The Wretched Refuse: Sovereignty, Law and Economics

By Kat on February 11, 2008 | | Comments (19)

[Kat- I know I said "The Castle Under Siege" was next, but comments led to an immediate necessity to address labor numbers and economy; Ry, the answer to your question is in comments on previous post. Reminder, I write the post, not the Armorer. Comments or questions should be directed to this post. Thank you.]

WolfeWalker, in comments at "Walling Ourselves Into A Hole", states that the reason that our laws cannot be enforced is because we say it cannot be enforced. I am unsure to which "cannot" he is alluding to.

Is it the "cannot" that I don't think we should not? Or is it the "cannot" that I believe is our inability, short of developing a police force the size of our army, to actually enforce the laws that we have enacted?

Both actually. I believe that our demands for defending our "sovereignty" by stopping illegal immigrants through a wall and "enforcing our laws" by deporting existing illegal immigrants actually creates a larger tax burden, isn't feasible and, considering the economic impact, is highly undesirable.

[continued in flash traffic]

I believe that we do not create this police force because we are rightfully careful with the power that we give the government. The power we give a police force to enforce the immigration laws based on the size of the illegal population and the likelihood of mitigating it to the amount that people want it to be would be an extensive force. On top of the policing abilities we have already ceded to the government through the ATF, FBI, NSA, CIA, existing INS, CBP and various other organizations at the national, state, county and city level.

WE fear creating that power for the very reason that is stated in the Declaration, that such forces become, by nature tyrannical. We fear that because "experience hath shewn" that states that have developed such forces have expanded and used those powers successively and progressively until it has turned into tyranny.

Our founders chose a representative republican democracy to insure that the tyranny of the majority did not overcome the very liberty they hoped to create here. That tyranny being equally objectionable from a majority as a single tyrant. Even if that majority insists that its demands are about defending the nation and enforcing the law. An argument that has been made many times before even in regards to alleged "law and defense" that became detrimental to the state.

We object strenuously to encroachments on our freedom by the government by rejecting the abuse of "eminent domain", by rejecting attempts to eliminate the right to bear arms and through objecting to the many expansions of government rules, regulations and power to enforce them. I believe we instinctively reject giving the government real power that would be absolutely necessary to effect that type of enforcement of immigration laws required by instinctively rejecting paying the type of taxes that would be required to fund such operations.

We have put that rejection of the possible tyranny and discrimination in law by creating contradictory enforcement laws that, I believe, we would reject overturning because of potential abuse. Sanger, in comments, quoted well known authors on this point:

Christian Joppke explains why previous U.S. immigration control acts failed to stop or reduce illegal immigration, even when employers were threatened with penalties. For example, regarding employment eligibility verification by employers, he wrote "the positive affirmative-defense incentive was complemented by a negative anti-discrimination incentive: demanding a specific ID constituted an 'unfair immigration-related employment practice.' So employers were better off accepting the document passively offered by the prospective employee.

As David Martin put it, [the] sanctions scheme 'tells employers that it is more important to avoid even an appearance of discrimination than it is to wind up employing unauthorized workers.' The civil rights imperative of nondiscrimination has obviously stood in the way of effective immigration control."

We have balanced out our need to attempt to control immigration with our need to insure that immigrants, particularly legal immigrants, could not be discriminated against in the employment sector. We created friction and contradiction in order to insure that abuse could not occur and that we erred strongly on the side of liberty and defending the rights of all.

At the same time, we have told businesses, through our contradictions, that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We have to ask ourselves, when we speak of enforcement of "the laws" which one are we going to insist on as the imperative? Which one are we willing to sacrifice? Controlling immigration or freedom from discrimination? Does our current enforcement policy balance these imperatives? Most pro-wall/pro-absolute enforcement adherents believe that the answer is, "No."

If we are to enforce immigration to the extent that many seem to want, to penalize businesses for searching for labor among immigrants or expanding and growing economically by eliminating a pool of labor, or penalize them legally for doing both of the things we want them to do, what business will want to hire anyone that is an "other" that does not speak with an accent for fear of prosecution? What business will want to be here when our labor pool shrinks beneath our needs? What immigrant, legal or otherwise, will want to come here for the opportunities when we eliminate them? Again, shrinking our labor pool beneath our actual needs and any reserve?

What becomes of the immigrant who is here, cannot find opportunities and remains locked into his community without prospects? These very opportunities are exactly the opportunities that insure that our immigrant population does indeed "assimilate" into our culture much faster than those who live in Europe and other places. Our streets are not "paved with gold", contrary to popular myth, but they are paved with golden opportunities. To quote the "Lady in the Bay",

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Our actual need for immigration to sustain our competitive industry and labor markets which, in turn, sustains our economic viability and growth, is not represented by our current legal immigration statutes or processes.

