I don’t think we can work on the idea that crimes on the parts of our ancestors mean we should never be able to criticize that same crime today. Many white Australians are descended from petty criminals and debtors; does that mean that the Sydney Police Department should ignore shoplifting and vandalism today so that they won’t appear “hypocritical”? No. Similarly, although some American’s ancestors were illegal immigrants, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a right to enforce the rules today. (Unless, that is, you want to declare the whole project illegitimate and deport all white Americans back to Europe, and so on.)
I don’t think most people railing against illegal immigrants have in mind those people who are legitimate victims of INS bureaucracy. (Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for them: I recently went through a nightmare of a bureaucratic process trying to get a work visa for another country, and if that system is anything like the one in the US, I pity them.) Rather, it’s the ones you see on the news slipping across the border in the middle of the night, who, when interviewed, say that they’ve been deported twice, do not and never have had any legal right to stay in the country. It’s a cheap shot to just write it off as racism; if there were similar circumstances with (white) Canadians I bet you’d find similar opposition.
I think for most people it’s the principle of the matter. You hear very few complaints about legal immigration to the country; it’s the fact that so many people are so blatantly breaking the law and the government, for the most part, is doing nothing about it that drives people batty. If the government expanded legal immigration to meet employers needs, etc., although there would be debate about how many people need be let in and for how long and with which skills, I think most people would accept it and the controversy would die down. Granted, if you just put a legal sheen on the illegal traffic from Mexico, many would gripe that it was just rewarding criminal behaviour. (Didn’t something like that happen in Bush’s first term? I think he proposed legalizing most of the Mexican migrant workers, and people complained that it was unfair to immigrants from other countries who’d been trying to come in and playing by the rules.) But if done in a reasonable way, I think most people would accept immigration reform.
The way even sven posed the question, it was the children of illegal immigrants he was asking about – not the ones who snuck across the border, but the ones who, presumably, were carried across the border as babies and have no memories of life outside the United States, and had no part in the decision to (illegally) come here. So what do you think of them getting in-state tuition? Should they pay for their parents sins? And, sven, what do you think of an 18-year old immigrant who broke the law of his own volition getting in-state tuition?
Arguments in favor of giving illegal immigrants certain privileges (NOT rights, mind you – driving is not a right) usually fall along three lines.
#1: “We need them” - Then raise the immigration quota, drop the minimum wage, boot the illegals out, and let more legal immigrants in.
#2: “They’re going to be here anyway” - Policy should be based on compliance, not non-compliance. Other equally-irrational policies would include dropping the speed limit since everyone goes over anyway or requiring that windows be made to shatter easily so thieves don’t cut themselves while breaking into your car because they’re going to do it anyway.
#3: “White people were here illegally too” - and the government(s) at that time resisted them every bit as much as our government should now. This isn’t an argument in favor of decriminalizing undocumented workers, this is an argument showing how people have done things wrong in the past.
No, I don’t have near the time determine all the costs and run models on all the different scenarios. I did hear a number on the radio though, that said that the percentage of the cost of a head fruits and vegetables was very low. I had this confirmed by Ira Mehlman of FAIR (I attended a panel discussion on immigration at The Commonwealth Club). Concerned about the some of the very issues you raise, after the discussion I asked him if he knew what percent of the cost of vegetables was atrtibuted to farm labor. His reply was that farm labor costs accounted for just 10% of the cost of a head of lettuce, the rest being determined by transportation, packaging, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides. So if a head of lettuce costs $1.00, the farm labor cost is 10 cents. So we could double the farm labor costs and get a head of lettuce for $1.10. Or triple it and pay $1.20. (Labor costs for harvesting some products like nuts, evidently, can run much higher, up to 50% of the cost. Will paying more make those jobs more attractive to American workers? Of course. Although I do not know where the sweet spot is. Or as you approach it if there would be a greater desire to use machines to do more of the harvesting, which some economists think we need.
I’m not sure this is fair. We’re presenting ideas here. If I do not do the work you suggest it does not invalidate an idea. By not doing it though, I do accept that I present a weaker argument.
