Immigration: Mr. President, I have a question.

Great Debates
41

Yes, the goal of “eliminating terrorism” is absurdly unrealistic too. Terrorism can be discouraged and reduced, but it cannot be totally “eliminated” except in some kind of global fascist police state that would be far worse to endure than a moderate risk from terrorism.

An absurdly unrealistic goal doesn’t become any more feasible just because some people support another goal that’s equally absurdly unrealistic.

And deporting one out of every twenty-seven people in the entire US population just is not a reasonably realistic goal for public policy.

I don’t disagree that it would be worth it to have more effective immigration, border control, and labor law enforcement policies. I just doubt that it would be worth it to invest the effort required to physically deport the 11 million illegal immigrants who are already here.

Like I said, if we talk about deporting nearly four percent of the entire US population, we’re talking about a mobilization on the federal level that’s at least the logistical equivalent of fighting a small-scale war. That’s at least tens of billions of dollars of resources and hundreds of thousands if not millions of workers.

And if we do make that investment, what do we get out of it? Merely an unprecedentedly massive population transfer project with massive potential for hideous human rights abuses and civil conflict. And with absolutely no payoff for the nation in terms of improved infrastructure, education, research, security, or any of the other things that enormous investments by the federal government in civilian projects are supposed to give us. It would mostly be just a huge, and hugely expensive, national exercise in resentful retaliation. I simply do not see how we could rationally justify spending that kind of taxpayer money on such an enterprise.

Og fuck a duck, we could make more headway on the illegal immigrant problem for less money if we just sent ten billion dollars and a hundred thousand employees to Mexico to build solar energy farms or rebuild their infrastructure or some other project to improve Mexicans’ economic opportunities domestically. Then fewer Mexicans would choose to leave Mexico, and we’d actually have accomplished something productive in the process. I think such an expenditure would be totally excessive and unjustifiable on practical grounds, but it would be a hell of a lot more rational than undertaking to physically deport eleven million people.

42

Yes, they are interesting because they all assume that illegal aliens remain illegal-- ie, in this country without documentation. If you ask the same questions about “immigrants” in general, you get different answers. Bush wants to turn illegal immigrants into legal immigrants.

43

Amnesty, in other words.

I don’t care how you wave your hands, or what kind imaginary lines you send them to the back of, changing all the illegal aliens in the country to legal immigrants is nothing short of amnesty.

44

Not really. It would be amnesty if he wanted to turn them into citizens. They will pay a fine for having come here illegally, and then we will grant them legal status* to be here temporarily, but we don’t let them jump ahead in line to become citizens. Remember the line?

*the status of “guest worker”, which does not currently exist

45

That was not the definition of amnesty when it was awarded under the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986

Guest worker, temporary worker, it’s all amnesty. Which I am not totally against; what I am against is weasel words and deception from the White House. The President’s plan allows illegal immigrants to remain in the country while they pursue legal status; that is preferential treatment not give to legal applicants waiting in Mexico for a visa.

46

I don’t get your point. Bush is not proposing a revival of that statute.

What’s your alternative propsal? I think Bush’s proposal is better than the status quo. Convince me you have something even better.

47

You said it wasn’t amnesty if Bush didn’t give them citizenship. My point was that the 1986 law was widely viewed as amnesty, and it did not confer citizenship. Amnesty does not mean citizenship.

Create a secure website where employers can check SSN’s to see if they are valid. We have discussed this before, I believe it can be done. Indemnify employers against lawsuits arising from errors on the website. Then make it a felony to employ applicants whose SSN is invalid. I would also enforce asset forfeiture; business, inventory, real estate, lock, stock & barrel for violators. Jobs for illegals would disappear, and so would the vast majority of the illegal aliens. But Bush is the tool of business, and he won’t hold his friends accountable.

48

OK, but amnesty does mean letting people off w/o punishment. By insisting that a fine be paid before the alien gets legal status as a guest worker, there is punishment for the crime of crossing the border. Now, if you want to argue that that’s a legalistic trick, you might have a case, but not a very strong one.

Is Ted Kennedy (who supports this proposal) just a tool of business, too?

Yes, we discussed that idea before, and I don’t think it’ll work. It’ll just drive the illegal workers (and their employers) further underground, creating an even worse situation than we have today. Just like the “war on drugs”, you are proposing a “war on illegal immigrants”. As for getting tough on employers-- we have tough laws prosecuting drug dealers. How effective have those laws been in eliminating drugs? As I said before, this is a demand driven probelm, and I don’t see any good way of eliminating the demand.

