« Quote Of The Day - Unsportsmanlike Conduct Edition | Main | Privacy?? »

Some frank talk on illegal aliens

My best friend and I have known each other for almost 20 years. One of the things I value most about our friendship is our mutual gift: if I don't understand something, I just have to wait for him to explain it to me. At least half the time, I'll answer him, and find myself listening to myself and learning the answer as I'm explaining it.

He's a semi-regular reader of Wizbang, and occasional commenter. Recently, though, when we were talking, he noted that one of my hot-button topics is illegal aliens. He asked me why I gave it so much attention.

I'd often wondered that myself, and when he asked me, I had to answer. And it came down to two points.

The first one is quite simple. The United States has an extremely liberal immigration policy -- quite possibly the most liberal in the world. We admit over a million people a year. And while the process is not easy, it has to be one of the easiest in the world.

Every year a million people who have followed all the rules enter the United States legally, welcomed with open arms.

And every year countless more come here illegally, or under false pretenses, or stay longer than they agreed to.

These people, for whatever reason, hold themselves as above those rules. They consider their own circumstances as more important than others, and they don't need to bother with following the procedures that everyone else has to.

They're line-cutters. They're cheats. I don't like people who do that in daily life; those that do that are spitting in the faces of all those who are following the laws and coming here legally and properly, and on their behalf I am angered.

The other reason is based purely on Constitutional principle.

One of the standard defenses for illegal immigration is that the aliens are performing the work Americans don't want to do, that our economy needs the cheap, unskilled labor they provide to keep going. They warn that if every single illegal alien were to disappear tomorrow, our entire way of life would be severely affected -- especially in areas like agriculture, construction, and cleaning services.

That argument always bothered me, and for the longest time I didn't understand why. But the instant my friend asked me about it, it became crystal clear:

The economic argument is nothing new. In fact, it's very, very old. So old, that we've alreadye debated and settled it almost 150 years ago -- and the pro-cheap-labor side lost.

You might recall reading about it, It was called the Civil War.

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch. For one, there were other issues besides slavery involved in the war. For another, indentured servitude might be a better comparison to illegal alien labor than actual slavery. But the essence remains the same -- the notion is that a cheap source of labor is being exploited and used through fear of the power of law. It was wrong then, and it's wrong today.

In my dream world, I'd like to see the restrictions and red tape on immigration reduced to a more manageable system. But that would have to be coupled with an assault on illegal immigration. Streamlined deportation processes. Severe penalties for those who exploit illegal aliens. And, perhaps, even a change to the rules of citizenship, so children born here of illegal aliens have the citizenship of their parent's homeland, not the United States, ending the exploitation of children as "anchor babies."

We have a lot of good laws on the books about illegal aliens. But we need to start enforcing them. Laws that are unenforced merely cheapen respect for all other laws, and that's a nice start towards anarchy.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some frank talk on illegal aliens:

» The Florida Masochist linked with The econmic impact of illegal immigration

» Conservative Outpost linked with Sunday Links

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Illegal Immigration

Comments (91)

Illegal aliens? You cad, I ... (Below threshold)

Illegal aliens? You cad, I think you mean "undocumented"! ;-)

As a PHYSICIAN, I am ethica... (Below threshold)
Kevin Kerlin:

As a PHYSICIAN, I am ethically obligated to render appropriate care to anyone who preents to me as a patient. As ILLEGALS, they perceive no obligation to pay for my time, skill, effort, and liability.

As a PARENT, I have to send our children to an expensive & distant private school, because the local public school has been overrun (85%) by ill-disciplined Hispanic youth, many of whom haven't bothered to learn English.

As a HOMEOWNER, I was the victim of a major burglary this summer. MS-13 gang members on parole for other felony convictons were sent in by a subcontractor to drywall for one day; later, they returned and voilated our security. My firearms have been turning up in felonies up to 2000 miles away.

As a CITIZEN, last month I wept as two neighbor children (whose parents were on a tour of duty in the Middle East) were mowed down in a School Zone crosswalk by an un-documented, un-insured illegal. Of course, the illegal was licensed by NC-DMV, whose director (Wayne Hurder) asserted in an e-mail to regional chief examiners: "the fact that a person is in the US without the permission of the Department of Homeland Security (formerly INS) is irrelevant as far as North Carolina DMV is concerned."

Illegal immigration has rightfully become the #1 hot-button issue in this Red State. George Bush and the Republicans have been derelect in their duty to secure us within our borders. Maybe he's laying the groundwork for the candidacy of his nephew George P. Bush, whose mother Columba Garnica Gallo hails from Guanajuato.

I was flattered.. am flatte... (Below threshold)
frank:

I was flattered.. am flattered.. I feel like the teacher who said to albert "Got any bright ideas einstein" and look what happened

The economic argum... (Below threshold)
The economic argument is nothing new. In fact, it's very, very old. So old, that we've alreadye debated and settled it almost 150 years ago -- and the pro-cheap-labor side lost.

You might recall reading about it, It was called the Civil War.

Dude, this is an apples to oranges comparison and not a very strong one at that.

I don't get it. Conservatives seem to understand the benefits of free trade. They seem to understand how the laws of supply and demand apply to capital, goods, and services, yet they seem cognitively unable to apply supply and demand to labor. And Jay, that's exactly the task before you. To effectively rebut the "economic argument," you are going to have to show how labor is exempt from the laws of supply and demand. Good Luck.

The fact that the US may have more liberal laws than other countries does not mean that American immigration laws are "liberal." They are still based on a quota system that is predicated on a socialist/mercantilist fixed-pie view of economics that has long been discarded by modern economics.

It's as if some leftists of old, in an attempt to eliminate highway deaths, managed to successfully get the legal speed limit dropped to 15mph and now today all of the conservatives are screaming about all of the "speeders."

And Dr. Kerlin, with defenders of the welfare state like you, who needs Democrats?

:peter

Kevin K.: I second your com... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Kevin K.: I second your comments regarding the Republicans and immigration. As a California resident (born and raised), I've seen the state deteriorate toward fourth world status - that is a former first world state that, due to immigration and economics, is split into a vast population of recent and illegal immigrants that are predominately of lower economic echelons, and who by their presence, are forcing cultural changes on the the other population segment lower, middle, and upper economic echelons of the natural and naturalized legal citizens of the state.

California will spend about $2B *just* in state/county/city jails (not including any federal costs) to house illegal immigrants that have committed felonies in the state. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Also, their crime of illegally entering our country is only the beginning. Bear in mind that not all of the illegals actually work and contribute to the economy, many leech off of tax payers (ala the aforementioned 'anchor babies') and obtain free services from the government at many levels. Our schools are suffering tremendously, and the teachers unions that control our state will allow nothing to be done about it because they perversely see it as some sort of job security. The fact is that if we actually controlled our borders and stopped 90% plus of illegal immigration, our schools would lose many students - and this would be a good thing to the vast majority of citizens. The same number of teachers could teach smaller classes and not have to deal with non-English speakers to the degree they do now. Transient students would decrease, and classrooms and entire schools would stabilize and the learning environments improve dramatically.

Billions of dollars of what illegals earn is actually sent back to Mexico as well and does not get fed back into the US economy. Mexico's second largest revenue source behind oil is money sent back fromm the US by Mexican citizens.

Businesses that choose to do the right thing and not hire illegals are penalized by the fact that their competitors who do hire illegals pay less than prevailing wages for labor giving them an unfair advantage over the business demonstrating integrity. Businesses that knowingly hire illegals should be very, very severely penalized. It has to hurt to hire illegals.

Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being 'hispanisized' at an increasing rate. The fact is that illegal immigration is driving this unwanted, unwarranted change in our culture. And that is wrong.

What is wrong with us? Why do we tolerate this usurpation of our sovereignity? Economics? We are a capitalist economy and the beauty of that is that if all illegals disappeared overnight, supply and demand would adjust and we'd continue on - far, far better off than we are now.

The German's have their gui... (Below threshold)
epador:

The German's have their guilt to drive their immigration policy, which is pretty damn liberal, and a sore point across their country. We have pride in our historical dependence upon immigration for our country's growth. Anyone see any other deadly sins involved here?

But we sometimes forget our county's original founders were colonists, not immigrants.

The illegal immigrants in our present country could be viewed as "colonists" of a different kind, and even might be considered a kind of threat to US citizens that our forebears presented to the original inhabitants of this land. Not by a takeover dependent upon force of violence (gang violence notwithstanding), but by a more insiduous and gradual erosion of culture and economics while the political base grows...

Ironic, huh?

Peter J: The illegal immigr... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Peter J: The illegal immigration problem in America is not an issue of labor economics primarily, it is an issue of national sovereignity. Unless you believe that free trade demands removal of all borders and unrestricted (and possibly government/business subsidized?) travel between nations, then the 'free trade' argument fails.

Free trade can function quite well without illegal immigration, and many - myself included - believe free trade would work far better and be of more benefit to the peoples of every nation without illegal immigration.

As a Californian who worked in the orchards and fields of the Central Valley as a teenager, right along side of legal and illegal hispanic immigrants, I fully believe we should have a very well controlled guest worker program. I have nothing against Mexicans and made many very good friends in my days of farm labor. But we must have absolute control of our borders, otherwise we have no borders, and without borders we will soon have no nation.

epador, good observation. I... (Below threshold)
F15C:

epador, good observation. It is precisely the cultural and related economic and governance changes that are being driven by illegal immigration that are a direct threat to the US as a nation of people living under the rule of law.

These changes are being driven illegally and violate our constitution, and our rights to self determination as Americans.

I think your observation of illegal immigrants as colonists is not unreasonable.

I wrote a <a href="Our poli... (Below threshold)
Bill:

I wrote a lenghty response to Jay

Here is my take on birthright citizenship-

Our politicians therefore pay lip service to immigration reform or worse. Make it tougher on legal immigration or propose unconstitutional measures like ending birthright citizenship. This is a bad idea, the 14th ammendment grants citizenship to those born in the US. If we allow this ammendment to circumvented by law we are creating the danger of its misuse to punish certain groups who are out of political favor.

And don't give me the BS reason that those who wrote the 14th ammendment didn't mean birthright citizenship to go to illegals. They didn't want Indians, Chinese and other cultures allowed to be citizens either. You want to follow that example?

Plus the simple fact that some making this 14th ammendment argument are those same in uproar over Kelo. You want one part of the constitution read literally and another interperted. Who's being consistent here? I've read bloggers who think it should be applied even to legal immigrants.

Oh and by the way. How do you plan on enforcing this? A social security card isn't proof of citizenship. Passports to be shown? Birth certificates? How? Who will the burden of proof be on the parents or the state? John and Paula Smith don't have bc or passports, so you're going to make them pay the $400(or so. The ammount goes goes up on a regular basis) to get citizenship for their child? If you don't think this can be seriously screwed up, I consider you read this. This is a bureaucratic jungle you're going to create besides it being unconstitutional at the moment.

The only way to change birthright is by ammending the 14th ammendment.

Mr. Jackson: I agree with F... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Mr. Jackson: I agree with F15C. I think that immigration labor is essentially free of supply and demand simply because of the sloppy way the government handles it. In my mind if supply and demand truly was in effect then if there were no jobs to be had (lack of demand) aliens would have no interest in coming here in the first place (lack of supply). But Dr. Kerlin states why this does not happen and it is simply due to the additional perks our country offers independent of the job itself. The government's lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the existing immigration laws allows resourceful and perhaps even unemployed aliens to quietly ease themselves into our already overburdened entitlement programs (public education, healthcare, etc). We know our entitlement system is overburdened and yet our government seems perfectly willing to ignore the greater strain more illegals will place on it. There may be others but that reason alone is enough for them to come here whether or not jobs are available. So, I think it is more than reasonable to have more control over this situation.

The argument that we need i... (Below threshold)
Alan:

The argument that we need immigration to counter declining birthrates is vapid nonsense. We have everything we need in this country to counter such declines: horny men, and horny women.

The problem is that horny men and women who are of reproductive age are, in this day and age, the most heavily taxed people on the planet. This makes getting by, especially with children who are always in need of mainenance, an expensive proposition. They pay all the taxes and get next to nothing from the government in return. So long as tax policy rewards non-producers, who are generally of non-reproductive age (or welfare cases), over producers, this will always be a problem.

We pay old people to sit at home and do nothing. I can't tell you how many able-bodied men and women I know who are retired. We pay lazy people to sit at home and breed. These are exactly the wrong kind of people you want to breed (I'm not saying you should stop them, just that you shouldn't encourage them by giving them OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.)

F15C!Pete... (Below threshold)

F15C!

Peter J: The illegal immigration problem in America is not an issue of labor economics primarily, it is an issue of national sovereignity.

It's an issue of national sovereignty IN YOUR HEAD, or perhaps on paper somewhere. Here, in the ACTUAL PHYSICAL WORLD, it is an issue of economics, period. Just like a 15mph speed limit isn't consistent with the way that people use automobiles, our immigration system (if you can call it that) isn't consistent with the economic REALITY in North America. Thus just like no one would obey a 15mph speed limit, our immigration laws aren't being obeyed.

Unless you believe that free trade demands removal of all borders and unrestricted (and possibly government/business subsidized?) travel between nations, then the 'free trade' argument fails.

