less and less monolithic, and more and more oriented towards niches; but in this case the trend will reverse itself and only Hispanic entertainment will be available in some places? I see no reason to think that's the case.
I'm also not saying my preferences reflect some cosmic judgment; American or European culture is no cosmic sense "better" than Mexican or Spanish culture.
Which is odd; because I'd say that American culture
is, overall, objectively better than general European, Mexican, or Spanish culture. Not in every way, but taken as a whole.
Which is, I guess, part of why I'm not so worried about assimilation. I think, on the whole, American culture is so attractive that people
want to assimilate. Part of that assimilation will entail making American culture more like Mexican culture; personally, I think that the good contributions will outweigh the bad, though both will certainly happen. But mostly, Mexican immigrants will become more like Americans, and we'll have a culture that's the richer for it.
If private clubs should be able to exclude some people (maybe just for size reasons) and private neighborhoods can freely enter into contractual covenants to maintain the size or 'character' of their neighborhoods, why cant this happen on a national level?
Of course it
can. Any nation is free to enact whatever immigration laws it deems good. All we're arguing is that the chosen immigration laws are generally
bad. If private clubs want to keep me out, no problem; their loss. Same goes for private neighborhoods. And the same goes for nations. If the US wants to restrict immigration from Mexico, it has every right to do so. We'll just be poorer, culturally and materially, than we would be with more open immigration.
grylliade | May 21, 2007, 4:16pm | #
just as pro-immigration appeals have always been fused with goofy romanticizing (those huddled masses, yearning to be free!)
To some of us, they're not goofy. They're a real expression of ideals that never work out as well as we wish they would, but still are better than the alternatives. It's not fucking romanticism. It's an expression of what makes the United States better than everyone else in the world: our willingness to take that wretched refuse and forge what is, for all its faults, the best, most free society that has ever existed on this planet. "The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone."
But some of the concerns back then were that a wave of illiterate folks with weird beliefs were going to swamp local governments, bring social and biological pathogens, and strain the nation overall. And they kind of did.
Strain the nation, yes. But that was never the argument. The argument was that they would
break the nation, that something that was essentially American would be lost. And that wasn't true, and never will be. Those successive waves of immigration have been less like the original US population than the one before, and every time we've been able to absorb the shock. We've learned how to live with each other, despite our differences. There's nothing that makes this time any different than any time before it.
For every Albert Einstein we got a Lucky Luciano, for every libertarian thinker we got a socialist bomb thrower or mafioso.
You're wrong there. For ever Albert Einstein, we got ten Lucky Lucianos. For every libertarian thinker, we got ten socialist bomb throwers or mafiosos. Yet in the end, it didn't matter. American society changed, but it didn't wither away and become a carbon copy of Europe.
We got plenty of hard working people who turned out to contribute much, and lots of folks who brought disease, juvenile delinquency, organized crime, political corruption, etc. as well. Our cities were corrput [sic] cesspools (literally and morally/culturally) that took decades to fix (and in some cases never did).
How is this any different from European cities? They didn't face the immigrant onslaught that we did, yet European cities were every bit as bad as American cities. That wasn't because of immigration; that was because it was the first time in history that cities had grown that large and that widespread, with that many people having that many children who survived. It was a consequence of the technology of the times, one which third world cities are facing now, a century later. Our cultural institutions were adapted for a largely agrarian society with low rates of children surviving to adulthood; it took them some time to adapt, which caused social unrest.
That's the cause of problems in nineteenth-century cities, not immigration.
By the way, Pointing to the past and how great it turned out does not support open borders types, because we never had that.
Not many are doing that. All we're doing is pointing out that the arguments used are, in many cases, exactly the same arguments used against immigration since before the American Revolution. All that's changed is the details. The arguments were wrong then, and they're wrong now. The
only relevant difference I have seen between modern immigration and immigration a century ago is that most of it is coming from a bordering nation; otherwise, the arguments are all exactly the same.
A similar situation pertains with drug propaganda. A century ago, cigarettes would make you lazy and dumb; now it's marijuana. In the 30s, marijuana would make "negroes" high on it nigh-impervious to bullets, and give them superhuman strength; now it's PCP. When you see the same arguments made again and again, but with a different focus, it makes you think that the problem isn't with the "problem," but with those making the argument. When you see the same arguments made for the Germans, Scandinavians, Irish, Italians, Poles, and Mexicans, it makes you wonder whether the arguments were
ever true; if they can be made with equal sincerity about every group, despite the obvious differences, and with equal lack of consequences afterwards, it makes you wonder.
grylliade | May 21, 2007, 8:00pm | #
Alright, Lonewacko, I see you squeezed out nine reasons why immigration today is different. I wanted relevant ones, though, not just some random facts.
