To continue a discussion from a previous thread, and make it more visible on the blog…
The reason we can’t communicate meaningfully with the folks who are all worked up over the Mexicans is that they see the absolute opposite of what we’re seeing. We’re seeing thousands of people crossing the border to come here and work their nalgas off doing construction, picking crops and processing chickens — and more often than not, coming alone or in groups of workers who send all the money they earn by the sweat of their brows back home to their families. For some bizarre reason, a lot of people see the opposite — freeloaders coming here to sit around and soak up public services. Do they really not see the work these people are doing? Do they really not see that that’s why they’re here?
This is coming from people who have a worldview that I don’t share. It comes from people who have a hair-trigger response that makes them explode at the slightest suggestion that anyone — from Reagan’s welfare queens to these supposed Mexican freeloaders — might be getting something at the expense of the taxes they so hate to pay.
These are people who, when they were kids, were always complaining to the teacher about what Johnny at the next desk was doing (as in, How come Johnny gets to do X, and I don’t?), and the teacher would say, “What Johnny does is none of your concern; concern yourself with what you do.” Only they didn’t listen.
Anyway, this fundamental disconnect between folks who see the world that way and those of us who don’t (and who see hard workers, not freeloaders) prevents us from addressing the real problems inherent in illegal immigration. And there are real problems. It is unfair that some people play by the rules and can’t get into this country, or stay once they get here. It is a problem that we have millions of undocumented people in this country that we can’t keep track of, especially in a time when there are a lot of people from other parts of the world who would love to sneak in for purposes of terrorism. It is a huge problem that we’ve got a drug war practically causing the government of Mexico to collape (a war caused by demand on this side of the border), and occasionally that violence spills over. (For that matter, even if it doesn’t spill over, the fact that it’s happening right on our border is a problem for us, if only because it stimulates more illegal immigration.)
These are all things we need to deal with. But we can’t have a rational conversation with those who are just furious that any of those people are here at all. And we need to.
Related Posts
If you can copy a message I can copy a response:
Brad, you don’t get the point or it appears do not understand the law. These people are not entering this country legally and can not work here legally, yet you admittedly support them doing both.
I grew up in an area where we didn’t have migrant or illegal workers. Buildings got constructed, crops got harvested and livestock got processed. Are you saying here in Columbia that all of these activities would come to a grinding halt if the illegals were rounded up and deported?
Who pays for the schools that are having to be built or trailers hauled in because these workers children are now adding seats to the classes. Many of these children do not speak English so schools have to hire additional employees to help these student stay up to speed with the rest of the class while also learning English. Who pays for the reduced or free lunches and breakfasts these students receive? Schools budgets are tight enough without having to put the burden these people are adding to the situation.
Yet when it’s all said and done, you’re the one standing on the border with your welcome sign. Maybe you can get your buddy Ariail to draw up a cartoon of you standing at the Rio Grande holding a welcome mat.
Thanks for helping me move the conversation to a new thread, Michael.
Actually, if you read what I wrote, I DO consider it to be a problem that they’re here illegally. I just don’t see this violation of the law as being on a par with rape or murder. It’s more like a routine traffic violation. It’s not something that requires that we mess about on the edge of posse comitatus by using the military for law enforcement.
We need to get ahold of the problem. We need to find out who’s here and get them into the system. And we need to set realistic quotas for letting people into the country legally — something more attuned to the laws of supply and demand for labor — and have an adequate system for processing such movement across the border LEGALLY.
If I could snap my fingers and have all the illegals transported back home to the back of the immigration line, I would. Lacking such magical powers, I have NO interest in expending the resources it would take to track down 12 million undocumented (which mean, “nearly impossible to find”) people, round them up and ship them home. I can think of a lot of better uses for tax money. Nor do I want to pay for the bureaucracy it would take to enforce truly punitive penalties on employers. I want to get these people into the system, deport the ones who are actually bad actors (say, gang members), and stanch the flow across the border going forward.
Which is not at all the way you choose to characterize what I want to do.
Until we actually acknowledge our respective positions, we can’t move toward a solution.
Brad, you don’t get the point or it appears do not understand the law. These people are not entering this country legally and can not work here legally, yet you admittedly support them doing both.
-Michael
I can only speak for myself but Brad seems to agree with me on this one. The whole legality thing is pretty irrelevant. If folks come in illegally yet make a positive contribution then what’s the problem? The other issues you bring up are red herrings. I don’t think there is a wealth of evidence to support this notion of a massive unfunded need for more schools, hospitals etc. And even if it was don’t we need the stimulus of this construction work to help with the recession?
This is a simple arithmetic problem for me. The immigrants from Mexico contribute more to the welfare of the USA than they take from it. Hence I don’t really care so much about the whole issue. Heck, the cost of keeping them out or rounding them up would cost the taxpayers too. Add up the cost of John McCain’s 6000 troops he wants to send to Arizona. How about the cost to pay cops to check papers. And of course there’s the fence. An effective fence would cost many millions. So if we’re going to talk about money lets consider the money on the other side of the issue. The math doesn’t work when all sides of the equation are considered.
I think a lot of the same people who are so terrified by grape and lettuce pickers are still under the misconception that there are Welfare Queens. The welfare reform of 1996, under Bill Clinton,
” included:
* Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
* Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
* Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
* Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.
* Enhancing enforcement of child support.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
The same disconnect happens here–most of the Mexicans you see around here are here legally, under “guest worker” provisions. Put up all the fences you like, but they aren’t going away.
I guess you have given up on your “they are all racists” generalization because that didn’t get any traction. Now its a new over simplification combined with invented theories on qhat people we’re like in school. You certainly weren’t describing me.
The one concept you just can’t seem to grasp is that we have a border and a process to enter the country legally. Breaking the law to enter the country negates any positive impact you think comes from the work ethic of an illegal immigrant. If I steal money from someone and donate it to the church, it doesn’t change the circumstances.
You can also continue to ignore that these hard workers are paid normally under the table or else commit identity fraud. They do not but car insurance or health insurance. There ARE negative consequences that are a direct result of being here illegally.
Brad, I truly believe you need to re-think your “two distinct and easily definable groups” perspective of the immigration issue. You usually don’t present issues in such black-and-white, us vrs. them terms, so I’m a little surprised. Maybe my perspective will help. I support universal health care. I support equitable funding of public schools. I support the use of tax money to help the needy and less fortunate. I do not, however, believe that we should provide social services to people who are living here illegally, or their children. Children of illegal immigrants are placing a great strain on public education. I’m assuming you don’t take this issue more seriously because you haven’t experienced it personally.
As far as solutions: Adopt an immigration policy similar to Mexico’s. 2) End the policy of “American by birth.” Grandfather everyone in who is already here through temporary amnesty if necessary.
I think we all understand that you think crossing the border into the U.S. illegally is the equivalent of jaywalking or a traffic violation. What you don’t seem to be able to get is that most people don’t agree with you.
You are suggesting that laws be ignored because you think the U.S. needs a much larger supply of low income workers who work hard. Get the law changed then.
But your logic falls apart when you start putting your own personal qualifications on it. If a border patrol agent sees a person crossing the border illegally today, should the agent arrest and deport that person or not? If so, then what difference does it make if the illegal entrant evades detection for some period of time. Not getting caught right away means you get to stay? Makes no sense at all.
And can we assume that you would approve of deporting illegal immigrants who DON’T have jobs (since we are supposed to give the ones who do work hard a free pass)?
If you want to change the law, change the law. But don’t ask me and John McCain to ignore the law.
How do we stop them at the border if we don’t hire extra border security or bring in the military? At this point the quickest and easiest solution is to bring in the National Guard.
Bud – Talk to someone who works in the public school systems in Arizona and see if the children of illegal immigrants who are overcrowding the school system is a “red herring” Talk to someone who drives in Arizona and see if these unlicensed, uninsured illegal immigrants who are driving on the roads is a “red herring”. Talk to the doctors in Arizona to see if the health and birthrates of these illegal immigrants is a “red herring”.
Bud, I know people and have immediate family members who live in Arizona (two work for the school system) and they say one doesn’t realize how massive this problem is within the state unless you spend some time there. I compare it to a problem of finding one cockroach in the kitchen, they compare it to flipping on the light in the middle of the night and seeing the whole kitchen move. You and I sitting in SC have no idea how bad the situation really is.
Not one person found to be illegal should be given the opportunity to automatically become a citizen without first having to go to the end of the line and go through the proper channels. It takes some 6-7-8 years to become citizens, I don’t see how it’s fair to just rubber stamp illegals paperwork just because they’re already here. Employers need to know who is on the payroll and would be the first line to rounding up these people… it doesn’t take rocket scientists to figure out where they’re working. It may not be feasible to go on house raids to round up these individuals, but picking them up one by one over time would put a serious dent in the problem. Put the word out that if you’re here illegally and get caught, you get hauled to jail until time sees that you are deported.
Kathryn – who says we’re “terrified”? I’m not scared in the least, I’m just tired of them abusing the services meant for US citizens.
No, I’m NOT “suggesting that laws be ignored because you think the U.S. needs a much larger supply of low income workers who work hard.”
I’m saying that the law IS being ignored for that real-life market reason. And so we have this situation.
And are you deliberately not understanding me with that question about the border patrol? Do you actually think a guard stopping someone and turning them around — something that’s simple and obvious to do at that point — is the same thing as dealing with 12 million people who are God knows where? You really think it’s just as easy? If it were — to return to my very clear point about waving a magic wand — by all means send them back.
But in the REAL world where no such wands exist, I submit that this heinous crime that upsets you so is NOT heinous enough to become a police state that devotes untold millions to tracking down people whose whereabouts are unknown and going to the trouble of deporting each and every one of them.
And I don’t think creating huge new bureaucracies to look over the shoulders of all the employers in this country and prosecute them with huge penalties is worth the resources to be devoted to it either.
And Michael makes a good point — that extra bodies are needed on the border. But the real solution, it seems to me, is to devote resources instead to legally admitting as many people who want to work, and who have jobs waiting for them. If we made it easier to do it legally, we’d remove the incentive to do it illegally.
In any case, more resources will be required. I just think they would be most wisely spent dealing realistically with the people who are here, and removing the motivation (in other words, using a market-conscious approach) for so many people to enter illegally. At that point, securing the border would be easier, because you would lessen the pressure.
Kathryn – If you believe the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 is actually working why are there still people on welfare who were on it 14 years ago and haven’t worked a day during those years? I read a survey a few years ago where 71% of all black babies born were to single-female parents… how’s that for encouraging 2-parent families?
You are suggesting that laws be ignored because you think the U.S. needs a much larger supply of low income workers who work hard. Get the law changed then.
-Doug
Why bother? If the law is ignored that would have the same effect. Besides, whenever people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain (2 men I generally deplore) try to get it changed they are vilified to the point where they flip-flop on the issue. Lets just ignore the law in much the same way as we ignore thousands of stupid laws on the books.
Actually, just a small quibble on what Bud just said (and I hesitate to do this because it’s nice to have Bud agreeing with me): It wasn’t so much a flip-flop. McCain and Graham always wanted to secure the border. Securing the border — for national security reasons — was always their main motivation in pushing comprehensive reform.
They just got hit with such a tsunami of hostility and negativity that they said OK, let’s secure the border FIRST, and then do all this other stuff we need to do. I haven’t followed all they’ve said and done since then word for word, but based on conversations I had with them at the time, and what I’ve read and heard since, I think that’s pretty much remained the general theme of what they’ve said since sometime in 2007.
Only if you believe the right-wing lie that they were all about “amnesty” do you think there’s been a flip. Or a flop. Or a zori, as we called them in Hawaii. And as I think they call them in Japan.
“I think a lot of the same people who are so terrified by grape and lettuce pickers are still under the misconception that there are Welfare Queens.”
I think you’re wrong. I think there are plenty of people who want our immigration laws enforced who don’t have a problem with providing social welfare to American citizens.
Micahel P–I doubt there are people still on “welfare” –cash money to poor people just for being poor–after 14 years–perhaps some other program, like SSI disability. I also think the number of children born to unmarried black mothers provides no information about welfare usage. It is a tragedy that the black family has declined so in some demographics, but there are tons of causes, and being a single mother and being on welfare are two different, if sometimes overlapping, things.
And I didn’t say YOU were terrified, but someone keeps talking about the hordes of violent criminals pouring across our Mexican border.
Right, Maude. In order for Brad and Kathryn to try and make their case, it requires assigning all sorts of ulterior motives to those who favor enforcing the law.
We either are racists or “terrified” of immigrants or “greedy”. It can’t simply be about enforcing laws and being concerned about limited resources being used on non-citizens. They can’t win that argument.
The easiest way to enforce the law is to a) deny services to people who cannot prove citizenship and b) require businesses to verify citizenship before hiring or else face steep penalties.
Surely, Brad, you would not reject a job offer from a company that required that you supply your Social Security Number and that the number matched your name in the federal database? Or required you to show your official id?
The companies that AREN’T doing that are trying to avoid paying taxes, avoid paying medical benefits, avoid paying unemployment insurance, avoid following OSHA guidelines. Again, more illegal activity built upon the initial illegal activity of crossing the border. How many more laws do you want to ignore?
So there is no police state required. There’s very little additional expenditure required. All it takes is removing the incentives that encourage lawlessness.
We have already seen the impact that the economic collapse had on illegals. When the jobs dried up, they disappeared. If we deny services and jobs, the flow will dwindle. Those here illegally will decide to return home.
Citizenship should be earned, not stolen.
Welfare, SSI Disability, Food Stamps, SuperDuper Extended Unemployment Compensation… same thing, different name. It’s still able bodied people sitting around waiting for the mailman to bring them their check for doing absolutely nothing but staying alive. How many of these people were actually working 2 years after entering the program? 10%???
And to stay on topic, once amnesty has been given to the 12 million illegals, will they then become eligible for these benefits? I wonder who’s going to be footing that bill.
Why don’t we just follow the policy Mexico uses in their country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-05-25-mexico-migrants_N.htm
Oh no it isn’t!!! If you are disabled, you cannot work. No welfare to work for you. Food stamps go to many military families, you know. The lower pay grades qualify if they have even Protestant size families. Unemployment compensation is just that–it’s insurance. None of these cases involve anyone unwilling to work–no one sitting around getting rich filing their nails!
Brad, this at least is a real post about a subject of general interest. Unfortunately, your treatment of the issue is not sufficiently profound or enlightening to draw many readers. You need to do a thorough, detailed analysis, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the problem and a workable solution. Instead, you seem to be presenting a superficial analysis based mainly on emotional catchphrases. For example, you claim that illegal immigrants come to the United States in order to work, rather than to receive public benefits. OK. But you don’t seem to grasp that the validity of the idea that by coming to America to work, illegal immigrants unfairly compete with Americans and with legal immigrants for jobs, thereby suppressing wages. Unemployment in America is about 10%. We don’t need more workers. Employers can find Americans and legal immigrants who want to work; they don’t need to hire illegal immigrants. Any “need” for illegal immigrants is a “need” for workers who will accept substandard wages and working conditions. The “need” is a “need” to shift bargaining power from workers to employers.
There isn’t any such “need”. There also isn’t a need to shift demand out of the country by exporting workers’ wages. What’s needed is wages that will be spent in America.
Doug, you say this:
“You are suggesting that laws be ignored because you think the U.S. needs a much larger supply of low income workers who work hard. Get the law changed then.”
The problem is that the U.S. doesn’t need a much larger supply of low income workers who work hard. The only people who “need” this are employers who want to pay low wages to captive workers. There’s no way the law is going to be changed in this way, because the American people understand that such changes would harm America.
I heard a piece on the radio once discussing the problem of illegal immigrants, with one employer who was interviewed saying that when she had workers who obtained legal status, they quit; they didn’t want to work for the wages she wanted to pay. America doesn’t need an immigration policy attuned to the desires of employers to pay low wages.
Brad, you say this:
“Nor do I want to pay for the bureaucracy it would take to enforce truly punitive penalties on employers.”
It wouldn’t cost anything. The penalties would be monetary penalties, and part of the money collected could be used to pay the costs of collection and enforcement.
I appreciate that you’re trying to address an issue, but you need to really take a comprehensive look at the issue.
Oh yeah, Doug, I’m not suggesting that you are advocating the course of action you mention.
Brad and Kathryn, you seem convinced that this is a partisan issue. So I will tell you: I’ve been voting for over 20 years and have never (EVER!)
[oops, Brad, try to string it together please…]
…voted Republican and I support enforcing our immigration laws. And Brad, it still really bothers me that you’re presenting this as a partisan issue. Clearly, it’s not.
Did I? If so, it was a slip.
The last couple of years, the most heat from the anti-immigration side has come from elements of the Republican Party. But before that, it was just as likely that you’d hear complaints from liberal Democrats — or at least Democrats of a traditional, pro-labor bent — complaining about illegals suppressing wages and standards of working conditions.
And of course, there are some advocates for illegals on the left who complain that comprehensive reform that the right got so mad about was in fact too harsh on illegals.
Most of what we’ve seen the last couple of years here in SC, though, has been from Republicans furious at Graham and McCain (although not so much George W. Bush, which was odd) over the supposed “amnesty” approach they worked for.
Not all, of course. But that’s been the main direction we’ve heard from. Possibly because the loudest conversations you hear in SC these days is between Republicans arguing with each other.
And we all know how difficult it is to become “permanently disabled”. I have two people in my subdivision who are about 25-30 years old with the little blue hangy thing on their mirror… if they can go out and do work in their yard all weekend and do maintenance on their house, they can walk the extra 20 feet to the store. Go around USC and see how many disabled students there are, I have seen one football starting lineman use handicapped parking spots on more than one occasion. I know USC offensive line sucks, but I didn’t realize they were playing disabled players.
“This is coming from people who have a worldview that I don’t share. It comes from people who have a hair-trigger response that makes them explode at the slightest suggestion that anyone — from Reagan’s welfare queens to these supposed Mexican freeloaders — might be getting something at the expense of the taxes they so hate to pay.”
A slip?
We either are racists or “terrified” of immigrants or “greedy”. It can’t simply be about enforcing laws and being concerned about limited resources being used on non-citizens. They can’t win that argument.
-Doug
This is easy. It costs money to enforce the law. It costs money to pay 6000 soldiers to patrol the border. It costs money to build a Berlin Wall type barrier. It costs money to pay high wages for laborers who are too lazy to work a full day for a real wage. If we’re going to talk about economics lets talk about ALL the economic issues.
Apparently Doug you’re not concerned with the racism aspect of the issue so we can take fear out of the equation.
Once we get past economics and fear we’re left with the humanity side of the issue. I suggest that Mexican workers are people just like English, Irish or Polish 8th generation immigrants. If they come to America seeking a better way of like why are they any less worthy than anyone else?
Bud – Is it costing any more money to put 6000 soldiers on the border than it did having those 6000 soldiers elsewhere? As long as they aren’t in a combat zone, their wages stay the same.
Where are these high wage laborers? If all you’re qualified to do is be a laborer, you pretty much take work where you can get it or go without work.
Those English, Irish, and Polish workers went through proper immigration channels. So don’t expect us to treat border jumpers the same as immigrants who play by the rules. You cheat, you get sent home and are told if you come back you are going to jail… just like they treat illegal immigrants in Mexico.
Bud,
Let’s take 6000 soldiers and take a wildly high estimate that it costs $1 million dollars per soldier to set up the infrastructure to patrol the border. Even using government standards, that seems pretty high. That’s $6 Billion total.
Now… pick your favorite number for the total number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. right now. I’ll lowball that one and guess 6 million. It’s probably double that.
Now start adding up the costs to educate the children of illegal immigrants. Add in the lost tax revenue from those who are paid under the table. Add in the cost for the medical care they receive but do not pay for that is then spread across other payers. Add in the cost to detain, incarcerate, and (rarely) deport the illegals who commit crimes here (and consider the economic cost of those crimes as well). Add in the cost to auto insurance from having uninsured illegal motorists on the road. Now add in the cost for unemployment checks paid to people who can’t find jobs because illegals are working at below market rates.
You think we’re getting north of $6 billion yet? For 6 million illegals, that would only require $1000 of services provided/tax revenue lost to make it a wash.
So aside from doing the right thing by protecting the border because we should, the economic benefit to Americans is there as well. Every dollar earned by an illegal could be earned by an American. And those dollars would typically remain in our economy versus being shipped back to the home country (I used to have access to international money order data — the amounts of money orders being purchased in border post offices and sent out of the country is in the hundreds of millions of dollars).
There weren’t proper channels to go through back then. You showed up and as long as you looked reasonably healthy, they let you in.
and current-day illegal Irish immigration is actually huge in the Northeast. Don’t see troops at Logam Airport.
Okay Kathryn, but that was then this is now. What they did was legal back then, it’s not now.
How are these illegal Irishmen getting into the country? If they flew in through Logam Airport, they would be documented through Visas. How many of those illegal Irish bring their families? The problem can’t be that bad, there’s no news coverage on an overwhelming boom of Irish pubs popping up.
They come on a tourist visas and overstay–they work as nannies.
So, if I understand you correctly, they come by themselves, understand and speak English, don’t aren’t accountable for the overcrowding and financial problems within the public school systems, and don’t bring a half-dozen (or more) family members with them. Is that correct?
Now compare that to the illegals from Mexico.
Not that it makes a difference according to the law but we’re talking about what… a few hundred Irish illegals vs. 12,000,000+ Mexican illegals.