First, this is a strawman. Second...it's also wrong! Do you think that the US economy would benefit if we erected restricted borders at our state lines? If so, please explain how that would work. If not, please explain how the laws of supply and demand are different on the CA-Mexico border than they are at the CA-OR border.

Yours/
peter.

To further argue my point, ... (Below threshold)
Alan:

To further argue my point, what countries have the world's highest birthrates? The ones that don't have huge welfare states. People there see children as an asset, not a liability (which is PRECISELY how we see it in Western countries). Furthermore, the LOWEST birthrates are in those European nations with mammoth welfare states.

Besides that, it is the welfare state that makes immigration so attractive to immigrants (legal or illegal) and so costly to citizens.

"I don't get it. Conservati... (Below threshold)
Alan:

"I don't get it. Conservatives seem to understand the benefits of free trade. They seem to understand how the laws of supply and demand apply to capital, goods, and services, yet they seem cognitively unable to apply supply and demand to labor. And Jay, that's exactly the task before you. To effectively rebut the "economic argument," you are going to have to show how labor is exempt from the laws of supply and demand. Good Luck." - Peter Jackson

Peter, your argument's weakness is that it doesn't consider non-economic costs. If your next door neighbor decided he wanted to use his land to have a trash incinerating plant that might be perfectly OK - except that he's dumping dirty air into your airspace, as well. No doubt if that happened you would sue.

By that same token, there are costs - huge costs - to illegal immigration that can't be expressed in economic terms. The need for new prisons, roads, schools, water supplies and the like. The extra 30 minutes you'll spend sitting in traffic to get to work (in California, home to 10 million immigrants, people spend LOTS of time stuck in traffic). The guy in the free market utopia you posit who employs these aliens doesn't have to compensate you for that. YOU pay those extra taxes, not him. YOU lose those hours of your life, not him. Furthermore, what about all the assets that are owned by the citizens in trust - national parks, school systems, transportation networks, the military - tens of trillions of dollars worth. We and our ancestors have paid for those, but the immigrant who comes here today gets ownership in them at no cost.

I have always thought of myself as a conservative Republican, but the tendency of today's Republican Party to elevate economic issues above all else is a characteristic of fascism, not conservatism.

Peter,Even Milton ... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Peter,

Even Milton Friedman understands that you can't have BOTH massive immigration and a welfare state. If the chief guru of free market economics understands that, so should you.

Like it or not, we DO have a welfare state. Even if we eliminated every characteristic of what most people consider to be a welfare state, WE WOULD STILL have a welfare state.

DavidD!Bu... (Below threshold)

DavidD!

But Dr. Kerlin states why this does not happen and it is simply due to the additional perks our country offers independent of the job itself. The government's lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the existing immigration laws allows resourceful and perhaps even unemployed aliens to quietly ease themselves into our already overburdened entitlement programs (public education, healthcare, etc). We know our entitlement system is overburdened and yet our government seems perfectly willing to ignore the greater strain more illegals will place on it.

This sounds to me like an argument against the welfare state. I apologize, but I have very little patience when it comes to arguments like Dr. Kerlin's. It's like building a house out of manure and then getting indignant when the flies show up.

And is it really the government's "lack of enthusiasm" for enforcement that's at fault here? We're very enthusiastic about enforcing drug laws, but look: Drugs. Are. Everywhere. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons.

If the government ever successfully eliminates the People's right to own guns, will the criminals still have guns due to a lack of government enthusiasm?

If Hillary gets elected and we wind up with HillaryCare, will the months-long waiting lists and perpetually explosive health care costs be due to a lack of government enthusiasm?

Rather, David, I humbly suggest to you that there may be certain things that government just can't do, especially in certain ways. You know, just like there are things that all of us can't do. This is the reason we're called conservatives you know: because we believe in conserving the social rules and institutions that are most effective, like the rule of law and free markets.

Yours/
peter.

Illegal aliens are not only... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Illegal aliens are not only cheaters and line-cutters, but they are felons.

Here's the law that exists now and has for a while now, just disregarded by so many.

It's the disregard that offends so many of us, particularly when the felons (illegal aliens) become so obstinate and angry about "their" "rights" despite their felony/ies and many even laugh about the very idea of laws, immigration requirements and particularly, citizenship.

About mentioning illegal aliens/felons, Jay Tea, I'm very glad that you and a few other of us bloggers have because without that, the issue would still be being laughed at and ignored by our legislatiors. Among voters, too, unfortunately, the very subject has been suppressed and criticised as to those of us mentioning the issues involved/related, so, persistence is beginning to have a reward. And more and more people are beginning to stop being intimidated about discussing the subject.

I've always found your ongoing mention of felons/illegal aliens to be a very good thing. And, I thank you for doing so.

I think it never hurts to e... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I think it never hurts to express these points over and over again, either, and that is: illegal immigration and illegal aliens in our country are not immigrants. They are felons.

Legal immigration involves an application process and people who follow legal means to seek citizenship in our country, and/or to gain legal residency and/or work privilege here. You apply, you substantiate, you meet qualifications, you wait your turn and abide by the behaviors requested of you and which you swear to abide by.

Illegal aliens, felons, are engaging in criminal behavior and arrive in the country and then remain here by dishonest, illegal means. They need to go home because their behavior indicates bad character and should be among the very last ever bestowed with citizenship.

Lastly, no special rights for people from Mexico. The United States Constitution applies to the United States and if the people of Mexico want a similar form of government and document, then create those for themselves. The United States is not Mexico and just because some people have ancestors from Spain does not bestow them with privileges no one else has, no special rights and privileges just because you have DNA from ancestors from Spain.

Alan!Even... (Below threshold)

Alan!

Even Milton Friedman understands that you can't have BOTH massive immigration and a welfare state. If the chief guru of free market economics understands that, so should you.

Dr. Friedman is absolutely correct. You sort of answer your own question here, don't you?

Like it or not, we DO have a welfare state. Even if we eliminated every characteristic of what most people consider to be a welfare state, WE WOULD STILL have a welfare state.

And like it or not, as long as we do have a welfare state, we will have the problem of others around the world seeking to take advantage of it, regardless of how far we go in Sovietizing our borders.

Yours/
peter.

Peter,The differen... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Peter,

The difference is that I can hide enough cocaine in a teeny-tiny pouch to keep me happy for weeks. It's. A. Bit. Harder. To. Hide. A. Whole. Human. Body.

Especially if he's flipping hamburgers at McDonald's and she's cleaning rooms at the Marriott.

And besides, the inability to enforce all the laws all of the time ISN'T an argument against any laws at all.

Peter wrote- And like it... (Below threshold)
Bill:

Peter wrote- And like it or not, as long as we do have a welfare state, we will have the problem of others around the world seeking to take advantage of it, regardless of how far we go in Sovietizing our borders.

Sovietizing our borders? That would only be if we prevent or shot people trying to escape.

Thanks, Bill, for pointing ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Thanks, Bill, for pointing out the foolishness -- and falsehoods implied -- in many of those Leftist terms.

Peter,So what's yo... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Peter,

So what's your argument? That WE CAN'T secure our borders? Or that WE SHOULDN'T?

Because we've made no effort to even try. Isn't it odd that the folks who say that "we can't" oppose ANY effort to even try?

They don't want us to kick the kids of illegals out of schools. They want us to let illegal kids attend public colleges, and at in-state rates. They want us to give them driver's licenses and car registrations. They want us to let them open bank accounts and take out mortgages. They want us to treat them at hospitals w/o questioning why they're here. They want us to give their children born here automatic citizenship (which is NOT required by the 14th A.) They DON'T want to allow local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws. And on, and on, and on.

They claim that we can't, but then make damned sure that we actually can't.

-S-!I thi... (Below threshold)

-S-!

I think it never hurts to express these points over and over again, either, and that is: illegal immigration and illegal aliens in our country are not immigrants. They are felons.

And...So what?

Call them heretics and apostates. Call them anythiing you want. Exactly what does it change in the actual physical world? Exactly nothing, including the fact that the vast majority of illegal Mexican migrants aren't dangerous criminals, but rather poor, humble, hard-working people simply looking for honest work.

You did hit on the problem though, -S-:

It's the disregard that offends so many of us [snip]

You're offended. That's it. You have an idea in your head that you don't like. It has nothing to do with the actual physical world.

Yours/
peter.

I think that immigration... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

I think that immigration labor is essentially free of supply and demand simply because of the sloppy way the government handles it.

The government can no more "free" something from the laws of supply and demand any more than it can "free" something from the law of gravity.

Government can either choose to accept economic truths and thus respect the free market, or it can pretend they don't exist and proceed to cause everyone a lot of trouble. But economic reality never changes.


Even Milton Friedman understands that you can't have BOTH massive immigration and a welfare state. If the chief guru of free market economics understands that, so should you.

This is mostly true. I agree with Mr. Jackson's strong defense of the free market. Labor is as much of a market factor as anything else, subject as much to the laws of supply and demand (i.e., the price system) as wheat, steel, cars, oil, etc. I'm as much a believer in the free market as anyone you will find.

The problem with open immigration (which I wholeheartedly support) is that it immediately reveals the fundamental flaws of the welfare state. Starting with the school system, picking up the roadway subsidies, and finishing off with housing and food subsidies, we have a system of welfare that will draw people here. If/when we socialize the medical industry, it will grow exponentially.

(But Alan, Milton Friedman is not the chief guru of free market economics. Think more in terms of Ludwig von Mises.)

Peter,On second th... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Peter,

On second thought I think you're absolutely right about everything. Let the free market reign! Let as many people come here as want to come here! 50 million? 100 million? 500 million? 1 billion? Sure!

I don't mind at all anymore, and neither should you unless you're a leftist racist hompophobic nativist with your eyes too close.

So the story has been told that when President Jimmuh Carter was visiting the Premier of China, he told him that he should allow his people to leave. "Sure," responded the Premier, "how many do you want?" Jimmuh said nothing further.

Alan (on your side of these... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Alan (on your side of these issues)..."they" are getting the message now that WE are being firm and consistent and expressive about these problems.

For instance, I read not too long ago that banks in Wisconsin stopped providing home loans to illegal aliens (felons) because it proved bad for business after so many of us legal people expressed outrage about that. Now for the other banks in our other states...

I heard LaRaza spokesperson just the other day on television, opining about why she likes illegal aliens being provided with in-state tuition rates, that, in her words, "it levels the playing field."

I was wondering just what the "field" she thinks is being levelled actually is. Illegal aliens are not citizens, they aren't even here with student VISAs, they're in the country by illegal means. They aren't even ON "the field," they have not even presented so much as a qualification that enables them to receive ANYthing from American taxpayers, much less healthcare, housing, food, an education and so much more.

LaRaza represents people from, mostly all, Mexico who presume to conclude that whatever is in the U.S. belongs to them. That what U.S. citizens and residents have and participate in should be theirs just because Americans possess, build and/or have access to "it."

How this sort of crazed sense of inordinate right to possess American goods and services and even residency by so many is criminal. Truly, it's a criminal perspective learned and instructed in a culture that does not seem to comprehend how to do for themselves, so, they set out to take from America, and then feel self righteous about it, if you consider the very organization of LaRaza.

If Mexico wants the benefits and privileges of the U.S. Constitution, why haven't they written one of their own and then prospered from that? Only Mexico can answer that question but so far, few from there seem to even care, much less ask why.

And don't give me ... (Below threshold)
And don't give me the BS reason that those who wrote the 14th ammendment didn't mean birthright citizenship to go to illegals. They didn't want Indians, Chinese and other cultures allowed to be citizens either. You want to follow that example?

There never has been written a better example of a Straw Man argument. What a crock!

Also, you seem inherently desire to selectively follow the Amendment drafters' intent; to wit, the children born to foreign diplomats residing here are not granted birthright citizenship. They are, by law, citizens of the countries that their parents are "under the jurisdiction thereof." Congress carved out this distinction based on its authority to "to enforce, by appropriate legislation" granted in section V of the Amendment. Congress has the absolute right to do write the "Anchor Baby" loophole out of existence, and it should.

Phinn,The problem ... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Phinn,

The problem with free market economics is that it has to be two way. Sure, maybe it's OK to throw open the borders to any and all comers, but where can I go in return? China? India? Zimbabwe? Very few nations would show reciprocity. I doubt China would let me become a "citizen" for what little that may be worth.

The other mistake is to reduce everything to simple economics. Economics is important, but it's not everything. Social ties matter more. That's why we DO have public education. That's why people DON'T steal from their neighbors. That's why so many brave young men and women DO bother to join the ranks of the military, or the police dept, or the fire dept.

The fact is that a leftist sees the values of these social obligations in terms of pure economics. "Take X dollars from person A and give it to person B."

I'm sure there is a nation somewhere that has abandoned any pretense of the value of social ties and community, where every transaction is economic in nature. I'm equally sure that very few people, yourself included, would want to bother to live there.

You have to go more deeply than "free marketeer" vs. socialist. Because staunch free marketeers and ardent socialists have more in common than they'd like to admit. Most importantly, they both see money at the root of everything.

No, Peter, YOU have no idea... (Below threshold)
-S-:

No, Peter, YOU have no idea. YOU are opining from the comfort of wherever with the "snips" and tales and such, presuming to dress others with liberal terminology that is inaccurate and inflammatory.

You have no idea what I, as an individual, have done and am doing about illegal immigration. Not that you've asked, since your "snips" and tales deal with rhetorical and presumptuous imaginings.

What's YOUR plan? And, without individual opinions about anything, nothing would ever happen, much less change afterward. It's our individual opinions that accomplish and set goals and then realize them. They at least fuel the process of accomplishments.

I'm not "outraged," if that helps temper your imagings a tad. On the other hand, I don't find felonies nor those who commit them very admirable. It doesn't mean I'm ruining my health about them, either.

The comment, earlier, that suggested to you, others, that just because things were difficult did not mean that we should not try to do (whatever), when applied to laws, is exactly the problem with our current mess of borders: as long as people give up and say it can't be done -- border's too big, border's too difficult, people are upset, border's not controllable, blah, blah -- nothing happens.

It's like coming upon a car wreck. There are people standing around looking at it. People driving past, slowing down, looking at it, shaking their heads, "wreck, impossible, probably bad, can't do much about it now..." and then driving on.

One person stops their car, runs to the wreck, starts to rescue, aid, directs other traffic away to prevent further harms, and presto, someone says, "I've got a phone, I can call for help" and so they do, another person sees two people helping, they jump forward and offer to perform emergency aid, another person arrives and...

It's all a case of enough individuals working together on problems but nothing ever happens until someone takes the first step. And it's usually because they're concerned about the problems that they do.

Same thing with illegal immigration. The issue has been suppressed and denigrated for a while now and people are just fed up with it and want it brought to a close. We also don't want American goods, services and residential assistances going to people who have violated our immigration requirements. It's as simple as that and it's changing because a lot of people are concerned and vocalizing their displeasure about it.

My encouragement to speak out about the issue was for Jay Tea, as to this area where you are opining.

Peter: ideas "in (my) head... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Peter: ideas "in (my) head" most certainly DO have everything to do with the physical world.

Or, it's your opinion that the human mind exists in complete nothingness and accomplishes nothing with all thought possible? Because, otherwise, your comments there make far less sense than lead shoes.

I think WAY too much attent... (Below threshold)
Alan:

I think WAY too much attention is paid to the issue of "legal" versus "illegal."

Too many immigrants have the same negative effects, whether they're legal or not. So those who keep complaining about "illegal" immigration will find themselves snubbed when Congress, at the behest of its greedy paymasters, simply makes them legal.

The problem isn't "immigrants," it's immigration.

The question is: "How much immigration is in the best interests of the American people?"

And puleeeaze drop all the nonsense about this being "a nation of immigrants." It's not. It's "a nation of people." We have a right to decide what's in our best interest without being called nativists or racists or socialists.

The 14th Amendment is very ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

The 14th Amendment is very likely to be redone, revamped, thrown out, revised, whatever it takes to remove the clause that grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.

As is also very likely to be the sanctions provided to Cubans who can manage to set foot on U.S. soil, rather than be caught at sea (and thereby either incarcerated, sent home or sent to some other country other than the U.S.).

And it's because these are both rights/privileges written of late that most of us see could not and did not possess awareness of just what abuses would result.

The 14th did not include even an awareness of millions of people crossing over borders just to give birth (at U.S. taxpayer expense at that) inorder to gain citizenship for their child and U.S. taxpayer paid housing, food and educations and more for themselves by way of that.

And, many from Cuba now gain access to the U.S. by way of walking over the border from Mexico, after sailing to Mexico for that reason.

What's occuring now and has been for a while now is that people from anywhere and everywhere have abused every possible weakness in our immigration process and the documents that were written as to immigration from even fifty years ago are no longer realistic.

We'll never have a good immigration policy nor process until and unless we wrangle closed the illegal problem. Anticipating free market resolution to the problem won't work as long as free marketeers participate in felonious acts, as many have as to aididng and abetting the existing illegal immigration problem.

Note that that law I linked to earlier also applies to those who aid and abet illegal aliens and specifically as to those who employ them, traffic in them, encourage and assist them...but the free market has failed in this regard by insisting on a borderless nation. Some among free marketeers profit from very cheap and illegal labor but it's the American taxpayer who is continuously ripped off by those marketeers, who pays for their profitability by way of having to fund all the other detrimentals that are created by that marketeering.

I don't support expanding, top heavy government. But, as it is now, if the illegal alien "model" of free marketeering via cheap labor is to be followed, there is little to stop anyone from taking anyone else's property if and when there's a profit involved and it "helps them feed their family." Like your neighbor's car? House? Think they'll help you feed your family, live a better life? Take them.

That's the message that ongoing illegal immigration and employment of illegal aliens expresses, and it denigrates ethics, morality and laws. It's a damage overall to our very society, to all that most of hold dear as Americans.

Alan, yes, it IS a question... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Alan, yes, it IS a question of legal immigration versus illegal immigration.

Legal immigrants follow procedures, learn the mutual language of the land (English), are applied for or are applying to citizenship, and intend a permanent lifetime commitment to the country, pay taxes, do what's expected of them, legally, and so much more.

Illegal immigrants do none to little of those things. Most of them do not intend a life as Americans but a life of expediency...given that most go back to particulary Mexico from whence most arrive at the drop of a hat, or "for the holidays" and such. They do not have nor intend any allegiance to the U.S., so in that realm, why bother to respect the laws, citizenship?

The answer is they don't. They are here "to work" but their usery does not stop at that, to state the obvious.

The differences are too long for my patience to type out on Wizbang but your general opinion that there's no difference between legal versus illegal immigration is entirely inaccurate.

Alan!So w... (Below threshold)

Alan!

So what's your argument? That WE CAN'T secure our borders? Or that WE SHOULDN'T?

My argument is that we can't secure our borders the way we've been trying—and failing—to do it, so we shouldn't keep trying the way we've been trying—and failing—to do it.

We need to ditch the arbitrary quotas (and I mean that literally, the numbers we try to enforce were snatched from someone's BUTT) and charge admission.

How much? Find out how much the cayotes charge now and charge half of that for a two year permit. Add another $25 for a driver's license. Fingerprint them, put their picture on a card and POW, they're now legal, paying taxes, in the SYSTEM, and can be tracked and/or accounted for when necessary. This, citizens, is called ORDER. And it's what we don't have now. We don't have order on our borders, and THAT'S the problem. With order we will suddenly find ourselves with the ability to let in the desirables and keep out the undesirables. Our border patrol will be able to snag border jumpers because they will no longer be in mixed in with a crowd of ten thousand other border jumpers. WITH ORDER COMES SECURITY. No order, no security.

And as for the supply and demand part: when enough workers are allowed in to satisfy demand, the wages they come for will fall. Then they'll be calling their cousins in Oaxaca and telling them not to bother coming north. Americans on the other hand will become richer as we are able to take the money saved and spend it on addtional goods and services or investments.

Yours/
peter.

I think WAY too much att... (Below threshold)

I think WAY too much attention is paid to the issue of "legal" versus "illegal."

Well, no. Legal immigrants at least display a willingness to live by the rules -- something we have a perfectly reasonable right to expect of anyone that we're going to welcome into our society.

Blurring the distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration is a preferred tactic among those who want open borders, because that way they can pretend those of us who don't believe in open borders are all just a bunch of racists.

-S-No, Pe... (Below threshold)

-S-

No, Peter, YOU have no idea. YOU are opining from the comfort of wherever with the "snips" and tales and such, presuming to dress others with liberal terminology that is inaccurate and inflammatory.

You have no idea what I, as an individual, have done and am doing about illegal immigration. Not that you've asked, since your "snips" and tales deal with rhetorical and presumptuous imaginings.

Dude, if you can't make the distinction between

A. the world as it is, and
B. your thoughts about the world

as being two separate, independent things, then I certainly can't help you.

Sorry/
peter.

Peter J: "It's an issue of ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Peter J: "It's an issue of national sovereignty IN YOUR HEAD, or perhaps on paper somewhere. Here, in the ACTUAL PHYSICAL WORLD, it is an issue of economics, period.

Do you think that the US economy would benefit if we erected restricted borders at our state lines? If so, please explain how that would work."

Peter, here in California, illegal immigration is most definitely having a significant detrimental effect on American culture. There is no question about that. Even liberals who favor illegal immigration admit that, they just see it as a good thing.

This is not about whether Mexicans and other immigrants are nice and hard working and swell people. Many, if not most of them are. No one here is arguing otherwise - so that makes your bringing it up a what? Strawman.

Anyway explain to us how illegal immigration is is having absolutely no effect on our sovereign rights as Americans, period. I'd be highly interested. Please address schools, healthcare, law enforcement, housing, and of course, culture.

Also, you write about a 15mph speed limit, then about closing state borders (what the heck is the 'logic' behind that one - remember I spoke about economies existing not in a vacuum, but within systems of governance of which I address national sovereignity, ie. the US), and you accuse me of creating a strawman? Come on, you have to do better than that.

And for the record, clearly and obviously no one in their right mind would suggest closing state borders. Now you explain why borders between the states of the United States are no different - in your mind - than those borders between the US and Mexico and the US and Canada.

Peter. Relax a second. You ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Peter. Relax a second. You write that those of us disagreeing with you seem to you to not have a grasp on the 'real world', and that illegal immigration is just a problem that 'exists in our heads'. Yet, you've shown little or nothing in the way of proof that the problem is non-existant.

Show me for instance, why the fact that California taxpayers will pay about $1B (Billion) in 2005 just to house illegal immigrant felons in state jails. (NOTE: I erred before stating that the $1B includes city and county jails - it does not include the costs of housing illegals in those facilities even though California tax payers - again - foot the bill.

You also state: "My argument is that we can't secure our borders the way we've been trying—and failing—to do it, so we shouldn't keep trying the way we've been trying—and failing—to do it."

You miss the point: We are not *really* trying to secure our borders. If we *really* tried, we'd succeed. Controlling borders is not rocket science. Hell, Mexico controls its borders much better than we do...

We are more than physically capable, as a society, of controlling our borders - but we are effectively choosing not to due to political influences from certain business and social/racial-liberal special interests.

Wow, a lot of discussion in... (Below threshold)
epador:

Wow, a lot of discussion in the time it takes to do some housecleaning. And we seem to be drifting far afield here...

The legal vs illegal aspect, and the allusions to substances of abuse laws, bring to mind hallucinogenic images of comparisons of alcohol and tobacco problems/costs in this country vs illegal drug use, woooo dude and dudettes, please talk me down before I lose contact with the real world and loose more fiery straw man rhetoric on this thread! Burning straw men running naked in the threads! Ahhh, its too late. Slobber, slobber, drool drool.

[slap in the face]

Thanks, I needed that.

OK, so JT starts off about two points: Illegal folks being cheats and -S- reminding us these cheaters are actually Federal Felons. Not much to argue about there, despite the volume of words attempting to address that point, little of the thread challenges that notion viably. Just a lot of libertarian pipe dreams or hand wringing, etc. about whether we ought to be enforcing the laws, or having laws we aren't enforcing. See the Aldous Huxley inspired (by the way a legal immigrant to US) nightmare above.

JT's point #2: That our nation has a fairly well established history of battling (the Civil War did not end the battle against economic servitude be it slavery or indenturment, much as we may have ended a "war" in Iraq but continue to battle "insurgents" better termed thugs and zealots) against aspects of our economy and society that subjugate personal freedoms of our citizens. Illegal non-citizens represent a significant subjugation of citizens rights and properties, as well as often subjugating their own "inalienable rights" in the process. Thus we are obligated to address this problem. More effectively that we have.

Arguements against seem weak and seem to have degraded to personal attacks.

I bet Native Americans are snickering at us.

'Course if there had been b... (Below threshold)
epador:

'Course if there had been both effective immigration and National Defense policies, budgets and enforcement agencies before Coumbus and Henry Hudson toodled by this side of the Atlantic, this whole discussion wouldn't be happening.

Peter: I stopped reading a... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Peter: I stopped reading at "Dude."

I assume everything else you've written is as immature and thoughtless as you've already written, so, there's no point in trying to wade through it.

epador: great, as usual (^... (Below threshold)
-S-:
But, even that informaton d... (Below threshold)
-S-:

But, even that informaton disturbs discussions as to the issues facing our country today, in our present.

Although the (proven inaccurate as to some in Mexico's) populations issues seems to be motivating a lot among illegal aliens to disregard the laws of the United States.

Peter J: Have you thought ... (Below threshold)
Carlos Rodriguez:

Peter J: Have you thought that if the whole world holds a different view from yours in the worlds as it is vs your thoughts about the world, you may be operating on defficient information or thought processes?

As a Hispanic, I can vouch that illegal immigration is both a National Sovereignity issue and an economics issue. It is further a class warfare issue. Let me remind you all that economic agression, in this case in the form of illegal immigration advocated by foreign govenrments and mandataries is a form of aattack upon our sovereignity and makes both matters inextricably entangled.

While there is a strong demand, by business owners, for cheap, plentiful and pliant labor, most of the illegal aliens that arrive here have already proven by their unlawful entry, by the use of fraudulent documentation to obtain jobs which they are not entitled to access, that they are not the kind of folks we'd consider as permanent additions to our society. We already have more than enough home-grown rotten apples. Historically, the period of history in which the U.S.'s standard of living was at its best (1945 - 1965), we had strong unions, protective tariffs and restrictive immigration laws. Since then, the average worker has had to endure the entry of millions of additional workers due to the increased number of women in the workplace and now the frequent injections of legal and illegal immigrant labor. These have conspired to wither any wage increases for non-supervisory workers.

While I would not recommend closing the borders, we should use the militias to provide surveilance and warning on illegal immigration and smuggling activities along our southern border. We shouldcouple this with stern interior enforcement on employers and those who provide illegal aliens with housing and other services. Fines can be levied and assets can be seized from employers, landlords and illegal aliens. These proceeds may be then used to finance the ongoing efforts. Those who are here blatantly illegally can be repatriated to their countries immediately and in the same fiscal situation as when they left them. This should prove to be a strong deterrent as the whole idea of returning them with nothing but the clothes on their backs should create enough of a concern that most will liquidate assets and return to their countries rather than risk losing everything. Banks should be compelled to require valid and legal I.D. for cash transfer. Non-government organizations that aid illegal immigration, even by failing to report them, should risk losing their tax-exempt status.

The denial of birth-right citizenship to children of illegal aliens is key in eliminating access to many tax-payer-funded services and programs. Further, the adoption of English as the Official National Language will go a long way towards making things more difficult for those here illegally. THe problem with immigration enforcement is that it realy hasn't been tried and illegal aleins are criminals and felons due to their own decision to break our laws which are not unlike the immigration laws in their own countries.

Carlos Rodgriguez: <p... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Carlos Rodgriguez:

It's refreshing to read that someone admits to the colonization and imperial 'invasion' element ("National Sovereignity") that motivates much of today's illegal immigration, at least from Mexico.

About the unions, I think you have a very important point there. However, with unions being tied intrinsically in the experiences of many to marxist-socialism, there's little wonder why many Americans oppose their process.

However, they did for a brief period of time help to implement and maintain an American middle class that's been on the decline as possible ever since, and mostly from disparaties in employment and most of that by negative influence from illegal immigration, all things considered.

The idea that "Americans" "won't do" "work" is at issue here, since no one I know will and would refuse work when an income was necessary, and it always is for everyone.

Illegal immigration has robbed the country of a lot of honor in work, in the idea of work. It's the same with the concept and value of citizenship: why value it, what's the point, so to speak, when/if those who don't value it, disregard it, can live so much 'better' with so fewer responsibilities. I certainly don't feel that way, just saying, I do conclude that the value of citizenship and country has been immensely devalued by illegal immigration.

And businesses in the U.S. who defend illegal immigration -- our U. S. Chamber of Commerce, specifically, nationally and locally -- are responsible.

You are so right about doing away with the 14th Amendment privilege of citizenship for those born on American soil. At this point, most of the country agrees with you (I certainly do, as I wrote earlier here); the only people who don't agree are illegal aliens.

Hey, it's our country, we get to decide. It's not a country of, for or about illegal aliens.

There are going to be dips and problems in American business while this issue is concluded (illegal immigration). Agriculture, service industries, they're going to have employment numbers dips, yes, but the objective and end result is so much more important than their shortterm problems.

.the question isn't one of ... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

.the question isn't one of legal vs illegal immigrants. it is as one commenter said about immigration levels and furthermore the type of immigrants being allowed in. Mexico has a very effective policy against illegal immigration in to Mexico ( unless they are transients en route to the US). the US doesn't have a shortage of poor people or criminals. we can on the other hand use more scientists, engineers, mathematicians and wealthy people. as the President of Mexico said crudely, illegals do the work Americans of certain ethnic and racial backgrounds won't do. the simple solution is to adopt Mexican methods of controlling illegal immigration coupled with further welfare reform. Mexico will never reform and advance as long as it's elites can "export" their "problems" by avoiding real reform. in the long term we do ourselves and the Mexican people no favor by allowing the present status to remain as is.

The problem with free ma... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

The problem with free market economics is that it has to be two way. ... Very few nations would show reciprocity.

Why? That makes no sense.

Economics is important, but it's not everything. Social ties matter more. That's why we DO have public education. That's why people DON'T steal from their neighbors. That's why so many brave young men and women DO bother to join the ranks of the military, or the police dept, or the fire dept.

It's a common misconception that economics is only about money. The free market economists whose writings I most closely follow were very careful to point out that there is no real distinction between economic matters and all other matters of liberty. Economic analysis may only concern the observable world of action and behavior, but it is about a lot more than money.

All economics is based on the value that we assign to things -- some of which are goods and services that can be bought and sold on the market, and some of which are not. It was the great achievement of the free market economists that showed that all value is subjective. The personal value that people derive from service in the fire department or military is just as much a matter of economics as the buying and selling of wheat or gasoline or medical services.

The fact is that a leftist sees the values of these social obligations in terms of pure economics. "Take X dollars from person A and give it to person B."

No, they do not base these policies on "social obligations." Maybe they do as a matter of propaganda, but in truth, they are actually based on the desire to increase the power of the person who's in charge of transferring the money (i.e., themselves).

You have to go more deeply than "free marketeer" vs. socialist.

Not in matters of politics. Government is nothing more than organized force. That's the sum total of its existence and function. The extent to which it is proper and appropriate for government agents to use force is what politics is all about.

The only axis on which issues of the use of force turn is the one between liberty and control. I come down on the side of liberty, except in very specific circumstances (all of which involve the prevention or remedy of an objective, discrete form of actual harm, such as violence, fraud, etc.). Socialists (of all stripes) come down on the side of control.

In matters of personal life, yes, there is quite a lot in the world other than issues of the use of force. But they are not appropriate matters for government. Government is not the same thing as "society."

staunch free marketeers and ardent socialists have more in common than they'd like to admit. Most importantly, they both see money at the root of everything.

Again, economics is not only about money, even though the part that concerns the government is, mostly.

Besides, the economic aspects of immigration law is what this is really all about. It's primarily a form of economic protectionism (for competing workers). Plus, its lax enforcement is basically a form of subsidy to those who employ illegals as cheap labor. If many businesses had to pay the government-mandated wages (and follow other employment requirements), then they'd fold.

Take agricultrure, for example. The selective enforcement of immigration law as to seasonal farm, ranch and orchard hires is basically a government-subsidy to protect those employers from foreign competition. That's a special subsidy that other types of employers do not get.

F1C5!Pete... (Below threshold)

F1C5!

Peter, here in California, illegal immigration is most definitely having a significant detrimental effect on American culture. There is no question about that. Even liberals who favor illegal immigration admit that, they just see it as a good thing.

If I may, allow me to suggest that what's really happening is a detrimental effect on California culture—California's welfare state culture to be exact.

Please don't think that I'm trying to make light of your predicament, because I'm really not. I'm sure the situation in California is quite destablizing. But here in Texas where we have an even longer border with Mexico than you do, we are in no such predicament. This is because we don't have a welfare state, or at least certainly not of the same order of magnitude as California. As a result, what we get are migrant workers while you get dole-seekers, or at least to the extent that they exist. Sure, it's putting some pressure on our schools and other infrastructure, but we don't have socialized medicine here so that's not a factor, and the fact that Texas is growing like gangbusters even without the migrants means that we hardly notice any additional burden.

This is not about whether Mexicans and other immigrants are nice and hard working and swell people. Many, if not most of them are. No one here is arguing otherwise - so that makes your bringing it up a what? Strawman.

Excuse me, but I brought it up in response to -S- repeatedly referring to migrants as "felons," clearly an attempt to insinuate that somehow these people are generally dangerous criminals. We all know that that's bullshit, so maybe I shouldn't have dignified it with a response.

Anyway explain to us how illegal immigration is is having absolutely no effect on our sovereign rights as Americans, period. I'd be highly interested. Please address schools, healthcare, law enforcement, housing, and of course, culture.

Who said it was "having absolutely no effect"? Not me. But you tell me, how would that effect be any different if all of these people were coming from, say, Mississippi? More people=larger tax base=more resources for services and infrastructure. As far as Mexicans go, if they were able to work legally then more of them would be be paying taxes instead of receiving cash under the table. To that extent, much of the problem is simply self-inflicted.

To the extent you're asking me how to make California's welfare state "work," well, if I knew that they'd give me the Nobel Prize. But if California would throttle back their welfare state, then all of the dole-seekers would only remain in California for as long as it took them to cross the state on their way to Canada =8^]

Also, you write about a 15mph speed limit, then about closing state borders (what the heck is the 'logic' behind that one - remember I spoke about economies existing not in a vacuum, but within systems of governance of which I address national sovereignity, ie. the US), and you accuse me of creating a strawman? Come on, you have to do better than that.

And for the record, clearly and obviously no one in their right mind would suggest closing state borders. Now you explain why borders between the states of the United States are no different - in your mind - than those borders between the US and Mexico and the US and Canada.

The strawman fallacy is when one first ignores the argument being offered and substitutes a similar sounding yet different and more easily defeatable argument in it's stead—and then proceeds to argue against the substitute argument.

What I was offering with the 15mph speed limit is called an analogy. That's where one makes ADDITIONAL arguments using different terms or less emotional or controversial situations and uses the comparison with the original argument to further illustrate one's point.

My analogy with state borders was an attempt to get you to compare your own opinion regarding immigration with a hypothetical barrier between US states because from an economic perspective, there is no difference. Capital flows simply don't make any such distinctions; they either flow or they don't, and as you state here, we both agree that between US states, it's better for all when they flow.

Yours/
peter.

"This is a bad idea, the 14... (Below threshold)
Septeus7:

"This is a bad idea, the 14th ammendment grants citizenship to those born in the US."

That is false Bill. Read the damn thing before you write about it. Children of Foreign Diplomats are not citizens even if they are born on American Soil. Being born on American is not the only standard for citizenship according to the Constitution. Please read it again.

And for Cato-Institute Looneytarians here's an article by a real libertarian about the question of open borders.

Read Here: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_8.pdf

Peter: "Excuse me, but I br... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Peter: "Excuse me, but I brought it up in response to -S- repeatedly referring to migrants as "felons," clearly an attempt to insinuate that somehow these people are generally dangerous criminals."

Point made and accepted, I missed other commenters remarks.

I don't disagree with you regarding the welfare state as a concept and its exploitation by illegal immigrants. But clarify something I don't understand - where do illegal immigrants in Texas get medical care? Do they go to jail or use any resources paid for by legal Texas residents, or by federal tax dollars? Here in California, they go to emergency rooms on the taxpayer dime for medical care for instance. Is there a different system in Texas? I'm truly curious.

To me your overall argument seems to be academic. Economies do not exist in a vacuum. If there were no nations, no borders, capital flows would move just as you say and none of us would be here arguing about it. But, needless to say, borders and governments do exist - and with good reason.

And, needless to say, there is more to life than economics. It is morally wrong for the US to become a predominately hispanic nation due to the effects of illegal immigration. And, if current rates of immigration do not decrease dramatically, that is exactly what is going to happen.

The US is undergoing what amounts to a slow and inexorable demographic invasion by illegals predominately of hispanic origins. I understand the latest census data shows that 3% of US population is here illegally. The percent is of course significantly greater here in California. Economics simply do not justify that invasion. Even if it is by nice people that are just looking for work, it is still morally wrong.

My view is this: Get control of the borders. When that control is shown to be in place and highly effective, then measure the effect on the labor pools. If our capitalist economy for some reason can not adapt to the changes in labor pools, then and only then create an appropriate guest worker program.

For every dollar earned by an illegal worker, that they do not send back to their homelands, and end up contributing to our economy, there is more than a dollar spent by American taxpayers to support them being here. Hell, we'd be better off just shipping those contribution dollars directly to Mexico and we'd save the overheard currently borne by US citizens.

It is morally wrong for ... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

It is morally wrong for the US to become a predominately hispanic nation due to the effects of illegal immigration.

There is nothing remotely harmful about being hispanic, being in the US, speaking Spanish, adhereing to hispanic culture, etc. We still profess to be a free society. That means, if nothing else, that non-harmful conduct should not be subjected to government control.

These things are immoral: aggressive violence, fraud, destruction or theft of property, negligently injuring others without compensation, breaking commercial promises, failing to provide for one's children to the extent possible ...

Nothing you have mentioned regarding immigrants, however illegal their presence here as a matter of immigration law is, provided they are not criminals in other respects, comes close to being "immoral."

Septeus7 wrote- That is... (Below threshold)
Bill:

Septeus7 wrote- That is false Bill. Read the damn thing before you write about it. Children of Foreign Diplomats are not citizens even if they are born on American Soil. Being born on American is not the only standard for citizenship according to the Constitution. Please read it again.

I made a mistake in failing to note this exclusion but you need to read the 14th ammendment.

14th ammendment reads- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

and the US Supreme court upheld it against Chinese exclusionary laws=

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents in 1873. In 1895, upon his return from a visit to China, he was refused entry by US customs officials, who asserted that he was a subject of the Chinese emperor and not a US citizen.

