Illegal immigration has been in the news daily during the Republican primary campaign, even though a depressed economy here, stronger border enforcement, and vast new finds of petroleum in Latin America may soon radically curtail the number of illegal entrants into the United States. But for now, conservatives are warned that coming down hard on illegal immigration (i.e., enforcing federal statutes) would lose them the all-critical Hispanic vote. Meanwhile, in California, some legislators want to grant de facto state amnesty to illegal residents. But lost in the continuing furor, pro and con, is the moral dimension. The strange notion has developed that supporting something as immoral as illegal immigration is somehow ethical. It is not, and there are several reasons why.
Advertisement
1. Entry-level labor. Real wages for the working poor in the United States have been stagnant for decades, especially in the Southwest — largely because of the influx of millions of illegal aliens, who, at least for a time, will work for considerably lower wages than Americans. In the last three decades, we have written off an entire class of Americans on the premise that “They won’t do the work.” Here in a California of 10 percent–plus unemployment, everyone from farmers to landscapers complains from experience that the citizen poor cannot or will not work manually. But in theory, why should they, when employers have a constant option of undercutting their wages, and when expanding entitlements make entry-level work an unattractive alternative, both financially and socially? We have expanded social services and decreased workers’ incentives, and then we wonder that a subsidized welfare class lacks the spunk of people crossing the border illegally from an impoverished Mexico. Yet there is something abhorrent about the present American notion of giving up on incentives to promote American labor — among which would be the prevention of cheaper foreign workers entering the country illegally and undercutting wages. Advocacy for illegal immigration is now a de facto lack of concern for the American underclass.
2. Ethnic chauvinism. Illegal immigration is primarily a Hispanic phenomenon, in general from Latin America and in particular from Mexico. Advocates for open borders, other than cynical employers, are today largely Hispanic activists or those who seek political advantage by catering to them. They argue for changes in or relaxation of immigration law, both out of an understandable sense of ethnic solidarity and real concern for the downtrodden, and, yet in some cases, out of a more dubious notion that the more Latin Americans who enter the country by any means necessary, the more power will eventually accrue to Spanish-speaking American elites who represent the collective interest. Or as Los Angeles County supervisor Gloria Molina put it in an infamous 1996 rant, “We are going to talk to all of those young people that need to become registered voters and go out to vote, and we’re politicizing every single one of those new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country. And what we are saying is by November we will have one million additional Latino voters in this country, and we’re gonna march, and our vote is going to be important. But I gotta tell you, there’s a lot of people that are saying, ‘I’m gonna go out there and vote because I want to pay them back!’”
Immigration lobbyists, remember, are not really worried about the plight of Chinese or Indian students who overstay their visas. Somehow ethnic chauvinism has been cloaked with a thin humanitarian veneer, when in fact the concern is not for illegal aliens per se, but for a particular category of illegal aliens. Try a thought experiment. Ask the National Council of La Raza whether it would support offering fast-track citizenship to a commensurate 15 million economic refugees from an imploding Europe or an impoverished Africa, even on conditions not imposed on those from Latin America, such as legality, mastery of English, a college degree, and proof of sustenance. Unfortunately, present advocacy for illegal immigration assumes that race and race-based identity politics shall determine the winners and losers in the immigration lottery. And that seems to me immoral to the core.
A warning. The post you are about to read is long. The issue of illegal immigration has affected me personally and I feel strongly about the issue. First, let me address border protection.
Border protection is not as difficult or expensive as many seem to think. Every state maintains its own National Guard. And once each year, every member of every state's National Guard is required to do a brief stint of “active duty.” Based on recommendations from the Border Patrol, National Guard troops could be deployed to border area hotspots – places where illegal crossings are common – and places where known criminal activity exists. Their primary duty would be simple and straightforward – to secure the border by any means necessary, allowing them to “take off their gloves” if they encounter violent resistance. This would include being fired upon by persons or vehicles on the other side of the border.
Now, the bigger picture.
The media has largely portrayed the illegal immigration debate as having two adversaries – the illegals and US citizens. But, this portrayal neglects the people caught in the middle – the people who suffer most due to unchecked illegal immigration. Namely, the legal immigrants.
My ex-wife and I met when she was assigned as an aide to the Trade Minister at the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles. She even had a diplomatic passport. When we married and, later, she became a naturalized US citizen, we petitioned her 4 siblings – 1 brother and 3 sisters. At the time, when 2 citizens petitioned an alien relative, the wait time was about 3 years. It took them 6 years to get their petitions approved. Why? Because the Department of State pushes back the window of entry for legal immigrants to take the estimates of illegal immigrants into consideration.
When they finally got their petitions approved and came to the US, 1 sister got a job as a motel maid while the other 3 siblings got jobs at a local farm picking fruits and vegetables. Note that these are the kinds of jobs that some people say will only be done by illegals.
Alongside them in the fields were other Pacific Islanders, Asians, a large family from Kenya, a sizable contingent of workers from the post-Soviet republics, and others. And yes, there were also Mexicans/Latinos in the fields.
One day, the farmer (Joe) decided to streamline his payroll. On a certain date, he would abandon daily cash payments in favor of a weekly paycheck (with the usual deductions withheld). All workers were given I-9 and W-4 forms to fill out and return before Joe's plan took effect. On the day the plan took effect, all of the Pacific Islanders showed up. All of the Asians showed up. All of the Kenyan's showed up. And all of the workers from the post-Soviet republics and elsewhere showed up. But, only a handful of the Mexicans/Latinos showed up.
Joe called all his remaining workers together and asked them to tell their friends and relatives that jobs were available. In less than 2 days, his fields were full of workers again.
Point is, there are a large number of legal immigrants who would love nothing better than doing the jobs “only illegals” would do … if only they could get to those jobs first. But, the legals who would do those jobs are faced by two obstacles. First, their petition wait time is doubled due to the large influx of illegals. In the case of my in-laws, illegals pretty much took 3 years of income out of their pockets – just as surely as if they'd been robbed at gunpoint. The second obstacle once they finally make landfall in the US is the sheer number of illegals who beat them to the job sites. Legals are simply outnumbered.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that all immigrants should be treated equally without regard to race, color, creed or national origin. Illegals don't believe this. They believe that they should be given “preferential” treatment over all other races, colors, creeds, and national origins. In addition, they believe that if their violation goes unnoticed or unpunished for a period of years, they're “more” entitled to that preferential treatment. And this belief is bolstered if not championed by politicians who are sympathetic to the same belief (ie., the Dream Act).
Remember Rosa Parks – the African-American woman who in 1955 was ordered to “go to the back of the bus” in Mississippi to make way for white passengers? Her refusal to do so is considered a landmark event in the civil rights movement. Now, we have a whole new class of people just like Rosa – the legal immigrants. They are being ordered to go to the back of the “immigration” bus to make way for illegals. Who, besides me, will speak for their civil rights?
One of the biggest arguments used by those who support illegals is that they pay taxes like everyone else. But to a legal immigrant, it's not an issue of whether or not illegals pay taxes. It's an issue of who SHOULD be paying those taxes – the immigrant who obeys the law or the immigrant who doesn't?
Another big argument they use is the sheer poverty of the illegals that forced them across the border to find work. Question. How many of you have seen a Philippine barrio? How many of you have seen a ghetto in Thailand? I've seen both. And, I've been to Mexico as well. The poverty Mexicans/Latinos complain about is not unique to them. So, which immigrant has a greater moral right to come here due to their poverty – the immigrant who comes her legally or the immigrant who comes here illegally?
Guest worker programs? Are they being offered universally to all immigrants without regard to race, color, creed or national origin – or are these programs “reserved” for Mexicans/Latinos? Either way, consider this.
One of the biggest problems faced by the Department of State insofar as “legal” aliens are concerned are those who overstay their visa limits. A guest worker program would primarily appeal to immigrants who would otherwise be illegal … giving them protected entry into this country. But, it would also provide them with the time and financial ability to figure out ways to overstay their program limits and disappear into the woodwork of society.
I do not have the facts and figures in front of me. But, I think it's safe to say that more illegal immigrants come from Mexico than from any other country. And when a country like the US is faced with such a huge illegal immigration problem, the wisest course is to go after the majority of violators first. Unfortunately, the deportation scheme to Mexico is nothing but a shell-game. Basically, illegal Mexican immigrants are given a free bus ride across the border and dropped off. Their drop-off point might even be close enough for them to see the border. Currently, those deported know that if they “re-cross” the border (and I suspect re-crossings are widespread), their only punishment if caught would be another free bus ride. I have a solution to this problem which, in the long run, would likely be cost-effective.
First, stop the free bus rides. Instead, detain them in a single facility until there are enough Mexican illegals to fill a C130 cargo plane. Then, load them up and fly them to Chetumal – dropping them off there. Chetumal is the southernmost city in Mexico on the border with Belize. In order to re-cross the US border, illegals would have to travel the entire length of Mexico to reach it – a task few if any of them would be capable of handling, physically or financially.
In closing, let me say that I'm in favor of immigration reform – but, perhaps not the kind of reform most people think about when the use the word. Two things need to happen – vigorous enforcement of existing laws and expedited petition approvals for legal immigrants who want to come to the US the legal way. In addition to that, it would be wise to ban all “daily cash payment” work, requiring all employers to mandate employees to fill out I-9 and W-4 forms – and checking all Social Security numbers against the eVerify system.
One final note. Many illegals bypass the requirement of a Social Security number by applying for an “ITIN” number (Individual Tax ID Number). The ITIN number was created for two purposes – to provide numbers for those who ran their own businesses prior to the requirement of having a Social Security number – and for foreign investors who are required to pay US taxes. If individual workers use ITIN numbers, their names should be given to the Department of State for further scrutiny since they're likely illegals.
I would like to echo all of this. I am in the midst of sponsoring my husband for immigration. We met while he was here (legally) as a college student. And the process is achingly slow. Once my husband is naturalized in (I hope) two years, we will go through it again, and it will be several more years of waiting and bureaucratic shuffling before we have a prayer of bringing over any members of my (highly skilled, native English speaking) husband's family. The INS doesn't have the capacity to process legal, legitimate immigration applications now with the backlog of illegal related issues--it will only get much worse with a push for amnesty, the DREAM act or anything else.
Michael Medved once made a good point on his radio show. We have de facto open borders for people with almost nothing to lose. Weak enforcement by low-wage employers in the restaurant, construction and agriculture sectors ensures they will easily find work. And the worst punishment an illegal immigrant is likely to face is...a trip back from whence he came. There is very little disincentive for low-skilled people to come here illegally. But for moderately or highly skilled immigrants who have the ability to work in higher paying sectors, who have the real potential to become net tax payers, the system is byzantine, complex and achingly slow. For my husband and most other legal immigrants I know, the jobs they hold require and enforce in-order documentation and papers. My husband and I both filled out I-9s on our first day at our (white collar professional) jobs. The U.S. loses highly skilled immigrants on a regular basis to Canada, where the process for skilled migrants is much faster, easier and certain. This is bad. We have set up a system that discourages the people we most want in this country.
"Instead, detain them in a single facility until there are enough Mexican illegals to fill a C130 cargo plane. Then, load them up and fly them to Chetumal – dropping them off there."
- You mean, no gas? I mean, you already have them all in one place, and traveling from Chetumal back up is not that hard. Some central Americans seem to manage....
"She even had a diplomatic passport. When we married and, later, she became a naturalized US citizen, we petitioned her 4 siblings – 1 brother and 3 sisters. At the time, when 2 citizens petitioned an alien relative, the wait time was about 3 years. It took them 6 years to get their petitions approved. Why? Because the Department of State pushes back the window of entry for legal immigrants to take the estimates of illegal immigrants into consideration"
Since you've shared your story, let me tell you my story. I have been here many years, and I came as an adult. My family has had 3 close calls (of getting shot in the crossfire of drug dealers) even though they live well inside Mexico, nowhere near the border. I am in my legal right to petition for them as a US citizen, but because of my respect of people like you (and because of the same immigration delay - which is worse for Mexicans since the laws are per-country) I have not.
And besides, why in the world should they?? they love their country, they don't *want* to leave. Particularly to bee seen in the streets as no doubt you look at the dudes outside your local Home Depot. These people are just *poor*, not *less*. Maybe they deserve individual deportation, but they certainly don't deserve to be cattle-driven into a C130.
And then you have the gall to complain that you, who petitioned 4 people (who will for sure petition others - and I'm totally ok with that, I have visited Vallejo, CA and enjoyed its beautiful, vaguely familiarly hispanic Filipino flavor) who are at peace in their own nation and are immigrating for family reasons, are upset at illegals? What kind of feelings do you think America's seemingly insatiable need to snort, smoke and shoot up nearly getting my family killed stir in myself? After reading these, I guess you think family not getting delayed a few years is more important than what is going on there. Have you even been paying attention to your own neighbors' news?
Instead, go look at my other posts. Passionate, yes. Calming down myself and trying to ask people to calm down on both sides, yes. Developing a thick skin as I try to defuse tense situations with humor, yes. But I would never, EVER suggest anything that would look even remotely like a concentration camp and military intervention. Which by the way wouldn't work. They'd be back in about a month.
You seem to be overly upset at my C130 suggestion. Have you ever flown on one? I have - twice - once to Utapao Air Base in Thailand - once to Anderson Air Base on Guam. They can be fitted for passenger travel. And no, people aren't herded on like cattle. In fact, the seating arrangement I and my fellow passengers enjoyed was superior to flying First Class on a jumbo jet. There just aren't any flight attendants or in-flight movies and no alcohol is served (grin).
You said, "They'd be back in a month." Somehow, I doubt that.
Thank you for your service, I have family in the US Armed forces and I know the feelings of deployment in a family and the sweetness of return.
I have not seen the inside of a C130 - mostly Helicopters (I saw one cargo plane at a base in Omaha once. It didn't have the seats on and I don't remember its designation). But it's still canvassing the whole country in uniform and bringing people to a holding pen in preparation for stuffing them in these planes.
And if we can't solve some silly people on OWS using regular police without the media getting their panties on a bunch crying out "abuse of power", how do you think this is going to pan out? Sure, the planes may be nice, but they're still identifiable as military planes by media imagery. I always advise people to ask "and then what happens" both in the US and Mexico in any bilateral issue. In this case, I doubt Mexico would do anything more than complain, but I don't know that the US population would take using military as police, particularly given how good media photographers can be at the drama thing.
Note that I don't' disagree with the individual deportation sentiment (and I think any beat cop should be legally able to check status and deport), all I'm saying is that I'd rather it be done individually. Commercial flights are cheap. There's a super-cheap mexican airline called Volaris that does fly to Quintana Roo. Throw them in one of those. It's a lot harder for a photographer to stir stuff up when it's one dude in handcuffs escorted by a marshall into a plane several times a day versus a C130 and boots in the ground. And I still think they'd be back in a month. :-)
Still, you didn't answer the rest of the reasoning. The silence when the subject of drug use in america comes to light in the Mexico/US bilateral relation (for which I provided you a clear, personal, family connection for) is deafening.
