Skip to comments.Incoherent Immigration Reform
Posted on 02/07/2013 6:36:24 AM PST by Kaslin
Nothing about illegal immigration quite adds up.
Conservative corporate employers still support the idea of imported, cheap, non-union labor -- in a strange alliance with liberal activists who want the larger blocs of Latino voters that eventually follow massive influxes from Latin America.
Yet how conservative are businesses that in the past flouted federal law -- and how liberal are activists who undermined the bargaining power of American minimum-wage, entry-level workers, many of them minorities?
The remedies for illegal immigration under discussion are just as incoherent. If the government now plans to offer some foreign nationals a pathway to citizenship, does it also suddenly have the will to determine who among illegal immigrants does not qualify for citizenship?
Millions of illegal immigrants have resided in the United States for some time. They have not been convicted of crimes. And they have been hard-working and self-supporting. But if the majority deserves a chance to obtain legal residence and begin the process of citizenship, what about others who would not qualify under those same considerations?
There is also talk of reforming legal immigration as well. From now on we would select most immigrants for citizenship not by their place of origin, or by the fact of their prior illegal residence in the United States, but on the basis of needed skill sets and education, and their willingness to wait in line legally.
Yet are loud proponents of "comprehensive immigration reform" really willing to embrace the reforms they boast about? It might spell the end of privileging millions from Latin America to enter the United States without requisite concern about legality, education, English fluency or particular skill sets.
Massive illegal immigration is not ethnically blind or based on education. For decades it has favored more proximate Latin American arrivals who can easily cross the U.S.-Mexican border over those from distant Asia, Africa or Europe who simply cannot.
The politics of immigration are just as weird. Democrats, buoyed by the two election victories of Barack Obama, now welcome large pools of new Latino citizens to vote in bloc fashion for Democratic candidates. But if the border were actually closed and immigration returned to a legal, systematic process, then in time Latinos -- in the pattern of Greek-, Italian- and Armenian-Americans -- would follow most other ethnic minorities and decouple their ethnic allegiances from politics.
Republicans seem more confused. After needlessly bombastic talk in the 2012 presidential primaries, they have gone to the other extreme of emphasizing amnesties instead of enforcement -- largely in efforts to pander to growing numbers of Latino voters.
Here, too, paradoxes abound. Various polls suggest that immigration was not the primary reason why Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.
When the Pew Research Center recently surveyed Latinos and asked whether they preferred high taxes and big government or low taxes and small government, they preferred high taxes and big government by a 75-19 margin. And they usually see liberal Democrats as far better stewards of redistributionist government, and Republicans more as heartless advocates of a capricious free market.
Stranger still, Asian-Americans, for whom illegal immigration is not really an issue, voted for Democrats by about the same margins as did Latinos -- and perhaps for similar perceptions of minority-friendly big government.
Moreover, the largest concentrations of Latino voters are in Southwestern blue states like California, New Mexico and Nevada, where Republicans usually lose anyway, and for a variety of reasons other than immigration. Ironically, the best long-term strategy for Republicans would be to close the border and allow the forces of upward mobility, assimilation and the natural social conservatism of Latinos to work.
Everyone talks grandly of passing bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform as if the present system had not sprung up to serve the needs of all sorts of special interests that certainly have not gone away.
We forget that too many employers still want the cheap labor of foreign nationals.
The Mexican government still promotes illegal immigration as a political safety valve and a valuable source of cash remittances.
Too many ethnic activists, whose support derives from large numbers of under-assimilated Latinos, don't want to deport anyone and do not welcome legal immigration redefined by ethnically blind, skill-based criteria.
Democratic politicos don't want closed borders, only to see the melting pot someday turn their loyal supporters into independent voters. And panicky Republicans simply have no idea what they want -- other than to cater to as many constituencies as they can.
The present system of immigration is far too often illegal and immoral. But it is also weirdly rational in the way that it serves so well so many lobbies -- and so poorly the shared public interest at large.
Why oh why can't Republican 'operatives' get this through their heads!
Anyone who does not let strangers into their homes uninvited, has to support not letting people into our country without permission.
Looks like even VDH is still falling for the "natural social conservatism of Latinos" nonsense. It's difficult to see how anyone can believe that when 53% of Latino children are now born out-of-wedlock. And we can be sure a large portion of that 53% will be on government welfare programs. I don't think that suggests a socially conservative group.
A generally good article, but as long as so many still choose to delude themselves about such fundamental questions, we remain a long way from taking an honest look at the illegal immigration problem.'
The problem isn’t “immigration” illegal or otherwise. It is outright INVASION! Those that couch this problem with that word or “undocumented” or “dream workers” or “whateverthehellwordtheythinkwillmakeitseemless” have only three of reasons for it.
1) They are lazy, law-breaking business owners that want cheap illegal labor to increase their profits, or
2) They are Democrats and want to cement their voting advantage, or
3) They are snake-belly RINOs that think hispanics will vote for them if they are compassionate with the “dreamers”. It didn’t work in 1986 and it won’t ever work.
George Will had an excellent phrase for that. All non-Latin immigrants were "psychologically guillotined" when they came to America. They had to sink or swim.
i.e. They weren't constantly reinforced by new arrivals of the same nationality and had to assimilate. On the other hand, anybody south of the border is right at home in the barrios they have created by the constant refreshing of new arrivals and many see no need to assimilate.
Case in point. I was a volunteer reading tutor at a local Middle School in Nevada. I expected the class to be mostly of Hispanics due to the language difference. I was right, but for a different reason. The teachers told me the kids were having problems with English because their fathers wouldn't let them speak or read English at home. The kids were told "Spanish is your heritage".
A sidebar to this is all the dual languages in stores. I have no problem with that in places near the border where there is a lot of cross trade, but it bugs the hell out of me to see it in Utah. After retirement I worked as a night stocker for a few years in Wal-Mart and always rearranged the dual language product so that the English side faced the buyer. A supervisor asked me why I was "wasting my time". I told him that this was America and that we spoke English. Then I told him of a Hispanic who asked me if Wal-Mart had those dual language signs in the aisles because they thought Mexicans were too stupid to learn English. The supe asked me what I replied and I said that I told the guy that Wal-Mart didn't think that, they were just like most American corporations who would sell their daughters to improve the bottom line. The supe didn't know what to say.
I’m going to keep it simple because I’m a little simple: The basement is flooded. Instead of plugging the holes and bailing, the landlord is proposing that we declare it `dry’.
Ever remember seeing one in anything other than English and Spanish? Why do they need dual language if the are assimilating like others before them? I don't remember this ever happening before. It's another attempt to program us to accept illegals as part of the culture, like homosexuals, like the libs using their "reasoning" without using the word illegal...example would be using "undocumented" or just saying immigrant when they talk about reform, etc.
When 'cheap non-union (illegals)' become citizens they STOP doing the work lazy Americans won't do - and move up the ladder to take jobs Americans do want. And because they have a strong work ethic, companies are happy to hire them.
That means cheap labor supplied to large farms, low budget factories, meat packing houses, construction companies etc - to be maintained - exploiters must keep importing third world people forever. When illegals are made legal they 'move up' as they should. But it means the tap must be left open to bring in new illegals.
The problem - and the blessing - is they bring their culture with them. Yes, they're hard working - but their governments are corrupt, violent and totalitarian. AND POOR. Elites - lots of poor and almost no middle class... Check out 'south of the boarder' cultures and countries and you'll understand WHY THEY WANT TO LEAVE - and WHY WE DON'T WANT THAT CULTURE HERE... Cultures are NOT equal - illegals are willing to risk death to get here. That's a hint that the cultures are NOT equal. Escaping - willing to risk death... that's not what we have here. .
With elite liberals taking charge we might be trying to escape some day. But for now, what the founding fathers gave us - protection for the little guy - and a restraint on the elites - is working. Our elites don't like that... elites never do...
The price the country is paying for 'cheap labor' is higher than we can afford. Maybe we educate third world people about having a bill or rights - but then again their elites would hate it - just like ours do...