In 2001, after the events of 9/11, unemployment was at 5.6% or 9 million. Our current rate is 4.9% or 7.6 million. At the lowest it was 4.4% or 7 million. Since 2001, the United States has had a net job growth of over 8 million jobs, averaging a net increase of 1.5 million per year.

Current aging population leaving the work force, even with higher retirement age, is approximately 3.8 million per year and growing. Current replacement from internal births for teenagers reaching employment age is approximately 3.6 million per year and is projected to continue to shrink for another decade. We are at a net negative loss of labor in the work force and it will continue to be a net negative without an increased population replacement rate against a growing aging population that currently stands at over 50% of the population (150 million) over 65. In five years, we will grow that by another 15 million, many of whom will leave the work force and create an even larger net negative replacement rate.

The question that many are, hopefully, asking themselves is: if we have a net negative labor replacement and a net positive job growth, how are we filling these jobs? The answer is very simple: immigrants, both legal and illegal.

Avg legal immigration per year: 650,000
Working age legal immigrants: 64% or 416,000
Avg illegal immigration per year: 1.3 million
Working age illegal immigrants: 67% or 871,000

Out of the "illegal immigrants" many of them are here originally as "temporary workers". In 2006 temporary workers and their families represented 1.7 million with approximately 821,000 that were workers. In that year, the United States posted a net positive job growth of 2.38 million.

In short, we are barely meeting our net job growth or the need for an expanded labor force which drives our GDP growth which has averaged 3.4% or better yearly. The current economic down turn is growing unemployment since July 2007 with approximately 500k jobs lost. However, while an unemployment rate of 7.6 million may seem uncomfortable, it is barely a three year reserve towards growth.

Declaration of Independence

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

If we, by some chance, build a wall capable of reducing illegal immigration to nearly nil, the impact on the available labor force will be immediate and detrimental to our potential growth. As we build, immigration will dwindle. If we do not build, simultaneously, an effective, increased pro-legal immigration regime complete with more and easier access to temporary workers' visas, even at the risk that some will stay on illegally, we will quickly find ourselves in a position where our potential growth stagnates or becomes a net negative effect.

Today, that includes the potential net negative effect of improved immigration enforcement. Many are calling for an enforcement regime that will be able to deport the estimated 11.6 million known illegal immigrants in this country. Of which, nearly 8 million are currently in our labor force.

That desire is probably moot as we do not have those capabilities and probably will never authorize the expense to do so. But, even the idea that we would attempt to remove a part of our labor force required for growth in the face of net negative internal replacement seems to be an exercise in cutting our noses off to spite our faces. Not to mention the potential future laborers in their children who we will also deport.

Many oppose amnesty for these 11.6 million illegal immigrants. They insist that they either be denied citizenship completely or be forced to return to "the back of the line". Yet, it is citizenship and the legal documents that go with it that allows immigrants to move more quickly through the economic ranks to the middle class and above. It is the middle class that is the back bone of this nation; that creates the greatest wealth and drives economic growth.

By allowing this population to obtain documents that will allow them to obtain more jobs with benefits such as health care, education and retirement, they move more quickly from the rolls of our Medicaid and other assistance programs reducing the burden on other citizens. They leave less unpaid hospital bills that lend towards increased health care costs. They pay more taxes that increases government revenues and provides much needed influx of taxes to social security and Medicare.

By forcing this population to remain "underground", even in the guise of justice or law, creates an under ground economy that is a healthy part of our system, but negates payment into government programs. It leads to the temptation of criminality to either prey on or become a general practice to earn income within the community and it isolates those communities from our own, interfering with the process of assimilation into our national identity.

We discuss the sovereignty of our nation and its defense as borders and physical capabilities to keep people out that have not been "invited" or who wish to attack our nation. That defense depends on our ability to create revenue to pay for that ever increasing cost of defense against advances in technology, the ability of state controlled, conventional forces and those of non-state actors to invade and infiltrate our lands.

Without a population that is able and of the age necessary and capable to join our defense forces, to maintain and grow our labor force and economy and to insure the continuation of democracy and freedom in this land, our borders, regardless of walls or sensors, will be moot.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883

Share This Article:

Categories:

19 Comments

By Big D on February 11, 2008 3:37 AM
I want immigrants. I want immigrants who are committed to learning our language, our culture (such as it is, given that it itself is continuously morphing), our laws. I want immigrants who are committed to following our laws, to becoming productive citizens, to understanding why it is that this country works when theirs (depending on where they're from) does not. And if they skip all of those steps and just sneak across the border... how can I possibly trust them to do the rest? It's not an economic thing with me--it's not about jobs people will or won't do, it's not about where people were born or what the color of their skin is. Immigrants in ages past left behind their homelands, assimilated into this country, and allowed themselves to be changed by it, even as they subtly changed the country themselves. I don't see a lot of that happening these days, and encouraging people to ignore our laws and borders, and skip those crucial steps to being an American, not just being a person who lives in America, just seems to me to be making things worse.
 
By wolfwalker on February 11, 2008 7:05 AM
Kat, your argument is typical of many that I see on both sides of many political issues: polite, honest, eloquent, well-reasoned, well-organized ... and based heavily on several unconscious assumptions about the subject. If the assumptions are false, then the argument fails. For example: you argue very effectively against rigid enforcement of identification laws on the assumption that such enforcement would require a huge police force and therefore lead to a host of unpleasant consequences. Unfortunately, this argument fails because experience demonstrates that the currently existing Immigration & Customs Enforcement force is more than large enough to do the job, no additional manpower or money required, if we just let them do it. Where ICE enforces the existing employment regulations such as the Simpson-Mazzoli I-9 form, illegal immigrants can't find work. If a city or state's economic and political climate is genuinely hostile to illegals, illegals leave. Note this Boston Globe article about Brazilian immigrants in Massachusetts. It doesn't say one word about immigration enforcement. The illegals, and even some legals, are leaving because conditions have changed and being here is no longer economically attractive. That story demonstrates a second false assumption in your reasoning as well: the assumption that immigrants today are like immigrants of the past. When immigrants came here before, they came here to live, and after a while they stopped thinking of themselves as "from country _____" and started thinking of themselves as Americans. The immigrants of today don't. They never stop thinking of the old country as "home." They aren't here to become American, to value and protect what America is. They're just here to make a quick buck. As for the need for illegals to fill jobs, remember what happened at those meat-packing plants that ICE raided a year ago. When the affected plants sought replacements, they had applicants - Americans and probably some legal immigrants - lined up out the door. As someone who has myself had trouble finding a reliable job, I've long thought that the unemployment numbers released by the government are garbage. There are many more unemployed in this country than the government wants you to believe. They can't find work because illegals will do the same job for less money. As my final point: under your reasoning, where does the legalization process stop? You argue powerfully for giving legal status to immigrants so they don't get forced into the underground economy. But that argument has no clearly defined stopping point. I could, without any straining, use similar logic to advocate giving citizenship to every immigrant. Only citizens can vote, so (in theory) only citizens are represented in the lawmaking process. So immigrants are being taxed without representation. So your assumptions fail, and your argument does too. Reality demonstrates that we can enforce reasonable immigration laws, and we don't have to simply throw up our hands in defeat and let them all in. I agree that the US economy needs immigration. I have no objection to legal immigration. Issue fifty thousand, a hundred thousand, a million legal work permits a year, check the people who apply for them, and let them in. But they have to be the right kind of people: people who want to come here to live, to assimilate, to become Americans. Not people who have no loyalty to or respect for America, and don't feel bound to follow any of its laws.
 
By Oldloadr on February 11, 2008 7:17 AM
1. I didn't have time to comment the other day, but the INS no longer exists. It was replaced by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This occurred in January of 2002 when congress learned that the old INS had renewed the student visas for some of the 9/11 hijackers (posthumously, of course). 2. Most hard-liners on immigration know that we can't round up all 11-14 million illegals, but we can deport by attrition; which means every time they encounter authority (e.g. a traffic stop) they are processed and sent back. If they commit a felony, they serve the time and then are sent back. That would not put an undo burden on the system. 3. I think the point about the labor pool will become moot if we do go into a recession. If Americans and legal immigrants are being laid off, tell me again why we need extra illegal workers... In addition to that, I maintain that the primary reason the GOP has done nothing to solve the illegal problem is not because they do jobs Americans refuse to do, but because they work for less money than Americans are legally allowed to work for. This, of course drives down wages for everybody in the agriculture and blue collar sectors. I know, as well, that construction companies hire illegals because they are unaware of OSHA rules and therefore don't complain when the owner cuts corners. In the last 5 years in SC, all of the workers killed in trenching accidents were illegals (is that a coincidence?) In conclusion: my wife was a legal immigrant who became a naturalized citizen. Most people I've talked to who had to jump through those hoops to do it the right way, think line-jumping illegals should be shot on sight. Seriously, to allow illegals amnesty in any form is a slap in the face to the immigrants who followed the complex and convoluted rules our government asked them to follow.
 