Polycarp – if I understand you correctly, you think people should have the right to enter the US illegally in order to better their lives. So I’m curious: by that reckoning, should the US have any limits on immigration? Literally speaking, should anyone, anywhere in the world have the right to get on a plane, come to the US, and expect the full rights of US citizenship – the right to work, protection under US laws, etc.? Or should it just be limited to those who make it past the border guards? Because if you grant that there should be SOME limits to letting people come work in the country, then you are automatically heading down the path of declaring some forms of immigration legal and others illegal.
You are right. Thank you for the opportunity for qualification. IMO, yes, even if the kid was brought here as an infant and has never done one thing wrong, I’d (sadly) send him back with his parents. I have no doubt that there are more than a few of these kids that embody everything we hold dear and honorable, but the law should not be subverted because of what good may occur after the fact. I take a principled stance on this: The ONLY people who should be allowed to remain here are those who are here legally. Everyone else, go back and get in line. I see it the same way I see people coming into my house. If you’ve been invited in, enjoy. If not, get out. NOW!
Granted, the issue gets more complicated for anchor babies, those who were born here to illegal immigrants. The law says that they are citizens and we should treat them as such. But the parents should be sent back immediately. If the kid wants to go with them, fine. If he wants to stay and can make arrangements for guardianship with friends or relatives, fine. Mind you, the law granting legal status to children of those who are here illegaly is the first change we should make in controlling immigration.
Actually, walrus, I think magellan was talking about children of illegal migrants who were not born in the US but were too young to have a choice about entering the country illegally.
I don’t think anybody’s advocating repeal of the “birthright” principle that says if you’re born on US soil, you’re a citizen. (Or are they?)
I don’t see how one can take a principled stand on immigration rules. Immigration rules are simply a pragmatic approach to managing a country’s financial well being. It is completely random that one person born south of a border is denied the same oppurtunities as a similar person born north of that border. It is very easy to take a principled stand when it is other people affected by it, but I would like to see this principled stand in all its glory when the congress / senate decides they don’t like left handed people, and that they should all be deported. Can I assume that if you were left handed you would happily pack up and leave? Because to not do so, you would be staying illegally!
Having said that, I am not against immigration rules. The government of a country with an impressive standard of living must maintain that standard of living, and if limiting the number of people streaming across the borders is neccesary, than it is something they must do. But this is not a principled decision, just a practical one.
If I were declared supreme ruler of the land, I would probably set the immigration policy to maximize the prosperity of the country, and enforce it with a zero tolerance policy. I would repatriate people as efficiently as possible (allowing for due process and treating them with respect along the way). By the same token, if I was suffering and with no oppurtunities available in another land, I would probably try to jump the border.
The “non-felon” bit might be tricky, though, wouldn’t it? What about people who have been labeled political criminals by repressive regimes that consider, say, criticizing the government to be a felony?
I would think that gutsy pro-democracy advocates would be just the kind of person we’d want in America. But you’re implying that if their oppressive government has put them in jail for their gutsy pro-democracy advocacy, it’s nix nix nix on the green card?
Here’s a novel idea, why don’t we change it so it serves us better. I think we should refer to it as “amending” the Constitution and call the changes that we make “Amendments”.
Thanks for your help Kimstu, but I did venture into this territory. It’s an idea has been discussed for quite a while. In fact, there is a bill in The House right now—HR 698—seeking to make the change. Here is a link to it:
I apologize for the links not working. Can a mod please step in and fix them? Also, I’m using the link creating icon and hit “OK” twice, so why does this never/rarely work. I’m on a Mac using Safari, if that matters.
My mistake then, sorry. I sympathize with concerns about people using “anchor babies” to get into the US, but I don’t want to get rid of the birthright principle.
I like the fact that it’s so easy for the children of immigrants to be automatically American, the same as anybody else. I think that’s a valuable reflection of the fact that our nation was built up by so many people from all over the world who came here and became part of us (including my own grandparents). I like that there isn’t a built-in discrimination bureaucracy for American-born babies (you with the American-citizen parents over here, you with the legally-resident non-citizen parents over here, you with the illegal-alien parents over here). All America’s babies are equally American, which I think is a beautiful symbol of our national commitment to equality.
I’d hope we’d be able to solve the problem of “excess anchor babies”, if it is a serious problem, without getting rid of that noble gesture of principle.