At this time, US law (the "Chinese Exclusion Acts") prohibited Chinese immigration (except for those Chinese people who were already in the US). Chinese people were also barred from becoming naturalized US citizens -- and it was argued, on this basis, that Wong was ineligible to be considered a US citizen, in spite of his having been born in the US.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on a 6-2 vote that Wong Kim Ark was in fact a US citizen. The court cited the "citizenship clause" of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born (or naturalized) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Although the original motivation for this language in the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for the freed Negro slaves, the court held that the clause clearly applied to "all persons", regardless of their race or national origin.

The court rejected outright the idea that the Chinese could be singled out for special treatment in this respect. "To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries," the majority wrote, "would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

As for the question of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States -- i.e., the relationship between a person and a government whereby one "owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes" -- the Supreme Court observed that English common law (legal tradition inherited from Britain by the US) had long recognized only two jurisdictional exceptions to the principle of ius soli (citizenship by birth on a country's soil): namely, (a) foreign diplomats, and (b) enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country's territory.

Two exceptions, the second based on English common law. Clearly laid out by our court.

No one has yet to answer how this law will be administered without possibly harming US citizens. It will happen and it will be wrong no matter what. INS/Immigration is a mess and everyone of you will say that. I've had personal experience with not with a friend, but family members. I can tell you how @#%^! it is. Just tell me how this law is to be administered and don't give me its people's tough luck if they screwed by this proposed law.

You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually. May I cite

Palestinians in the Arab world. Used by their arab neighbors as political pawns now they are considered a disruptive element just about everywhere. With reason too. But the Arabs created their mess.

As did the French as seen in recent riots. It will backfire, I might not live to see it but it would. Simple solutions to Big problems lead to unintended consequence.

Phinn: "There is nothing... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Phinn: "There is nothing remotely harmful about being hispanic, being in the US, speaking Spanish, adhereing to hispanic culture, etc."

I never said there was anything morally wrong with any of the above. I stated that the creation of a hispanic majority in the US by illegal means is immoral. That says nothing about being hispanic, speaking spanish, or adhereing to hispanic culture being in and of itself harmful. Certainly it is not.

I happen to like a lot about the cultures of Mexico and Central and South America - I just don't want it foisted on the citizens of the US through illegal means.

And it is.

I would encourage anyone, p... (Below threshold)

I would encourage anyone, pro or con on the topic of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to visit the Frosty Wooldridge web site and read his commentaries on this subject. He provides a real eye opener on this problem.

"There is nothing remotely ... (Below threshold)
Alan:

"There is nothing remotely harmful about being hispanic, being in the US, speaking Spanish, adhereing to hispanic culture, etc. We still profess to be a free society. That means, if nothing else, that non-harmful conduct should not be subjected to government control." - Phinn

Phinn,

What world, exactly, do you and Peter J live in? Because I think it's the world I want to live in. You know, the one where reality is defined by what you WANT it to be rather than by what IT is.

Fact: We live in a democracy (or a republic, or a democratic republic). That means one man, one vote. That means that everybody who is a citizen here has a decision in what the government does, and the government can do a hell of a lot. It has the power to tax you, the power to throw you in jail. It has the power to tell you where your child MUST go to school (if you don't want to have to pay ON TOP of taxes to send him to a private school). It can shut down your business. It can tell your business what color of skin its employees have to be.

You can pretend, or desire, or hope that we had some different sort of government; that it was more libertarian in nature. Hope all you want, and in many cases I'll be right there hoping with you. But don't assume that because that's the way you'd LIKE it to be that that's the way it ever WILL be.

You can, for example, act as if the presence of huge numbers of Spanish-speaking immigrants has no effect on how you "choose" to live, but it does. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs (government jobs, even) that you cannot work in without knowing Spanish. The presence of large numbers of people of Hispanic descent will inevitably change the demands on schools (and already has) for what they teach as part of the curriculum. We're throwing out Shakesepeare and Dickens so that kids can read Pablo Neruda and Rigoberta Menchu - just for cultural "equality."

Government has, can, and will continue to exert too much control over our lives. THAT WON"T CHANGE, as much as you or I want it to. And demographics will affect what it's going to do.

For example, it used to be pretty much the standard that Protestant Christianity was taught in public schools. The values that kids were taught were Protestant values. The bibles they read were Protestant bbles. The prayers they said were Protestant prayers. Then the nation saw a huge influx of Catholic immigrants - from Ireland and Italy, in particular. Large numbers of Jews came later. The battles - the DEMOCRATIC RESULT of this DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE - led to the elimination of any kind of religion from public schools. Good? Bad? Indifferent? I don't care what you think about this particular change. I'm just using history to demonstrate the political effects of immigration.

RE: economics. I don't care how economists define "economics." When most people - including most people - talk about economics, they're talking about business and finance. They're talking about money. They're talking about GDP and GNP and ROE and profits per employee.

The 14th Amendment: "All pe... (Below threshold)
Alan:

The 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That's how it SHOULD read. By that, I mean that's how the government enforces it today. Born here? You're a citizen. Period. So why that extra clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" What's that for? Is it just a rhetorical flourish? Not much of a flourish.

No, it was put there for a reason. A PARTICULAR reason. It excluded children of diplomats. It excluded Native Americans. You may think excluding Native Americans was "ugly" of those "racist" congressmen who had just lived through the bloodiest war in American history, but survival was not a certain thing, then. It is not as certain as we think it now.

Will the elimination of automatic citizenship at birth cause some bureaucratic problems? No doubt. But in the MODERN world it is MORE, not less, nescessary than ever. We have cars. We have jet airplanes. We have television.

Something like 100 million non-Americans come to this country each year. What fraction of them are women? What fraction of them are of child-bearing age? The concept of a nation means nothing if any kid who gets squeezed out whilst his mother is "jus solis" in our country is automatically a citizen.

We all own assets. Some ass... (Below threshold)
Alan:

We all own assets. Some assets we own the title or deed to - our car, our home, our computer, stocks and bonds. Some assets are ours, but only in trust. This includes the mountains outside my home. The reservoir up the canyon. The water in that reservoir. The roads I use to get everywhere. The schools my children attend. The air I breath.

Many of these assets I have been taxed for. Even more of them my ancestors were taxed for. Many of them my ancestors bled and died for.

My ability to use these assets diminishes with the presence of an increased number of people. The parks are full. The streams are overfished. I have to put my name into a lottery for a deer permit now, whereas 20 years ago I could get one automatically. The same drive that took me 20 minutes ten years ago takes me 40 today.

I may not "own" these assets in a literal sense, but I still own them. They are mine. And yours. Talk libertarianism all you want, but that's how it is. Even a government far more libertarian than our present one would still own tens of trillions in assets in trust for its citizens.

For most people the non-monetary assets they own - their share of this country's "stock", as it were - is worth far more than their monetary assets. For wealthy business owners, however, the reverse is true. A businessman who builds 100 homes to sell can get a lot more for those 100 homes if there is more demand for them (eg, a larger population AND especially a growing population). That's why he likes high levels of immigration. It means more people and more growth.

This is the politics of rent-seeking. The businessman who owns 100 homes doesn't care that bringing more people into this country will inconvenience me. He doesn't care that I'll end up spending more time stuck in traffic. He doesn't have to compensate me for it. He doesn't care about the new schools and roads the citizens will have to pay for. He doesn't care about the water shortages that will result from too many people in an arid environment. All he cares about is that his 100 homes just went from netting him $10 million to $30 million. Because there's more demand. Through rent seeking he gains lots of money but pays little of the non-economic costs. He wins, we lose.

And that's exactly what businesses are doing. Sure, THEIR economy is improving because of high immigration (ILLEGAL or LEGAL). But not most people's.

The problem is that too many people today ignore the existence of limits. Many of the products we buy don't seem to have limits. When demand goes up, the price goes own - for TVs, computers, software and lots of the rest. We ignore the fact that there are still some things you can't make more of. Land, for instance. Fresh water, for another. The prices of many natural resources have been soaring lately: lumber, oil, natural gas, cement, etc.


Phinn and Peter,

The problem with all your arguments is that it ignores so many realities. Once one of your assumptions about some ideal world fails the whole argument you've built comes crashing down like a house of cards.

1) Too many assets owned by people are owned in trust. Because of that, their value is diluted by mass immigration. You assume we have - or can have - an entirely free market economy. That is not the case - and what's more, most people don't want it, even those who are very conservative by most standards. Abolish government-funded schools? Abolish public roads? Abolish national and state parks?

2) The democratic effects of demographic change. In a democracy, the political effects of a large scale change in population has an effect on your life whether you want it to or not.

3) The assumption that ultimate good is defined by economic growth, and economic growth alone. Some things do not have an economic value, but are still worth something. You can point to GNP and say "See, it grew by 3.5% last year. Without immigration it would have only grown by 2%." But GNP doesn't measure whether the average person's life got better or worse. That's why lots of people are willing to work in towns where the pay is smaller but the cost-of-living is cheaper: you can buy the exact same lifestyle for a lot less money in Colorado than you can in California.

4) The economics of natural resources. You're too stuck on the parts of the service and manufacturing economy that have highly elastic supplies. Some things don't, like land.

"You create an underclass i... (Below threshold)
Alan:

"You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually."

No argument with that. But this is not the same as other types of underclass. Slaves, for example, were held against their will. They were non-citizens by government decree. If they left, their owners were bereft.

No one here is trying to create an underclass, though. They have every right to leave the country. We WANT them to leave the country. They ARE citizens of another country.

The denial of brithright citizenship is not about creating an underclass. It's about tearing down the infrastructure that allows illegals to remain - and citizen offspring are a huge piece of that.

As I said before, all those people who say that you CAN'T enforce the laws are doing everything in their power to STOP US from enforcing the laws. "You can't get rid of them so you need to educate their children. You can't get rid of them so you need to give them driver's licenses. You can't get rid of them so you need to let them open bank accounts and own homes. You can't get rid of them so you shouldn't have state policemen ebforcing immigration laws. You can't get rid of them so you need to give their kids citizenship."

How many of them could we get rid of if we didn't give them driver's licenses; if we didn't let them send their kids to public daycare (err...schools); if they couldn't buy homes.

15 million people didn't come here just yesterday. This problems been growing for the last 19 years. If you actually had laws that made it harder for them to stay then the problem wouldn't be this large to begin with.

"You create an underclass i... (Below threshold)
Alan:

"You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually."

No argument with that. But this is not the same as other types of underclass. Slaves, for example, were held against their will. They were non-citizens by government decree. If they left, their owners were bereft.

No one here is trying to create an underclass, though. They have every right to leave the country. We WANT them to leave the country. They ARE citizens of another country.

The denial of brithright citizenship is not about creating an underclass. It's about tearing down the infrastructure that allows illegals to remain - and citizen offspring are a huge piece of that.

As I said before, all those people who say that you CAN'T enforce the laws are doing everything in their power to STOP US from enforcing the laws. "You can't get rid of them so you need to educate their children. You can't get rid of them so you need to give them driver's licenses. You can't get rid of them so you need to let them open bank accounts and own homes. You can't get rid of them so you shouldn't have state policemen ebforcing immigration laws. You can't get rid of them so you need to give their kids citizenship."

How many of them could we get rid of if we didn't give them driver's licenses; if we didn't let them send their kids to public daycare (err...schools); if they couldn't buy homes.

15 million people didn't come here just yesterday. This problems been growing for the last 19 years. If you actually had laws that made it harder for them to stay then the problem wouldn't be this large to begin with.

Unfortunately, until the U.... (Below threshold)
Vanessa:

Unfortunately, until the U.S. government changes its policy regarding Cuban immigrants, it does not have a leg to stand on regarding illegal immigration. You cannot treat one group of illegal immigrants differently than other groups of illegal immigrants and still think people will obey your laws.

I just don't want [hispa... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

I just don't want [hispanic culture] foisted on the citizens of the US through illegal means.

But the issue here is whether those means should be illegal in the first place. If immigration were opened up, and the "foisting" that you refer to were made legal, would you have a problem with it then?


We live in a democracy (or a republic, or a democratic republic). That means one man, one vote. That means that everybody who is a citizen here has a decision in what the government does, and the government can do a hell of a lot. It has the power to tax you, the power to throw you in jail. It has the power to tell you where your child MUST go to school (if you don't want to have to pay ON TOP of taxes to send him to a private school). It can shut down your business. It can tell your business what color of skin its employees have to be.

I realize all of this, and agree with you to the extent that you believe in principles of government founded in liberty.

This discussion is a perfect illustration of how government becomes more authoritarian over time -- a government enacts some anti-liberty law or program, which naturally causes all sorts of secondary and tertiary problems, then has to enact another set of anti-liberty laws in order to deal with the problems caused by the first one. Repeat ad infinitum.

Take the government schools, for example. They were created as part of an openly socialist agenda of the 19th century. As a result, parents were deprived of control over their kids' classmates and curriculum (unless they want to pay for both the government school AND the school their kids actually attend). So, this prompts people to use the government to go a step further, to exclude (through immigration laws) people with different cultural backgrounds, thus making the classes and curriculums more homogenous.

Or, the government interferes with the fundamental liberty of contract between and employer and employee, which causes all sorts of problems, which prompts people to use government (again) to control the demographics of the labor pool.

Of course, the solution to these problems is to do away with the underlying problem-causing governmental law or program, not the creation of yet another one to ostensibly balance the first one out (but which will end up causing further problems of its own).

The tighter the government squeezes, the more problems it creates, so it squeezes even tighter to control the secondary problems, etc. It's the one-way ratchet effect. It only ends when the ratchet breaks.


This is the politics of rent-seeking.

Are you referring to the private businessman who builds valuable houses for sale in the market (which he, in your example, wants to be more open and free?), or to yourself, who wants the government to use its special power to forcibly exclude people so that you can enjoy public assets without competition?

I understand rent-seeking to be the economic benefit supplied by special government privilege. Identifying the rent-seeking behavior depends on what you consider to be the baseline reference point, I guess.


Government has, can, and will continue to exert too much control over our lives. THAT WON"T CHANGE.

As Hayek said, nothing is inevitable but thinking makes it so.

"Historically, the period o... (Below threshold)
Ken:

"Historically, the period of history in which the U.S.'s standard of living was at its best (1945 - 1965), we had strong unions, protective tariffs and restrictive immigration laws."

Historically, the period of history in which the U.S.'s standard of living was at its best is.... right now.

Not only that, but another period in history in which the U.S.'s standard of living, its level of technological achievement, and so on were growing astoundingly fast, faster than anywhere else in the world (the late 19th Century) was characterized by liberal immigration laws, weak unions (i.e., they had to get their own hands dirty and commit violence themselves to extort money; the government wasn't yet willing to do it for them), and the nearly complete absence of a welfare state.

I have to second Ken's comm... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

I have to second Ken's comment. Although I would characterize the golden age of American economic development as from 1845-1860. This period just before the war was one of not only low but decreasing taxation (only on imports, no income tax at all), open immigration, and non-existent unions. It witnessed the greatest period of economic growth and improvement of the standard of living, for the greatest number of people, in the history of the world.

It only took a massive tax hike, essentially a reinstatement of the Tariff of Abominations from a generation before, and the election of a president who was pledged to a destructive campaign of massive federal subsidies and protectionism, to start a war and bring it all to an end.

Also, I honestly resent the... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being 'hispanisized' at an increasing rate. The fact is that illegal immigration is driving this unwanted, unwarranted change in our culture. And that is wrong.

I ,ove the way you held your rascist point to the very end! It made you almost sound rational! Nice work, scumbag!

Phinn: "But the issue here ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Phinn: "But the issue here is whether those means should be illegal in the first place. If immigration were opened up, and the "foisting" that you refer to were made legal, would you have a problem with it then?"

Completely irrelevant question. Immigration will never be opened up again in the US because it would be detrimental to the citizens of the country since the nation no longer needs a virtually unlimited number of immigrants legal or otherwise.

The situation I addressed (and that you ignored) is not hypothetical - it is *really* happening and must be dealt with for the good of US citizens.

Quote: I made a mistake in ... (Below threshold)
Septeus7:

Quote: I made a mistake in failing to note this exclusion but you need to read the 14th ammendment...and the US Supreme court upheld it against Chinese exclusionary laws.

I'm glad you admit that you made a mistake but before you cite the Supreme Court I'd like you no that I have no respect for the words of the Supreme but for the words of the Constitution and clear intent of the law which Supreme Court has totally ignored when suites them. I suggest you read this site (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11)
for some historical background on the 14th admendment before we look at the Court decision to see if Court was even in the ballpark in its rulings regarding this issue.

Here are some choice quotes from the legislative history:

Introducing the proposed amendment, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

And "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi-foreign nations."

Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word.
It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. … I have supposed … that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration…? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the Country of California, and if another people, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? … As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she choose who is not a citizen of some one of the United States."

Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee "[I]t is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” [emphasis added] Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them. … It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government [by which Trumbull means his tribe] that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens"

I could go on and on but the point is clear that from the legislative history that this doctrine of birthright citizenship is as best put by Senator John Conness of California, an Irish immigrant himself, "simply a fiction in the brains of persons who deprecate it, and that alone."

So where did the Supreme come with this idea when the legislative record clearly proves the language "subject to the juridiction therefore" was spefically crafted to exclude children of foreigners and illegal aliens?

Prior to Ark here was the Supreme's interpetation from Elk: "The evident meaning of [the jurisdiction phrase] is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States … although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ within the meaning of the [Citizenship Clause], than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…"

Elk has never been overturned and it much more clearly applies to Anchor Babies than does Ark.

Quote from Bill"As for the question of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States -- i.e., the relationship between a person and a government whereby one "owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes" -- the Supreme Court observed that English common law (legal tradition inherited from Britain by the US) had long recognized only two jurisdictional exceptions to the principle of ius soli (citizenship by birth on a country's soil): namely, (a) foreign diplomats, and (b) enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country's territory."

And so it completely ignored the legislative history and common law history which clearly reject of the idea of ius soli which you are misunderstanding. Ius Soli was an imperialist doctrine that America fought a war with England to end and the Supremes cited that common law. Can we say irony?

From Howard Sutherland " The Court preferred the English view of jus soli birthright citizenship, which had allowed the Crown to assert jurisdiction over anyone born in England, no matter who his parents were....They ignored the fact that, by putting the Citizenship Clause, qualified by the jurisdiction phrase, into the Constitution, the country had deliberately superseded the common law view"

Aside from the gross ignorance of history and law that Supremes showed in Ark, it has nothing to children of illegals. There has been no test case yet of the applicability of the Citizenship Clause to illegal aliens.

So pursuant to its powers under Article I of the Constitution and the explicit grant of Congressional enforcement authority in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment the Congress can make laws seeking to end birthright citizenship.

So your statement Bill "Our politicians therefore pay lip service to immigration reform or worse. Make it tougher on legal immigration or propose unconstitutional measures like ending birthright citizenship" is totally false.

There simply is no law or jurisprudence that says ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

From Bill "No one has yet to answer how this law will be administered without possibly harming US citizens. It will happen and it will be wrong no matter what. INS/Immigration is a mess and everyone of you will say that. I've had personal experience with not with a friend, but family members. I can tell you how @#%^! it is. Just tell me how this law is to be administered and don't give me its people's tough luck if they screwed by this proposed law."

Oh and citizens aren't hurt by wave after wave of illegals entering the court without proper screen or any process of law whatsoever?

The reason why Citizens are being hurt now is because of girlie-men like you who refuse to do that is needed because "it might hurt someobody" and don't give me you fucking sob-stories cause my cousin's husband may be deported cause of way current immigration works.

Solutions are painful because that is the proof that it works. Good medicine often taste bad and the world isn't a panacea. Get used to it.

"You create an underclass in this country it would lead to turmoil eventually."

We are creating an permanate underclass now you dumb shit cause by constantly flooding the labor market with cheap by the law of supply and demand you lower wages.

Read this book "http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385503024/103-5765795-8275053?n=283155"


Quote: "May I cite

Palestinians in the Arab world. Used by their arab neighbors as political pawns now they are considered a disruptive element just about everywhere. With reason too. But the Arabs created their mess."

This has nothing to with immigration and "Palestinians" whoever these mythical creatures are created their own state of poverty when they help the Arabs nations in a war of agression against Israel. If they hadn't rejected the UN's two-state plan they would be doing fine instead they launch a genicidal war against Jews. Fuck them and fuck you for supporting them.

Quote: "As did the French as seen in recent riots. It will backfire, I might not live to see it but it would. Simple solutions to Big problems lead to unintended consequence."

First the reason for the Muslim riots in France is that too many radical muslim ingrates are really fucking bad people and tend fuck things up wherever too many of them tend to populate.

Second, what did the French do that backfired? They let in too many poor undereducated muslim Africans thinking that it was good for their economy initially and when was too late they refused to deport because "simple solutions to big problems lead to unintended consequence." This is exactly what we are doing now (thanks to poeple like you) and the only reason we haven't had any big riots is cause Mexicans aren't radicals muslims.

Seamus: "I ,ove the way you... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Seamus: "I ,ove the way you held your rascist point to the very end! It made you almost sound rational! Nice work, scumbag!"

I see. So as to not be deemed "racist" by you, one must pass your litmus test of accepting imoral, illegal, unwarranted, and unwanted change in America's culture from illegal immigration.

Just so I'm clear, is just accepting the above preclude one from being racist, or does one have to acctually "support", or maybe "encourage" such illegal, damaging, and immoral behavior before you deem them not "racist"?

Calling someone a "racist" is a pretty serious charge - one that is trotted out all too easily by those with little semblance of intellect. As you so aptly demonstrated in your "response" to my comment.

Instead of juvenile, underhanded name calling, why don't you at least try to address the issues at hand? If you disagree with my statement, counter what I stated with fact and reasoned argument.

I truly don't expect much from you. I do suspect my calling you on your trite and inane name calling stunt just further validates my being "racist" in your mind. As if it takes anything at all.

Completely irrelevant qu... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

Completely irrelevant question.

Irrelevant to what? That makes no sense. You said that your objection to a less restrictive set of immigration laws is based on your objection to the foisting of hispanic culture on the US, then clarified your statement to emphasize the fact that it was the illegal means that you had a problem with. Which (again) makes not sense in this discussion since what we are talking about is what the legal status of those means should be.

It seems that if we changed the law, then the influx of hispanic culture due to immigration would no longer be illegal.

So, my question to you is: under such circumstances, would you still object to the growth of hispanic culture?

In other words, is your objection really, honestly and truly based solely on this "illegal means" business. Because, quite plainly, that makes no sense at all.

What it seems that you are actually saying is that you object to the growth of hispanic culture in the US regardless of the means by which that may happen. In fact, you seemed to call the prospect of that happening "immoral."

"What it seems that you are... (Below threshold)
F15C:

"What it seems that you are actually saying is that you object to the growth of hispanic culture in the US regardless of the means by which that may happen."

Your wrong in your assessment of what I'm saying and frankly I don't see how you could interpret what I wrote the way you did. Implicit in your assessment is much that I neither wrote nor believe. You inserted meaning that is not there to make your 'argument' such as it is. You are assigning meaning that is not there and not justified by what I wrote.

As with your 'what if' about removing all barriers to immigration, your writing is avoiding the subject at hand, and is not close to objectively making a counter-argument to my statement. You are making things up, then expecting me to 'go there' and argue with you about what you made up.

I called the illegal hispanization of America immoral. It is. Clearly. An obvious and significant effect of illegal immigration is undue hispanization of American culture.

My assessment of what is happening to American culture is accurate - it is not racist (as Seamus so lamely tried to assert), and makes no value judgement whatsoever as to whether one culture is better than the other. The statement is an assessment of what is happening in America today that has great impact on the future of the country.

And if one took the time to think just a bit one might remember that American culture is wonderfully multi-ethnic, so my desire to protect my culture from illegally and immorally being changed is to protect that aspect of the culture as well.

You are transparently attempting to turn this into a discussion of culturism or most likely racism ala Seamus. You are just more obtuse and wordy about it. So just come out and say it instead of cutely dancing around with trite, uneducated guesses of what I may or may not be saying or thinking.

If that is not the case, then you should be addressing the salient issue: the impact of illegal immigration on American culture instead of your basely conceived guesses at my motives.

If you think that because of my statement I am racist then simply say so. Explain why the statement is false. Prove me wrong. Show us that there is no undue impact on American culture from illegal immigration that itself is predominately hispanic in nature.

If there is no impact, and I'm just making it all up, then you may have grounds for at least asserting my statement is racist. If on the other hand, my statement is essentially accurate and describes the matter in a factual way, then by definition, your assertions are specious and without merit to say the least.

Actually, what I think we s... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Actually, what I think we should all take the time to do right now is sit and reflect upon all of the arguments that Phinn and Peter J have completely ignored.

Right now we're taking in 1.5-2 million immigrants a year (and that doesn't count the children many of them have shortly after coming here). If that number were, say, 20 million, would it still be OK?

If it's OK to say 20 million a year is too many, why is it not OK to say 2 million a year is too many?

Is anyone and everyone who believes in ANY limits to immigration at all a pig-headed "nativist?"

How do you compensate Americans for the diminishing effect that immigration has on their "stock" in America (the tens of trillions of dollars in assets the gov't holds in trust for the people)?

Why is it that so many people and organizations who are gigantic fans of open borders for "humanitarian" reasons happen - just conveniently, coincidentally happen - to have a major economic interest in the cheaper labor force and the increased market size provided by large-scale immigration?

How is the argument that we need immigrants to do the dirty, difficult jobs that "we won't do" for dirt pay not similar to the economic arguments justifying slavery?

Earlier, Phinn, you said that one of the greatest economic periods in US history was the period from 1845-1860. Was it great if you were black and lived in the South? For that matter, was it great if you were white, and not a land owner, and lived in the South?

How do you get people to make sacrifices for their country when their country is just some giant Middle Eastern bazaar? Is this the country that 1 million American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines gave their lives for? The United Businessmen of America?

Libertarian candidates today get about, oh, 0.3% of the votes in elections. How do you propose bringing your ideal, free-market world into existence, especially since most of the immigrants coming to this country are moving politics far to the left? (See: California)

The government (meaning: the people) provides roads. It provides sewers. It provides water. It provides police and fire protection. It provides military protection. It provides parks. It provides public schools. It provides emergency aid (sometimes). It enforces business contracts and debt collection - indeed it greases the skids to make a lot of "free market" activity cheaper than it would be.

Name one of these things (except for schools) that even 10% of the population thinks should be privatized.

Name one country that has completely privatized its roads, its parks, its military, its police force.

How is your economic growth through population growth scheme not unlike a Ponzi scheme?

If we're wrong (those of us who think immigration is too high) what's the result? Slower economic growth. The results are reversible: We just start letting people in again. If you're wrong, will we be able to kick all of these new citizens out?

Feel free to add to the list of all the objections they've just brushed aside. In their well-lit prison of one libertarian idea, such questions are heretical.

Phinn,I can unders... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Phinn,

I can understand, in theory, your belief in what seems to me to be a libertarian view of the world. There are good reasons to think of things in terms of ideals - a world with the absolute minimum of government power or economic redistribution. But just because you can imagine it in your head doesn't mean that it's realistic on paper.

Governments have existed for a very long time all over the world. They fill a purpose. Those places which do not have official governments - places like, oh, Somalia - tend to be very undesirable places to live.

The reason we have granted govt's so much power is that we've found it over time very useful to do so. We may hate the sovereign, but we need a sovereign. Human nature - other humans' nature - demands it. Its not an accident. It's not due to some authoritarian tendency in human beings.

For example, two of the major reasons govt's were first formed were to protect a town from outside invaders and to manage public works projects. So governments build roads. People drive on those roads. Some people drive like maniacs on those roads, and kill other people. So we require people to have licenses, and license plates, so we can know who's entitled to drive and who's a hazard to other people. We create a police force to take away the personal freedoms of those who harm others. We create a draft because we need to fill the ranks of the military to protect us from invaders. We create a bureau to raise revenue to fund all of these needs. We keep records to make sure that people are paying their fair share of taxes to fund these needs. These are just some of the things that nearly everyone agrees the gov't should do, and already you've given the gov't a whole lot of power. Show me a better way, and I'm happy hear it.

Well, F'er, if you don't wa... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Well, F'er, if you don't want to be called a racist, don't make racist statements.

Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being 'hispanisized' at an increasing rate. The fact is that illegal immigration is driving this unwanted, unwarranted change in our culture. And that is wrong.

In your post to Phinn:

and makes no value judgement

If you resent it, you're making a value judgement.

And I said that you almost sounded rational. In fact, you actually brought up some valid points. But your racist rant at the end of those points shows you for the scumbag you are, and dilutes the power of any point you may have made beforehand.

Your wrong in your asses... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

Your wrong in your assessment of what I'm saying and frankly I don't see how you could interpret what I wrote the way you did. Explain why the statement is false.

Because your statement it is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question," also known as "circular reasoning."

The question presented is whether immigration laws should be relaxed, tightened or maintained. There are various reasons that proponents of each position may give in support thereto.

You, however, gave a convoluted argument that began with an objection to the hispanization of US culture, but made a special point to clarify (when pressed) that you did not object to the growth of hispanic culture per se, but that you objected to the illegal means by which that occurs.

This is not an answer. I am not saying that it is not merely a good answer. I am saying that it is not an answer at all.

When asked "why should immigration remain illegal?" (or any variant phrasing thereof, such as "why shouldn't immigration be opened?" or "why should immigration laws be changed from their present staus?" or however you want to say it), it is no answer to say "because the resulting growth of hispanic culture is illegal."

You have changed your phrasing a bit, from "immoral" to "undue," I assume in order to avoid the uncomfortable reality that your earlier statements are indefensible as a matter of logic (which is understandable; this is an informal forum, and not every statement can be crafted with considered precision).

That's why I want to clarify what you are saying: What do you mean when you say that you object only to the "illegal means," since that qualification renders your entire statement meaningless. Do you instead object to the hispanization of US culture in general? If so, that would at least be a substantive response to the question of why (or why not) the immigration laws should be changed (or not).

How do you compensate Am... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

How do you compensate Americans for the diminishing effect that immigration has on their "stock" in America (the tens of trillions of dollars in assets the gov't holds in trust for the people)?

I think you misunderstand me, Alan. I object to the entire idea that the government holds "stock in trust" for anyone, or that the value thereof is "diminished" by immigration. It is a bogus idea, completely unfounded in law or economics. As a result, I do not understand what you are talking about.

If you have some specific res or trust corpus in mind, please identify it specifically. It is impossible to discuss the principles of government unless we know exactly what it is we are talking about.

How is the argument that we need immigrants to do the dirty, difficult jobs that "we won't do" for dirt pay not similar to the economic arguments justifying slavery?

Slaves can't leave. Slave-masters gain at the expense of the slave. In contrast, workers who voluntarily choose to perform work in exchange for a pre-agreed rate of pay can not only choose to accept that work (or not), but (when they choose to do that work) are obviously improving their situations by doing so. This is so obviously true as to be a tautology -- if the worker did not improve his situation by accepting employment, he wouldn't do it.

Voluntary employment has nothing to do with slavery. Your question is so ridiculous that I am beginning to doubt your sincerity.

Earlier, Phinn, you said that one of the greatest economic periods in US history was the period from 1845-1860. Was it great if you were black and lived in the South? For that matter, was it great if you were white, and not a land owner, and lived in the South?

No, it was not great if you were black and lived in the South. Slavery was an abominable practice, and totally unacceptable in a free society (much less a free market).

But, more to the point of your question, slavery existed to the same extent during the 150+ years preceding 1845. What was it about this period that saw such tremendous economic growth?

It was the free market. It was the period of the most free market in US history, in terms not only of low tariffs, but virtually unlimited immigration, i.e., a free market for labor). The other period of explosive growth was shortly after the Revolution in the late 1700s, for much the same reasons).

And, yes, this economic benefit was extremely broad-based. It would have been even broader had it not been for slavery, which, as I said, was abominable not only for the slave, of course, but detrimental non-slave-owners as well.

How do you get people to make sacrifices for their country when their country is just some giant Middle Eastern bazaar?

I do not understand your question. Are you trying to denigrate the concept of a free market by portraying it as "some giant Middle Eastern bazaar"? What "sacrifices for their country" aer you referring to?

How do you propose bringing your ideal, free-market world into existence?

By talking about it. By highlighting the destructive parts of statist, collectivist initiatives, the ones that politicians and their sycophant-cheerleaders have always tried to hide -- the harm, the economic devastation, the loss of liberty, the infringement of fundamental human rights to life, libery and property. The Statists have always (1) ginned up a phony "problem," and (2) pretended that their supposed "solution" has no negative conseqences. The growth of aggressive government has always been predicated on these two lies.

The government (meaning: the people) provides roads. It provides sewers. It provides water. It provides police and fire protection. It provides military protection. It provides parks. It provides public schools. It provides emergency aid (sometimes). It enforces business contracts and debt collection - indeed it greases the skids to make a lot of "free market" activity cheaper than it would be.

You might not know this, but the free market provided roads before the government did. The reason you might not know it is that government-takeover of the road-building business happened before we were born, back in the 19th century, under the reign of economic idiots like Lincoln and his protectionist, corrupt supporters.

This was before cars, obviously, so there has never been a free market for road-building in the age of the automobile, so people have a problem imagining how that would work. But it does work, it did work once, and would obviously work again. The laws of economics do not change.

Schools are another matter, beyond the scope of this thread. But suffice it to say that government schools were started as an overtly socialist program, and haven't changed their character.

I believe that a proper role of government includes the prevention and remedying of crimes, breaches of contracts, and enforcement of standards of care (i.e., torts).

Name one of these things (except for schools) that even 10% of the population thinks should be privatized.

I don't see the point in responding to transparent appeals to popularity.

How is your economic growth through population growth scheme not unlike a Ponzi scheme?

How is it at all like a Ponzi scheme? Ponzi schemes depend on deceiving investors into believing that they are getting a genuine return on investment (i.e., their money is being used to fund productive economic activity), when they are actually only getting contributions from other duped investors (i.e., the proceeds of theft by fraud, which is not productive economic activity).


But just because you can imagine it in your head doesn't mean that it's realistic on paper.

I am very serious about real-world effects. If you have a specific harm that you can point to, that may halp clarify your objection.


Governments have existed for a very long time all over the world. They fill a purpose. Those places which do not have official governments - places like, oh, Somalia - tend to be very undesirable places to live.

You started off with another appeal to popularity, or perhaps an appeal to common practice, which does not merit a response. As for Somalia, that is an example of a market that is not free. It is ruled by thugs. They are worse than the thugs that run other countries, of course, but not all thugs carry machine guns. Some wear suits and have the patina of respectability.


The reason we have granted govt's so much power is that we've found it over time very useful to do so.

Actually, it is more accurate to say that "we" did not grant it such power at all. In the case of our federal government, for example, "we" granted it only a very limited power over economic matters. Around 1937, it seized a lot more power, and another part of that government rubber-stamped that usurpation. "We" did not give it any such thing.


We may hate the sovereign, but we need a sovereign. Human nature - other humans' nature - demands it. Its not an accident. It's not due to some authoritarian tendency in human beings.

This is a meaningless hand-waving paean to authoritarianism. But if that's the level you want to descend to, then perhaps this is a comparable response: "Human nature is to be free from claims that others are 'sovereign' over them. It is not natural or necessary to be subject to a 'sovereign' authority. The authoritarian tendency is the same as the tendency toward aggression and brutality and domination."

Fluffy stuff, I admit. But no less substantive than your empty assertions.

Seamus: "If you resent it, ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Seamus: "If you resent it, you're making a value judgement."

Not as to the value of one culture over another. I resent the illegal and unwarranted growing influence on American culture caused by illegal immigration.

You are trying, as most race-baiters do, to redirect an argument that is above your ability to deal with by yelling 'racist' as a way to 'win' the discussion. It's not working. You are making things up, and as in your insipid statement above, grasping tremendously and obviously.

Again, instead of vile race-baiting hysterics, why not address the issue with claims that you can substantiate? That fact that you are not even trying speaks volumes.

Phinn: "What do you mean wh... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Phinn: "What do you mean when you say that you object only to the "illegal means," since that qualification renders your entire statement meaningless."

"You have changed your phrasing a bit, from "immoral" to "undue," I assume in order to avoid the uncomfortable reality that your earlier statements are indefensible as a matter of logic (which is understandable; this is an informal forum, and not every statement can be crafted with considered precision)."

Here are my exact words that you can't seem to read in context:

"I called the illegal hispanization of America immoral. It is. Clearly. An obvious and significant effect of illegal immigration is undue hispanization of American culture."

I did not change my phrasing - you are selectively reading to support your position. You can and should do better.

If you disagree that illegal immigration is not unduly influencing the American culture, then please explain why you believe such. You have not made a single argument to dispute the fact and reality of what I've written. Instead acting as a more nuanced version of Seamus, you are stuck on race-baiting.

Ho hum. We all know that being directly or implicitly called a racist is supposed to stop someone in their tracks and force them down on their knees to beg forgiveness handing the victory to the accuser. The problem is you are purposefully assigning meaning to my words that is clearly not present in an increasingly insipid, grasping attempt to make me out to be a racist for my having state substantiated facts and my opinion of those facts.

Phinn, do you have any substance in you?

Choosing to illegally enter another country for whatever purpose is wrong and an immoral choice. When the numbers are such that the very fabric of that country is effected in ways not desired by the citizens of that country, that is immoral on the whole. Such is happening in America (fact) and yes I do resent it (opinion).

You've attacked me ascribing behaviors that you have no way to substantiate. Your weak, easily disproven twisting of my words is becoming even more grasping as you continue.

Again, try to address the issue instead of attacking the person who raises the issue. If you disagree with *what* I've written, then dispute my premise with substantiated claims to the contrary. You have yet to even try to do that.

Your words alone are enough... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you're a racist. There have been 70-some posts on this thread. You're the only one I've accused of racism. Why is that? You're the only one who has made a racist argument.
Your argument that YOUR culture is under attack and in danger of bieng "Hispanicized" is the same ridiculous argument that the demagoges and the Klan made at the turn of the century about the Eye-tals and the micks and all the dirty, filthy papists who would undermine our wasp-ish American culture.

I called the illegal hispanization of America immoral. It is. Clearly. An obvious and significant effect of illegal immigration is undue hispanization of American culture.

You want me to refute the substance of your argument, but your argument has no substance. But then again, racists rarely do.

If you disagree that ill... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

If you disagree that illegal immigration is not unduly influencing the American culture, then please explain why you believe such. You have not made a single argument to dispute the fact and reality of what I've written.

I have not gotten a straight answer as to what your position actually is.

I have not attacked you. I disagreed with you, then you attempted to clarify your position, and I still have not gotten an answer from you as to what your actual position is. We cannot agree or disagree, nor can I address your "facts" and "reality" until I fully understand your position.

You keep saying that "illegal immigration is unduly influencing the American culture."

What I will ask again is this: is it the illegality or the immigration that you object to?

If it is only the illegality that you find objectionable, that position says nothing about the actual question presented here: WHAT SHOULD THE LAW BE? (And why?)

So, to clarify your attempted clarification, I ask again: if it were not illegal, would you still believe that immigration was "unduly influencing the American culture"? If so, why?