By kat-missouri on February 11, 2008 7:17 AM
The immigrants of today don't. They never stop thinking of the old country as "home." They aren't here to become American, to value and protect what America is. They're just here to make a quick buck.
This is where you and I always get into trouble. Because, you say I am making assumptions about the immigrants today when, I believe, that it is you that is making an assumption about immigrants based on some fringe organizations waving the Aztlan flag. How do you know what immigrants want or think? I don't even pretend to "know" what they think. I can only use the numbers to identify trends. That being that some do return home as seasonal workers or as having completed gathering the money they wanted and many stay here. Please provide proof positive and not anecdotal stories that prove some mythical continuous yearning for the old country that keeps all of these immigrants (I am so going to assume that you are speaking of Hispanics) from becoming part of the American citizenry and our democracy. I'll come back and answer the other two that are so much easier. ******************************************** Well D...I'm not sure what to say in regards to that. It's likely to never happen, but we can keep trying.
 
By wolfwalker on February 11, 2008 9:47 AM
What would you accept as "proof positive," Kat? Individual interviews are limited in scope, while polls and surveys are easy to rig. What else is there?
 
By kat-missouri on February 11, 2008 10:40 AM
Reality
 
By Oldloadr on February 11, 2008 11:13 AM
Kat - While you and wolfwalker argue stats; I would like to know your opinion on my input, since it's based on logic and observations...
 
By kat-missouri on February 11, 2008 1:30 PM
It was replaced by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This occurred in January of 2002 when congress learned that the old INS had renewed the student visas for some of the 9/11 hijackers (posthumously, of course).
Thank you for the correction. I believe the issue here, even in the age of technology, will continue to be obtaining information from multiple systems and agencies globally. Particularly when, those agencies are not as advanced as we are or have their own agendas. We are processing over millions of requests for visas to enter this nation. I think the issue goes along with the question of ability to function at the rate we need it to and how much money, systems and people we will need to obtain to do it. The same as developing the enforcement agencies to conduct the kind of enforcement people believe we should want or have. I am planning to look up the statistics on how many agents, field or otherwise we have per the illegal immigrant population to get a better idea what the issues may be in enforcing it.
but we can deport by attrition; which means every time they encounter authority (e.g. a traffic stop) they are processed and sent back.
As I note with a brief one liner in my own post, I believe that this is exactly the regime that is most often followed here and to which I am not adverse. Since the beginning of immigration to this country, the issue of crime and criminals arriving from other nations has been a problem we've tried to address. We certainly should not or would not want to keep criminals either from a foreign nation or those who commit them while on any other status than naturalized citizen. On the other hand, based on other statistics, there is a return rate for criminals who are deported that return to the United states to continue to commit crimes. It is similar to our own internal recidivism. In an affluent society, people will see it as an opportunity to take or steal from others. It attracts our own to return to crime and we shouldn't be surprised it attracts outsiders who see it as much as the "golden opportunity" as any immigrant looking for a legitimate means of making a living.
I think the point about the labor pool will become moot if we do go into a recession. If Americans and legal immigrants are being laid off, tell me again why we need extra illegal workers...
First, I think I stated that I would like us to have a better regime to allow more legal immigrants into the country if we are going to attempt any additional immigration enforcement, particularly the wall. Even with a recession, unless we head to a depression, its likely that we will not lose all of the net job gains that we have had over the economically affluent period. As I noted with the statistics, the last highest rate in a decade for unemployment was 9 million. That's about 1.4 million higher than today. Based on our job growth in good periods, that's a little less than a year of growth that, in a time of growth, is often mitigated within a year or two with one or more years of job growth at or above 2 million. Plus, as I also noted, the rate of people retiring from jobs in the next 5-10 years will make that moot. Should we slow immigration in this time period? Is attrition of illegal good at this point? yes, which is why I'm not saying that we should do away with it, simply that we should be more conservative with our demands to insure we can meet our growth needs and potential. For the record, I'm not an "Open Borders" person. What I am is someone that believes our processes and enforcement should be a little more rational and reasonable based on our national needs.
In addition to that, I maintain that the primary reason the GOP has done nothing to solve the illegal problem is not because they do jobs Americans refuse to do, but because they work for less money than Americans are legally allowed to work for.
I would not disagree with that at all. IN fact, I plan to do a post about that subject. I believe that both of the statements are correct,but leaves out a significant middle part of the story. Part of that is about where internal workers are most likely to work (the fastest growing fields are technology and service sectors - ie, healthcare, etc) and the other part is about needing to keep our capability to compete with labor in other nations for manufacturing and other production. If we don't have that capability, the manufacturers go some place else. I think its pretty foolish to threaten American companies over this for various reasons. However, yes, we do need to, at least, keep unskilled labor costs from inflating too fast or we will not have them at all. Plus, it contributes to inflation over all of food, housing, etc. Finally, unchecked inflation of labor costs leads to product prices that can't compete globally. We cannot lose that labor base and we cannot let it inflate out of control by eliminating a part of the labor pool. That is equally economic suicide as any other discussion. STill, as we are just barely meeting our job growth and replacement numbers, even those positions become more competitive and the salary rates will likely raise, as they have been, more than the minimum wage.
Most people I've talked to who had to jump through those hoops to do it the right way, think line-jumping illegals should be shot on sight. Seriously, to allow illegals amnesty in any form is a slap in the face to the immigrants who followed the complex and convoluted rules our government asked them to follow.
First, I'll say something sympathetic because I actually understand that. I had a friend who tried to immigrate from England. She was a nanny. That was a no go. So, I do undertand their feelings. Second, I can't repeat more often how much we need to improve our legal immigration programs and statutes to allow more people to come to the United States more easily. If our legal process was more efficient and proficient, I might not even be having this discussion on behalf of our illegal immigrants (mostly on behalf of the future of our country). But it isn't. Third, as I note in the post, as unfair as it is, it has been unfair this entire time whether officially recognized by the state or not. ON the otherhand, forgive me for saying so, the justice or fairness of a situation has to be weighed against the best interests of the nation from the prospect of economy, enforcement and costs. In the end, that is what "justice" is about: balancing out the needs of society. In this case, I also have to be clear that, if people want these people to leave the rolls of Medicaid, become less dependent on welfare assistance, leave less bad debt, etc, etc, that best way forward is by the path to citizenship, as President Bush called it. When they can get jobs that pay benefits, have a credit history, etc they become less of a burden or at least slow down the consumption of services and tax money. I just don't think that we can have it all the ways that we want it. I don't think we can remove 11.6 million illegal immigrants. I don't think we can force them off of being a tax burden while not allowing them the steps that will take them off and by keeping them as some underground labor force, they may, yes, keep salaries down for unskilled labor. I'm just concerned that most people who talk about not allowing them to become citizens and talk about building a wall (securing the borders) are not prepared to talk about what happens next. And that has as much if not more impact on the survivability ofour future than any illegal aliens in our country today.
 
By Oldloadr on February 11, 2008 2:09 PM
1. I can concede most of your points based on the "Genie out of the Bottle" principle. However, I do believe, as was alluded to above by wolfwalker, there is evidence that if we make the environment less comfortable for illegals, they'll keep going until they reach Canada. This will not eliminate all of them at once, so if the politicians would ease the quotas on legal immigrants at the same rate we're getting rid of illegals, your concerns about the labor pool would be answered; which would also be just and fair to the ones who stood in line and played by the rules. 2. If we are going to have a minimum wage law, let's have a minimum wage law and enforce it. If it means I pay $3/head for lettuce, then so be it. Or... let's do away with the idea of minimum wage altogether (like the Dems would let that happen). Either one would be a disincentive to hire illegals. 3. One more elephant in the corner: I think most Americans that are of sub-Saharan African, Northern European or Central/East Asian descent can't tell a Hispanic from an Arab and that scares them; especially when it comes to people sneaking across the border.
 
By BillT on February 11, 2008 2:54 PM
Check the immigration status of the majority of MS-13 members. We just might wind up *needing* a police force the size of the Armed Forces.
 
By kat-missouri on February 11, 2008 3:52 PM
real quick. Don't assume I don't believe in any security or that I don't think we need better security. I just don't think a wall is that great an idea and that we can do it better using some techniques we've learned in Iraq/afghanistan. We need it for more than "illegals". Crime, as Bill notes, is not good. I do have a post about "Castle Siege" coming up, too.
Or... let's do away with the idea of minimum wage altogether (like the Dems would let that happen).
Believe it or not, I'd like minimum wage to disappear, too and I also agree that the Dems won't let that happen. So, I guess we're in a spot again where our best efforts might be best spent not letting them raise it $3/hr every year.
3. One more elephant in the corner: I think most Americans that are of sub-Saharan African, Northern European or Central/East Asian descent can't tell a Hispanic from an Arab and that scares them; especially when it comes to people sneaking across the border.
Castle siege, its coming up. Though, I disagree they wouldn't know one from the other. Kind of like how an Iraqi knows someone's from Jordan. Everyone may look alike to us, but they don't look and sound alike to them.
 
By Oldloadr on February 11, 2008 4:30 PM
Kat - Yes, once you've been amongst an ethnic group, it is easy to tell, but most of middle America hasn't been amongst Arabs and there are many that still don't have a lot of contact with Hispanics. I spent 8 years in NM and off and on about 5 years in the ME, so yeah I can tell, I'm just saying a lot of folks may be afraid that they themselves can't.
 
By AgPilot60 on February 11, 2008 11:52 PM
Kat, I've had this thought long before your post. Transfer corrupt ATF employees and other chair warming bureaucrats to the Border Patrol and make them do something useful for their pay. Then throw in the excessive SWAT teams we have in this nation that are surplus military equipped and there would be plenty of manpower without raising taxes.
 