1. Many of our current illegal aliens are from a neighboring country, meaning they don't have to make a clean break, they can go back and forth. There are families with members on both sides of the border.
In the present context, this is meaningless. It's difficult enough to get across the border that people most of the time won't go back for idle visits. Given a more open border, the level of border crossings would rise. This I see as a good thing all in all, since I see no reason why people
shouldn't be able to go back and visit their families. I guess I'm soft-hearted that way, thinking that immigrants are people too, and shouldn't
have to never see their families again.
2. Related to that, past immigrants came here on ships; current immigrants can walk over.
And? You have to actually make a point.
3. Italy, Poland, Germany, and Ireland never held territory in the U.S. On the other hand, the Southwest U.S. briefly was Mexican territory.
More than briefly. It was only "briefly" Mexican territory because Mexico had only existed as a separate entity for a brief time before we conquered it. It had been part of Spanish America for a loooooong time before that. Your attempt to make it seem like Mexico had a weak claim is pretty sad.
And, in a poll conducted in Mexico, 58% said that the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.
Again, and? Mexican immigrants don't come to the U.S. to make it more like Mexico. They come here to get away from Mexico. That also ignores the fact that there are a lot of other people living in the Southwest U.S. who just might object if Mexico tried to take it over.
4. There wasn't a far-left, Gramscian "multiculturalism" movement a century ago. The related issue of political correctness makes it difficult for some to, for instance, use the correct names for things ("illegal aliens") rather than euphemisms ("undocumented workers").
Sorry, you used some words there incorrectly. It's "PoliticalCorrectness" and "IllegalAliensBoogahBoogahBoogah."
The PC movement has pretty much shot its wad. The multiculturalism is found much more among the left in America than the IllegalAliensBoogahBoogahBoogah themselves. In actual, real, day-to-day interactions, these things don't count for a tinker's damn.
5. There were ethnic newspapers, but nothing like today's ethnic media.
I think joe has addressed this above. You're right; there wasn't anything like today's ethnic media. There wasn't Irish Radio or Italian Television back in the day. There are more ethnic media today because there are more
media today. I'm guessing the proportion is similar, though it'd be difficult to prove without a lot of time and money.
6. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island were checked for disease and suitability. And, they were pre-screened by the cruiseship companies, who were charged if someone was rejected. Nowadays, anyone can overstay their visa or just walk across.
Isn't this an argument for increased
legal immigration (which is, after all, what the pro- side is arguing for)? If you want to ensure that everyone crossing the border is healthy, increase the quotas and let them through legally!
7. There's been a rapid increase in dual citizenship, leading to U.S. citizens with divided loyalties. 14% of U.S. citizens are eligible to be dual citizens, and Mexico encourages dual citizenship as a way of obtaining political power inside the U.S.
Again, "RapidIncrease," "DualCitizenship," "DividedLoyalties," and "MexicoWantsToReconquerTheSouthwesternUSZOMG". Try to get it right.
So, 14 % of U.S. citizens are "eligible to be dual citizens." What proportion of those are eligible to be dual citizens
with Mexico? What proportion actually
are dual citizens? Is this an actual issue, or one that might come up if we enter a spacetime warp to your home dimension and MexicoTriesToReconquerTheSouthwestUSZOMGTheSkyIsFalling?
7. The welfare state hardly existed a century ago.
Yes, and Mexicans don't come here to get on welfare. That's a tired old horse whose corpse is hardly recognizable from all the beating.
8. Obvious to anyone who's been to, say, Dallas or Los Angeles, there were many fewer people here a century ago than there are now.
No shit?!? You mean, there are more people here than there were a century ago?!? You're shitting me!
The relevant statistic is the proportion of foreign born in the U.S. As far as I can tell, this hit a low of about 5 % in 1970. It was about 12 % to 14 % between 1880 and 1930. At present it's about 11 %. The fact that, numerically, there are more foreign born Americans than ever is irrelevant. There are also more
Americans than ever.
