TheAgitator.com
On Living With Immigrants
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008I’m seeing a lot from the comments section about how people who defend illegal immigrants “don’t actually have to live with them.”
I’ll go ahead and call bullshit, here. Ryan Sager wrote a nice piece back in 2006 pointing out that, in fact, the regions of the country most hostile to immigrants (legal or otherwise) tend to be the areas with the fewest immigrants. And American citizens who actually live among higher concentrations of immigrants tend to have much higher opinions of them. There are exceptions, like Prince William County, Virginia. But in general, exposure to immigrants tends to demystify them.
I happen to live in the Chirilagua area of Alexandria, Virginia, home to the largest Salvadoran population in the U.S. The only time I‘ve ever felt unsafe in my neighborhood was after an unfortunate altercation with a U.S. citizen, not an immigrant. In fact, regular exposure to immigrants (and yes, most of the immigrants in my neighborhood are illegal) has only made me more fond of them. They work hard. They’re exceedingly polite. They want a better life for their kids. They sell delicious pupusas. What’s not to like?
If there’s been some massive drain on Alexandria’s public health system, I haven’t felt it. We’ve had no outbreak of disease, and despite an influx of immigrants over the last decade, Alexandria’s one of the safest cities in the country. Violent crime is up over the last five years, but only marginally. It’s still about even with the state average, which is pretty impressive for an urban area. Property crime is actually down. (Speaking of which, guess which big, immigrant-heavy city consistently ranks as one of the 2-3 safest in the country?)
This isn’t to say that there aren’t plenty of people who live with illegals and who also hate them. For whatever reason. All I’m saying is the “you only defend illegals because you’ve never had to live with them” argument is crap. I do live with them. And it has only reinforced my opinion that we ought to open our doors to more low-wage workers. And cut a break for those already here.
Here in Houston the community is very well integrated and generally without racial drama, and the hispanic population (this generation’s immigrant boogyman of choice) is huge. The little animosity I do see seems to come from the more insulated suburbs.
Hate to generalize but the immigrants here tend to be hard-working and self-reliant to a much larger extent than the native poor population. We have a huge population under the poverty line, and not much of a welfare system (Katrina is helping change that though).
I lived in a community with a huge Mexican population. Yes, the crime rate went up. The schools went down. There’s nothing like large numbers of children that don’t speak English, little interest in learning it, and high gang membership to ruin a school system.
Many are good hardworking people that work two and three jobs. That means their kids are on their own. Because standards are different back home, they think nothing of having three families with children living in a three bedroom home. Several cars in the yard. It does wonders for property values anywhere nearby.
I’m sure they’re nice people, Radley, but why are they here, at all?
It used to be that the best thing about America was, that we had cheap land and expensive labor.
Nowadays, we’re getting expensive land and cheap labor. Have a lot of money invested in real estate, do you?
Sorry Radster, you don’t live along the border … it’s still very different. And I’m sorry to stereotype, but Central Americans (El Salvadorans, Hondurans, etc) have a very different mindset than Mexican Illegal Immigrants who a lot of the time believe the “this is really OUR land” crap (ignoring the Native Americans that were here long before there WAS a Mexico). Illegals who have moved away from the border aren’t exactly the same as those who remain in the southwest. And I don’t disagree that many of them are hard working (much better work ethic than most of the poor in this country without a doubt). But if we throw out the drug dealers and criminals, the common analogy I’d use is this:
Let’s say someone breaks into your house while you’re on vacation. They damage your window or door to get in, they pretend to be you and they make themselves at home. They ALSO: take really good care of your house, clean it, take care of the lawn, act nice to your neighbors, etc. When you come home, do you just let them stay? If you can answer yes to that, then I guess we’ll just never agree on the issue.
I also have to disagree with you on this one. You’ve made up your mind on the subject and adopted the “I don’t see it so it can’t be real” attitude.
Trust your readers who have seen the problems firsthand that support legal immigration while detesting illegal immigration. There is a growing horde of us out there.
And yes, this is coming from a legal immigrant.
I live in Los Angeles, a city near the border with a very large immigrant population, and second what Radley said. Nearly everyone in my neighborhood is an immigrant (about 60% Korean/40% Latino), and every single one of them is a better person _and a better American_ than the filthy white racist garbage that flock to threads like this.
On a side note Radster, my wife is Honduran and I love stuff like Pupusas too … If you do ever go to the southwest, try to go to a Central (or South) American restaurant. The food is very different (and much better IMO) than the standard Mexican food (which is on like every corner here). Of course, you went to Argentina so I guess you know this …
And thanks for calling me ‘filthy white racist garbage’ Ken … that really helps the discussion. Did you pay attention to my post about the fact that the BIGGEST opposers to illegal immigrants are the ‘legal’ ones. You’re like these intellectually dishonest people who just call people ‘racist’ and ‘anti-immigrant’ rather than stick to the ‘legal/illegal’ part. What percentage of that Korean and Latino population is legal? That’s what I thought.
