Right, but your point about there being no “the country” is, in this context, precisely irrelevant.
Every decision we take, as “the country” (i.e., as actual US policy) is the product of debate, negotiation, and concession between different factions and interest groups. There is probably not a single national policy enacted by the US government that has the support of every US citizen. Representative democracies work precisely by balancing different opinions and formulating policies based on this balance, and on elections that demonstrate levels of public support for particular people and/or policies.
You are probably right that current US immigration policy reflects the priorities of some specific groups, but that doesn’t make it any less accurate to talk about “the country” when discussing US immigration policy.
I share your sympathy as well. Frankly I think some of the hate rhetoric comes from people that deep inside realize that if they were in the same situation they would be too afraid to risk so much for their loved ones.
Agree or disagree, I don’t care, what I really came in to say is that illegal immigrants give as much as they take. Why do you think we pay such a low price for many goods and services? It’s not because we’re paying them a fare wage, that’s for sure.
If we make a policy whereby the only requirement for immigration is turning up at a border checkpoint with a red suitcase, but then put a limit of 10 people per year who can immigrate using the Red Suitcase Clause, it’s effectively the same, for everyone except the first 10 people, as having no immigration avenues at all.
From the point of view of the immigrant himself, especially a poor immigrant, “no legal means of immigration” and “not enough slots for immigration” are effectively the same thing.
Au contraire. It’s exactly relevant in this precise context.
Captain Amazing is advocating a position that since these people are here illegally they should not be rewarded by receiving benefits. DigitalC responded that the country wants them here. That is only a valid response if it meant that the majority of the country wanted them here, in which case there is some implication that it benefits the most people. If that’s not true, then it just means that the political process is such that in this case narrow interests have triumphed over the passive majority.
Of course, that’s the way the political process works. That doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean that people can’t advocate against such policies.
You know, that’s a reasonable, rational, valid way of putting it. Touché. Hmmm… I’m going to have to mentally chew on that a while.
First stab at a response…
“I want to do something.”
“What I want to do is illegal.”
“Therefore, I have no choice but to do it illegally.”
No, there is another choice. Don’t do it.
I realize that most illegal immigrants come here looking for a better life *for themselves *(and possibly for their families). I am sympathetic to that. Given the circumstances many of them are coming from, I feel downright sorry for them. That being said, I think the U.S. can’t be, shouldn’t be, the welfare state of choice for those who want a better life than what their own home country has to offer them.
But “the country,” in the form of current policies and practices, has made quite clear that getting rid of them isn’t important enough to actually do anything about it.
Narrow interests generally have most success in setting policy agendas when everyone else doesn’t care enough about their particular interest to spend much time and effort opposing it. Or, as in this case, when those opposing it are more satisfied with narrow xenophobic “solutions” that don’t actually address the issue than they are with addressing the issue in a rational manner.
I never said that people can’t, or shouldn’t, advocate against policies they don’t like. But the fact is that “the country” is, for better or worse, precisely represented by national policy on this issue, as on many others.
I think what we see in attitudes like the OP’s, and in many others who oppose specific measures like drivers licenses for illegals, is an outlook that says “I don’t care if they’re here washing my dishes or mowing my lawn, as long as i don’t have to fork out any tax money to deal with them.” In fact, i think that’s possibly the single most prevalent attitude among Americans who oppose measures like this.
There’s been a lot of analysis on both sides of this by all sorts of Smart Guys, but my inclination is that it’s not true. I think there are a lot of unknowns in play, and also there are a lot of complex effects that are not always included in the various studies.
As an example, many many illegal immigrants get “free” healthcare by using the local emergency room as their doctor. This cost is hard to quantify, but it’s there, and everyone else pays for it in the form of higher hospital bills, IOW higher insurance premiums.
There’s no doubt that the average illegal immigrant lives a lower class lifestyle than the average middle class American, and lower even than whoever would have been doing their job had they not underbid it. They also seem to be rather hardworking, as a group. So from that perspective you could say that they are giving more than they’re getting. But that ignores the impact on the other wage-earners. If you have a guy who might have been doing landscaping for a half-decent salary and now he has to do it for minimum wage, or get some other barely-above-minimum-wage job because the jobs he might have been doing are underbid by illegal immigrants, then that guy is a net loser.
It’s hard to add up all the winners (mostly business people) and losers (mostly blue collar workers). But my sense is that overall it’s a losing proposition, and that “big picture” the country’s resources are being spread over a larger group of people without a corresponding growth in productivity. I could be wrong.
More significant than the above is the impact on the next generation. I am convinced that a big part of why the illegals are so hard-working and willing to live such humble lifestyles is precisely because they are illegal and can’t do any better, and it still beats their home countries. But their kids are going to be US citizens, and they are not going to live in fear of the INS, and they are going to be eligible for all sorts of government handouts. So they are not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs that will support them a lot better with a lot less effort.
Well the way you frame it, the country is precisely represented by national policy on every issue, by definition.