So there you go. Nine reasons why modern immigration is different from previous immigration. Not a single
relevant reason. Are you going to start making arguments, or are you just going to engage in conspiracy theories about the Mexican government?
Ken | May 21, 2007, 9:05pm | #
"They could probably get health care if they could, y'know, be legally employed. I'm just sayin'."
Cause Lord knows farm and day labor jobs usually have generous benefits packages!
"And what overcrowding related issues?"
Demographers agree that nearly all population growth in the US in the past few decades can be attributed to immigration and their higher birth rates. So to the extent too many people in the nation, your local city, or the apartment near you causes problems there's your culprit.
"Yes, and Mexicans don't come here to get on welfare." Let's see some numbers brother. Many governors, mayors, officials, etc., have spoken about quite a bit of dole money going to recent immigrants.
"If you want to ensure that everyone crossing the border is healthy, increase the quotas and let them through legally!" Or alternatively keep everyone out (wouldnt that actually do better than your plan on this point? In yours some sick will still come over, in mine none do).
"The multiculturalism is found much more among the left in America than the IllegalAliensBoogahBoogahBoogah themselves." And peasants don't ever line up behind native demogagues who promise them goodies? Yeah right.
But let me give it too you a lil' plainer:
1. Americans decided a few decades ago to not grow numerically (an uncoerced thing that just happened). Immigrants are and will continue to wreck this, and any overpopulation problems (environmental, health, or just comfort) are the results.
2. Immigrants today are disporportionately poor, unskilled and uneducated. Do we need more of that in our society? Do good things usually come of more of that?
3. Immigrants today do not have to develop hardy rugged individualism with such a welfare state around.
4. There is not only less pressure to assimilate, there is institutional encouragement not to.
But more importantly let me challenge you. The success story of the US is NOT one of immigration, but actually one of constant restrictions on immigration, pressures to assimilate, and periodic tightening of such restrictions. Your idea has NEVER been tried. By any nation that I can think of. So why should we think it would in any way 'work', that there will be less costs and more benefits than we currently have and will not have unexpected consequences, such as erode our political/cultural institutions or create a much more massive government structure to deal with immigration related issues...The burden is not on us, but on open border types like yourself.
grylliade | May 21, 2007, 11:36pm | #
Cause Lord knows farm and day labor jobs usually have generous benefits packages!
They might be able buy it themselves, or at least have some minimal benefits.
Demographers agree that nearly all population growth in the US in the past few decades can be attributed to immigration and their higher birth rates. So to the extent too many people in the nation, your local city, or the apartment near you causes problems there's your culprit.
Well, there aren't too many people in the nation. Some cities have too many; others don't. And how many people live in another person's apartment is none of my goddamn business. If it actually causes problems for me, there are laws under which I can do something about it. Overcrowding
is not a problem in the U.S.Let's see some numbers brother. Many governors, mayors, officials, etc., have spoken about quite a bit of dole money going to recent immigrants.
Well, duh. Firstly,
of course they're talking about dole money going to immigrants; it's a cheap, easy way to get people worked up about immigration. The question is whether immigrants are using welfare at higher rates than natives in the same socioeconomic status. And the answer is that they're not. They're paying taxes, and they're working; they're not coming here and laying around sucking up welfare. What would be the point? You don't come to America, risking all the shit that they risk to do so, to make jackshit money on welfare. Immigrants work
hard, and mostly pay taxes. The bogeyman lazy Mexican who comes across, gets sick, and sucks up tens of thousands of dollars in health care doesn't exist.
Or alternatively keep everyone out (wouldnt that actually do better than your plan on this point? In yours some sick will still come over, in mine none do).
Yep. We're going to eliminate illegal immigration. There's a market for cheap labor in the U.S.; there are people willing to work for cheap wages in Mexico. Good luck with stopping people from taking advantage of that.
1. Americans decided a few decades ago to not grow numerically (an uncoerced thing that just happened). Immigrants are and will continue to wreck this, and any overpopulation problems (environmental, health, or just comfort) are the results.
We didn't decide not to grow. It just happened. We didn't get together and vote on whether to grow or not. And as I've noted before,
there's not an overpopulation problem in the U.S..
2. Immigrants today are disporportionately poor, unskilled and uneducated. Do we need more of that in our society? Do good things usually come of more of that?
Yes. Poor, unskilled, uneducated people are what cheap labor is. What else are they supposed to do? Work in the vibrant Mexican economy? We get cheap labor; they get a chance for a better life for themselves, and (even more) for their children. What's wrong with this scenario again?
3. Immigrants today do not have to develop hardy rugged individualism with such a welfare state around.
Oh, c'mon. First you argue that those eeeeeeeevil immigrants caused progressivism to develop, because of their fecundity and their diseases and their non-American ways; now they developed rugged individualism, unlike today's immigrants. Mostly, immigrants come to America because they're (as much as that term applies) rugged individualists who want to make more money than they could before.
4. There is not only less pressure to assimilate, there is institutional encouragement not to.
It's not pressure to assimilate. It's not pushing people to assimilate. We don't
need to push people to do so; they
want to do so. Somehow, when people come to the U.S., American culture becomes far less attractive to them, apparently.
Your idea has NEVER been tried. By any nation that I can think of.
Good thing we didn't try that crazy "government of the people, for the people, by the people" thing back in the day. It had
never been tried before.
So why should we think it would in any way 'work', that there will be less costs and more benefits than we currently have and will not have unexpected consequences, such as erode our political/cultural institutions or create a much more massive government structure to deal with immigration related issues...The burden is not on us, but on open border types like yourself.
"We've been wrong every other time we cried wolf about immigration, but this time we're really FOR SURE right! Just prove that we're wrong!"
I've given tons of reasons why your silly arguments don't apply. Go back and read the thread if you want to see why open immigration is not the disaster you're trying to paint it to be.
Ken | May 22, 2007, 5:29pm | #
Grylliade
Let's take this reeeal slow so you'll get most of it this time. Several times in your last post you drew the opposite conclusion from what I plainly stated from some of my points, so read carefully and take your time here. Let's take the oppositions to immigration I plainly stated and then deal with how well your reponses counter them, OK?
1. Population growth. You state that overpopulation is not a problem in the US, and you put it in bold, which must be your evidence (you really, really mean it!). But overpopulation in certain areas is a real problem. My step-daughter's middle school has to put kids in trailers through much of the day because the school age population keeps growing much faster than the locality can build infrastructure. Think of LA's traffic jams or smog, etc. Many places have problems with population, and many of them have that problem in large part due to immigration. Remember, American citizens, through their own preferences, have created zero population growth. This has been washed out by immigration (which by their own preferences the US populace doesn't support either). (http://www.cap-s.org/main.html)
2. Negative consequences associated with an influx of third world peasants.
I'm not sure what to make of your 'arguments' against this one...You ask who loses out in this scenario, since these peasants provide the cheap labor. Well, the people who get sick from teh diseases they bring lose out. The taxpayers who have to pay for increased health care for these diseased folks, for the jails to house the criminal ones (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html) and the citizens who are the victims of their crimes, for the citizens who have to live next to apratments with four families in them, for the citizens who have to put up with the additional environmental problems associated with more people (more trash, more emissions, etc.) for the government services and yes, dole, that some of them get (you argue they do not get any MORE dole than citizens, but even if their rates are the same they add to the overall dole, right?) (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134) Jesus, I could go on and on.
3. Look, mass immigration back in the day lead to problems both real and percieved that brought on the Progressive movement. Modern police, juvenile courts, municipal reform, professionalization of occupations like doctors/lawyers, these were all Progressive Movement attempts to deal with immigrant related problems. I've tried to focus simply on my field of experience, criminal justice (I teach, not a cop). You could start with Friedmans Law in America & Popular Justice:A History of American Criminal Justice to explore this if you want. But the point is that dumping millions of peasants in our nation is going to create/exacerbate more social problems, which will of course lead to more government as a solution. Thus do modern day libertarians help dig their own graves (never a practical lot to begin with, but this is ridiculous)
4.Lack of pressure to assimilate. Is there not less pressure now than before? Major ethnic lobbies back in the day stressed that they were about assimilation, hardly the case now. This could lead to cultural fracture.
"Name the restrictions before 1924 please."
MikeP, I'm going to first give you a chance to let your common sense figure this out without naming the many restrictions that existed prior to 1924. You won't need any special training or knowledge in ths subject, just common knowledge and common sense. Certainly you have in your head those images of the huddled masses at Ellis Island. They're in lines, right? And there are these guys in uniforms checking them out, right? You see where this is going I hope...Oh, to heck with it, if you must do it the hard way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_federal_immigration_and_nationality_legislation
Do some reading, have some fun!