You’ll end up doing spot checks on farm workers and the groups like the ACLU will slap lawsuits on the government faster than you can say “vote for Pedro”. And rightly so, too. Hell, we in CA all know that you could walk onto any large farm in the Central Valley and net thousands of illegal aliens if you wanted to. But you can’t arrest someone just for being Brown, which is what that would amount to.

Now, will Bush’s plan actually work? I’m not 100% sure, but I’m willing to give it a try. I do have concern, though, that we will turn the current two-tiered system (legal residents and illegal aliens) into a three tiered system (legal residents, guest workers, and illegal aliens).

49

CaveMike:

I’m quite serious actually. Like I said, it may indeed take a long time, but so what? I’m sure that once a concerted effort is put into motion, it will not take a decade. I think the misconception you and Kimstu have is that it will be necessary to physically move all these people back. The most important part of any effort to address this problem is, as I mentioned, drying up the reasons why they are here. If they are absolutely unable to find employment, many will leave on their own (or perhaps keep going north into Canada). I agree that it will be much more difficult to address the problem if they continue to have a very good reason to stay in the US. But they’re not coming there to be homeless and hungry on your streets. Eliminate the possibility of them finding work (by coming down extremely hard on anyone who employs them) and you’ll see that after the first year, there probably won’t be any left for you to concern yourselves about.

John Mace:

By showing them that they are already spending that money by way of uncollected taxes and increased load on infrastructure (schools, roads, etc.).

Kimstu:

Agreed completely. My point with that was that even if the goal is unrealistic, Americans can be behind putting forth some effort to address the problem, if the problem is presented to them in a way that makes it seem like a worthwhile cause. There are far too many people benefiting from the presence of illegal aliens in America to allow for a reasonable approach. And until that is addressed, the problem will always seem like some nigh intractable problem. It’s not.

I am genuinely stunned. What do you mean what do you get out of it? How about a return to the rule of law? How about at least a partial return of the US’s dignity and standing as it pertains to the rule of law? How about showing that you really are a nation of laws and not men? You have a chaotic situation which promises to lead to a situation like you see in France and Dubai with a perpetual under-class of slave labor, and you wonder what you’d get out of addressing the problem?
To say that it is a big problem is not an excuse to do nothing and sweep the problem under the rug. It has never been truly addressed and it seems like Americans really don’t care to address it (well, other than Lou Dobbs and Gilcrest and his gang).
Yes, it will cost a lot of time and money. Yes, it will cut into the profits of Kaufman Broad and Tyson. And it will also help raise wages in the US, put more money into the state and federal treasury, and show that while the US still loves furriners (sorta), it also wants you to wait your turn and go through the same hoops others have to. You don’t get to cut in line simply because you were born closer to the US.

magellon01:

Well put again! That’s twice. Now I’m getting scared. :wink:

50

Well, that’s what “deportation” means. If what you really mean is reduction of employment opportunities for illegal immigrants, that’s another matter.

Why the hell would we want to fool the American people into supporting an unrealistic goal by spinning the issue so that they believe it’s a worthwhile cause? (Somehow, this sentence sounds to me like a straight line…)

Why don’t we instead focus on realistic goals that really are worthwhile causes, and try to persuade the voters to get behind them?

51

“Addressing the problem” in an unspecified, general way isn’t the same as undertaking mass deportations. I do agree that our nation would definitely get something worthwhile out of somehow successfully “addressing the problem” of being too dependent on exploited, underpaid, illegal immigrant labor.

However, I don’t think deporting 11 million US residents would successfully address that problem, and I think it would be overall a huge waste of time, money, and manpower that could be more usefully devoted to other enterprises.

If you are now saying that you don’t really advocate mass deportations, then apparently we’re not really disagreeing.

52

No, I am actually advocating mass deportations. Although it may sound cruel or perhaps even un-American, it is necessary. Going back to my example of the War on Terror, I’m certain Americans aren’t very fond of the increased checks on their civil liberties, not to mention the long lines at the airports. Do those things really do much to address terrorism? Maybe. What those things do is send a very clear signal that the rules are changing. Americans aren’t going to turn a blind eye to it in any way.
Mass deportations (again, I don’t think Americans would have to do much deporting, once a concerted effort is in place, I think illegals will voluntarily leave) will show that the old days are over.
It’s uncomfortable, ugly, and costly. It’s also necessary, right, and long over-due.

53

I don’t know what state you live in John, but here in New Hampshire, when we catch someone breaking the law, the first thing we do, even before trying or punishing them, is first, make them stop breaking the law. If you get caught trespassing, you have to pay a fine, but you also have to leave the property. Paying the fine is not a free pass to continue trespassing.

Ted Kennedy is against holding business accountable for hiring illegal workers? Show me. Support for the guest worker program does not make Ted Kennedy a tool of business; hell, it doesn’t even make Dubya a tool of business. When Kennedy or any other liberal opposes a law that holds business accountable, call me, and I will concede the point.

Well, I wish you would point out specifically why it won’t work, instead of unleashing this unholy army of Straw Men:

???

Employers already must maintain an I9 Employment Eligibility form on the premises, and must produce when Immigration requests it. All we have to is give business the tools to check SSN’s and hold them accountable if they do not. Nothing more underground than it is today.

Strawman.

Raise wages. There is not a single job Americans won’t do for the right price. If Americans will go into the mines to dig coal, or out onto the Bering Sea the catch crab, places that have death as a possibility, I think if we pay people a living wage we will have no shortage of toilet cleaners and strawberry pickers. I have worked in the salmon canneries of Alaska; trust me, there is no job Americans won’t do for the right wage.

The betrays how desperate you are to shield business from accountability. I am not a racist, and I am shocked you are stooping to that level. That was a cheap shot that is beneath you, John. SSN’s are colorblind, and verifying them would be required for all employees, regardless of color or nationality.

54

Why? Why can’t we just “show that the old days are over” by reforming our system to fix the problem of dependence on illegally exploited foreign workers? Why do we have to waste a bunch of money on ostentatious gestures of retaliation against the exploited workers that our previous corrupt and greedy system did its level best to lure here?

55

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, we would not have to actively deport everyone. By simply enforciing the laws we now have it seems that many, many more people would move out on their own thatn we would have to actually deport. Here: it is again:

In the one example with Pakistan, for every person we deported, 10 left on their own accord. So whatever wild number you had in your head, it seems reasonable to cut it by 90%. Now assuming this is truly the case, do you agree that the financial/logistical burden is not insurmountable?

56

I don’t see it as retaliation. Retaliation would be to take a bunch of Americans and dump them in those countries. I agree that the system helped lure them there in the first place. But to let them stay would not only reward the crime, it would not show the old days are over. Quite the contary, it would once again show that if enough people were in the US illegaly, the US would simply have to accept it as fait accompli and let them stay.
The deportations would be the best signal that the old days are over. You’re not kidding, you’re quite serious, and you mean business. You nail the employers. You round up the illegals. And you do it all according to the law and in a transparent and humane manner.
Punishing the rapist doesn’t make the rape that occured magically go away. It doesn’t even do much to make the victim feel better. But it does show that you won’t tolerate rapists.

57

I don’t think so, because I doubt that the situation of Pakistani illegal residents, who need to get official temporary US visas before they’re allowed to arrive here by airplane, is really comparable to that of Hispanic ones who cross the border in secret with no visa or other documentation at all.

Whether or not someone has overstayed an official visa is comparatively easy to check, and visitors who know that their visa status is being checked have a very strong incentive to self-deport. (Remember also that even getting a visa in the first place, and traveling to the US from Pakistan, requires a certain minimum level of socioeconomic status and resources that make it more financially possible to self-deport.) But whether or not someone whose identity and even existence you’re unsure of has sneaked without your knowledge into some unidentified location in your country is much harder to check up on.

So I disagree that we could confidently assume that we’d get a 1:10 ratio of deportations to voluntary departures in the case of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

58

Makes sense. Thanks for the info. But would you grant that the ratio would hold for those who have overstayed their visas. I don’t know the percent of illegals who overstayed their visa as opposes to snuck in, but let’s just say that it’s half. Would you grant that the 10:1 ratio would hold for the similar half? I’d venture to say that the ratio might even go up, as it’s easier and less expensive to go back to Mexico than to Pakistan. Then again, it would be easier to “hide” in one of the many large Mexican communities, so maybe it would actually be lower.

Your thoughts?

59

The US is not private property. Trespassing laws aren’t a good ananlogy.

What law is Kennedy proposing that Bush opposes?

I don’t think you know what a Strawman argument is.

Now you’re the one with the Strawman Argument. I’ve never said I wanted to shield businesses. As long as the law is as it is right now, I think we should prosecute business.

Raising wages will only make the matter worse, as illegals would work under the table for sub-minimum wage, and there would be an even greater demand for their cheap labor.

I didn’t say you were a racists, nor did I mean to imply that you were one, only that if we follow your suggestion, it will likely result in acts of racism by the authorities. Otherwise, they won’t be effective in arresting illegal aliens.

60

The Department of the Interior seems to disagree: