Progressives Right On Immigration
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and progressives are doing better than that with regards to at least one issue — immigration. A new study at the Center for American Progress claims that comprehensive immigration reform leading to legalization for millions of immigrants could yield $1.5 trillion in benefits to the U.S. economy through higher wages and productivity.
Opposition to immigration reform — often with racist overtones — has unfortunately become a core cause in many conservative circles. Often the objection is cultural, as promoted by the late political scientist Samuel Huntington — the perception that immigration threatens a core American identity and that the current crop of Hispanic immigrants is uniquely resistant to cultural assimilation. Others focus on the issue of legality, arguing that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and should be treated as such.
Both themes are misguided and contrary to sound conservative principles. The cultural claim is historically unfounded. Previous waves of immigrants — Irish, Chinese, German, Eastern European — were always thought at the time to be resistant to assimilation. Such views were always proved wrong within a couple generations. There is simply no evidence for the Huntingtonian hypothesis, even leaving aside its transparently racist foundations.
The issue of illegality is simply a problem of exaggeration. Yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but probably so did you when you exceeded the speed limit on your way to work this morning. The issue isn’t whether or not illegal immigration is illegal, but rather what the appropriate consequence should be. If individual immigrants have committed other crimes, particularly violent crimes, even progressive plans for immigration reform would concede that imprisonment and deportation is the appropriate response to those other crimes. But illegal immigration in and of itself is a victimless crime. These are people merely trying to survive and support their families. It is hardly just to treat them as violent or dangerous felons in response. Payment of a moderate fine is more appropriate, and a path to legalization should be provided for those that have been otherwise contributing members of their communities.
And that leads to the economic argument that conservatives should prize but which they for some reason ignore and cede to progressives. Immigration is an economic plus. Surveying the economic and demographic performance of the world’s democracies, a pattern quickly emerges. Those with highly restrictive immigration policies — Japan, for example — are struggling to find ways to fund their basic government services for an aging population while the economy is crippled by labor shortages. There simply is a lack of people to pay the taxes necessary to fund the government’s entitlement programs. Because of its generally restrictive immigration policies (few European countries allow paths to citizenship for immigrants, relegating them to marginalized and occasionally violent ghettos) Europe is rapidly approaching a situation that will potentially be even more serious than Japan. But, in contrast, the American economic and government budgetary difficulties have been perpetually mitigated by a source of low-cost labor not available in Japan. And going back over a century, immigrant communities drawn by the magnetism of American openness have provided a source of economic vibrancy and entrepreneurship that has driven the engine of American prosperity time and time again. In addition to bringing in low-cost labor, American openness attracts the world’s best and brightest. The bottom line is that openness to immigration serves economic prosperity on multiple levels. Conservatives betray their own principles when they ignore these facts.
Follow Us!
Keep up with all of our articles by subscribing to our RSS feed. Also be sure to follow us on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
-->50 Responses to “Progressives Right On Immigration”
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 7, 2010 at 10:11 pm PST
The victims of illegal immigration are you and I. Money is taken from us at with the intention of using it to educate our children, fund emergency services at our local hospital, etc.
False. Illegal immigrants wind up paying the same taxes you and I do — withholding taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. There is nothing magically about being an illegal immigrant that makes the tax man go away. This is entirely a myth concocted by anti-immigration advocates.
Our current system rewards those parents who choose to break the law and come here for the birth of their children.
The “anchor baby” bit is another myth. I’ve been working on immigration cases recently and I state with absolute certainty that those who have babies here that are U.S. citizens do NOT receive any “reward” for doing so.
What we have done is allowed impoverished countries to continue to ignore the plight of thier people.
If you are under the belief that keeping immigrants out will cause other countries to improve conditions for their people, let me say flatly that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that delusion.
Instead, we have allowed illegal immigrants to send money earned here, back home which then keeps a corrupt and inept government in place.
They aren’t sending the money to the government, so this is just a non sequitur.
Were you and I to go to movie and sneak in the back door, we would be guilty of theft by conversion. Illegal immigation is no different.
Ok, but the punishment would fit the crime (payment of a fine). Why should the punishment for illegal immigration be any more severe?
I for one will not be made to feel guilty for protecting what is ours.
Protecting it from what, the guy working at McDonald’s? This kind of nativist rhetoric is exactly what leads to the racist reactions that trump logical thinking about these issues.
Comment from Doomed
Time January 7, 2010 at 10:43 pm PST
I have two objections to legalizing Illegals.
1. If we legalize them. We will be right back in 10-20 years needing a new immigration reform law to make things right……..again.
Promise me that wont happen and Ill be glad to agree that legalizing them is the right solution.
2. An overwhelming preponderance of these illegals are going to vote democratic….show me where Democrats are going to make number one dooable?
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 7, 2010 at 10:50 pm PST
1. If we legalize them. We will be right back in 10-20 years needing a new immigration reform law to make things right……..again.
Wrong. An appropriate immigration reform would include a better process for allowing people to enter the country in the first place. We only have so many “illegals” (as you call them) because our immigration laws make it nearly impossible for them to legally immigrate anyway. Once we recognize that it is IN OUR INTEREST to allow LOTS of legal immigration, we can fix that problem.
2. An overwhelming preponderance of these illegals are going to vote democratic….show me where Democrats are going to make number one dooable?
The idea that people should be excluded because you assume (wrongly, IMHO) that they will vote for the other political party is about as morally repugnant a position as I can think of. Good hard-working people should be forced to live in poverty and violence just so your party can have more power? Blech!
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 7, 2010 at 11:27 pm PST
Ok, so again, I say it Depends on the definition of the “path”.. The devil is in the details. What’s in it for me. I say let’s debate on CSPAN (like we were supposed to have for healthcare “reform”) I’m suspect of anything coming out of the “Center for American Progress” Let’s just say I’m extremely sceptical.
You say that illegals pay taxes, im sure *some* do. But the owness is on the folks that want to change the laws to allow those that are currently illegal to make their case. I’m all for it if there is proof positive that a majority of illegals pay as much from their earnings (reported and non-reported) in taxes as every other american… within reason. Are illegals audited? how do we know they are paying their fair share now?
The case you are making is that illegals are **ALREADY** paying taxes..
I’m sure it goes without saying that if we take on more “shortcut citizens”, then the tax coffers will be overflowing with tax revenue….(with the ever-so abundant job market out there in this recessionary period i’m sure that will happen.. not more on the government dole, of course not…(snark) That’s another issue alltogether..
But I digress where can I see these stats?, I’d sure like to see the evidence and the percentages of illegals that currently pay taxes (other than consumption / sales taxes). If the math makes sense then I guess your argument will stand.
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 7, 2010 at 11:32 pm PST
ut the owness is on the folks that want to change the laws to allow those that are currently illegal to make their case
The word is “onus”. And the standard is just unfair. With the current laws and, worse, the current hatred in society for them, and the threats of violence from vigilantes like the “Minutemen” and various other racist and/or anti-immigration groups, it is impossible for illegal immigrants to come into the open and make ANY arguments in the political sphere. Instead, we have to rely upon what those who study them gather in the way of data. And literally every single study I have seen shows that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are far more economically beneficial than they are costly.
I’m sure it goes without saying that if we take on more “shortcut citizens”, then the tax coffers will be overflowing with tax revenue….(with the ever-so abundant job market out there in this recessionary period i’m sure that will happen.. not more on the government dole, of course not…(snark) That’s another issue alltogether..
And here we see another myth about immigrants — that they are all on welfare. There are no facts to back that up and, in fact, most if not all states deny all government benefits without proof of citizenship.
Your skepticism based solely on the source at which the study was published creates a situation where it is not possible to have a data-based argument with you, Jay. Since you will automatically disbelieve any source that does not agree with your ideology, you have created a situation where the only data allowed to be discussed is that which coheres with your ideology. You are doing the exact same thing as many progressives do when they immediately reject everything reported on FoxNews.
The other odd thing is that you are blind to the internal contradiction in your economic thinking. You are in favor of free markets EXCEPT for the market in labor. Then you want massive government control and restriction of cross-border travel in labor.
As for the “debate on CSPAN”, let’s remember who exactly it was that shut down that debate in 2008 after poisoning it with reams of misinformation and a LOT of outright racism. Hint: It wasn’t progressives.
Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time January 7, 2010 at 11:43 pm PST
Jason, I am all for relatively wide open immigration policies, but we need rational immigration policies. What we have been doing for the last 30+ years is not rational policy: looking the other way while very high numbers of low-skilled, non English speaking immigrants illegally enter the country, while being quite restrictive toward high-skilled (engineers, scientists, computer programmers, etc.) English-speaking persons who would like to legally participate in the American workforce. Then, every 20 years or so, pass an amnesty. Ideally, we’d have a better balance between low-skilled and high-skilled immigration. The failure to enforce federal and state laws does undermine the rule of law. And we should know who is coming and going, especially given the current security climate.
At one time, I shared your opinion we couldn’t get enough of the low-skilled immigrants who were arriving primarily from Latin America, that it was clearly a net economic positive. However, I have seen recent studies that suggest the net impact equation is maybe not so rosy. About 6 or 7 months ago, National Review ran an interesting article that also questioned the net impacts of illegal immigration. I’ll try to track those down.
The Center for American Progress study, which you cited above, concludes that comprehensive immigration reform similar to the lines of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act . . . “would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue.” That seems like a reasonable conclusion – those benefits would not surprise me. But the study does not look at the long-term costs of amnesty part 2, followed by another 20 years of lax enforcement. The problem is, very few voters have faith that the federal government will really take care of its responsibilites as part of the “comprehensive” process. I’d like to see a study that compares the net costs/benefits of A). Amnesty + Lax Enforcement versus B). A rational immigration policy that begins with enforcement, but then establishes fair guidelines for allowing current illegal immigrants to stay permanently along with a relatively open, balanced policy toward new immigration.
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm PST
@Jason Arvak
“And here we see another myth about immigrants — that they are all on welfare. There are no facts to back that up and, in fact, most if not all states deny all government benefits without proof of citizenship.”
No, not at all…I am saying that the current job market doesn’t exactly lend itself to taking on more workers, it would just increase the levels of unemployment.
“And the standard is just unfair. With the current laws and, worse, the current hatred in society for them, and the threats of violence from vigilantes like the “Minutemen” and various other racist and/or anti-immigration groups, it is impossible for illegal immigrants to come into the open and make ANY arguments in the political sphere. Instead, we have to rely upon what those who study them gather in the way of data. And literally every single study I have seen shows that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are far more economically beneficial than they are costly.”
Spoken as if from the lips of a Progressive.. soory for the typo
just the facts please.
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 7, 2010 at 11:49 pm PST
@Patrick Glenn
“The problem is, very few voters have faith that the federal government will really take care of its responsibilites as part of the “comprehensive” process. I’d like to see a study that compares the net costs/benefits of A). Amnesty + Lax Enforcement versus B). A rational immigration policy that begins with enforcement, but then establishes fair guidelines for allowing current illegal immigrants to stay permanently along with a relatively open, balanced policy toward new immigration.”
I can agree with that.
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 8, 2010 at 12:06 am PST
I guess the majority of Americans are just a bunch of misguided ignorant sheep or just racists (in this case)..
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls.html
just quick… here is what I was talking about “increasing unemployment” (if illegals were legalized)..sure, some would just continue working where they work now, but what of the others that are not working (Like I wasn’t 6 months ago..and I’m a citizen)
Comment from jay_c
Time January 8, 2010 at 12:34 am PST
Look I just want numbers
And stats and facts that make the case and I’m being told that is unfair. I just want what you want from the progressives in the healthcare debate. Sounds reasonable to me.
Comment from Bettybb
Time January 8, 2010 at 12:42 am PST
We know what the appropriate penalty is for foreigners here illegally… our democratically passed immigration law says it is a crime ( 1st offense = misdemeanor, 2nd offense = felony), so it is jail and then deportation.
To work here illegally you are either using document fraud (a felony), or id theft (a felony) or working under the table (tax evasion, a felony).
Illegal immigration is NOT a victimless crime.
1. American jobs are stolen by foreigners here illegally.
2. American wages are depresed by foreigners here illegally.
3. The American taxpayer ends up paying huge subsidies for educating illegal alien children, as well as providing medical care…. well above any amount the illega aliens may (or may not) pay in taxes. AZ just billed the Federal government for 1 billion dollars, the cost to AZ of illegal aliens there. In CA it is estimated that illegal aliens are a net 10 billion a year drain on the economy.
4. Americans ids’a are stolen.. resulting in permanent loss of Social security benfits the American has worked for… plus credit problems,,, or problems be saddled with an illegal alien’s criminal record listed under the American’s name…it goes on and on..
Amnesty = racisn.
Per the Pew Hispanic Center etc almost all foreigners here illegally are hispanic.
Why should lawbreaking Hispanics be given preferential immigration treatment over law abiding people of all other races and ethnic groups… They are asking for a 30 to 1 advantage for Hispanic people..
Why should Hispanic Americans have a greater right to family reunification that Americans of all other races and ethnic group have for their law abiding family members trying to immigrate legallyly, in terms of numbers allowedin, timing of arrival and conditions of entry.
Amnesty = placing lawbreaking Hispanics above the law.
Amnesty = violates our anti discrimination clause of the US Constitution
Amnesty = viiolates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution
NO ONE IN America is above the law… even though illegal aliens think they are.
Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time January 8, 2010 at 12:43 am PST
Jason, to further clarify: it would not surprise me if comprehensive immigrations reform (amnesty) generated some real positive economic benefits compared to what we’ve experienced since about 1988/89. The default approach has been quite ineffective, but we sort of got away with it during the boom times. However, if we pass another amnesty, but do not adopt more rational immigration policies, than we’ll get a relatively short run of benefits, followed by 20+ more years of bad policy and a weak return on investment, so to speak, on our immigration system, which historically has been one of most valuable economic drivers. Rather than settle for another immigration scam on the basis of fleeting short-term benefits, we should aim higher.
Comment from Tully
Time January 8, 2010 at 1:26 am PST
CAP’s “study” miraculously leads to their long-established preferred policy. What a surprise! I wouldn’t rely on that if I were you. (Indeed, I would never rely on any CAP “study.”)
Lots of other interesting stuff there though. More than I’m gonna chew on through my smartphone keyboard.
Comment from Doomed
Time January 8, 2010 at 2:02 am PST
“the NEP data confirm substantial ticket-splitting by Latino voters in many states. For example, in California, NEP reports Latino voters supporting Senator Kerry over President Bush by a 63%–32% margin, and Democratic Senator
Barbara Boxer by a much wider 73%–23% margin.
the NEP has done some research into exit polling among Latinos that finds they vote in even greater percentages for local candidates in the Democratic party while tending to be in the 50-70 percent range nationally for Presidential candidates.
Additionally in research conducted over 70 percent of those who confirm themselves as Catholic vote for Democratic candidates and Pew research has indicated that the preferences of the 11.9 million Illegals in this country are over 80 percent associated with the Catholic religion.
Hence extrapolating out these results its easy to see why I can make the assumption that a vast majority are going to vote Democratic and it is in the Democrats best interest to insure that any future Immigration policy does NOT fix this influx of illegals into our country.
So for me its all about reality. Just why would the Democrats want to fix this? I suspect they dont and considering they want desperately to take on Immigration reform with a cloture proof majority in congress I think its pretty clear they dont want to fix it either.
Comment from Carl McGinnis
Time January 8, 2010 at 3:28 am PST
Immigration is so messed up that DHS can not even tell who is legal or not. I have begged for them to go see this guy and get the real story but they are affraid of the truth. It will prove there mistake again. This post comes from Carl McGinnis, a citizen of the United States, who has seen the horrors of immigrant detention after ICE detained his legal immigrant friend, Noureddine Feddane. He tells us that it is not just about undocumented immigrants but even people who follow the rules get burned in our archaic and inhumane immigration system].
I am a citizen of the United States and I have a friend that is from Paris, France here on a student visa with a double Masters Degree and working on his PhD in International Finance. Noureddine Feddane has been here since 2005. His visa is valid until March of 2010, his passport is valid until 2014, and his I-20 is current. He is not what people call an ‘illegal immigrant.’ In 2007, he fell in love and in Dec. 2008 married a U.S. citizen that just happens to be addicted to prescription medications. He knew nothing about this. But he was arrested due to her mistakes. The reality is that his American wife was taking advantage of him and when his money was gone so was she. Janet Napolitano just wants to deport him rather than correct the problem, and make the American accountable. This is wrong. We should have some sort of protection built into the system. Judge Rex Ford would not listen to reason without the wife in court and all witnesses were not given time to testify. This is not what I thought American Justice was all about. I was wrong. It is all a game our Government plays with our lives.
Noureddine was placed in detention and scheduled for deportation. He has been in the detention center in Pompano Beach Florida for 5 months now. This couple has lost all there savings on lawyers, she lost her job, and they are in the process of losing their home. All this was caused because ICE has the wrong person in jail.
I have written many letters to Janet Napolitano, Senator Bill Nelson, Representative Ginny Brown-Waite and even President Obama. But no one will listen. What is illegal in this case is the way DHS is treating this guy, who is 51 and has never had a traffic violation. While in the detention center, He has been beaten by another inmate and suffered cracked ribs and bruised body, denied him food and proper medical treatment. Noureddine is diabetic and they will not give him the proper food or medical attention. The phone system is very poor and hardly works. I suspect that they plan it that way so the detainees cannot contact their lawyers and family. I fear he will be next on the long list of persons that have died while in detention. I beg for someone to go and listen to his story. They do not allow any form of media in because they don’t want anyone to know what they are doing.
Until you go to one of these detention centers and see with your own eyes, you will not believe what America is doing. I was shocked, on my first visit and after almost 6 months of seeing what happens and how they have to live, I am still in shock. It is all about the money. My friend has never cost America anything until they locked him up. He is in a private prison owned by a company called GEO based near Miami, Florida. They are paid very well by our tax dollars, but the treatment is unbelievable. I wonder how many politicians have stock in this company. They are doing quite well even in a bad economy.
Six months ago I had no idea that we treated immigrants in this way, especially when they are here legally and have done nothing wrong. I knew nothing about ICE and how they operate illegally. I was under the impression that DHS was here only to protect us from terrorists. And I had no idea of the millions of our tax dollars were being wasted to imprison people that could be out of detention and have their family support them until a decision is made in immigration court. I do not understand why we have to pay our hard earned tax dollars to house and feed persons that are not dangerous.
When they have to lock up a man who has done nothing wrong, make him spend thousands in fees, ICE is giving way too much importance to them selves. How can we turn such educated people away simply to boost the ego of ICE officers and add another number to the Janet Napolitano deportation list, so that the Obama Administration can look like it is doing its job of ‘cracking down on criminals?’
Something has to change soon. I feel it is my duty as an American to let as many people as possible know the truth. I visit the detention center every Saturday and spend the rest of the week writing letters. This New Year, lets do something worthwhile. Let’s go back to protecting the country rather than making up stories to justify the expansion of a national security complex. Let’s end businesses profiting from immigrant detention and restore our image as a nation of immigrants.
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 8, 2010 at 4:02 am PST
Look I just want numbers
I posted a study. The fact that you (and Tully) refuse to believe it simply because it comes from a source that does not share your ideological prejudices makes your behavior indistinguishable from that of progressives that automatically reject everything FoxNews or Heritage says. And Doomed’s contention that immigration policy should be tailored to exclude anyone who might vote for the “wrong” political party is so morally detestable as to not warrant the dignity of any further response.
I don’t think that is a valid intellectual method.
At a minimum, it shifts the burden to you to show other than what I am contending.
Oh, and before you conclude that only progressives argue what I am saying, please note that no less than the Wall Street Journal editorial page makes exactly the same argument about the economic benefits of free-market immigration.
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 8, 2010 at 4:06 am PST
Patrick, enforcement would not have to be strict if the policy itself was not restrictive. We wouldn’t have to try to seal off a 3000-mile border (impossible anyway) if we would simplify and rationalize the immigration process so that no one would NEED to try to immigrate illegally. We should welcome everyone who does not have a criminal record or association with terrorist groups — EVERYONE. Even “low-skilled” workers are an overall economic benefit due to the aging demographic and the prospect of a labor shortage beginning about 10 years from now combined with the FACT that they pay taxes inevitably every time they buy a pack of smokes at the 7-11 and every time they take a job and have taxes withheld and every time they buy property and pay property taxes. This is the part that anti-immigration people don’t get — free market in labor is good just like free market in goods. Stop trying to endorse government restrictions on the market.
Conservatives know that in every other area, but some of them don’t get it in this one.
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 8, 2010 at 4:09 am PST
P.S. to commenters that are seeing their comments disappear: This site does not publish racist comments. Don’t waste your time posting another racist comment, as it will be deleted before many people see it.
I note, however, that the fact you have attempted to post those racist comments proves my point about the racism that infests such a huge part of the anti-immigration movement.
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 8, 2010 at 4:12 am PST
I guess the majority of Americans are just a bunch of misguided ignorant sheep or just racists (in this case)..
So, by your theory, if a current majority disagrees with me about something, I should be prohibited from even TRYING to argue for an alternative viewpoint? A current majority is always presumed absolutely correct?
I don’t let progressives get away with that fallacious reasoning, but I expected better from you, Jay.
BTW, I don’t think that the majority of people who oppose immigration are racists per se. But I do think that they have been influenced by a lot of coded racism and that their opinions may change if that influence is countered by facts and better interpretations of facts than that provided by the racists that have heretofore dominated the immigration debate in this country. And yes, even if I were to restrict myself to ONLY the comments that have been posted here in the last several hours, I will contend that there IS real racism within the anti-immigration movement.
Comment from Tully
Time January 8, 2010 at 4:52 am PST
The fact that you (and Tully) refuse to believe it simply because it comes from a source that does not share your ideological prejudices makes your behavior indistinguishable from that of progressives that automatically reject everything FoxNews or Heritage says.
No, Jason, I don’t “refuse to believe it” because it came from CAP. That just makes me triple-check before believing a damn thing it says, nbecause they are indeed NOT an impartial source and have a long track record of such pseudo-studies. I don’t believe it in particular because I know the CGE they used pretty well, having used it extensively myself for professional purposes over a period of many years, and it’s not suited for what they’re doing with it. In addition, the CAP claim that they can reliably separate out the amount of GDP change due to IRCA and plug that back into the IRCA to produce anything remotely resembling empirically meaningful results is ludicrous on its face. The number of other variables involved is enormous, and you should certainly know better than to assert the correlation/causation fallacy in such a context without an extremely strong showing of causal linkage. Bad methodology produces bad results — to get results that match their pre-established and pre-declared position implies intentional diddling and data- and assumption-stacking that would make Michael Mann proud.
In short, it strikes me as a completely bogus “study” prettied up with impressive-sounding background to impress the gullible who don’t understand the limitations of the methodology, one plugged with tailored bad assumptions to produce pre-determined results. I’ve seen that quite regularly from CAP, just as I’ve seen similar things from right-wing think tanks.
But, hey, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominem.
Comment from jay_c
Time January 8, 2010 at 4:56 am PST
@Jason Arvak
No, a current majority is not always correct, and I appreciate your attempt to pusuade us. My beef is your assuming that progrressives are automaticaLly right because you say so, and post an article from a progressive site that is clearly biased. Frankly you are better than that. The article doesn’t make the case to me. I have questions that have yet to be answered that the article doesn’t address (as well as questions of others here) If I am to be convinced along with the majority of Americans we need more (like you demand more from leftist on healthcare)
Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time January 8, 2010 at 5:11 am PST
Jason, at one time I was in favor of 100 percent open immigration, but I don’t think it’s feasible for that particular “market.” New arrivals have to be tracked, processed, etc., and there are security issues that do not come up nearly as much in most other types of market dynamics. Also, if we allowed every single person who so desired to come to the United States all at once, the rapid influx could generate more negative than positive impacts, especially in the short-term.
You mention several of the economic benefits of low-skilled immigration, which I do not dispute. Again, the most negative impacts seem to come from illegal immigration. Why should Americans trust that the Democratic/progressive regime would enforce the limits that would exist in the simplified and rationalized “comprehensive reforms” that they would enact? Or, are you saying that the Democrats/progressives are proposing a purely free market approach to labor/immigration flows at the borders? I’ll believe that when I see it. Instead, they will take all the likely Democratic voters they can get from Latin America, but they will keep all the quotas on Europeans and other high-skilled workers/immigrants. This “reform” will likely be a far cry from a market-oriented solution and instead will be a Democratic ballot-box stuffing measure, which the Democrats do better than anything else.
I’m in favor of a rational immigration policy that would allow in relatively high numbers of would-be workers/immigrants from all places and skill levels, as opposed to the current policy, which allows in high numbers of illegal immigrants and is relatively restrictive toward highly skilled lawful would-be entrants.
I agree that enforcement would not have to be as strict if the policy itself was less restrictive – as it should be – however, whatever laws are on the books should be enforced and we must know who is coming and going. We wouldn’t have to physically seal off a 3000-mile border. If we have a rational system for allowing workers to enter legally, and we allow in most but not all who want to come, then it would be easier to keep track of those who are crossing illegally, assume bad intentions from them, etc.
Comment from Doomed
Time January 8, 2010 at 5:23 am PST
I said….1. If we legalize them. We will be right back in 10-20 years needing a new immigration reform law to make things right??..again.
1986 Immigration reform bill failed to close these loopholes and we are right back here needing to fix the problem…..thats the FACTS!
YOU said…..Wrong. An appropriate immigration reform would include a better process for allowing people to enter the country in the first place.
Why am I wrong? Show me a bill on the table or in the works that FIXES this. How can you be right and IM WRONG when you are simply arguing the case for a perfect bill that does not even exist yet??
I said….2. An overwhelming preponderance of these illegals are going to vote democratic?.show me where Democrats are going to make number one dooable?
In a follow up post I supported this accusation with facts. Given the history of the previous Immigration reform bill and the bill that failed to pass in 2007 as support for my position show me where the Democrats are going to fix this issue?
Show me your imaginary bill Jason.
While in theory I agree with your version of what an Ideal bill should entail. We are dealing with the real world in which the Democrats still hold a cloture proof majority. Show me a bill they have proposed that DOES NOT do what I say it will do so that I can apologize to you and say your right and Im wrong.
Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time January 8, 2010 at 5:26 am PST
Jason, two follow-up points:
1. Under a rational immigration system, which allowed in relatively high numbers of would-be workers/immigrants but not all of them (and not all at once) would reduce the security pressures. For example, Mexican workers who know that they will be able to enter the U.S. to work or emigrate within a reasonable period of time (say, 3 years) would be considerably less likely to enter the country illegally. Therefore, the border patrol could take an aggressive approach toward persons trying to cross illegally into the U.S. because the vast majority of well-intentioned workers/immigrants, who do not have criminal records, etc., would be willing to wait in line.
2. If the Center for American Progress is going to use the language and methodology of the economic impact study to advocate on behalf of the Democrats/progressives so-called “comprehensive immigration reform”, well then, theoretically at least (a guy can dream), they would need to be able to demonstrate not just that their proposed economic development policies would result in a net positive – that’s an easy target to hit given the status quo. But that it would outperform other policy alternatives. And they haven’t done that yet. If they want to open that door, I say “great.” Now let some other analysts and policymakers propose a rational approach to immigration enforcement and reform that might be projected to generate even better net impacts to the American economy. Yeah, sure, I won’t hold my breath . . .
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 8, 2010 at 5:33 am PST
@Jason Arvak
In addition, the stats I provided were for the purpose of dispelling to a great degree, the level to which you attribue “racist undertones” in the conservative position on illegal immigration. So it wasn’t to show that the majority “is right” per-se, but to show that claims of racism are largely unfounded (unless the majority is racist and or ignorant). Usually, people on the left cry “racism” when all logic, and reason are depleted in their arguments (you were one of the people here that actually taught me that). Leftist use emotional appeals and question the oponents motives for their positions. This is not you Jason.
Also, dont forget that I agree with you on a number of points in this article (look at my first post here)…saying that somehow my “ideological prejudices” are getting in the way, is just not a fair charterization of my positions.
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 8, 2010 at 5:42 am PST
“If the Center for American Progress is going to use the language and methodology of the economic impact study to advocate on behalf of the Democrats/progressives so-called “comprehensive immigration reform”, well then, theoretically at least (a guy can dream), they would need to be able to demonstrate not just that their proposed economic development policies would result in a net positive – that’s an easy target to hit given the status quo. But that it would outperform other policy alternatives. And they haven’t done that yet. If they want to open that door, I say “great.” Now let some other analysts and policymakers propose a rational approach to immigration enforcement and reform that might be projected to generate even better net impacts to the American economy. Yeah, sure, I won’t hold my breath . . .”
Once again, 100% correct Patrick, thos are the “numbers” I am looking for as well. I wont hold my breath either…for the same reasons I wont hold my breath for an honest and open debate in Congress regarding healthcare reform, and for that reason alone…no racist undertones needed thank you very much.
Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time January 8, 2010 at 5:50 am PST
Tully, I hadn’t had a chance to examine the methodology of the CAP study, so I appreciate hearing your thoughts on it. That’s the other part of CAP using an economic impact study to advocate on behalf of a certain political agenda. You’d hope that their methodology would be rigorously examined before the media draw conclusions from it and policymakers act on its recommendations. If/when it turns out that the methodology is seriously flawed, the thinktank should take a credibility hit and the media and policymakers should say: “Okay, if we were pretending to care deeply about the net impacts of immigration policy prior to the debunking of the CAP study, maybe we should carry out the analysis by other, more rigorous, means.” Instead, they will ignore the debunking altogether and drop that particular meme, while CAP would lose no credibility in the process.
I actually expect that there would be economic benefits to legalizing existing illegal immigrants, but that these benefits would likely be outweighed by other negatives associated with “reforms” that would be quite “comprehensive” when it comes to recruiting new Democratic voters, but otherwise not that concerned with generalized, long-term economic impacts that would not be easily captured by the Democratic political rackets.
Comment from john kortus
Time January 8, 2010 at 8:01 am PST
#1. illegal is just that, illegal!#2.you seem to be talking mostly about uneducated mexicans. who send back to mexico, billions each year. than since most earn less than 30,ooo a year, all taxes go back to them. also earned income tax credit.than they get unemployment benefits,welfare,and free medical.all done through phoney documentation now adjust your moronic 1.5 trillion benefit to my united states of america
Comment from Brittancus
Time January 9, 2010 at 1:21 am PST
This very interesting letter came to me, through my Email and I cannot vouch for the author as I get hundreds of these type of correspondence each day. These people are very aware on my stand on illegal immigration and enlighten me all the time on the consequences to come. The national press are full of stories about the awful predicament these illegal immigrants are now subjected to? They must have realized this when they intentionally broke the sovereign laws of this nation? They know they are stealing jobs of millions of Americans who remain unemployed. Illegal labor have appropriated by illegal means Social Security numbers of Americans, their children and the military abroad They have crammed our schools with their children, our hospital emergency waiting rooms and are overflowing the dormitories and cells in the penal system. They have also been allowed legally or illegally to tap into the welfare system, that was there to serve low income or unemployed Americans. WE MUST INSIST OF OUR POLITICIANS TO PERMANENTLY IMPLEMENT E-VERIFY TO RESTRICT ILLEGAL WORKERS AND AUDITS. THE 287 (G) POLICE APPREHENSION LAW AND INCESSANTLY ENFORCE ICE RAIDS.
The man wrote:
I have been a bookkeeper and office manager for over 30 years in various construction fields. I have seen first hand how illegal aliens have been hired by greedy bosses. Here are some of the many ways they and the employers cheat the system: 1) They always claim up to 14 dependents on the W4’s, thus they are not taxed on Federal and State Withholding. 2) When sick or injured on the job they got to the closest ER – they never file a Worker’s Comp claim through the employer. 3) They work below the wage scale a comparable American would expect to be paid, thus “depressing” the wages. While the men work this way, the women and children they have a home are on welfare and Medicaid. The Employers: Many may have Federal, State, ADA and City contracts, all which are FUNDED by American Tax dollars and require Certified Payrolls to insure fair wages are paid on the job, yet they use illegal aliens to do these jobs and keep all the profits. Often the same employer will have whole families of illegals working in their businesses and if they try to hire any Americans the illegals will freeze them out or get them fired. The Employers become millionaires through this practice. They do not offer any benefits. They often have unsafe working environments. They also usually cheat like hell on their corporate income filings and live high-on-the-hog by expensing all their personal trips, hotels, airfares, homebuilding projects, cars and even put their kids on the payrolls while they go to college. The list of cheating is endless and I’ve seen it ALL!
Consider that just–IF–a comprehensive immigration reform passes, millions more will try to cross the border line before President Obama signs the act. If the truth was known we already have somewhere between 20 to 30 million illegal immigrants including families. Think how many more people will be added to the welfare rolls. All this is just a precursor for irreversible OVERPOPULATION. Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to be connected to your Senator and Congressman and use the voting power of THE PEOPLE. NUMBERSUSA AND JUDICIAL WATCH for more enlightening information about which lawmaker is a signer to AMNESTY and their immigration grades.
Comment from Interested
Time January 9, 2010 at 9:17 am PST
The issue of illegality is simply a problem of exaggeration. Yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but probably so did you when you exceeded the speed limit on your way to work this morning. The issue isn’t whether or not illegal immigration is illegal, but rather what the appropriate consequence should be. If individual immigrants have committed other crimes, particularly violent crimes, even progressive plans for immigration reform would concede that imprisonment and deportation is the appropriate response to those other crimes. But illegal immigration in and of itself is a victimless crime. These are people merely trying to survive and support their families. It is hardly just to treat them as violent or dangerous felons in response. Payment of a moderate fine is more appropriate, and a path to legalization should be provided for those that have been otherwise contributing members of their communities.
Irrelevant argument. Likewise my speeding is a victimless crime unless I do a bodily or property damage.
And literally every single study I have seen shows that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are far more economically beneficial than they are costly.
Studies cannot mesh data with the intangibles. And no study that I’ve seen as fully encompassed every level of a local economy with the given impact financially. They all take one level or bits and pieces of others.
There is nothing magically about being an illegal immigrant that makes the tax man go away. This is entirely a myth concocted by anti-immigration advocates.
Actually you’re splitting hairs here quite a bit. but it combines with the welfare one below.
The idea that people should be excluded because you assume (wrongly, IMHO) that they will vote for the other political party is about as morally repugnant a position as I can think of. Good hard-working people should be forced to live in poverty and violence just so your party can have more power? Blech!
Which is precisely what the democrats did when Bush tried to tackle it.
And here we see another myth about immigrants — that they are all on welfare. There are no facts to back that up and, in fact, most if not all states deny all government benefits without proof of citizenship.
another Myth that doesn’t stand up to reality.
Healthcare given to an illegal immigrant on US Taxpayers dime is a government benefit. Not all illegals that receive services on the taxpayers dime work here.
Hell, and I’m one that supports revamping what we consider and want from immigration – but you probably should live it to understand it Jason.
Comment from brady
Time January 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm PST
“The issue of illegality is simply a problem of exaggeration. Yes, illegal immigrants broke the law, but probably so did you when you exceeded the speed limit on your way to work this morning.”
WOW. Dispite the fact that you just entirely made that up.. Do you really suppose that a speeding violation is comparable to ILLEGALLY CROSSING INTERNATIONAL BOARDERS? Do you think if you snuck by customs in an airport you would receive a ticket? OF COURSE NOT, thats a serious crime.
Comment from UNRR
Time January 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm PST
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/9/2010, at The Unreligious Right
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 9, 2010 at 6:43 pm PST
Yes, I do think that crossing international “boarders [sic]” to find work is not much more severe than speeding.
Evading security in an airport is a different scenario entirely because (1) it does not have the same harmless intention (economic survival) and (2) it directly threatens security of other people present.
And “Interested”, you have no basis to know what I do or do not “live”. And even if you do have some intense personal link to the issue, intense personal linkage to an issue has never been a requirement for someone to speak out on public policy.
So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments. The fact that your side must apparently rely on nothing more than sweeping empty assertions, personal attacks, and the occasional bit of juicy racism kind of reinforces my view rather than undermining it.
Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time January 9, 2010 at 7:38 pm PST
Jason, which of the commenters are you classifying as “anti-immigration”?
Comment from Doomed
Time January 9, 2010 at 10:17 pm PST
So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments.
So everyone of us who voiced an opinion that did not jive with yours are
ANTI-IMMIGRATION????
claims that comprehensive immigration reform leading to legalization for millions of immigrants could yield $1.5 trillion in benefits to the U.S. economy through higher wages and productivity.
Most everyone here is debating this. I don’t know but I think there is way more to immigration and immigration reform then this one aspect, but according to you, anyone who disagrees with you on this one aspect of immigration is now
ANTI-IMMIGRATION.
Interesting take on the debate.
Pingback from Are Progressives Right On Immigration? | NewsReal Blog
Time January 10, 2010 at 1:01 am PST
[...] Continue reading at PoliGazette. [...]
Comment from Interested
Time January 10, 2010 at 8:47 am PST
So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments. The fact that your side must apparently rely on nothing more than sweeping empty assertions, personal attacks, and the occasional bit of juicy racism kind of reinforces my view rather than undermining it.
You clearly have no idea – wait – no clue as to what my side is. I’m absolutely for a much smarter immigration policy – basically close to what Bush tried to enact.
But you in your usual – I’ll attack everything that doesn’t agree with me – form denies any possibilities that you are as wrong as you are in your assumptions.
intense personal linkage to an issue has never been a requirement for someone to speak out on public policy.
Sure, anyone can speak out on anything they would like. However, when you decide to lash out at anyone disagreeing with your flawed assumptions, it certainly has it’s requirement place.
I’ve lived it, seen it, felt it from all sides. What have you done.
But speak up – disprove my assertions. If you do not think that gov’t benefits such as community hospitals needing additional funding via US taxpayers to cover illegals is an accurate fact – you have much, much, MUCH studying to do.
Comment from Jason Arvak
Time January 10, 2010 at 7:37 pm PST
“Interested”, I wasn’t the one who started in with making it personal. You don’t like it? Don’t start it.
Comment from Pete Murphy
Time January 10, 2010 at 8:13 pm PST
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth. I’m not talking about environmental degradation or resource depletion. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries – India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China – as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. It’s absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that’s impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
Comment from FULLTILT
Time January 10, 2010 at 9:27 pm PST
for some reason I can not post onto the Ron Paul is Clueless diary. So I am posting here as a response. Ron Paul appealed to the Libertarians of the Republican party. These folks were early organizers of the Tea Party (Freedom) movement; started during his presidential bid DURING THE BUSH final term of office.
ONCE BUSH LEFT OFFICE THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT was co-opted by Fox News to tap into anti-establishment corporate government rule, which was then directed towards the current administration which by no coincidence was a party in polar opposite to Fox News’ world view. FOX IGNORED Ron Paul and attempted to and succeeded in limiting him from debates or debate topics and minutes to respond during the debates.
SO, the current tea baggers are not the same tea baggers from early on in the movement. The current group you describe and attempt to associate with Ron Paul are the ones the same kooks that voted for McCain that Fox went after since they SAW AN ESTABLISHED MARKET … and learning from his Master O’riely GLEN BECK went after the movement. Even Hanity went after them as an ESTABLISHED MARKET TO TAP into . But these MEDIA HACKS draw the line with the Miltary. They know the Military Industrial Complex is associated with being strong on National Defense and hence do not cross that line. While Ron Paul believe a strong national defense is just that a DEFENSE and on teh move expanding teh borders of the EMPIRE !
Ron Paul is not a kook. the tea baggers you describe are. they are being herded by the corporate government marketing machine.
Comment from Ed Warren
Time January 10, 2010 at 11:05 pm PST
Jason,
Ignorance is bliss. Chastising others here, most of whom have a much much MUCH better understanding of the impact of illegals only serves to make you look even more simpleminded. You are a true bleeding heart, as naive a person on political matters as I’ve ever come across. I’ll leave you to pray at the alter of “The Chosen One”. All ye who haveth faith, kneel before thy temple of Obama.
Comment from jhimmi
Time January 11, 2010 at 5:22 am PST
Open borders welfare states are not compatible. The Heritage Foundations explored Milton Friedman’s thoughts on the subject here: http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed062107b.cfm
Two excerpts:
“The transfer state redistributes funds from those with high-skill and high-income levels to those with lower skill levels. Low-skill immigrants become natural recipients in this process. On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.”
“The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power. Access to the U.S. ballot box also provides access to the American taxpayer’s bank account. This is particularly problematic with regard to low-skill immigrants. Within an active redistributionist state, as Friedman understood, unlimited immigration can threaten limited government.”
Comment from Patrick Glenn
Time January 11, 2010 at 5:57 am PST
jhimmi: thanks for the link to the Heritage Foundation article. It makes several compelling points, which might help to close the theoretical gaps for people like me – classical liberals who are philosophically inclined toward a very open immigration policy but who have concerns about how another amnesty would play out in reality (and on the heels of decades of cynical, scatter-shot immigration policies and enforcement). Unfortunately, immigration does not happen in a vacuum.
One interesting section from the article: “While most open-border libertarians proclaim a desire to dismantle both borders and the welfare state, in practice what they offer is open borders today and a vague (and almost certainly illusory) promise to end the welfare state in the indefinite future. As Milton Friedman understood, open-border enthusiasts have the sequence wrong: Opening borders with the redistributionist state still intact will result in a larger and more confiscatory government.”
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 11, 2010 at 6:21 am PST
This heritage article falls in line with much of what I said about the current financial burden on taxpayers, illegal immigrants create in this country.
” On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers.
There is a rough one-to-one fiscal balance between low-skill immigrant families and upper-middle-class families. It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family. Even Julian Simon, the godfather of open-border advocates, acknowledged that imposing such a burden on taxpayers was unreasonable, stating, “immigrants who would be a direct economic burden upon citizens through the public coffers should have no claim to be admitted” into the nation”
Comment from Walt
Time January 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm PST
False, many work under the table, especially in construction and landscaping. They do not pay income or other taxes as a result. Also, another subterfuge is hiring them as independent contractors, when they are in fact employees, which leads to a similar result. You really do need to move past the Chamber of Commerce talking points on this one. It is so sweet that the leftists at the Center for American Progress carry the water for their corporate sponsors. Any organization headed up by John Podesta is not one I am going to take too seriously.
Comment from Walt
Time January 11, 2010 at 2:47 pm PST
You should also note that much of the Earned Income Credit abuse comes from this group. With non-existent or ineligible dependents, these people not only avoid any net tax liability, but walk away with thousands of dollars sometimes. This is not contributing to society, but milking it.
Comment from Walt
Time January 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm PST
“There is simply no evidence for the Huntingtonian hypothesis, even leaving aside its transparently racist foundations.”
“I note, however, that the fact you have attempted to post those racist comments proves my point about the racism that infests such a huge part of the anti-immigration movement.”
You have made it pretty personal from what I have seen. Give Johnny P. a big wet kiss for me.
Comment from johnrohan
Time January 19, 2010 at 2:48 am PST
I'm a little late to the discussion, but better late than never.
Jason Arvak said:
>"So far, exactly NONE of the anti-immigration people on this thread have offered actual arguments. The fact that your side must apparently rely on nothing more than sweeping empty assertions, personal attacks, and the occasional bit of juicy racism kind of reinforces my view rather than undermining it"
And you are relying on little more than cries of "racism" against your opponents, which is the hallmark of a weak argument. I thought Poligazette was above this nonsense. Yes, of course many people oppose illegal immigration for racist reasons. But many people support it for racist reasons as well. I seriously doubt Mexican groups like MALDEF, MEChA, or "La Raza" (which literally means "the race"!) would push so hard for immigrant rights if the immigrants were mostly Chinese instead of Mexican. Mexicans certainly don't do much for illegal immigrants in their own country (who are deported, and denied services such as free schooling, unlike in the USA).
Now let's discuss your actual evidence, the Center for American Progress study. The problem isn't just that it was put out by a liberal think tank. The problem is that I can quote you dozens of other very credible studies that would either support or refute this one, depending on who commissioned it. It's all in how you count the numbers. But even assuming that study is 100% correct (and that's a huge stretch), there are other problems:
1. Allowing people to “jump the line” with an amnesty is inherently unfair for people who have gone through the process legally (including my spouse, incidentally).
2. The USA is already over 300 million people. Shouldn’t we be looking at stablizing that? Even in the USA, the population growth is not sustainable forever. We are already in the middle of a fresh water crisis, particularly in the Southwest. And keep in mind that transplanting a person from a third world country to the USA increases their carbon footprint several times over. It’s not pretty, but it’s the truth.
3. On a related note, you use the example of Japan struggling to find ways to take care of it's aging population. But the alternative you are proposing, the pyramid scheme to keep increasing population numbers to pay for retirees, can't go on forever and will eventually explode in your face.
4. The last amnesty under President Reagan, which this study draws heavily on, was supposed to be the last one. It also had the net effect of increasing illegal immigration afterward, because now immigrants believed they could just look forward to the next amnesty. In the political deal, it was coupled with strong enforcement measures to ensure that it would be a one-time amnesty only. But the enforcement was largely ignored by both parties. Enough said.
Comment from Interested
Time January 19, 2010 at 11:01 am PST
False. Your lashing out (as usual) did so. If you don't like that – well that's your issue to overcome.
But that's okay, we'll nod, nod, wink wink, nudge nudge and humor you when you think your reading of a study trumps boots on the ground experience.
Cause hey, you think it does. Boy where did we hear that kind of stuff before.
Comment from Jay_C
Time January 7, 2010 at 9:51 pm PST
“The issue isn’t whether or not illegal immigration is illegal, but rather what the appropriate consequence should be.”
I agree..
“If individual immigrants have committed other crimes, particularly violent crimes, even progressive plans for immigration reform would concede that imprisonment and deportation is the appropriate response to those other crimes.”
I agree…
“But illegal immigration in and of itself is a victimless crime.”
I disagree….The victims of illegal immigration are you and I. Money is taken from us at with the intention of using it to educate our children, fund emergency services at our local hospital, etc. Victimization is victimization, whether you can afford it or not.
Our current system rewards those parents who choose to break the law and come here for the birth of their children. Of course they are going to break the law. What good parent would not attempt the same?
No one denies that the majority of illegal immigrants are hard working people. Nor that we have benefitted in this country by having them here. But that does not make it morally legally right.
What we have done is allowed impoverished countries to continue to ignore the plight of thier people. Have you considered that if all illegal immigrants had stayed in their countries and worked to affect change there, those countries might be a stronger ally today? Instead, we have allowed illegal immigrants to send money earned here, back home which then keeps a corrupt and inept government in place. What of the continued suffering in those folks homelands that we are enabling to continue? Are there no regrets for that?
If we had open borders that allowed people to come and go but did not automatically bestow access to services that you and I are forced to pay for, it is not likely many of us would be upset with immigration. (I certainly wouldn’t) But to overcrowd our schools, delay services at my emergency room, and collect social services from my tax dollars is unacceptable. It is stealing.
Were you and I to go to movie and sneak in the back door, we would be guilty of theft by conversion. Illegal immigation is no different.
We can address and change this issue. We have the right to address this issue. I for one will not be made to feel guilty for protecting what is ours. Giving citizenship to the children of those here illegally makes as much sense as giving kids born on January 1st free college scholarships. It makes no sense.
It is hardly just to treat them as violent or dangerous felons in response. Payment of a moderate fine is more appropriate.
I agree…
And a path to legalization should be provided for those that have been otherwise contributing members of their communities.
Depends on the definition of the “path”.. The devil is in the details. What’s in it for me. I say let’s debate on CSPAN (like we were supposed to have for healthcare “reform”)I’m suspect of anything coming out of the “Center for American Progress” Let’s just say I’m extremely sceptical.