Seamus: "Your words alone a... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Seamus: "Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you're a racist. There have been 70-some posts on this thread. You're the only one I've accused of racism. Why is that? You're the only one who has made a racist argument."

I'm a racist since I'm the only one you have so far accused of being a racist...

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Too funny. I have to admit, I love it when I run across cases like you. You may be totally worthless in terms of putting forth any rational argument, but you are damn funny.

Anyway. Do you realize that your posts have no substantation to them whatsoever. You have done nothing more than call me a name and your justification comes from the fact that I'm the only one you've called that name. Geez. You really, truly, and with certainty, do. not. get. it.

One last try at getting something, anything, of substance out of you:

So you are essentially saying that there is no influence on American culture from illegal immigration. Prove it. If you can substantiate your de facto claim that illegal immigration is having no undue effects on American culture then we can talk about my claim that there is an effect, as having 'no substance'.

And just to clarify: My culture is American, and American culture is mine. I am quite proud of that. I suggest you look into what comprises the American culture that I appreciate so much. Pay special attention to multi-ethnic aspects, the melting pot concept, the equality of all. There have been and will continue to be great contributions to my culture by Americans representing effectively every race, creed, religion, and region on the planet - including hispanics. Indeed, I am very proud to be American.

That I support a very multi-ethnic America in no way means I must therefore support illegal immigration and its effects simply because those choosing to break our laws and enter our country illegally are predominately from one ethnic sector. It does not matter what that sector is, it does not matter what attributes the people of that sector embody - it is still wrong.

Phinn: "You keep saying tha... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Phinn: "You keep saying that "illegal immigration is unduly influencing the American culture."

I'm saying that because, duh, it's true. Please feel free to disagree. So far you've only attempted to insult me as a person. And belive me that does not bother in the least. I would though appreciate any argument you can put forth as to why you believe illegal immigration is not effecting American culture.

"What I will ask again is this: is it the illegality or the immigration that you object to?
"

What part of "illegal immigration" do you not get? My statement is simple and clear. I said what I meant, and meant what I said. You are asking me to 'answer' a hypothetical matter that is not germaine. What you posit as 'if it were legal immigration would you support it?' is facetious and has no bearing on the reality of our nation. Address the reality of the matter confronting all of us instead of lamely trying to figure out my psyche. That is not what this forum is about.

Unlike your position on the matters at hand, it is clear that you (like Seamus) want only to continue race-baiting. I wrote something you don't like, and in response you state nothing about *what* I wrote, but instead go on and on about *why* you believe I wrote it.

Look. You don't know whether I'm racist or not, and the reality of any debate is that you can not *prove* that the other person is or is not what you accuse them of. On the other hand, if my statement is "racist" you should be able to prove it easily enough by addressing the substance of that statement. It should be easy.

But so far you've ignored my statement, continue to imply that I'm racist or something like it, and dream up stilted hypotheticals in a vain attempt to prove you are 'right' about me.

I'll repeat my statement once more, because I don't know how much clearer I can make this:

Choosing to illegally enter another country is wrong and an immoral choice. When the numbers are such that the very fabric of that country is effected in ways not desired by the citizens of that country, that is immoral on the whole. Such is happening in America (fact) and yes I do not like it (opinion).

I think you should consider that my statement is true, false, or has some elements of both based solely on what it says. Whether I am racist or not has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the statement.

And let me make it clear that I support controlled borders and legal immigration at levels that can be shown to be right for the nation. Having worked in the fields of the Central Valley of California as a kid and teenager, and having many friends in the agriculture business, I can attest that we need workers from outside our nation to perform good, hard, honest work in those fields.

Phinn, it may well be that I am writing in a way that is not clear to you. The impression of you on this board is not the same as that of Seamus in that you seem to be an intelligent and (a seemingly) reasonable person.

When we are facing such a significant issue in our nation - one that is arguably the number one concern of voting age citizens - there is much in tangibles to discuss without going into the never ending abyss of hypothetical questions. You do realize of course that I could repond to your hypothetical with my own hypothetical and so on, and so on. We will accomplish nothing and there is nothing of substance to be learned in so doing.

If you do not want to address my statement (as opposed to what you think my motives might be) then posit your own position on the real matters of illegal immigration that you believe shows the fallacy of my position.

Phinn, it may well be th... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

Phinn, it may well be that I am writing in a way that is not clear to you.

Yes, I do not understand why you do not see the point of my question.

The simple issue is: what should the scope of legal immigration be? Tighter? Looser? The same? More importantly, why?

If, for example, it were looser, and more immigration were permitted, then for those people, their coming here would no longer be illegal. There would be no possible way to object to heir "illegal immigration" or any secondary effect therefrom, because it would not be illegal in the first place. These people, however, would have an effect on our culture, by virtue of their mere presence here. Thus, any objection to the policy that permitted them to come here would have to be based on something other than "illegality." It would have to be based on some sort of cultural or economic effect of their having come here legally.

It's a simple question: what do you think should be the criteria for deciding how far to open our immigration laws?

How do we decide this question? What are the metrics? What are the factors to consider? What are the steps in the reasoning process to arrive at a coherent position on the subject?


I would though appreciate any argument you can put forth as to why you believe illegal immigration is not effecting American culture.

As I may have said already, I do not believe it is the proper role of the government to make rules (i.e., exercise its special power to force people to behave in certain ways, which is what government is) based on considerations of culture.

Culture is, or should be, totally non-governmental. Culture is a social phenomenon, based on voluntary associations and practices. It is language, religion, food, dress, family structure, arts, etc.

Nothing that I would consider to be a bona fide cultural trait, custom or practice is remotely harmful. Behaviors that ARE harmful, in contrast, are easily identified, and should be prevented (or remedied) regardless of the culture of the person engaging in it. It should therefore not be part of the scope of government to control culture, or take action based upon it, one way or the other.

Government should exist to prevent and remedy harmful behavior. Cultural considerations, as being non-harmful by definition, are therefore not the proper grounds to be making any decisions about what the law should or should not be.

I believe these are the principles of a free society. My position on immigration, therefore, proceeds from my philosophy of government, and the scope of the moral use of governmental force.

I understand that a limited governmental role in matters of immigration, if actually implemented, would cause massive and immediate problems for huge sectors of the welfare state, such as government schooling, medical care, etc.

I consider these to be excellent reasons (in addition to many others) for the dismantling of the welfare state, not for restricting immigration. It is these programs that are the problem, not the immigration of otherwise peaceful, non-harmful people into the US.

So, to answer your question, I do not doubt that even peaceful immigration affects the native culture. I simply disagree that it is the proper role of government to have any role in cultural matters in the first place.

Jesus! How old were you be... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Jesus! How old were you before your father shot himself in the head for raising such a drooling moron? Or did the syphillis your mother gave him (and you) get him first? I understand that reading is very difficult for you, but try reading the very first line that you quoted.

"Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you're a racist."

That sentence puts the lie to your next two paragraphs, so we'll move right along. Sorry. Make that next three paragraphs.

So you are essentially saying that there is no influence on American culture from illegal immigration.

Ummmmm....I said nothing remotely like that. You said that you resent the hispanicization of your culture. I didn't argue that it wasn't happening. I said that resenting the growing hispanicization of your culture makes you a racist.

That I support a very multi-ethnic America in no way means I must therefore support illegal immigration and its effects simply because those choosing to break our laws and enter our country illegally are predominately from one ethnic sector.

Nobody said you had to. Mosdt of the people on this board don't support illegal immigration. All of them (except you) have been able to make that argument without sliding into racism. (that was my point earlier which went straight over your dimwiited little head.)

And just a reminder of your own words...

Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being 'hispanisized' at an increasing rate.

Seamus - You crack me up. N... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Seamus - You crack me up. Now you stoop to insulting my parents. Truthfully, how old are you? Twelve?

So, let me get this straight. When you, in your infinite wisdom, utter, "Your words alone are enough to substantiate my claim that you're a racist", then it JUST MUST BE TRUE. (Queue booming echo effect signaling that we've been witness to communication from the deity that is Seamus).

Well pardon me for not genuflecting in your presence.

One more time, even though I know it's a waste. My own words as quoted by you: "Also, I honestly resent the undue influence that illegal immigration is having on my American culture. Here in California, we are being 'Hispanicized' at an increasing rate."
Show me *how* those words are racist. There is no question that illegal immigration is effecting our culture. That effect is from an illegal source and so is ‘undue’. So that statement is empirical fact - therefore not racist. Let's see, does it bother you that I claim American culture as mine? I suspect it does. I suspect it bothers you a lot that I am proud to be American. But even so, that does not qualify me as a racist. And finally, if you believe that California is not being effected (in a way referred to by La Raza, and others like them by the term “Hispanicize”) please explain - if you can.

If I am racist I'd really like to know that, and even more importantly my wife would like to know that (inside joke).

Seamus - I’ve asked over and over for you to explain how my words make me a racist. I’ve explained the words in context and though you may not like what I have to say, that still does not make me a racist. It is clear that you are not capable of a reasoned response. It is abundantly clear that you are not capable of even carrying on a decent flame war for cripes sake.

Those who can do - those who can’t, troll…

Phinn: Thanks - I think I u... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Phinn: Thanks - I think I understand a bit more clearly where you are coming from. I don't even disagree with your comments on the welfare state. Though we may have some minor differences I suspect we agree there more than not.

However, here is the issue for me. I respect your view that the government should not have a role in the native culture. I certainly don't think the government should dictate the culture in any way.

But all that is beside the point in terms of our reality today. We can agree that the government *should* not effect culture, but that amounts to no more than you and I backslapping each other for our mutual brilliance on the matter and nothing else. Reality is that our government's actions and inactions do indeed have effects on the culture. In this case it is due to the government's not doing what it is tasked to do - control immigration into this country.

I don't believe (and I don't know if you do) that since immigration does have cultural impact that should preclude the government from managing immigration. If for no other reason than the fact that immigration also effects the economy, healthcare, law enforcement, international commerce and banking, and whole raft of other things that the government (though no doubt arguably) has every right to be involved in.

"Government should exist to prevent and remedy harmful behavior. Cultural considerations, as being non-harmful by definition, are therefore not the proper grounds to be making any decisions about what the law should or should not be."

On this, I have to disagree. From my perspective, culturally induced behaviors can be harmful - such things as honor killings, clitoral mutilation, treatment of women as not equal to men, and a host of other unfortunate cultural behavioral traits most assuredly can be harmful. Laws and enforcement systems within the government should be in place to deal with those behaviors even though they are spawned by a culture or sub-culture.

it is due to the governm... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

it is due to the government's not doing what it is tasked to do - control immigration into this country.

I understand, but the more important question is: why is it tasked to do so, and thus to what it extent and in what manner should it be so tasked?


I don't believe (and I don't know if you do) that since immigration does have cultural impact that should preclude the government from managing immigration.

Let me be very clear: the government should disregard the cultural aspect, and focus strictly on the harmful BEHAVIOR. A group of people may take it as a cultural virtue to, for example, steal cars. That cultural value is not the government's concern. The behavior of actually stealing the cars (and any collaborative behavior to promote and facilitate it) most certainly is.

The problem with enlisting government to exercise force in areas other than addressing harmful behavior is that it's possible to find a way to say that just about anything is "connected" to some form of harmful behavior. Unless we are firm that the government has no legitimacy unless it strictly confines itself to a particular set of activities, then you end up with the perpetual growth of governmental power into every aspect of our lives. Which is precisely what has happened in the US.


immigration also effects the economy, healthcare, law enforcement, international commerce and banking, and whole raft of other things that the government (though no doubt arguably) has every right to be involved in.

Other than law enforcement, the government does not have the rightful authority to exert its power in any of those areas.

(BTW, as a topic close to my heart, a free market for migrant labor is good for the economy, just as a free market for everything else is good for the economy.)

Did your mother bother to t... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Did your mother bother to teach you how to read. or was she too busy sucking off guys at the bus station for crack money?

I retract that last one. I... (Below threshold)
seamus:

I retract that last one. I forgot about reproting on your mothers syphillis in the previous post, so I did in fact insult your parents.

Auto Loans<a href="h... (Below threshold)
what do you think the minim... (Below threshold)
jerry turk:

what do you think the minimum wage would be if all the people who benifit from illegal workers didn't exist?
wouldn't young americans then be willing to work for a wage they could exactly be able to live and surport themselves and there family's
why are there so many working poor?
why are there so many homeless in our country that don't have the same suport that illegal aleins have?
why are americans so complacent

While traveling most recent... (Below threshold)
Todd:

While traveling most recently in Taiwan, I read an article in reference to Illegal Foreign Workers or what some US news agency's refer to as undocumented workers otherwise know as Illegal Aliens.
The Government of Taiwan is very concerned that they believe that there are currently 23,574 illegal foreign workers in their country and has recently increased the fines for hiring such individuals;
Under the Employment Service Act,
here are the new fines that took effect on April 12, 2006:
First offense: The company is fined $5,000.00 - $25,000 USD
Second offense: The hiring manager will be sentence to 3 years in jail and the company will be fined $40,000 USD, in addition the workers are deported to their country of origin within 48 hours.

Perhaps our federal and local governments could learn from other countries on how to handle the Illegal Workers that enter our country every single day!!!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy