In Moliere’s Middle-Class Gentleman, the foolish title character is famously amazed to learn that he’s been speaking in prose his whole life.
That’s what I thought of when MSM reporters were amazed at the concept of self-deportation when Romney mentioned it last night. Roy Beck has dug up some of the commentary after the debate: An NPR writer called it “one of the odder turns of phrase that came up during the debate” while at MSNBC they referred to it as a “stumble” and an “opaque” concept.
These are people who obviously haven’t been paying attention. (The reds at Mother Jones are aghast at the idea, but they’re at least familiar with it.) Self-deportation is the core of a policy of attrition through enforcement, which has been the strategic framework for all the pro-enforcement measures of the past several years, at both the federal and state levels. The point is that illegal immigrants are persuaded to leave (to self-deport) because the party’s over — they can’t get jobs or a driver’s license (or welfare or in-state tuition) and, facing changed incentives, decide to return home. It’s the sensible middle way between rounding everybody up tomorrow, which we couldn’t do if we wanted to, and amnesty, which would just lead to another 11 million illegals a few years from now.
And, as the declines in Arizona’s and Alabama’s illegal population show, attrition works. It’s unlikely all illegal aliens would leave if we consistently enforced our laws, but a lot of them would. How many would still be here after, say, eight years of real, across-the-board enforcement? Who knows, but how about we give it a try and find out?
The fact that Romney brought it up suggests someone in his campaign has given the matter at least a little thought, which is more than I can say for Gingrich.
Let me update you and your favorite candidate on self-deportation. I am living in Alabama. the stories of the self-deportation are greatly exaggerated. While some of the parents are leaving let me assure you the children are not. I know one family who have taken in 5 children whose parents were deported. Guess what the kids are citizens they aren't going anywhere. In a few years all these kids will vote. Repubs had better start thinking more long term than self-deportation if they want to remain a viable party. At least Newt gives us hope.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, it is real, and it predates the debate; Google this and see: "self-deportation" -romney
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent, Mark. And I went back myself and read (some) of your previous writings on this terminology going back to 2004 anyway.
The problem is, to the uninformed ear this sounds absurd on its face - and Romney didn't provide enough in the way of context to rebut that. You are hearing the dog-whistle as it were (no offense and, man, has that been over-used), but most everybody else, including those who might understand and agree with attrition through enforcement, are not hearing that. What Romney seemed to be saying was something more akin to attrition through economic malaise.
Meanwhile others have been made into laughingstocks for less. Perry said Turkey's being run by Islamists and everybody laughs at the gaff. I don't know if you think that is accurate or inaccurate, but I think you and anybody actually following Turkey on the Right would have to admit that it is not far off the mark.
Sounds like your guy (Romney) better keep that well-informed advisor a bit closer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What Romney seemed to be saying was something more akin to attrition through economic malaise."
Actually, it was Santorum who mentioned that attrition is happening right now precisely because of the current malaise. Romney, quite specifically, said that people would leave because they wouldn't have the necessary document - he used the word "card" to obtain employment.
Your Romney Derangement syndrome is either affecting your memory, or your hearing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChill out, Double D.
Y'know I do have a 4-year-old playing in the background, so I went to the transcript available at cfr.org (found it on Bing - I'm not a regular there). Here's the relevant portion.
***
SMITH: Let`s stay on immigration for a second.
Governor Romney, there is one thing I`m confused about. You say you don`t want to go and round up people and deport them, but you also say that they would have to go back to their home countries and then apply for citizenship. So, if you don`t deport them, how do you send them home?
ROMNEY: Well, the answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can`t find work here because they don`t have legal documentation to allow them to work here. And so we`re not going to round people up. The way that we have in this society is to say, look, people who have come here legally would, under my plan, be given a transition period and the opportunity during that transition period to work here, but when that transition period was over, they would no longer have the documentation to allow them to work in this country. At that point, they can decide whether to remain or whether to return home and to apply for legal residency in the United States, get in line with everybody else. And I know people think but that`s not fair to those that have come here illegally.
SMITH: Isn`t that what we have now? If somebody doesn`t feel they have the opportunity in America, they can go back any time they want to.
