…to note what is rapidly arising as a case study for that “inside the beltway” phenomenon that sometimes renders all members of the political species deaf, dumb and blind to public sentiment. Witness the freight train of hurt coming down the tracks towards both parties on the US immigration bill;
Mark, I always thought the requirement in last year’s bill was pretty sweet: You had to pay two out of three years’ back taxes. Most legal Americans would love that deal: Pay any two years of tax and we’ll give you the third for free!
But the President obviously concluded that even this was insufficiently appealing. Which gets to the heart of the problem. Whenever folks use this “living in the shadows” line, they assume that these 12-20-30 million people all have a burning desire to move out of the shadows and live under the klieg lights of officialdom. But, in fact, if you wanted to construct the perfect arrangement for modern life, it would be to acquire:
a) just enough of an official identity to be able to function – open bank accounts, etc – and to access free education and health care; but
b) not enough of an official identity to attract the attentions of the IRS and the other less bountiful agencies of the state.
The present “undocumented” network structures provide this. For these Z visas to “work” (in Washington terms), they have to be attractive enough to draw sufficient numbers out of “the shadows”. Right now, “living in the shadows” is a pretty good deal. Somerset Maugham famously called Monte Carlo a sunny place full of shady people. Undocumented America is a shady place full of sunny people.
Instead of attempting to draw the undocumented out of the shadows, it might be fairer to allow the rest of us to “live in the shadows”, too. My suggestion is that, on the day this bill comes into effect, all 300 million US citizens and legal residents should apply for a Z visa.
Hannity was telling some caller to his talker today that his contacts in Washington were “astounded” and “shocked” by the firestorm backlash they’re getting over the supposedly “done deal” immigration bill. Hannity said even Harry Kari Reed was suddenly feeling nervous.
I wondered: Could this possibly be true? And if it is, how unbelievably out of touch with America are those legislators for life who are purported to be “representing” us?
The Republicans lost the house and senate, not because of the Iraq war, but due to their mushy stand on illegal immigration, and they still haven’t figured it out. It might not have happened had they cut back on the intake of incestuous network television pollsterism and pundocracy to tune into talk radio.
UPDATE – the Senate blinks.
RELATED – In France, Sarkozy ‘s policy changes might best be measured in G-forces.
Whoo Hoo. It looks like Sarkozy is putting the screws finally to illegal immigration in France. At least he is listening to his constituents.
It might not have happened had they cut back on the intake of incestuous network television pollsterism and pundocracy to tune into talk radio.
My recommendations,
Brian and the Judge on FoxTalk 8-11am(only if you, for some strange reason, you don’t like Howard Stern).
Andrew Wilkow Sirius Patriot 11-1pm.
Hannity on ABC or Mike Church at Sirius Patriot 1-4pm.
John Gibson on Fox Talk 4-7pm.
Mark Levin on ABC 7-10pm.
Texas Canuck, I don’t approve of illegals ever getting citizenship – I support Bush’s guest-worker program which will give the illegals one last chance to fill out papers to do temporary work (mostly agricultural) or face deportation. Many illegals stay because they can’t leave the US and guest worker programs (like what you have) largely don’t exist for menial farm work. As much as I don’t approve of illegals breaking the law, INS might not be able to deport 12-20 million people over the next few years.
Now the “entitlement situation” you’re referring to is that of children of illegals born in the US or people who came at a young age – let’s say 6 or 7. Arguably it’s not their fault that they are illegal – they were just following their parents to the US. Of course they are going to feel entitled to be American because maybe they don’t really feel Mexican. Should they have a path to citizenship? Depends on the situation, but if they are willing to fill out the paperwork and go through bureaucratic hoops, then fine. If not, they should face deportation.
penny, I do apologize. My point was simply that lack of educational achievement in itself is not a reason for deporting an immigrant group. But in fact you did not infer that Mexicans nor blacks should even be deported so my assertion was completely mistaken.
I would still argue that a much larger proportion of Asian immigrants come to the US as semi-skilled or skilled workers than does your average Mexican peasant. This is a selection bias which affects their attitudes to education and their economic outcomes in the US and is transmitted to their children. What Sowell is measuring might be a reflection of the biases that immigrants initially come to the US with. But as I haven’t read his books, his theory of cultural diffrences might account for that factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_american
The US spends the highest proportion of its GDP of almost any country in the world on education. But like most developed countries, these resources are very poorly allocated. I’d argue you could cut education funding in the US by 30% and it would have no impact provided market reforms were implemented.
The bigger question of the immigration debate is whether the US system actually does let in the people w/ the right skill sets for the right jobs or whether it is too focused on the principle of family reunification. Unfortunately this phone book piece of legislation probably doesn’t answer that question either.
ET: “The three opposition parties have no right to merge and function as the gov’t. ”
Er, actually, they do. Under a parliamentary system, they can form a coalition. If the three opposition parties forced a vote of no confidence, and then went to the G-G, stating that they wanted to work together to form a government, she would have to decide whether to call an election or not. This happened in Britain in the 1920’s, when the Conservatives won the majority of seats, but the Liberals and Labour teamed up to form a “national government”. It’s of interest to note that the Tories won 38% of the popular vote in the 1923 election, which was about the same as the CPC won in the 2006 election.
From Wikipedia: “This (2006) general election elected members for the House of Commons, indirectly determining the prime minister and cabinet, as the government will be formed by the political party or coalition of parties that the governor general determines is best able to command the confidence of the House (usually the one with the most elected members).”
Ace, the days of the mass immigration of the Great Unwashed are over, we aren’t settling the west, manually digging the Erie Canal or needing bodies for sweat shops and factories. Social services expenditures for that group of immigrants in our past was minimal compared to today. I’m just not willing to fork over my grandkid’s financial security to the whims of politicians that always act without consideration to unforeseen consequences, especiially expenses.
Sure we need cheap unskilled labor primarily in agriculture and the service sector, but, a guest worker program is preferable. The high tech companies are unhappy with this bill because they aren’t getting a break on the skilled labor they need. Those jobs will be outsourced if they can’t be filled here. These are the skilled immigrants most likely not to eat up taxpayer’s money. Ironic. Stupid.
kevinb – er, no they don’t. The three opposition parties do not have any right to merge and form the government.
The legal situation is, that once the government is recognized as legitimate by the head of state, that government is THE legal government. They can only be put out by the same head of state. This fall of the gov’t from its legitimate role as the ONLY gov’t can be via the loss of an in-house vote of confidence, when the head of state must acknowledge that the gov’t feels it cannot continue on as the legitimate gov’t. So, the House is dissolved and an election takes place.
But under no circumstances, can the Official Opposition and other non-gov’t parties merge and, by their majority numbers, set themselves up as the government. They were not elected to do so; they have not been recognized by the Head of State as the legitimate government; they have not been sworn in by the Oath of Office by the Head of State. It is legally – impossible.
What is going on now, is that the three opposition parties are using their force of numbers to obstruct and hinder the legitimate, legal gov’t of this country. Remember, they are not the gov’t; they were not elected as such; they have not been recognized by the Head of State as such; they have not been sworn in as such. They are just using numbers to obstruct the legitimate gov’t. And their reasons have nothing to do with any benefits for Canada. Their reasons are political strategies for their own agenda of power. The legitimate gov’t is an authorized gov’t, accountable to the people. The opposition is not authorized to be the gov’t. Don’t confuse the two; each has their role.
You simply couldn’t have a stable gov’t operating the way you propose – where coalitions could form at the drop of a hat, for political partisan purposes, and take precedence over the legitimate gov’t.
Well, let me put it this way. Reagan’s Amnesty Bill was a travesty, and now 20 years later it has shown it’s true colors. The USA can’t take all the impoverished people of the World , we just can’t , sorry, but I refuse to become a quest in my own home.
If we can spend 12 years bringing Democracy to the Middle-East then we can spend the next 12 years securing the US/Mexico Border and deporting Illegal Immigrants.
Enforce the Laws on the Books we don’t need no more stinking legislation.
As with many other issues, this is not about red and blue but about green. People of all stripes are concerned about illegal immigration. But as long as corporate America, who has both parties in their hip pocket, stands to benefit from cheap undocumented labour, there will be nothing coming from Washington except lip service to appease the concerned electorate. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
I happen to be in Loredo, Texas right now – for what that’s worth – Mexico is right across the Rio Grande.
I don’t think there is a difference between Mexican illegal immigrants and any other people migrations throughout history. It’s all about trying to better yourself and your family – and having the guts and courage to do so.
I have a first cousin who was an illegal immigrant to the US. He happened to be Irish. In the early to mid 1990’s there were several hundred thousand illegal Irish in Boston and New York City. There was plenty of work in construction and they were lucky in that the people in Boston and New York felt a kinship for the Irish and so there was no racism (which was definitely not true in the 1840’s and 1850’s).
(My Dad was an illegal immigrant to Britain – he was actually recruited to work on the big fishing trawlers out of Milford Haven after the 2nd world war – because they couldn’t find Englishman or Scotsman willing to do this work – he was in the merchant marine and still paid no taxes – he eventually made it to London and worked on the tubes and roads and general labouring – and actually made alot of money.)
What is interesting today is that Ireland has a GDP per capita that is slightly higher than the US and almost twice as high as Britain. No one emigrates from Ireland any more. In fact, they are fighting massive illegal immigration from Eastern Europe (there are more than 200,000 Polish labourers in Dublin alone – and they send all their money back to Poland).
The point is that Mexico is not building their economy to benefit all their people. It is easy for them to turn a blind eye to the poor and use the US as a means to sidestep their responsibility to the poor – and this is what they are doing.
I think that the US plan makes sense as a defensive measure and addresses all constituents.
I don’t think there is a difference between Mexican illegal immigrants and any other people migrations throughout history.
Throughout most of history there weren’t defined nation states. Borders made sense when we stopped roaming the planet as hunter-gathers, for God’s sake. If you want to revert to a borderless world where the others can squat anywhere, most of us don’t.
It’s all about trying to better yourself and your family – and having the guts and courage to do so.
Including law breaking? You seem to be giving permission for it. I’d like to do more for my family, my neighbor has better stuff than me, do I get to squat on his property? Come on, nations have the right to enforce their laws, determine who they chose as immigrants and who is a lawless squatter and oust them. This isn’t about charity work and sentimentality.
It take very little courage and guts to get into the States from Mexico. There are buses into Alburquerque and US border towns daily.
Kennedy cut immigration from Ireland to a trickle in the 60’s at the request of THEIR gov’t, a little known fact. The Irish finally came to grips with their own country which was the desired result. Lorado, like Juarez and Tijuana, are going to remain dumps until Mexicans are forced to come to grips with it. Our nationalizing millions of their citizens every 20 years delays the change.
There is nothing in the Bill that makes it mandatory for all illegals in the US to come fwd, get whatever is required to be the Z visa or citizenship or anything else. The best solution would be to ban schooling, health care, jobs and anything else without documentation. They also have to change the law, as does Canada, that citizenship is bestowed on those born here or in the US, of the country of the parents citizenship. Hey, it works for Dion, why not everyone. It would be a rough couple of years, but it is the only way to solve the problem. Also, one should have to live in a country for 10 yrs before applying for citizenship, and no non citizen should have rights to challenge our laws or oaths. After 10 yrs, if you don’t apply and get citizenship, deportation back to country of birth.
mary T – add proficiency of the English language, not a big thing to ask in this day and age. You are an economic basketcase that taxpayers will eventually shoulder if you can’t speak English. Also, a basic thumbnail knowledge of our Constitution. New citizens should understand how our government works at a minimum.
Texas Canuck: “I jump through bureaucratic hoops (and $$$) every year in order to work down here and Carlos the gardener wants instant citizenship for him and his family? Rediculous.”
What’s ridiculous–sad, actually–is that you’re not rioting in the streets waving Canadian flags and demanding more hand-outs, and you’re the one who’s paying through the nose.
The immigration bill is an amnesty bill in about the same way a circus fun house is an educational opportunity.The joke, as they say, is on you as you enter it; and the bill contains a long series of ways to trap, bag, and drop kick the Mexican people and others seeking in, back. The joke is they are supposed to come forward expecting to work their way IN, not knowing the whole idea is to cut down their numbers to a few. As for the comparison with Ireland, of course it is apt, since the Brits liked the idea that at the end of the season the redundant Irish “hands” (yes they actually called them that) would go back to Ireland taking their unemployment with them so they were no burden on England, but they were a great burden on the rest of the Irish. The common market set up brings that pretty much to an end and with it, the Brits shameless behaviour. There are a lot of “guest workers” stories in Europe and every policy you can imagine has been tried from the truly despicable French which has generated horrid slums and ferocious riots, to the strictly limited time tickets of some others. But you Americans can’t have it all. If you want to have people conveniently available for the rotten jobs, for a while you will either have to turn a blind eye to those who come the hard way and stay, or you will have to provide a genuine route IN. Your proposed bill is a trick and a disgrace and the attitudes you indulge in with a lot of talk about people “sneaking” in and “stealing jobs” is pure crap.