That attitute makes a lot of sense to me, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. Another way of putting it is “I would rather if they weren’t here, but once they are I may as well take advantage of what they do have to offer.”.
First let me just say that I’m impressed that you’re actually reading other people’s responses and at least thinking about them. So often in the Pit and on other boards, people argue vehemently from other sides for no apparent reason because neither side actually reads what the other is typing.
As for this line:
Isn’t that exactly what the US has attempted to be for at least a century? Our main beacon - the Statute of Liberty - has this plaque on it:
When did the US drift away from this? When it got too hard?
Seriously, we can only absorb so many at time. Hence the whole LEGAL alien angle.
You think if we instanty moved all of the Mexicans to Florida they would magically be fully integrated, speak perfect english, have good educations, and all have good paying middle class jobs?
No it would just be Mexico in a different location with a few Crackers and retired New Yorks wondering WTF just happened.
The assumption that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are “not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs. . .” is unwarranted, don’t you think? Perhaps those children will be highly motivated, work their butts off and achieve quite a bit. It’s certainly arguable that the children of parents with a serious work ethic will have a good work ethic themselves.
There’s a difference between arguing against someone’s position, on the one hand, and saying that they shouldn’t take a position that they feel is right, on the other. If someone doesn’t like current immigration policy, i completely support their right to argue against it, and to lobby against it, and to vote against it. But it doesn’t mean that i’m going to agree with the actual position they take, or that i won’t call their position “stupid” if that’s what i think of it.
Isn’t that really true, though? I mean, we elect our representatives to make national policy on our behalf, so any and every policy they enact is, by definition, representative of the nation.
And i think this is true for policies i agree with, as well as policies that i don’t. For example, i think federal drug laws are ridiculous, and that we need a completely new strategy in the so-called Drug War. But current drug policy is the policy of “the country,” whether i like it or not. It doesn’t mean that i agree with it, or that i won’t argue against it. It’s simply a truism, is all.
And, given their willingness to “take advantage of what [illegals] have to offer,” i think it’s perfectly reasonable to accuse them of rank hypocrisy when they start whining about illegals. If you really don’t want them here, then do your best to make sure that you are not part of the “pull” factor that attracts them in the first place.
I’m a bit on the fence in this issue. I agree with Jimmy Joe’s preference that people abide by the law, but trying to provide a better life for your family strikes a powerful sympathetic chord.
In response to Fotheringay’s posted concern, does anyone have any statistics either way? Second generation immigrants in general, I believe, tend to be hard working and productive. Are there any studies to support or deny this? Any studies that also include legality of parents?
On preview I see **Saintly Loser **is thinking along the same lines.
I understand that we can only absorb a certain amount at once, and I’m wholly behind legal immigration (shoot, my husband is a legal immigrant). I just think that it’s been proven time and time and time again that our current legal immigration system is utter crap. It’s simply not working and we can’t just stand around and say, “sorry folks, we’re closed.” It goes against what America stands for (or at least what it used to stand for).
Unfortunately, the fact is that our resources are finite. There comes a time when we simply can’t support any more people. While I admire the lofty aspiration of more than a century ago, I also sadly conclude that Miss Liberty will, one day but hopefully none too soon, resemble the leg of Ozymandias. Yes, taking in all the tired, the poor, the huddled masses is a laudable sentiment, but it isn’t sustainable forever.
At any rate, it’s unlikely they’ll be comparing their situations to living in the impoverished homeland of their parents. They’ll be wanting the Jeep Cherokee and plasma TV life, and with a bit of luck, their folks will have instilled some work ethics in them.
Can I just say that this part, at least, is an extremely bad idea? The net result of it is going to be fewer illegal immigrants seeking health care. Not just for physical injuries, but also for communicable diseases. Jose has a persistent hacking cough, but he doesn’t dare go to a hospital because he doesn’t want to be sent back to Bolivia. And next thing you know, you’ve got an outbreak of tubercleosis. And that puts everyone’s health at risk, regardless of what color their passport is.
If they’re coming here to work, then we’re not playing welfare state to them, are we?
And expecting someone to live in abject poverty (which is the case for a hell of a lot of people in Central and South America who want to come to the US) and condemn their family to the same, instead of breaking the law to try to get a job in a country that actually has them, is an absurd choice. We are a nation of immigrants – all immigrants, not just the ones who got here first.
We could say the same thing about speeding. Get on certain highways, and you’ll find 90% of the people speeding because they want to get to their destination faster than the law allows. These immigrants are doing essentially the same thing, getting to their destination faster.
Both speeding and immigration laws are poorly enforced, which is an indication that the government doesn’t really care all that much about the law being broken, just as long as you don’t go crazy with it. Illegal immigrants generally do tough work for low pay, keep their heads down and try to not attract too much attention.
The fact is, we do not make nearly as many visas available as there are people who want to immigrate, and as there are (were) jobs for immigrants to do. Kind of like putting a 25mph limit on a superhighway.