ROMNEY: Yes, we`d have a card that indicates who`s here illegally. And if people are not able to have a card, and have through an E-Verify system determine that they are here illegally, then they`re going to find they can`t get work here. And if people don`t get work here, they`re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.
Ultimately, with this transition period in place, we would then allow people to get in line at home and to come back to this country after they have reached the front of the line. But I just don`t think it`s fair to the people who have loved ones waiting in line legally to come to America and say, guess what? We`re going to encourage a wave of illegal immigration by giving amnesty of some kind to those who have come here illegally.
***
My comments:
"And so we`re not going to round people up." How are you going to have attrition through enforcement if you don't round up ANYBODY?
"At that point, they can decide whether to remain or whether to return home and to apply for legal residency in the United States,..." Uhhh, 'they decide'? But, that whole section was incoherent at best. He starts out talking about those who came here LEGALLY.
Confused, the reporter asks, "Isn`t that what we have now? If somebody doesn`t feel they have the opportunity in America, they can go back any time they want to." Eager to clarify, Romney responds, "YES, we`d have a card that indicates who`s here illegally."
"And if people don`t get work here, they`re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work." That sounds great! And, it's gotta be revenue neutral at least because again WE AREN'T GOING TO ROUND UP ANYBODY.
Look, I think illegal immigration is right up at the top of the list of do-or-die issues and I am all for the fence (I supported Duncan Hunter while I could last go'round), boots on the ground where the fence won't work, drones, e-verify, stiff penalties and all that. I'm not convinced at this point Romney will go to the mat on the issue, but I could be convinced. But, I am convinced he did not articulate a conservative case or any case for attrition through enforcement last night. And, I'm wondering if he would know it if he heard it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomewhere, Linda Chavez is crying tears over the loss of these hard working citizens who impose no burden or cost upon the rest of society. Hey, has Linda written a column yet about the hard working Haitian immigrant in Florida who murdered three people?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't remember whether Romney himself actually used the term "self-deportation" last night, but the concept is sound. If he did say it, though, it probably would have been more artful to just refer to it as "attrition."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not always way you say that's important, it's how you say it.
"Self-deportation" sounds like saying pretty-please to illegals to follow the honor system. "Attrition through enforcement" sounds like a workable policy.
They may mean the same thing to someone who's studied Romney's stance thoroughly, but to the average primary voter, the difference in phraseology may determine whether the policy sounds silly or serious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt Romney's grandfather, an American citizen living in Mexico when Mitt's dad, George was born, self-deported to the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know I'm well into geezerdom, but I sure thought I heard Romney say "self deportation." And when I did -- I said --good, for it works. Just look at the illegals who scampered out of Arizona and Alabama when those states passed some common sense rules. In fact, if the border is slammed shut, e-verify is mandatory, voter ID, verification of legal status before enrolling in any school or gaining any government benefit were required--we wouldn't have to "deport" very many. They'll flee the country in droves---and that would be a good thing. I firmly believe the costs associated with educating, providing healthcare, incarcerating criminal illegals and providing infrastructure for illegals is hugely more expensive than the skewed analysis and studies have shown.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know, where I part with the GOP is on the issue of work. Can someone explain to me the position held by all of them, which Santorum concisely put together when he said we can't have people "who are doing illegal acts -- and that is working."
Yes, it's illegal to work. Huh? Why would we want laws that make it harder for people to work, harder for companies to hire, more red tape for companies to hire, etc. etc. etc. If a company in a free enterprise system wants to employ, you and you agree to work for them, let the voluntary transactions take place!
The other issues, such as welfare, english language, etc. etc. we can solve those issues without messing with the hiring markets (for companies) and moral-ethical work market of society.
Require them to learn English. Refuse to provide welfare payments. Require them to pay back taxes. But why oh why are we coming up with programs that make it harder and costlier for companies to hire and make an entire class of people unemployable?
If they are willing to do the work, let them. If they aren't willing to learn English, deport them. If they demand welfare, deport them. If they want to work for a living, that's the American Dream!
Here is what I can tell you, having lived in Europe for 5 years at various times. They have ID card systems. It's an entire bureaucracy. It will not be managed properly. It will involve the oversight of the courts, it will be expensive... AND the kicker is they will not all go home. A few will. Many will be driven to black-market labor jobs, even more so than they already area. What good does it do us as a society to take millions of people, marginalize them even further and then make it so they can't even provide for themselves?
Why oh why aren't the Republicans, the champions of markets sticking to their principles on this one? Get the government out of the way and let invidividuals work and markets function.
No amount of rules will change what we wish to change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see the issue of sovereignty anywhere in your spiel, steate. A nation has the right to set rules on who may enter and who may stay within its borders. Illegal immigration defeats that concept. This is not a case where a "free market" should be unfettered - sovereignty is one of the few fundamental areas where a government should operate. Heck, it's the whole point of a national government.
I also find this statement of yours hilarious: "If they want to work for a living, that's the American Dream!" Of course, since they aren't Americans, why should they get to fulfill that dream? Let them go home and fulfill the Mexican dream, or the Guatamalen dream or the Indian dream or the Latvian dream. Also, if *they* are fulfilling that dream, doesn't that possibly displace an *actual* American from fulfilling that dream?
As far as "messing with the hiring markets", how is requiring English not doing the same thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Here is what I can tell you, having lived in Europe for 5 years at various times. "
Bureaucracy or not, there's not a country in Europe that suffers the same kind of illegal immigration problem that we have here in the states. I'm also guessing that if you had children while living there (presuming neither you nor your wife were citizens of your host country), those children ARE NOT citizens of that host country. Europe pokes fun at our jingoism, when in fact they're far more nationalistic than we ever will be.
Because of our loose borders, poor employment regulation enforcement and our citizenship at birth policy, there are some HUGE magnets to come to the US that don't exist in the Europe at least not to the same degree.
Lastly, as GWB alluded to, "markets" don't function as the arbiters of sovereignty. If we opened our borders like we have opened our markets, the entire population of Mexico would be living in the American Southwest within 5-years. That's just not sustainable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's the only one I trust on the (by far) largest danger facing America's sovereignty, affluence, freedom and, well, existence: illegal immigration.
Gingrich I trust less than I do Obama on this issue.
Suffice it to say that if blow this one (i.e., if we commit the worst mistake in the history of the GOP) and give Gingrich the nomination, I'll be voting GOP for all the state and local officials and voting third party in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept Mittens has been a "passionate" proponent of amnesty:
External Link
Krikorian, who has notably said not one negative word about Romney's pro-amnesty position while trashing Gingrich's, trumpets the latest ever-evolving Romney position as though it bore any resemblance to how a President Romney would govern. It doesn't---anymore than any of the dozens of other mutually-contradictory positions he held do.
Krikorian knows---but won't say---that the reason people laughed at the self-deportation-via-ID concept was that illegal aliens who are working ALREADY have a valid U.S. ID---it just happens to be one they've stolen from an American citizen. Where has Romney proposed I-9 reform and full prosecution for identity theft? Well, he hasn't---because he intends to do precisely nothing about any of it.
Moreover, it's not as though drug mules and gang muscle---two jobs Americans won't do---are susceptible to workplace raids of employment files. Will they self-deport? THEY'RE the illegals we'd like to see gone baby gone, not the nice man who works in my favorite restaurant, doesn't bother anybody, and just wants to build a better life away from the crime and corruption of his former land.
Nothing will be done either about the "anchor baby" and "family reunification" aspects of immigration law which means that not only do we get that hard-working Juan, but also his good-for-nothing Uncle Chuy and his 12 reprobate cousins. Sure, some people sneak across the border---but whole busloads come after just one of these becomes a legal U.S. resident. Romney isn't going to do anything about this either.
The reason is simple: Mittens doesn't give a fig about illegal immigration, American sovereignty, or enforcing our laws. He has no principle save ambition.
One wonders what Krikorian's principles are these days, given he's clearly subordinated his interest in ending illegal immigration to seeing Romney in the White House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow sophisticated! Sophists could do no better. Now, what IS 'self deportation'? It is AMNESTY WITH ENCOURAGED LAWLESSNESS. Ask yourself what most young, male illegals will do with no hope of employment. They will do whatever it takes. The problem is difficult but let's hold off the coronation long enough to recognize that Romney hasn't a clue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse