Bill Vallicella asked me.
No. But I strongly suspect that barriers to legal immigration are probably excessive. We do have to keep out people with criminal records.
I think it's probably a false dilemma, or a straw man, to claim that anyone who wants to reform the immigration system simply wants open borders. It also doesn't follow that all "path to citizenship" programs are simply amnesty. Those that I have heard proposed involved paying a penalty, and earning citizenship. (I realize there are a wide range of fairness issues involved in all of this, but the idea that such plans involve our just forgetting that people are here illegally doesn't seem right to me at all).
This is an Ed Montini column which discusses the effort of Tyson Nash, the hockey player (not related to the Suns Steve Nash, apparently), who, in spite of being a model citizen, came close to being deported. It seems to me that I could ask whether we could make immigration easier without advocating open borders.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/21/20100521Montini0521.html
I am also convinced that we've have to combine a partial immigration reform with an increase in border security. I'd rather stop them before they come in than send them back after they've settled in and started contributing to our community.
As for the illegal immigrants that are already here, there are questions in my mind about what the economic impact of their removal from our community would be. The departures from Prince William County in Virginia, which was the basis for the movie 9500 Liberty, showed that it resulted in a lot of economic harm, and an increase in the rate of foreclosures. In short, illegal immigrants are a mixed curse, since they become part of our community and do contribute to its economy, pay taxes, etc. I'm not even sure it's physically possible to deport all of them, anyway. That flaming liberal Michael Medved said that in order to send all of the back you'd need buses that, laid end to end, would stretch from Tijuana to Seattle.
On the other hand, the people that actually do transport these desperate people over the border are, so far as I can tell, the worst sorts of criminals, and surely we can hit them as hard as possible.
I seriously doubt that 1070 is going to result in very many deportations. The cost in ill will between the Hispanic community and the rest of us, to my mind, far outweighs the improvement in will provide in law enforcement, which I suspect will be minimal.
So, without actually having done a full cost-benefit analysis on all of this, I would say start with security at the border, make the process of immigration more rational but don't just throw it wide open, and then provide some path to citizenship that involves a serious penalty and isn't just simple amnesty.
A fence? Yes, if it would work, no, if it wouldn't.
9 comments:
Victor, I'd like to focus on one thing here. You keep implying that conservatives are in favor of greater control of illegal immigration and deportation, while liberals are not. It simply is not that black and white, any more than is the idea that conservatives wanted to go to war with Iraq while liberals did not. That depiction makes Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul liberals, and Hillary Clinton a conservative.
The immigration policy is rational. People go through it all the time (like my mother). The reason it is "broken" is not because of the law but because Mexico is a failed State.
Until Mexico, the Hispanic community, and the U.S. come to grips with the failure of Mexican society, Mexican government, and irrational Mexican law we will continue to blame places like Arizona instead of places like Juarez.
I'm tired of irrational white guilt. Let us apply equal standards to all instead of the racist view that whites need to be held to a higher standard.
First anonymous: I don't imply that liberals all want to open the borders, and conservatives want border enforcement. Quite the opposite. With many issues, there is nothing that ties it logically to conservatism or to liberalism, although Bill Vallicella has argued that no conservative could advocate an open-border policy, although a libertarian might.
I am inclined to resist the identification of every issue with liberalism and conservatism. In fact, my pet peeve wtih the Republican party is the fact that it is neither conservative nor liberal but corporatist, and in actual practice supports just as much conservatism, and just as much liberalism, as supports their financial base, the big corporations.
There are certain issues that can be thought of as being liberal-conservative issues. But, for example, I don't see abortion as a liberal-conservative issue. Conservatives happen to be mostly pro-life, and liberals mostly pro-choice, but this is pretty much a historical accident, and it could easily have gone the other way.
Fair enough, Victor. I just notice you keep pointing out these conservatives who are against illegal immigration, as if their opinion must be more balanced (in the minds of other conservatives) as a result. Perhaps I misread.
Well, I'm the one who keeps being told that the reason I don't like bills like SB 1070 is because I'm a liberal. You get that even from Bill Vallicella.
There is a type of liberal who sees borders (particularly US borders) as 'mean' or 'unfair', but I'll avoid that tangent.
I do have another question, though. You say you don't support open borders. Alright: Why not? How many people do you think should be allowed in the country each year, and under what standards?
I don't know about quotas. I am mostly concerned about criminals. If there is work for them to do, and they are law-abiding citizens, there should be a way for them to come in. America's infrastructure is collapsing, as is evidenced by the bridge in Minnesota falling down. Give them citizenship after two years of national service.
I don't know about quotas. I am mostly concerned about criminals. If there is work for them to do, and they are law-abiding citizens, there should be a way for them to come in. America's infrastructure is collapsing, as is evidenced by the bridge in Minnesota falling down. Give them citizenship after two years of national service.
Are you really suggesting that, so long as a person has no criminal record, they should be able to become a US citizen (complete with all the benefits you seem to think every citizen should be granted)? Because if you're not, then quotas are going to become an issue. And the inability to maintain our current infrastructure is one of the arguments given to illustrate the problems of illegal immigration.
Further, sometimes jobs are temporary. We don't need to make a citizen out of every person who works a job in our borders, anymore than we need to make citizens out of every person working in an overseas factory.
A lot is going to depend upon empirical facts here. If these people came in and became citizens, or at least legal immigrants, would our economy benefit? I can see a problem if you thought they would actually take jobs away from American citizens. If the work situation looks sustainable ad infinitum, then citizenship looks like the way to go, if it appears temporary, then go with temporary work visas.
Post a Comment