“the filthy white racist garbage that flock to threads like this”
Ken, dont sugar coat it buddy. Tell us how u really feel about us. Quit holding back. Thanks.
Funny thing is about people who claim to be “pro-legal/anti-illegal” immigration is that usually it’s a complete load. Ask a lot of them about tripling the quota for people from other countries to get into the States and they can’t start frothing at the mouth fast enough about “welfare thieves”, “undesirables” and arguments about how we need to preserve our “culture”.
As for legal immigrants who use how they were treated as justification to continue restrictive immigration practices, it’s the worst form of hypocrisy (and, actually, protectionism). “The government screwed me over so they should screw him over too” is not a rational reason to continue any policy…particularly one as flawed and economically disastrous as our government’s immigration policy.
houston is “very well integrated”, htown guy?
odd. in the 15 years i lived there, i never saw much of that. i drove a truck for UPS; my center was the ‘inner city’ one. pretty much the entire loop, north and east of downtown, was all black and had been so for decades. the hispanics were moving in when i left - denver harbor was a hispanic enclave, along with the 77009 and heights area - but white folks were few and far between. take a drive out to kashmere or forest brook highs someday, see what you see.
and the 3rd ward. and the 4th ward. (would you like to break down after dark near TSU?) and acres homes. etc etc etc.
by the time i left way back when, sharpstown - once an all-american city - was well on it’s way to becoming the state’s biggest barrio. with the attendant high crime rate.
the reason houston is “generally without racial drama” is because most folks know to avoid the hellhole sections of town. AND because htown citizens have a well-earned reputation for being armed.
still, that WAS quite the sneaky racist attack on blacks there, htown. (”the immigrants are more hard-working and self-reliant than the native poor population.”) given that houston’s “native” poor are overwhelmingly black, it would seem you’re wrong AND racist. interesting.
I live in Long Beach California and find that the integration of our neighborhoods only adds to the experience of living here. In addition, my wife is a teacher at a school where 99% of the students are Latino, and she has found that the parents, illegal and legal, are mostly all supportive of what she is trying to do and their children. Many of her co-workers are the children of illegal immigrants who went to college and became teachers. Do I believe that illegal immigrants should receive benefits from the state? No. But to say immigration, illegal or otherwise, has added nothing positive to our nation’s fabric is untrue.
Overloading local government infrastructure with unbridled immigration would be an economic disaster.
Let’s say someone breaks into your house while you’re on vacation. They damage your window or door to get in, they pretend to be you and they make themselves at home. They ALSO: take really good care of your house, clean it, take care of the lawn, act nice to your neighbors, etc. When you come home, do you just let them stay? If you can answer yes to that, then I guess we’ll just never agree on the issue.
That is still one of the dumbest analogies ever. First, the house’s ownership is not in question. Who “owns” America is a tougher question not anywhere near addressed by such a simplistic view.
Second, and parallel, you have a legitimate objection to their presence only on land you actually own. If you own no land, then you really can’t object that some other land owner wants to share/rent his property to them. I don’t own land in LA, so I don’t object when some apartment owner down there rents to illegals.
Third, leaving the issues of ownership and trespass aside, what happens when, say, the wife wants to kick the intruder out and the husband wants him to stay? Whose demand is most valid when there is equal interest in the outcome AND no majority to rule on it?
we’re supposed to “cut a break for those illegals already here”??
remember that the next time you send in your auto-insurance check. illegals add…what? 10% to the bill? remember that the next time an illegal who of course has no insurance runs a red light and t-bones you. or breaks into your house. and then runs away. back to mexico. it’s alleged the number of outstanding murder warrants in LA county is 80% illegal mexican. por que the link to bucolic, idyllic, burglar-bars-everywhere-in-the-city-even-the-rich-sections-to-thwart-illegals-burglary el paso but not LA?
why is the owner of this blog so hot to hold cops to a “must obey the law” standard, but takes a different tack when it comes to holding illegals to the same standard?
For a good video on legal immigration:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&hl=en
Trust your readers who have seen the problems firsthand that support legal immigration while detesting illegal immigration. There is a growing horde of us out there.
I want to be like you, but how can I tell the difference between the legals and illegals? I mean, right now, I pretty much have to hate all the hispanics. Please help me out.
For my part I’d say I have to draw a distinction between how I feel about illegal immigration versus how I feel about illegal immigrants.
On the one hand, as the husband (and sponsor) of a (legal) immigrant, the notion of anything approaching amnesty for people who have bypassed the legal channels to get here pisses me off.
On the other hand, the sheer numbers of people that are by definition illegal makes a pretty compelling argument that there is a supply of labor and a demand for it that no amount of legislating or enforcement is going to get rid of. The current policy of limiting immigration far below the natural equilibrium is neither reasonable nor realistic, and more of the same isn’t going to be any better.
In other words, this is the exact same problem that exists with drug prohibition.
Moreover, I find it difficult to fault people for responding to very, very powerful economic incentives. I’d like to think if I was a poor Mexican I’d have the balls to come here too.
That, and having a decent taco/burrito/torta shop around the corner from my house kicks ass.
Why is it hypocritical for people who went through the trouble of immigrating legally to be annoyed at those who don’t? Since the crooks who come here illegally are jumping in line and effectively delaying the progress of those who are trying to do things legally, I think such annoyance is entirely appropriate.
It seems far more hypocritical for Mexico and people therefrom to complain about U.S. not being friendly enough toward them, when Mexico itself is far more hostile to foreigners. Why is that never mentioned?
Seems to me that Radney was simply relating his experience with immigrants. His experience is similar to mine. I’ve met illegal and legal immigrants and, on balance, they are as hardworking and intelligent–if not more so–than native-born American citizens. Also they often speak better English.
If people really *want* to live here–and are willing to risk their lives–shouldn’t we be proud of that? Shouldn’t we welcome people who are willing to work hard and learn English? Granted, that doesn’t speak for all immigrants–legal and not.
We need to show the world that 9/11 didn’t turn us into sissies scared of our own shadows. Relax immigrant quotas, end the useless and counterproductive War on Drugs, enact the National Sales Tax, and–”Mr President, tear down that wall!”
//I want to be like you, but how can I tell the difference between the legals and illegals? I mean, right now, I pretty much have to hate all the hispanics. Please help me out.//
If legal immigration were restricted to those people willing to make enough effort to learn English as to demonstrate appreciation of their position, do you think the supply of people who were willing to learn English would be insufficient to meet labor demands?
One major principle when a host is deciding whether to accept certain guests is whether the guests will try to accommodate the host, or whether the guests will pressure the host to accommodate them. The former guests should be considered much more welcome.
Thanks for not deleting the posts of those who disagree with you!
@Z
Hate all the white guys you see too because I’m a Canadian immigrant.
The point is not to hate the right people. the point is to fix the system so that:
1) We know who everyone is and have proper records for them.
2) We can remove the person if they turn out to be a detriment to our society.
But it works both ways. If Americans want to immigrate to Mexico or Canada the system should be just as open and easy.
People who want legal immigration instead of illegal immigration want the same type of system that brought the mass immigration waves of the past. We welcome your tired, your hungry, and your huddled masses, but we want to know who the hell you are and a better ability to catch you if you turn into a menace.
Some people on participating in this discussion seem to have a REAL difficulty understanding the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigration and making a distinction between the two. Also, Ken….just because someone disagrees with you DOES NOT make them a racists and that is a typical, ignorant, unthinking, knee-jerk reaction and the statement reveals MORE about you than the people you are trying to insult.
I’ve lived near the border of Mexico for about 28 of my 34 years on this earth. I really didn’t know there was a real problem with illegal immigration until people started telling me about five years ago. Funny thing was, they were almost all from an area of the country that wasn’t all that close to the border.
My ex-wife worked at a bilingual school that certainly had plenty of illegals, but I never really saw all the issues people complain about. Now, certainly, the first arrivals here all spoke Spanish with very little English. I’m somewhat sympathetic, because it’s hard to learn a language late in life, and it’s difficult to do so when you’re busting your ass trying to make a living. And honestly, if I moved to Germany tomorrow, as much German as I know and as much as I love the culture, I’d still speak English in my house and to my English speaking relatives. Not out of disrespect, but simply because it’s my native language and it’s far easier for me to communicate in it.
I will tell you something about all those immigrants though. Almost without exception, they did not allow their children to speak Spanish. They had fought their way here, risked imprisonment and deportation simply to give their children the chance at a better life. They knew better than anyone that if they didn’t speak English, that better life would be completely denied to them.
It takes people a while to adjust to a new country. I’m sure your ancestors didn’t fit in the second they got off the boat either. I’d also be willing to bet that if English wasn’t their native language, they probably never learned to speak it — even if that was their children’s primary language. There’s a reason for all those German street signs in places like Fredericksburg, Texas and French signs in New Orleans.
“Why is it hypocritical for people who went through the trouble of immigrating legally to be annoyed at those who don’t? Since the crooks who come here illegally are jumping in line and effectively delaying the progress of those who are trying to do things legally, I think such annoyance is entirely appropriate.”
The hypocrasy is that the US changed the immigration laws between now and our grandparent’s generation. My grandparents would certainly be here illegally if todays laws were used in the 1900s instead thier was no concept of illegal immigrant you just showed up and signed the guest book and you were in. They left a situation facing a major famine coming here looking for work. So it does seem a bit hypocritical to now that we don’t let anyone in then claim they have no right to be here.
Further it seems like illegal immigration would actually quicken the progress of those who try to come here legally. We accept ~25000 people anually from Mexico legally. If all the illegals were to sign up on the waiting list then it would slow the progress of those who would only come here legally.
Having lived in that same area, Radley, I concur completely. Frankly, it never even occurred to me to hate them or think of them as any different than my other neighbors. Hell, I don’t even remember asking myself whether any of them were “legal” or “illegal.”
How does one tell?
supercat,
Because it’s not the illegal immigrants’ fault that it was so hard for the legal immigrants to get in. It’s the government’s fault for settling a ridiculously low quota on immigrants in the 60s which we’ve refused to raise despite the fact that immigrant labor is a benefit to us. It’s American citizens’ fault for treating people who want to come to this country for a job like criminals instead of people who wish to be part of our country (national immigration quotas were pretty much nonexistent before the 20th century…when our country experienced its most dynamic growth and became the Land of Opportunity). It’s politicians’ fault for giving into xenophobia and racism all these years for roiling the waters of blatant racism and xenophobia so they can try and influence their voting demographic by energizing their bases and disenfranchising new arrivals (which is what immigration quotas are really all about). It’s labor unions’ fault for trying to keep out competition for jobs so they can keep the price of labor high.
And it’s hypocritical of new immigrants to blame illegal immigrants, since instead of fighting to change things so that the next generation of immigrants doesn’t have to suffer like they did, a common failing of our citizens is to fall back on petty vindictiveness and demand that everyone else should have to suffer under the same stupid laws they do…often so they won’t have to compete with new arrivals for jobs.
Our immigration restrictions are at best just another form of economic protectionism and at worst one of the most vile forms of public racism and discrimination. And legal immigrants should be the first ones to realize why it’s important for those laws to be changed.
There’s no moral objection to the violation of an unjust law, and restrictions on the free movement of people inconsistent with private property ARE unjust laws. “Illegal immigrants” - those who cross the arbitrary, tyrannical borders of governments in search of a better life in opposition to unjust laws are _heroic civil disobedients_. Anyone who counsels obedience to the law because it’s the law, regardless of its virtue, is either a moral infant or coward.
correction: meant “a common failing of our new citizens is to fall back on petty vindictiveness”
I lived in Houston for 5 years myself,and I loved it. Had lots of Hispanic friends and neighbors. A big factor to our perception here is money. The people I knew were legal and made a comparable amount of money to me. That is why we were in the same neighborhood. And my experiences were all positive. And I am only talking a basic middle class neighborhood here, not some country club area. We had good schools etc…and probably at least 50% hispanic, throw in some other minorities and it was definitely less than half white. The whole great neighborhood thing came from equal footing and equal money.
But the fact that everyone was legal is as important as the money. They were not second class citizens. So they were not treated that way. They did not feel that way. They had as much say about everything in the neighborhood as anyone else.
If you are here illegally, then you know you are not in the system. You are off the grid. You have no stake in making the area a better place, because you have no say. No taxes, no vote, no say.
I have no problem with giving Illegals with a job a path to citizenship. But the ones who won’t accept that, and follow it need to go. Because if your very presence here is illegal…you have less incentive to obey the other laws.
Finally, I have a small somantics issue with the phrase “illegal immigrant”. To immigrate is to follow a country’s proper procedures to live in that country legally. Illegal immigrant sounds a lot like ‘illegal legal guy’.
They may be mostly hard workers, and good people, just trying to make a better life. But they are illegal aliens. Until they immigrate. Then they are immigrants. No such thing as an illegal immigrant though.
Anyway, ‘throw them out and keep them out’ is a very poor and nonsensical stance to take. But so is ‘let them stay, they’re nice.’ They need to show that becoming Americans is their goal, not just getting in.
Because it’s not the illegal immigrants’ fault that it was so hard for the legal immigrants to get in.
Who said anything about ‘fault’?
Is there any just reason why someone who has spent a year waiting to come in legally shouldn’t have priority over a criminal who chooses to sneak across the border tomorrow?
If the government wants to first expedite its procedures so all those who are waiting to come in legally get let in, and then if need be let in more people beyond that, that would be fine. As it is, though, the current system keeps out people who should be let in and lets in people who should be kept out.
Finally, I have a small somantics issue with the phrase “illegal immigrant”.
At least it’s better than “undocumented worker”. I wonder why people don’t usually talk about “undocumented pharmacists”, “undocumented inventory adjusters”, “undocumented pyrotechnicians”, “undocumented executioners”, or (my favorite) “undocumented tax collectors”?
Yeah, I second what Balko said. I know a couple guys who entered the country illegally, and I’m humbled by them. They’re the most hard-working upstanding guys I know, and they busted their asses and risked their lives to get here. All I did was get born here. And I should go around thinking I’ve more right to live in this country than they do?
Doubt it.
Those Germans sure did settle down and become good Romans citizens, didn’t they? They just settled down, learned Latin, adopted Roman customs, and didn’t change the culture much.
Why not come out to Herndon, in the area where they proposed that day laborer site, Radley? Oh right, because out here we actually have problems with illegals raping people and killing them with machetes on the W&OD trail.
If it really were a matter of racism, the majority of the women I’ve worked with, ranging from blacks, to asians, to whites, wouldn’t be scared to death of being caught alone near the areas where the Mexican men congregate in Herndon. Not all immigrant populations are cut from the same culture cloth, dude. The Salvidorans are largely non-issue in Alexandria like they are in Harrisonburg on the other side of the state. The Mexicans, well, they’re a WHOLE different story…
“They just settled down, learned Latin, adopted Roman customs, and didn’t change the culture much.”
And it’s a mortal sin to “change the culture?” I can get really great pierogis in Chicago. For this I suppose I should be bitter that a lot of Polish immigrants settled there?
Uh, nobody talks about “illegal pharmacists” or “illegal lawyers” either. Unlicensed, yes. Illegal? Well, no, even if what they are doing is illegal. Let’s not pretend that “illegal immigrant” is any less politicized a phrase than “undocumented worker,” which at least has a basis in the failure of an alien to provide the appropriate papers certifying their “right” (read: the tyrannical government’s illegitimate and unjustified grant of authority) to work in the US. Even so, “undocumented worker” would be over-inclusive (including those who, well, don’t work). The GAO refers to them as “undocumented aliens” anyway (as does, incidentally, the Border Patrol in some places).
But really… who cares? As it turns out, there’s a GREAT reason to allow “illegal” immigrants to live peacefully in the territory currently ruled by the US government before or at the same time as those who bothered to “wait in line” — those immigration restrictions are unjust, immoral, and DESERVE to be ignored, flouted, and broken at every opportunity. They are the tyrannical actions of an immoral government, and deserve no respect.
The Poles integrated pretty well, didn’t they? Many of the Mexicans coming here have no desire to integrate into our culture. No more so than many of the German tribes wanted to integrate into Roman culture. Most libertarians of the sort who come here are entirely focused in their libertarianism on themselves, not giving a damn about preserving the culture in which libertarianism itself came into existence in, so I’m not surprised that you have such a flippant attitude toward preserving the fundamentals of the culture. This isn’t about food, but about a shift in cultural and political values from American to Mexican in many parts of the country. It’s ironic that Balko posts something about how the media cannot get it when it comes to demanding government action, but he and most of you cannot get the idea that maybe it’s bad for our culture to take in wave after wave of people from a fairly collectivist, corrupt culture. Just look at what is happening to Europe with the Muslim immigrants not only refusing to adapt to Europe, but are starting to impose their own values. Europe is a counter-example to the argument that waves of immigrants are non-issue with respect to sharply collectivist changes in the culture.
As to why I fully support controlled immigration, it’s rather simple. All individual rights can be exercised collectively. If every member of a community can protect their own home, if they are the majority, they can band together to protect their collective territory. No individual right is lost when individuals want to band together to exercise it. Restricting immigration is just a natural, collective extension of individual property rights. The American people, as a whole, own the United States. While we may not have claim to each other’s property, as a whole, we have every right to tell foreigners that they cannot come here.
“The Mexicans, well, they’re a WHOLE different story…”
Yes, all Mexicans are bad. Just admit your a racist and this thread will go a lot smoother.
#32 Mike T:
Neither I nor you have any legitimate right to dictate to our neighbors what their language, customs or culture should be. Free people in a free society make those kinds of choices for themselves.
“Restricting immigration is just a natural, collective extension of individual property rights.”
Bullshit. If Juan from Mexico City wants to be a tenant in Ted’s apartment (and Ted wants him to live there), and work in Wally’s factory (and Wally wants him to work there), and buy coffee and donuts every day at Sally’s Coffee Shop (and Sally wants him to buy coffee and donuts there) — WHOSE property rights are being respected by intercepting, detaining, and deporting Juan? Nobody’s. In fact, multiple peoples’ are being violated.
“The American people, as a whole, own the United States. While we may not have claim to each other’s property, as a whole, we have every right to tell foreigners that they cannot come here.”
Er… no. The “American people” do NOT “own” the US. Under no plausible Lockean or Rothbardian or Tuckerite theory of property rights can people acquire legitimate title to property simply because they are the victims of theft and the beneficiary of government coercion. There are vast, vast tracks of land within the Continental US which is, under any coherent and justifiable theory of property rights _absolutely unowned by anybody_ because nobody has bothered to mix their labor with the land enough to legitimately claim it.
seems to me we need more freedom and this will sort itself out… school vouchers, with the money attached to the student, instead of going to the monopolistic school district, would address many concerns here about immigration.
get govt out of health care and let the market work it out.
legalize drugs and the illegal drug trade collapses.
As it is, we’re restricting our movement by clamping down on the borders, creating a bigger black market by restricting and over-taxing cigarettes, and forcing more and more people (citizens and non-citizens) underground because of all the vice laws.
Every era has demonized some nationality of immigrant (Ben Franklin was anti-German) and we’ve never suffered because of immigrants. We only suffer when the govt stifles us with ridiculous laws and high taxes.
say, how does mexico treat ITS illegal aliens? last i checked, they’re pretty rough on them. toss them in jail. beat ‘em up. deport ‘em. don’t let ‘em get jobs. or rent a place to live. they DAMN sure don’t offer ‘em a menu of social services.
why do they do that, i wonder? it’s almost as if they seem to think that since they’re a sovereign nation and all, that they should protect and defend their borders and eject *all* those who are there illegally. as if they expect all those on mexican soil to adhere to mexican law.
is that relevant?
No, it’s not. North Korea does a lot of things too that are irrelevant. Just because Mexico treats it’s illegal immigrants terribly doesn’t mean we should. It’s not a hard concept at all.
The legal/illegal thing is ridiculous. A good steak is a good steak long before the USDA stamps it so. A cancer drug works or it doesn’t long before it’s submitted to the FDA.
Further I don’t particularly believe being born on either side of an imaginary line entitles me or prohibits me from benefit XYZ. Most complaints in this category can be addressed with welfare and labor law reform.
The tagging and tracking argument is laughable. Remember the rousing success of the terrorist watch list? Me either. Imagine a giant clusterf*ck like the terror watch list but 30 million people in length. P.S. Your papers please Comrade.
h, nobody talks about “illegal pharmacists” or “illegal lawyers” either. Unlicensed, yes. Illegal? Well, no, even if what they are doing is illegal. Let’s not pretend that “illegal immigrant” is any less politicized a phrase than “undocumented worker,” which at least has a basis in the failure of an alien to provide the appropriate papers certifying their “right” (read: the tyrannical government’s illegitimate and unjustified grant of authority) to work in the US.
Someone with the proper documentation (personal credentials and a certified death warrant) is allowed to commit homicide with malice aforethought. So why use the ugly term “murderer” when “undocumented executioner” would be just as appropriate? Likewise, why use terms like “drug dealer”, “shoplifter”, or “robber”? All of those activities are legal in certain circumstances.
An illegal alien is not someone who has a right to live in the U.S. but misplaced some paperwork. Illegal aliens have no right to live or work in the U.S. Their problem isn’t that they can’t document their right–it’s that they have no such right in the first place.
Of course, if the government weren’t making it impossible to hire on-the-books employees for anything near the cost of off-the-books employees, a lot of Americans would be willing to do the jobs they supposedly “won’t do”. But if an illegal alien is willing to do a job for $5/hour tax/FICA free, how can a citizen compete with that?
Ryan’s original analysis (in the linked article) leaves a little to be desired in my opinion.
He cites the favorable views of illegal immigrants in states with lots of them. But it only makes sense that in a place like Colorado with lots of second-generation Mexican families, the next generation of Mexican families would be less likely to be seen as a problem - legal or illegal. Is 53% (South Carolina) of people who illegal aliens as a problem really that different from Colorado (44%) when you consider their populations?
I happen to agree with his conclusions, but I think he gets there for the wrong reasons.
“The raw Irishman in America is a nuisance, his son a curse. They never assimilate; the second generation simply shows an intensification of all the bad qualities of the first. . . .They are a burden and a misery to this country.” — _Puck_, 7 June 1882 (http://museum.cl.msu.edu/Exhibitions/Virtual/ImmigrationandCaricature/7572-225.html) Mexicans will defy such expectations just as the Irish did, as long as we don’t make it too hard for them to be stakeholders in our society.
I agree with Lant Pritchett (http://reason.com/news/show/123912.html): The immigration regime we have now is neither fair nor legitimate. Mexico in particular is subject to such an absurdly low immigration quota that there is no way for the vast majority of _skilled_ applicants to get in legally, never mind the unskilled who subsidize American lifestyles with their cheap labor. It’s no good to complain “but they broke the law!” when an arbitrary and unjust law, enacted by people completely out of touch with reality, makes it practically impossible for them to enter the country legally.
“Someone with the proper documentation (personal credentials and a certified death warrant) is allowed to commit homicide with malice aforethought. So why use the ugly term “murderer” when “undocumented executioner” would be just as appropriate? Likewise, why use terms like “drug dealer”, “shoplifter”, or “robber”? All of those activities are legal in certain circumstances.”
I’m not sure how any of that is supposed to aid your terminological support… since we don’t refer to any of THOSE people as “illegal murderers,” “illegal drug dealers,” or “illegal shoplifters.” Apparently, only those guilty of the crime of disobeying tyrannical national-boundary apartheid are worthy of the title “illegals.”
But of course, what would be far more interesting than an inane terminological dispute is a legitimate moral argument as to why the US government has any right whatsoever to utilize coercion against innocent people to keep them on one side of an arbitrarily drawn line against the wishes of willing property owners, employers, etc and so on.
I’m beginning to think you should have left comments turned off.
The good news is I guess your site is reaching a wide audience. It seems libertarians ( small l, big L, leaners, and otherwise) are a minority here these days.
Just the average immigrant bashing ( scapegoating), big government type of people you would find on AOL and any general place “on the internet” that allows comments.
At least there are a few “‘good guys” around though.
I have lived, worked, and drank with Mexicans. They are not bad neighbors. I currently live in an area with a large Somoli and East African population. None are that bad, but if you compare the cultures of Mexico to that of Africa, the Mexicans are really a lot like us (regular Americans (Archie Bunker))
There is a problem with illegal immigrants. There is a problem with immigrants trying to be legal- it’s too damn hard. We need immigration reform. BUT we need to do 2 things:
1. Make it easy as hell for a legal immigrant to be here (opposite of prohibition)
2. Get rid of subsidies for immigrants (then mostly everyone)
I’m a small-gov’t conservative. Live in TN, and understand the red state people. I’m mad too. BUT they’ve been misled that the options are get rid of em OR give em amnesty. We need to switch the debate to - How can we make it easy for the ones who want to do it legally. Once that happens, we can crack down on those doing it illegally. It’s a lot like prohibition- we’re focusing everyone including on small time pot-smokers instead of the killers. Now we’re focusing on everyone including hard-working honest people. We need to make it damn easy for them- then worry about the killers/terrorists, etc.
ahhh, so we’re being too hard on the poor illegals - despite being orders of magnitudes nicer to them than their home country is to *their* illegals.
so why then not just pass a law? making ALL immigration uncontrolled and unregulated? why not just do that? while we’re at it, since we all claim to be for freedom and liberty, why not eliminate all laws and regulations forbidding the use and sale of heroin/crack/meth? and silenced, full-automatic weapons? eliminate public schools? eliminate social security? eliminate driver licensing and auto registrations? eliminate government mandated racial quotas for hiring and education? those laws ARE restrictions upon our god-given freedoms, just like the mean ol’ laws making wetbacks illegal, are they not?
no? don’t wanna do that?
why is it ok to be for enforcing THOSE laws, but not the laws restricting the illegals? can y’all BE more hypocritical? if you’re going to hold up “The Law” (cue soaring orchestral theme) as a mighty, good, high powered religion, then ya gotta hold up ALL the laws.
why isn’t that happening here?
to e. brown (#52): I am actually for elliminating most laws forbidding the use and sale of heroin/crack/meth (except perhaps where those laws concern sale to minors); I would probably also get rid of those laws against silenced, full-automatic weapons, and I’ve often thought that driver licensing was unneccessary (not sure about auto registrations), and I tend to lean against “racial quotas for hiring and education.” But, what’s your point? Do I have to be an anarchist to oppose our inane immigration laws?
And you know what, I DON’T think it’s OK to be enforcing drug laws and other laws that I think are unjust. So, I’m no hypocrite when I say that I count most immigration restrictions among those laws which I think are unjust and thus ought to not be enforced.
The law is often just an excuse for blind obidience to tyrrany. So, no, I’m not going to hold up “The Law” as something to be revered. Unjust laws deserve no respect. Period. There is no hypocracy here.
Um, e. brown? Quick tip. Reductio ad absurdum usually works best when you offer absurd suggestions. Are you new here?
Personally, I’m in favor of keeping driver’s licenses (at least I haven’t been completely convinced that they should be abolished), but that’s about it.
And someone with better knowledge of firearms help me out here: a silenced, fully-automatic weapon is a technical impossibility, right?
where did i call for anarchy, s? once upon a time, there existed a country that had no laws governing/regulating heroin/cocaine/meth; or military-style light weapons; that didn’t think a state-issued piece of paper was required to drive a vehicle; had no social security; had no medicare; had no racial quotas; and - in its past - had no government-run public schools or immigration laws, either.
that place was the USA, up until 1913 or so.
whatever labels america was described with back then, “a hotbed of anarchy” wasn’t one of them. we had (probably) 80% fewer laws on the books, but by and large those laws were enforced. civilian control of the military; small decentralized government; orderly transfers of elected power; ….. no anarchists here, boss.
i tried to say 3 things in that post:
1) we have waaaay too many laws - because the state learned that lots of laws is an excellent way to control the people.
2) obeying those laws is a choice everyone makes. if you decide not to obey them, the state will make an example of you - see ‘branch davidians’; or ‘carl drega’ - but *if you make the decision that laws should be followed*, then you’re supposed to follow them all. you don’t get to pick and choose. that’s not the way the system works.
3) since illegal immigration is against the law, it is incumbent upon law-abiding citizens - and the country that passed those laws - to follow the law. so just as cops shouldn’t be allowed to shoot little old ladies in drug raids, neither should illegal aliens be allowed to stay, much less live and work here.
your line about “no blind obedience to tyranny” was quite moving and all that, but i find it odd that lines like that are carelessly bandied about when discussing illegal aliens; and almost *never* spoken when the topic is selling heroin to schoolkids. or refusing to pay social security. or willfully discriminating against people based on the color of their skin. i’m sure there are folks who think those laws are unjust and tyrannical. should we sympathize with them when they break/ignore those laws? is someone who enslaves african-americans because they believe “all laws written after the war of northern aggression are unjust” an admirable person?
so where do you draw the line, s? who gets to say a given law is “unjust”, and therefore worthy of disobedience? since that’s impossible to know, it’s necessary to enforce ALL laws, otherwise you end up with….(drum roll)… anarchy.
i’m the guy who’s wanting the duly-enacted laws to be duly enforced. the “let’s cut the illegals some slack” crowd is evidently heading off to pick-and-choose land. so who’s the anarchist here, s?
um, madtom? quick tip: read the post. i DID “offer suggestions”. i “suggested” that the laws on the books relating to ‘immigration’ and the ‘legal right to work here be followed and enforced’, just like they are against american citizens. did you miss that?
Yeah. But you suggested that we support those laws and not immigration laws.
Not that the legal opinions of the readership of this site can be reduced to one set of opinions. But the general attitude of the libertarian mindset is that all of those laws are bad ideas and should be repealed.
Or maybe your tone set me off (you came off a little snotty*). Who can tell?
*As did I.
“snotty”, eh? like when someone calls your statement - making sure to use your name - a pointless reductio ad absurdum deal, and then condescendingly asks, “are you new here?”
you mean like that, ol’ buddy?
PS - no, i want folks to either follow either ALL or NONE of the laws. if they’re going to choose “follow”, i most definitely want them to follow the immigration laws. i have this crazy notion that illegal aliens should be held to AT LEAST the same standards of law-abidingness (hey! a new word!) that american citizens are held to and held accountable for.
Hi e. brown. Yes, in the 17yrs I’ve lived here in the ‘burbs, the Medical Center (before it cleaned up), Sharpestown (that area is doomed for a while longer), and Midtown (between the 3rd and 4th wards you tremble about), it has been a relatively (compared to other parts of the country I’ve lived in) racially harmonious.
Yes, there are discernable enclaves of particular races around Houston. Though some of the ones you witnessed are changing. The Heights is 50% yuppie new residents (mostly white and hispanic), 50% long-term-residents (mostly hispanic).
The 3rd and 4th ward are horribly poor places. And no, I’d not want to break down near TSU, not even armed. That has nothing to do with the racial composition (the area is mostly black, but my neighborhood is 20-30% black. Difference is around TSU it is 100% incredibly poor and dense)
I agree that place is extremely crime-ridden, but you picked a bad example racially. It is packed with white, brown, and black folks in significant numbers each. I used to live there and never had a problem myself, but the shootings are common. Like TSU though, you could live in Houston for a lifetime and avoid those places easily (unless you’re a UPS driver)
There are only a few ‘hellhole sections of town’ in this massive, massive city, and one of them you named is pretty racially diverse. The vast majority of the city is very safe and very friendly. And very ethnically diverse. Yes, Chinatown is mostly Chinese folks, the Hilcroft area is mostly Indian, etc. But that’s not remotely a racial issue.
I’ll bet you felt welcome in every part of the city you delivered to (except TSU after dark, see suffocating poverty comments earlier), without even knowing your ethnicity.
Not racist, just commenting on the fact that people who worked hard to get into the country seem to work harder than those who’ve been here a while, regardless of race. After a while folks seem to succomb to the notion that government should feed you and wipe your ass.
If you are old enough to remember back 40 or more years ago, you might recall how proud the USA was of it’s “thousands of miles of open borders, north and south”. Can you envision a future where a president of Mexico or Canada says ,to the USA president at the time, “Mr. So,and,so, tear down this wall !” Is the wall that we build ,meant to keep others out,or us…in? What future? you may ask. We were once great but are now afraid, very afraid.
supercat,
Actually, the better question to ask would be is there any reason that someone who wants to come to the U.S. for a job and a better life should have to wait for a year to come in?
As for the illegal immigrants being criminals…I don’t consider somebody a criminal for violating an unjust law. And our immigration laws are about as unjust as you get.
e. brown,
Actually, MadTom owned up to his snottiness (he added it to the end of his comment). As for asking if you’re new here, this is a site most often frequented by libertarians. Trying to claim that we should support immigration laws because it will undermine respect for anti-drug laws, affirmative action quotas, public schools and all of the other examples you named isn’t going to sell your point here because a great number of us think those things should be abolished along with the immigration restrictions.
And “Reductio ad absurdum” isn’t an insult…it’s just a description of a debating tactic that uses an absurd or extreme example or position to try and demonstrate the absurdity of your opponent’s position (which is what I think you were trying to do in support of immigration). What MadTom was pointing out, thought, is that this tactic isn’t effective when your audience and your opponent don’t consider your example or position absurd. Abolishing all of those things you mentioned isn’t absurd to libertarians so it’s not an effective tactic in this debate.