You wrote, "Still, you didn't answer the rest of the reasoning. The silence when the subject of drug use in america comes to light in the Mexico/US bilateral relation (for which I provided you a clear, personal, family connection for) is deafening."
You are 100% correct on that. But the reason I didn't comment on it is because I believe the lion's share of illegals from Mexico are not involved in drug-running. If I'm being naive on this, I'd appreciate being enlightened.
I confess I didn't think about privately chartered airlines to ferry illegals back to Chetumal. I just assumed a military plane would be cheaper than a chartered plane. But, I could be wrong. I once flew on a chartered 707 from Travis AFB in the US to Clark AFB in the Philippines. And MAC flights (Military Airlift Command) have always used a mix of military and civilian aircraft. C130s just popped into my head because I've flown on them as a passenger. The seats aren't all that comfy but the leg room and elbow room would make First Class passengers envious (grin).
In any event, yes. I agree with you that civilian aircraft would be more appropriate to the task if they were cheaper.
P.S. If you think I'm overly passionate about the fate of legal aliens, you ought to talk to my sister-in-law, Myrna, hehe. But you'd be the only one talking. She'd be yelling. In fact, she's the person who came up with the "Rosa Parks" comparison I used in my initial post. And, a lot of other legals from the Philippines feel similarly about illegals - especially in my neck of the woods.
As reasonable as is Dr. Hanson's assessment of the condition of illegal immigration, I can not imagine a successful candidate for public office presenting such unvarnished truths in public. It seems to me that the entire left-wing world would rise up to denounce him so vociferously that no one would ever dare to mention it again. It is particularly troubling because just as Europe is questioning the wisdom of its multi-culti experiment in unbridled immigration, we are determined to ramp up efforts to invite all of Mexico to radically alter the complexion of American culture while laughing at the quaint notion of a rule of law. What could possibly go wrong?
Years ago, my mother interceded in a spat between my little brother and me. I had left some quarters on our bedroom dresser, and I suspected him of pilfering one. My mother extracted a confession from my little brother, and then she turned on me. The fault was mine, she said, because I was older, and should have known better than to expose him to temptation.
Mexico is more akin to a baby brother than a little brother. We must treat it, and other impoverished nations, as the Right man’s burden. In time, we may help ease their poverty to where they can afford morals. In the meantime, if we willfully place quarters on the border, we act immorally and should be too ashamed to try to pass that fault on.
Your mother was wrong; however, I'll leave that for you to figure out.
As for Mexico, it is a very wealthy country. Tenth in the world. It’s blessed with abundant natural resources and wonderful weather. The problem is Mexico is the quintessential banana republic---a corrupt oligarcy of arrogant rich, who refuse to tax themselves or invest in infrastucture and education. It’s so much easier to let the Americans care for Mexico’s poor. Indeed, the Mexican propaganda war to convince Americans of the need to support poor Mexico has been an enormous success.
Mexico would have a revolution on its hands if they couldn’t export their poor to the US. The people would and should rise up and revolt. We are aiding and abetting their corrupt government. The US should insist that Mexico take care of its own people.
Perhaps the mother was technically wrong. However, there is certainly some "fault" that lies with the older brother. Don't advertise your goodies in the face of those that may, by nefarious mean's, wish to relieve you of their burden. Don't flash that Rolex and huge wad of cash in neighborhoods you know to be inhabited by less than honest citizens. A fool and his money are soon parted. . .
This in no way excuses or otherwise diminishes the wrong-doing of the younger brother (or criminal). But I think maybe the mother was really trying to say "what did you think was going to happen. Perhaps you should take better care of your stuff."
I think the mother was wrong too. But even if she was right, nations are NOT children and one nation is not another nation's big brother. I imagine Mexico expects to be considered an equal sovereign nation and deems its people as good as any, at least for formal purposes. Then it and they should be treated as such and face the requirements of grown men and nations.
Some people feel it's OK to "blame the victim" in a situation like this. In your case, your mom blamed you for "trusting" your little brother to be honest. There's an old Scottish proverb that goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." In short, if you were previously a victim of your brother's light-fingered crimes, perhaps you should share culpability. Otherwise, your mom was wrong.
Excellent column, but I don't think you ever quite addressed the "immoral" part and its premise.
The premise is that citizenship is a finite good. It is a good in the sense that it represents the privilege and the responsibility to live under the full rights of the US Constitution as well as to share and contribute to the common traditions to make this great country even greater. It is finite because it is limited by the amount of individuals the country can realistically sustain (in all senses) and because, if it were not so, its value would collapse as if by inflation.
With this premise, you have a solid foundation as to why illegal immigration is immoral--not merely economically disadvantageous, lawless, racially divisive and socially suicidal.
If foreign individuals X and Y both covet this finite good, of which (let's say) there is only one slot, who should get the one slot, and who should choose who gets it? Surely, it would be immoral for X to self-select based on the expediency of living across the border, plus compounding the turpitude by letting his first act on US soil be a lawless one. By doing so, X would have committed a doubly immoral act--once towards the US, once towards Y. To the US, in the sense that he would have stolen from her the most valuable of goods she can offer; to Y, in the sense that he would have stolen away from Y the chance to attain this good.
Multiply this times several million, and you see the magnitude of this immorality--despoiled of all the racial, economic and political considerations.
The second factor making illegal immigration immoral is that the greatest good for a nation is self-improvement. And how can this self-improvement be achieved without the country's ability to select tomorrow's human capital? I strongly agree with nations that have a well-thought-out point system as the basis for their immigration policy. Education, health and in general the ability to contribute positively--to add rather than to take--should be the variables by which we choose whom we bring in.
The point is to bequeath to our children a better nation than it is today. Can we honestly say that letting millions of perfectly uneducated lawbreakers from cultures that are not ours become citizens just by the fact that "they are here" (although they came illegally)--can we honestly say that doing this is conducive to making our country better?
Now, NONE of these issues ever appear in our immigration debate. The topic is instead framed in sentimentalism, political or economic expediency disguised as ersatz compassion, racial bullying and vapid, anti-historical bromides.
So, yes, illegal immigration is immoral. In so many ways. And I have proven it without even using economics, crime, race, or Mexico. Because morality is not based on any of these factors.
Excellent post! WFB would have been proud of you. The vast majority of us will be better having read it. Perhaps it should be forwarded to the RNC. Thanks!
Heh, This is way better than the article. Good job :-)
It's also debatable on two points though - in a free society, new immigrants would create jobs and small businesses (even if they all starts as Italian restaurants, taco or falafel stands). Eventually these grow and become job centers for others, and the immigrants have kids and educate them as locals. Arguably, it is because of the eroding of freedoms in America that immigrants become an underclass, and because of the lack of freedoms in their home countries that they have to leave to look elsewhere, so it is in US interest to promote freedom, democracy and smaller governments elsewhere.
Libertarians would argue that a US Citizenship is not a limited good and by imposing a limit to it you are actually creating a lot of these problems. I don't know that I buy that argument, but it's worth thinking about.
The problem with arguing that the greatest good is self improvement is that then it leaves you with someone deciding what "being a better person" means, and that usually leads nowhere good. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a discussion that what makes a good person, on the contrary, a public discussion of this would make allies of a lot of those poor immigrants you seem to want to push away. If for no other reason that a new immigrant is open to learning about the way their new country works.
I wonder what the country would have looked like if the founding fathers would have used this line of debate. I expect the US would have been lonely, desolate, and unable to defend itself.
Hi, thanks for your kind reply. I think our wires got crossed (especially from what I read in your first and last two paragraphs). I unfortunately don't have time now to reply more thoroughly at the moment, but if you have time to re-read my post carefully, you'll see that my points were a bit different than what you have understood them to be.