By ry on February 12, 2008 12:48 AM
"This is where you and I always get into trouble. Because, you say I am making assumptions about the immigrants today when, I believe, that it is you that is making an assumption about immigrants based on some fringe organizations waving the Aztlan flag." Kat, just accept that he is, in part and only sometimes, right. There are a goodly number of immigrants that think exactly like this. Has nothing to do with Aztlan. Korean, Viet, Thai, Mexican..., whatever, have a large number of people who think like that. It isn't always a problem, but it can be. Like Viet immigrants who walk into CVS and try to get discounts because, hey, that's how it's done in Vietnam(Uncle Ho be damned) and everyone in the store is Viet, so all the prices should be negotiable, just like in the Old Country(an old classmate of mine is a regional CVS manager who worked her way up from pharmacist in CA, oh, and Katlyn is herself a boatperson, originally named Thuy.). Or the folks who live kiddy-corner from Mom's place who live 4 families to a single family house, come home from work, drink until 8 (leaving bottles all over the neighborhood and their front yard) and then play loud 'La Banda' until 1am (that's what we do in Tepa, are you a racist gringo or something? Calling the cops because we're relaxing. Yeah, you're a racist.). Sometimes it can be a problem far greater than these mere annoyance types. He does have a point----there seems to be a difference in the proportion of irredentist immigrants who cling to their old identities and those, like those of Emma Lazarus' time, didn't give up their old allegiance but were very glad to be here. This is observational; from 'living down in it', if you will, for 25 years before I moved to the Midwest. Lumping all can be dangerous of course, but so can be dismissing it out of hand. GIve me a few days and I'll give you a link to something about how a sociologist basically refused to release data on the subject of immigration because he didn't like where the data took him. When you've got that happening(and other questions about effects of mass illegal immigration, and only illegal immigration, not being asked and investigated because of institutional bias) the whole picture cannot be seen, and, sure as chit, logically, all meta analysis then also suffer because of the initial bias. So, sometimes, you have to take the mere observation, albiet with a grain of salt, and add it to your ruminations. This is a complex issue with no perfect or utopian sol'n. We both know that. But acting like the other side have nothing true, well, that's being silly---given the politicized nature of grant money(how many academic studies are going to get NIH money if they're going to look from a negative perspective? NONE.) I claim you aren't getting 100% of the picture. They do have some points you should consider(Not saying which and how many, but they have some). What you do with those points is your own balliwick. but they aren't always talking-out-their-butt-monkeys.
 
By Justthisguy on February 12, 2008 1:01 AM
Oh, pretty soon I betcha it'll come to Microstamping of Mexicans (and the rest of us too, just to be fair). Immigration control in this day and age automatically implies some way for the controllers of said immigration to know who everyone is, by identity cards, or biometrics, or retinal scans, or RFID chips so deeply implanted that one can't dig them out with his pocketknife without risking death. I do believe that humans get along better with each other when we don't crowd up on each other very much. The Kalahari Bushmen used to be famously happy to see another human, even if he be a stranger, because company was rare where they lived. As someone who has not yet reproduced, and does not seem likely to do so, I resent all of those other folks, especially those genetically dissimilar to me, who are coming into this country from other places to have "anchor babies." If humans were more thin on the ground, we wouldn't have to get so next to each other and develop the *inevitable* resentmen
 
By kat-missouri on February 12, 2008 2:01 AM
Ry...I really DON'T consider the current trends of immigration to specific locations with similar populations and their retention of identity to be any more than what has been historically true. Of course people who migrate tend to cling to their known cultural identities, possibly even more so in their new land. I don't reject that at all. That is actually proven historically and through sociological studies. It's the internal support system that, in fact, moves immigrants here, provides a support network and eventually sees them move on and out to suburban areas or other growing urban areas. If not that first generation, then their children and so forth. Neither am I so silly as to believe that people don't become home sick or that they don't celebrate their native and ancestral connections or nation of origin. the serious issue here is whether anyone can know through osmosis or some other intuition that this is never mitigated or abrogated by any growing sense of connection to their new home. Or that their children and grandchildren never grow that connection or don't integrate that culture they grew up in with their new American culture. That is exactly how we became the "great melting pot". My point is, however true the connection or retention to the "homeland" is among new immigrants, it does not mean that some un-assimilated foreign body is growing in our midst ready to declare themselves a break away state. Beyond such risible organizations as Aztlan. Of course, we have our own native crazies, too. However, I could equally and with much greater frequency, point out historically the very same claims made by the "anti-immigrants" from previous immigration periods. Have you ever heard of Germantown, PA? They have this great Octoberfest that is very close to celebrations in Germany including some of the best German potato salad ever. The street names in the original part of town are German derivation. The old people, who keep the fest going, still speak with accents. I could take you to a community outside of Philadelphia called Conshahocken where, within three square miles, there is Greek, Italian and Polish communities where people still practice any number of traditions they've brought from the old country, fly their native country's flag (even their children do), prepare traditional foods, have traditional festivals, play traditional games, listen to traditional music, drink their national beers, etc, etc, etc. I danced a Polka with a an old man whose accent would have made you check his immigration papers. What, in all that is holy, has clinging to the traditions, people and language of your originating country have to do with any final and nearly unstoppable assimilation into this nation? So what if some Viet guy from Viet Nam wants to bargain for something in CVS? Or gets mad when you don't. Do you know all the traditions of Russia or Thailand if you were to go there to live? How many mistakes would you make and, as an "ugly American" insist was the problem of the country and not yours? These are just the basic adjustments of all immigration. If you want anecdotal stories, how about I finish telling you how my illegal alien German grandfather couldn't speak a lick of English and only made it to meet with his uncle before traveling west because he had copied down, in tiny script, names, addresses and directions in English from a telegram that was sent? I have the little note book in my possession right now. He moved to Bismark, ND where he lived in a community where 90% of the population did not speak English. He stayed there for three years, never having to learn English but a few words. Then his cousins went to California and wrote back that there was work in the Vineyards. He moved to another German community where 90% of the population did not speak English, adhered to old German customs, dancing, music, religion, etc, etc, etc. He married a second generation child of German immigrants who fortunately could speak English and German. Seven years later, barely speaking a word of English, he got his naturalization papers. Do you know what I remember most about my grandfather? When he died at 84, he still spoke with a heavy German accent. As a kid, he used to scare me because I couldn't understand half of what he said and he had a big, fluffy mustache. My mom couldn't speak German to save her life. Like the rest of the native born children who go to school here, English became her first language. Does my story or your story prove anything? NO. All this "they don't want to assimilate" garbage is the same arguments every generation faced with mass immigration has said about the immigrants. The idea that people clinging to their traditions and language in the face of a new and somewhat hostile nation proves some nefarious conspiracy to subsume the "American culture" and remake it in their own image is preposterous and really not worthy of people who claim to have higher analytical skills. We are a nation that does and has assimilated these populations by, yes, assimilating their traditions, language, music, food, etc into the American Culture. Tell me you don't celebrate Cinco De Mayo? You never sang the words to "Va La Bamba" or ate Carne Asada? Do first generation immigrants suddenly become average joe America, speaking our jacked up english and going to the golf course within a year or even ten of arriving here? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, but its no different than any other period of immigration. The reason people believe it is is because we like to chew our history through the mythological stories we tell ourselves so we can remember it. In fact, we aren't much different than old tribal societies that passed their history verbally through such mythological stories except we learned to write those myths down. We, who are the children of immigrants, who are now disavowing and complaining about immigrants, subconsciously know that, by claiming that the new immigrants have no rights and are damaging the country, we are claiming our ancestors had no right to be here and might have damaged the country thus, we have to distance ourselves and our ancestors from the new immigrants by making our ancestors and ourselves some how better than the new ones. It is Psyche 101. MY ancestors learned English faster. MY ancestors were proud to be in America and wore a flag in their lapel, day and night with the National Anthem tattoo'd on their arms so they could know all the words and prove their patriotism. Yada, yada, yada. You know, I get it, these people scare you. Let me know when they run a mexican flag up your flag pole and declare it the state of New Mexico. Oh...wait, that's already taken. Anecdotes are anecdotes. Do you really want me to tell you about the Acadian wedding I attended down in Louisiana where I couldn't even communicate with most of the children, much less the adults, whose families have been here longer than we are a nation? Maybe we better go down there and force them to learn to speak English and stop making wailing, whiny music on the squeeze box and washer board? They might cause the destruction of American Culture, you know, because they refuse to adapt.
 
By wolfwalker on February 12, 2008 7:09 AM
Kat, here's one vital difference: your grandfather came to America in a time when it was expected that he would try to fit in and become an American. Back then, most immigrants either learned American English, or found ways to adjust for being unable to speak it. They learned our laws and culture, and adapted their own to fit. Today? We have immigrants demanding that our government and our schools be changed, at great expense, to operate in their language. Illegals and their political backers wield enough power that they can demand -- not humbly request, but demand that they get special exemptions from law enforcement. In some cases illegal immigrants get treated better than natural-born citizens -- for example, the regular attempts in several states to give illegals (who pay no taxes) access to state-run colleges at the same rate paid by in-state students, which is invariably less than the rate paid by out-of-state students. Radical Muslims commit "honor killings" and then defend themselves with a claim of "religious freedom," and there's a real possibility that defense could succeed. Here's another article on the subject, datelined today, which strongly resembles the Boston Globe article I linked uptopic. Note, again, the steady repetition of the idea that many immigrants come for the jobs and when the jobs dry up they leave, no matter how long they've been here. Even having legal status doesn't change that. Even after five, ten, twenty years of living here -- no job, they head back for the Old Country. I haven't seen any mention of immigrants who tried to move elsewhere in the US. I haven't seen any suggestion that any of them try to retrain for other work. No, they just pack up and leave the country. Do all immigrants think and act this way? Probably not. But the evidence I've seen demonstrates to my satisfaction that enough of them think this way to pose a real threat to the nation I love. If I could run a gigantic comb through the ranks of the illegals, grant amnesty to all the ones who have truly assimilated and become Americans and toss out only the ones who haven't, I'd do it in an instant. But I can't. That leaves only two choices: let them all in, or force them all out, to return only if/when they can prove they're Americans. "Force them all out" seems to be the lesser evil.
 
By kat-missouri on February 12, 2008 7:30 AM
They pose a real threat in your mind, not reality, that is my point. That is not enough to threaten this country. Even the little fringe groups. Every generation changes the nation. Every one. Every group of immigrants changes the nation. Every one. Schools? There were schools where everyone spoke German in Bismark and they didn't "want" to learn English there it was part of the curriculum. Which, by the way, if you don't teach math, science, etc in Spanish to Spanish Speakers while you are teaching them English, how are they supposed to learn math and science so they can have a chance to graduate and become part of the economic growth of this nation, moving away from welfare roles and off the tax payers burden? Holidays? My favorite holiday is St. Patrick's Day where we have a giant parade.
Radical Muslims commit "honor killings" and then defend themselves with a claim of "religious freedom," and there's a real possibility that defense could succeed.
yeah? And I can give you a few other nationalities that beat the crud out of their wives and children. Drink until they are blue. Lots of them are actual born citizens of this country. Don't get me wrong. If "honor killings" occur, there's a possibility we can mitigate future killings by publicizing and punishing those killings. But, in terms of labeling a class of immigrants and insisting that it consists of some sort of imminent danger after an article or two in the news is really horrific projection.
come for the jobs and when the jobs dry up they leave, no matter how long they've been here. Even having legal status doesn't change that.
Really. You all gotta make up your minds. Do you want them to stay or do you want them to leave? When they leave (yes, the entire point of the original suggestion of an expanded guest workers program you all objected to), they are unlikely to take advantage of any more benefits that people claim they are using and abusing. They don't get medicare or SS. and, Like I said, retaining traditional values that don't break our laws is fine. break the laws, go to jail. I doubt seriously that your "he'll get off on religious freedom" is going to wash down in Texas where that killing occured. If it washed anywhere else, I would suggest that its because the entire area is liberal beyond repair and lots of criminals get a walk there.
grant amnesty to all the ones who have truly assimilated and become Americans and toss out only the ones who haven't, I'd do it in an instant. But I can't. That leaves only two choices: let them all in, or force them all out, to return only if/when they can prove they're Americans. "Force them all out" seems to be the lesser evil.
You're fading here. I really cannot agree with you at all. There is no measure for "truly assimilated". Who judges? You and Ry? In which case, I guess I better go pack my bags because I'm sure I'll be on the list of the "not truly assimilated".
 
By wolfwalker on February 12, 2008 12:38 PM
There is no measure for "truly assimilated". Of course there is. Immigrants are fully assimilated Americans when they speak and act like Americans. Being an American is not a matter of what you look like, where you come from, what god(s) you follow, or what language you speak. Being an American is a state of mind. An American believes in the principles that America stands for. An American values the Constitution -- all of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, the list of government's powers and limitations, and even the part that says "the Constitution and the laws made in support of it are the supreme law of the land." An American values both freedom and the rule of law, and tries to find a happy medium between the two. If an American doesn't like the law, he works to change it; he doesn't just ignore it. An American looks for the good in every person but doesn't overlook the evil that some contain. An American does the right thing by his/her country and progeny, even if it's difficult at the moment. An American learns from past experience and tries to use that experience to solve future problems before they occur. An American deals fairly with others as long as they deal fairly with him/her. And an American looks for and tries to recognize these traits in others, and encourages them to become Americans too. Anybody who joins the Armed Forces and swears to fight for America is an American in my book. So I support immediate citizenship for all enlistees, regardless of immigration status, with the threat of revocation if they fail to finish training or serve out their first enlistment period. Any illegal who aids law-enforcement in solving a crime, knowing that it will bring him/her to the attention of ICE, is clearly an American in my book, and should be rewarded with immediate citizenship. I could go on, but I think the above suffices to illustrate my position. Your simplistic assumptions about who is pro- or anti-illegal-immigrant, and why, do not apply to me.