What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

One small victory for democracy

Well, they did it. I thought the fight was all over on Tuesday.

I'm ashamed to say that I wasn't among those shutting down the Capitol Hill switchboard in the past twenty-four hours, but my sincerest thanks to all of you who were.

That'll teach me to be a defeatist. Tours wasn't won by defeatism. Thanks, grassroots!

Comments (31)

I didn't make phone calls, but I sent lots of e-mails. Whether we can do something with this momentum is another question.

One criticism directed to those who opposed it was their ignorance of the actual language, that is the promises of enforcement and management. But then maybe our legislators are ignorant of the law of unintended consequences, thinking that the written legislation is the essence of the issue rather than a hand off to a hopeless bureaucracy and the courts.

They write law, pass it and walk away. But the basic issue of over twenty years of mismanagement since the last amnesty and set of failed promises was remembered by many, that enforcement was a joke up to the day the vote was taken.

So what did the proposed law mean, what can it mean? This is another sobering insight into the minds of our representatives, crank it out, move on, and never look back.

I'm sure Michelle Malkin could say something better than I can here, but as far as I can tell, there is no reason whatsoever that enforcement of anything should be held hostage to amnesty for those who have already broken the law. That is *even if* they had followed through on the enforcement provisions ostensibly in the law. If those were such a good idea, they could have been passed without the amnesty component. There was no reason not to do so other than the fact that our president is besotted with amnesty. And he refuses to enforce the present immigration laws in any event, has no will for it and no intention of doing it. The more shame to him.

One thing President Bush consistently fails to recognize - even after the war in Iraq!- is the veracity of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: "The great conservative truth is that culture swamps politics."

There are good things about Mexican culture but one really bad thing is its complete ineptness at governance. And there's no reason that ineptness can't be imported to America via the trojan horse of widescale immigration.

As Stanley Kurtz said, "The cultural prerequisites of democratic capitalism are given life by real human beings. So when you bring new people into your society, you’re potentially working a root transformation in what that society is–and in how (and whether) democratic capitalism works there. Immigration uniquely reveals the underlying dependence of markets themselves on cultural foundations."

Just out of curiosity, what do the contributors of WWwTW propose as an alternative?

Jeff,

I feel I'm not the best qualified person to answer this. I'd like very much to hear (seriously) the proposals of some pundits who have been working on this from a strong immigration-enforcement stance, like Michelle Malkin herself.

But I myself would begin with major border enforcement. At this time 'o' night, I'm not going to look up the links, but here's an outrage: A bunch of drug smugglers attacked, with guns, a National Guard outpost along the Mexican border. The National Guardsmen ran. Didn't put up any fight at all. I don't know if they were unarmed or simply had been given terms of engagement that didn't permit them to fight back at all. They cleared out, and it was reported on the news that they were "pleased that no one was hurt." Let that sink in for a minute. Armed bad guys--these drug gangs are real bad guys--attacked our supposed border guards, on our border. Our border guards ran away and felt that it all turned out well because "no one was hurt." It boggles the mind. My response is, "Why in the world _wasn't_ someone hurt?" _This_ is how we defend our borders? By running away and being happy that no one was hurt? As if the border of our country is a big kindgergarten playground. "Now boys, no fighting. We don't want anyone to be hurt."

Those border patrol guys in federal prison should be released immediately, pardoned (since nothing better can now be done for them) and issued a _huge_ apology. We need to man our borders big-time, with armed people. If unarmed and harmless illegals try to come over, they should be non-violently turned around and sent or taken back. If armed drug lords drive across the roads they have built (! really!), they should be repulsed with arms. If they are escorted by people in the uniforms of and with the weaponry of the Mexican army (which has happened), then we should not be afraid to have a scuffle with that escort. If we have to bring men back from Iraq to man our borders at home, fine. Do it. We must get dead-level absolutely serious about border control.

Next step is deportation of illegals. It has to be done. It should be done as humanely as possible, but we shouldn't shrink from it. I would, were I president (which God forbid), admit the incredible mess we're in and start bringing in some big-time immigration hawks as advisers to help me to figure out where to begin. But the use of buses and escorts, mass summary deportations, should not be ruled out ab initio. The laws are there; they have been flagrantly flouted. They are good laws, not bad laws, and we have to start enforcing them somewhere and sometime. It is my belief that Mr. Bush has a bit of a bad conscience about his blatant refusal to do so and that the amnesty bill was an attempt to make a kind of post hoc excuse for this. "Well, all the people I'm refusing to deport are going to be eligible to receive Z visas in a couple of months anyway, so _that's_ why it's okay for me to treat the enforcement of these laws that I swore to uphold and defend as optional in the meanwhile."

Lydia, thanks for responding. I agree with respect to border enforcement. However, I have reservations about deporting illegals carte blanche. Many of them arrived with full knowledge that the U.S. quite deliberately does not enforce immigration law and actively supports their role in the economy. I don't think the "bait and switch" routine is fair - especially where children are involved.

To be honest, some kind of qualified "amnesty" doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Some of these illegals are good neighbors to us. I'm glad they're here and hope they can stay. Others are criminals (or otherwise problematic) and should be deported.

I must admit that I haven't studied the problem in depth. And I haven't studied the problem, in part, because I resent having this problem on my plate in the first place. Dinner calls, perhaps more comments later ....

Hey, Jeff,

I really disagree with the "bait and switch" argument. Anyone who acts as a scofflaw and takes advantage of non-enforcement ought to know that at any time the laws in question could begin to be enforced. He's taking a calculated risk. The idea that we are bound to continue not enforcing laws because we haven't in the past seems incorrect, especially where the only penalty in question is deportation to what is, after all, their own country out of our own country. Being here is a privilege, not a right. Being sent back to the country they deliberately left in defiance of our laws is not even tantamount to being put in prison here. And of course we would and should allow people to leave on their own two feet, voluntarily, if they don't like the idea of being escorted off the premises they entered illegally.

There really is no limit to what must be allowed by the "bait and switch" reasoning. For example, they came here on the understanding that we don't enforce our laws, which means that they don't have to pay taxes on what they earn. They expected to be able to work "under the table" for an indefinite period. Must we honor that expectation? In that case, penalizing employers who hire illegals, don't pay social security for them, don't collect taxes from them, allow them to use phony Social Security numbers, and so forth, must also be regarded as a "bait and switch," because it will mean that illegals have more trouble getting jobs than they had expected to have--much more trouble, if enforcement against employers is consistent. In fact, requiring people to sign up for Z visas or face deportation is itself a "bait and switch" because they came here expecting to be able to work without having their backgrounds checked or getting permission of any sort to be here, so just forcing them to go through a formal process of gaining permission or facing deportation is itself changing the totally anarchistic terms on which they came and thwarting the expectation of "anything goes" on which they came.

You _must_ be willing to engage in deportation to enforce _any_ sort of border control, and, yes, even if children are involved. This would be true for those who refused to accept legal amnesty as well--and many might do so. Otherwise, you might as well not have any border laws at all for those with children. You might at well send out the message, "If you bring your kids, you can come to the U.S. illegally forever and never be deported." But once you realize that you have to face the deportation possibility eventually, then the following question arises: How is it just or right to refuse to engage in this sort of enforcement--without any other penalty but saying, "Okay, now you have to leave"-- against those who have already flouted our laws and, presumably, benefited therefrom, while others have gone through the longer process of being here legally and have left lawfully when their visas expired? We are, then, rewarding those who have played a kind of "how many can get across the border" game by telling them that they can stay, and have a fast track to citizenship, too, now that they've won that round of dodge-the-law. That can't be right.

Lydia, not sure at all, but was your 6/29 12:53 post in response to me? In case it was and to clarify; I only make the point that JFK made in a different context, "fool me once, your fault, fool me twice, my fault." The previous amnesty bill having been a sham, the subsequent enforcement being nil up to the present day, there was no reason for people to believe the more starry eyed promises and optimism put forth on this latest endeavor. In this case history was a lesson not forgotten by many Americans.

I would not suggest holding enforcement hostage to amnesty, only that the will, ability, and interest to do these things doesn't even begin to have a track record that bears a seconds thought. Therefore and whatever the current bill said, it was meaningless taken as a whole. Except for the parts where it would be harmful.

Not that much of the Congress and the President care very much.

It sorta was and it sorta wasn't, Johnt. I was just saying what I _would_ say in response to anyone who brought up the enforcement provisions in the way that you were mentioning people had done. I wasn't attributing their argument to you.

And I agree with you. In fact, that's one thing that makes it so hard to discuss this matter with people. We're not even supposed to _mention_ all the terrorists who would be given amnesty under it, all the tying up of the court systems with real bad guys who couldn't be deported, the total lack of any enforcement of anything whatsoever. No, we're forced by amnesty advocates to discuss only the most "starry-eyed" interpretation and expectations of enforcement of the law. _Oh,no_, of _course_ no one is advocating leaving criminals and terrorists in the country. Let's just never mind the fact that we are _already_ doing so and that it will only be made worse once we baptize illegals as legals by a wave of the wand.

But I'm willing to reject it on its own terms, as well. Even aside from the gigantic sham the whole enforcement junk was, it is *totally wrong* to reward people for this sort of law-breaking. And it sends a ridiculous and stupid message that our border is a sort of one-way valve. Keep bumping up against it and maybe you'll get in, and then you get to stay! Because no one would ever have the will to be so mean as to escort you back again, especially if you bring your kids and make us all feel guilty. Fun game, huh?

"I really disagree with the 'bait and switch' argument. Anyone who acts as a scofflaw and takes advantage of non-enforcement ought to know that at any time the laws in question could begin to be enforced. He's taking a calculated risk."

That's a fair point. But there are degrees of calculated risk. The longer the laws are unenforced, the lower the risk, or so it would seem. The southern border has been neglected for at least three decades (perhaps more but I wasn't paying attention back then). The U.S. bears some responsibility here.

"The idea that we are bound to continue not enforcing laws because we haven't in the past seems incorrect ..."

Yes, it is incorrect. Hence, I never suggested that.

"Being here is a privilege, not a right."

I'm not sure whom you're arguing with here. Being here is a right for some and a privilege for others. But how is this relevant? I've never claimed that amnesty is a "right" (how I have come to loathe that word), only that it might be the right thing to do in some cases.

"There really is no limit to what must be allowed by the 'bait and switch' reasoning."

Of course there are limits. Bait and switch speed limit enforcement, for example, happens all the time. But no one bets his livelihood, risks his life, plans his children's future, or leaves his ancestral home based on the possibility that unenforced speed limits may be enforced someday. The "bait and switch" in this case is a pain in the neck, but the human costs are negligible to non-existent. Not so with immigration law, especially with such a long record of non-enforcement.

Sometimes the stakes are low, and sometimes they are high. Such distinctions are not unimportant.

"For example, they came here on the understanding that we don't enforce our laws, which means that they don't have to pay taxes on what they earn. They expected to be able to work 'under the table' for an indefinite period. Must we honor that expectation?"

No. I think integration into the system can be accomplished without doing any harm.

"In fact, requiring people to sign up for Z visas or face deportation is itself a 'bait and switch' because they came here expecting to be able to work without having their backgrounds checked or getting permission of any sort to be here, so just forcing them to go through a formal process of gaining permission or facing deportation is itself changing the totally anarchistic terms on which they came and thwarting the expectation of 'anything goes' on which they came."

Lydia, I understand your point. We do need to switch. I agree with that. But I think the "switch" needs to take more things into account than the immigration hawks seem willing to admit. It isn't "all about America" anymore. It's too late for that. There are other lives involved and, for better or worse, the United States bears some responsibility for the decisions they have made.

"You _must_ be willing to engage in deportation to enforce _any_ sort of border control, and, yes, even if children are involved."

True. We need to do this going forward before the next generation of illegals have time to get established. But *retroactive* enforcement/deportation of illegals who have been here for years, without making any distinctions other than violation of immigration law, has grave human consequences in this case. Not to mention the enormous domestic costs involved. I can see how a selective and qualified amnesty might be a responsible part of the solution.

I really disagree with the "retroactive" designation. The law-breaking is present and on-going. The way you are looking at it, it's all water under the bridge. It's as if the person did one relatively minor illegal thing long ago on which, so to speak, the statute of limitations should have run out and he should now be able to "get on with his life." I think that's the wrong way to look at it. The people in this case are breaking the law _now_, in multiple ways, both by continuing to live here illegally and by working illegally, by not paying taxes on the money they earn, and so forth. And they are benefiting from systems put in place with tax dollars, too, in an on-going fashion. No one is stopping them from returning to their own countries and _applying_ for admission here in a legal fashion. But instead the demand is that we have to let them go on living here seamlessly. How in the world can an obligation to do so be conferred upon us by the fact that they have chosen to base their entire lives on an on-going pattern of law-breaking? They have come here for benefits and have received them, many of them. (Otherwise they wouldn't be wanting to stay.) They have used our emergency rooms as doctors' offices. They have sent their children to schools funded by the property taxes of their neighbors without paying into that system. They have had access to our law enforcement and fire protection, the safety of our streets, the clean atmosphere and clean water provided by the taxes of their neighbors. They have had all of this, and no one can take those years from them. How can the fact that they've gotten really dug in illegally confer on us the obligation now not to say, "All right. That good time is ending now"?

To me there is an outrageous air of hostage-taking here. It sounds to me like the idea is that if you're going to break laws you should do so in such a way that you're choosing to *stake a lot* on those laws' not being enforced, and stake a lot for other people, too, who are too young to have any choice in the matter. Then when someone wants *merely to ask you to stop breaking the law* (remember, no one is proposing clogging our prisons with people who have merely broken immigration laws--the worst we're proposing is telling them it's time to stop now and return to their own countries), you get to put a guilt trip on him that it would be so upsetting to your whole way of life and so hard on your children (whom _you_ have put in this situation) to do so! That's just, to my mind, a totally wrong and crazy way to think of this, and I don't think anyone should let himself be made to feel an obligation on the basis of such reasoning.

Jeff, WWwtW contributors have no unified policy on what to do about illegal immigration. (I mean, we might, but purely by accident, because I haven't been informed of it.)

One bit of logic I will never support is that which supposes that if a law is not being enforced, it's all right to break it. Nevertheless, I'm not averse to the idea of mercy in some cases, but the evaluation of these cases sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to me. That's one of the things I love about this country. We let problems grow to the point of being unsolvable before we decide it might be time to do something about them. And though our president has done some good things, like vetoing stem cell research bills, I still nearly despise him for his attitude on this issue. Without political pressure, he would never have done anything, literally anything, about securing the southern border and enforcing existing law. Now that the bill has been defeated, and our immigration policy is at a standstill, he can play the "oh well, I tried" game when in fact he's probably as happy as a duck in a tub.

Those stories Lydia told about the National Guard are true. They ran rather than take on the bad guys. That's our president's rule of engagement: "stand there and look good, boys, but above all don't do anything."

About those 'good' illegal neighbors of yours. Isn't there something a touch oxymoronic in the notion?

Lydia and Bill:

I'm not going to say it again: I'm 100% in favor of vigorous border enforcement starting yesterday. Walls, deportations, prison, whatever it takes. Let's put that to bed, shall we?

We disagree, it seems, on what to do with illegals who have been here for a while due to a longstanding, deliberate government policy of non-enforcement and an implicit support for those industries that require or benefit from immigrant labor. In my opinion some of these people deserve a break.

No, Bill, I don't think violating unenforced laws makes one a bad neighbor. If that were the case I don't think I would have any "good neighbors". I am pretty sure that most of my neighbors hunt on their own property out of season. Every employer here violates labor laws (it is almost impossible not to in California unless you are very prosperous). Most farmers around here hire illegals via Mexican labor contractors. Everyone here violates the speed limit (the CHP has an unwritten policy of enforcing 10mph over the limit). On Wednesday, hundreds of my neighbors in the city limits will celebrate the 4th of July illegally with fireworks in their backyards. Etc.

A digression: When I was growing up in almond country a local farmer became a sort of folk hero in the community. You see, it was only permitted to burn brush from tree prunings on certain designated days. Sometimes "burn days" were not announced until the day itself. Compliance was (and remains) extremely difficult for small farmers and the rules were generally ignored.

As the story goes, this farmer, like most of his neighbors, went about burning his brush without consulting the county ag department. An ag inspector drove up in his pickup truck to issue a citation. The farmer was on his tractor with a buckrake on the three-point. He headed for the inspector's vehicle, picked it up with the buckrake, and placed it on the fire! The inspector escaped with his life but the poor farmer went to jail. :-)

In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I am predisposed to lenience because the illegals in question are - for the most part - Catholic. Even if they are sometimes not very good Catholics, among religions their primary religious influence is Roman Catholicism. That's a good thing in itself. I would not hold the same views if the illegals were Muslim, Jewish, or followers of some other non-Catholic religion.

How about a compromise? We'll let your neighbors stay here, but deport anyone who:
1)gets arrested
2)applies for welfare
3)gets rounded up in a workplace raid.

In other words, take away the incentives to come or remain. No welfare, no taking American jobs, no crime. If you want to start a business, or farm, or otherwise add to the economy, no problem.

One important consideration that I think a lot of people miss, is the effect of mass deportations would have on Mexico. Mexicans I know will tell you about the corruption in Mexico that makes it so hard to get ahead. I think that sending 25% of Mexico's population back across the border, with their experience of American entrepeneurism and lack of corruption would have a salutary effect on Mexican society and the Mexican economy.

I think you're on to something, Danby. But I don't agree with the "taking American jobs" rhetoric. What about this instead?

Deport the following:

1) All illegals here one year or less.
2) All illegals with criminal records.
3) All illegals with gang connections.
4) All illegals without an economic sponsor (could be an employer, a church, or a legal resident).

Conditional amnesty for the rest which is dependent upon:

1) Progress in the English language (for those under age 50);
2) Continuing good citizenship;
3) Temporary exclusion from most public welfare programs;
4) Permanent exclusion from voting.

Jeff, do I take it then that you wouldn't agree with Danby's proposal of _no_ amnesty plus strong enforcement against employers of illegals? Would you also not favor it if it included no deportation element for those caught in raids on employers? Because if you _would_ endorse it--without amnesty--then really this is all just about not wanting to deport people forcibly and it isn't about America's owing them anything for having failed to enforce the laws and thus "encouraged" them to come and set up their lives here. After all, if we do strongly enforce laws against employing illegals, the majority of them will have to leave anyway.

On the other hand, if you really do _insist_ upon amnesty, would you also promote exclusion for non-citizen immigrants from unemployment compensation? Because if they get themselves legalized, the employers are going to have to pay them minimum wage, pay social security for them, etc., and a lot of them are going to lose their jobs anyway. This, by the way, is just one reason among several why many illegals would doubtless not want to take advantage of amnesty. Practically, they would do better to remain under the table as they have done already and bank on our not having the will to deport them and their children, after they've made their lives here, etc., etc.

Oh, I meant to add: I don't think your analogies to various municipal ordinances and to small bits of civil disobedience against them are relevant here, because most of those ordinances sound (to me anyway) silly, which is a large part of why we tend to cheer inwardly for people who defy them, even if we can't formally approve of deliberate law-breaking. But laws that control the influx of alients to our shores are anything but silly, and the costs of widespread defiance thereof are far higher than the costs if everybody (e.g.) hunted on his own land out of season!

Lydia, one of the most violated ordinances in poor rural areas like mine is that of "under the table" employment. It happens all the time. And people are very open about it. I've done it myself on numerous occasions, and I'm sure I'll do it again.

The more I think about it ... what makes the illegal immigration question complicated is the inextricable connection with off-the-books labor. That's a whole 'nother problem in itself, for domestic reasons alone. I don't have any good answers at the moment. Give me some time and I'll come up with a two-bit solution for you. :-)

I don't know all the laws about employing people to do stuff on your property, but it certainly is possible for the legal duty to be that of the person who does the work to consider himself self-employed and to pay the taxes himself. This is true, for example, of people who run lawn services. Even though someone is working on my property, it can still be his business (in more sense than one). So it doesn't follow that because you are handing someone cash for odd jobs and not signing yourself up as a regular employer _you_ are doing something illegal. If he makes more than $400 per year doing odd jobs for people, _he_ may be doing something illegal by not keeping track of it and filling out the tax forms as a self-employed person. But that's between him, God, and the IRS.

I just hope you realize what you're saying about violating unenforced laws: the ends justify the means.

I am predisposed to lenience because the illegals in question are - for the most part - Catholic.

I already knew that. It's the Peggy Noonan sentimentalist approach which, based on the voting records of legal Hispanic immigrants, will do this country no good, but only aggravate the downward spiral into liberalism.

"I just hope you realize what you're saying about violating unenforced laws: the ends justify the means."

You know better than that. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with violating laws that are unenforced, just as there is nothing intrinsically right about obeying laws that *are* enforced. We need to know much more than "the law says X" to determine the morality of obedience or disobedience.

I don't pretend to know much about immigration law or whether our present laws are just, reasonable, or ultimately enforceable. I agree with you and Lydia that, until such a time as the laws are changed, we need to vigorously enforce our present laws nonetheless, and that enforcement should not be tied to amnesty issues.

But systematic non-enforcement often signifies a lack of will or seriousness on the part of those who create the laws, and this is readily understood by would-be violators. It is quite possible, where statutory law does not obviously coincide with the moral law, that the culpability of violators is mitigated or non-existent under the circumstances.

"I already knew that. It's the Peggy Noonan sentimentalist approach ..."

Sentimentalism is a weakness of mine, to be sure. But the Catholicism of the immigrants is unsentimentally a positive good. When push finally comes to shove in the culture wars, they're the kind of people I want as neighbors - even if, as John Henry Newman observed in the lives of many Catholics, they "live badly but die well".

"...which, based on the voting records of legal Hispanic immigrants, will do this country no good, but only aggravate the downward spiral into liberalism."

Their voting records really don't concern me either way. Based on my reading American Hispanics don't tend to vote much anyway. That's fine by me. When the hierarchy of the Catholic Church gets serious about discipline and catechesis the votes will fall in line (assuming that votes will matter at that point).

I don't want more Republicans and Democrats in this country: I want more Catholics and better neighbors.

" ... then really this is all just about not wanting to deport people forcibly and it isn't about America's owing them anything for having failed to enforce the laws and thus 'encouraged' them to come and set up their lives here."

Well, I'm not sure I would characterize my position that way. All things considered, my sense is that the United States does indeed "owe" some of these people a degree of lenience. Just which people exactly, and how much lenience exactly, is not something I feel qualified to dogmatize here.

"After all, if we do strongly enforce laws against employing illegals, the majority of them will have to leave anyway."

True. But this isn't going to happen in farm country.

"On the other hand, if you really do _insist_ upon amnesty, would you also promote exclusion for non-citizen immigrants from unemployment compensation?"

That makes sense for a time, yes. But not permanently.

"Because if they get themselves legalized, the employers are going to have to pay them minimum wage, pay social security for them, etc., and a lot of them are going to lose their jobs anyway. This, by the way, is just one reason among several why many illegals would doubtless not want to take advantage of amnesty."

A very good point.

"I don't know all the laws about employing people to do stuff on your property ..."

I was referring primarily to established farms and businesses, employing people long-term (though irregularly) for much more than $400. I've been on both sides of that equation.

I do not believe the primary interest in hiring illegal immigrants is wage related. You can find examples of employers paying below the minimum wage, but from my reading it seems that positions filled by illegal immigrants are typically in the $6.25 to $9 range. As there are examples of below minimum wage work, there are examples of higher wage work as well. One company that was busted had illegal immigrants making $14 and $22 an hour. In most cases, I think it is more a question of competence. If I can hire an illegal immigrant to build a fence, and I know he will do it properly and do it well, the fact that he is illegal won't be an impediment to me or most people hiring him. Additionally, knowing the person won't sue me if he does something stupid and ends up harming himself is an additional benefit.

I am very much in agreement with Mr. Culbreath in regards to time in the country counting for something. The Church has long supported the rights of squatters for example. If after a certain time, a man works a piece of land without the objection of the owner, then the land is his. Nearly every society in history has accepted this in some form. Citizenship like ownership should be recognized as more than a piece of paper.

Finally, my biggest objection is whose business is it anyway? Immigration and migration are local issues. If farmers are comfortable conducting business with folks who speak Spanish in Southern California, then why on earth should some person in Washington throw a fit. Wanting a 'tough immigration' policy is just another version of Nanny Statism.

I wrote: " .. and that enforcement should not be tied to amnesty issues."

Upon reflection that is too simplistic. By "enforcement" I had in mind prevention of future border crossings. However, strict and comprehensive enforcement would of course entail the deportation of all illegals and is therefore inextricably bound to amnesty issues.

I think I'm done with this topic as I find it is over my head. Hope our elected representatives can sort it out and do something constructive about it. Thanks for the discussion.

"I do not believe the primary interest in hiring illegal immigrants is wage related ... In most cases, I think it is more a question of competence."

That is my experience as well. Not just technical competence, but things like showing up on time and putting in an honest day's work. Reliable help under $10.00 per hour is hard to find in California - and reliable help over $10.00 is equally hard to pay.

Mr. Forrest, I completely disagree that it's a case of Nanny Statism. But I have few ideas as to where to begin to convince you regarding your very strong libertarian open-borders position.

I reject libertarianism. I don't believe 'open borders' is intrinsic to libertarianism.

If you wanted to convince me, you could start by finding precedents prior to 1930 supporting an absolutist restrictionist policy. You could attempt to argue that our obligations to national security necessitate deporting young mothers with U.S citizen children. You could attempt to argue that the insularity condemned by Augustine and Aquinas are not applicable to our modern day and age. You could attempt to argue many things. The most essential thing you would have to argue is the impossibility of addressing our present immigration problems in specific rather than aggregate and even in aggregate that the only policy that can protect the commonweal is restrictionism and deportation.

The business about "U.S. citizen children" is highly annoying, because as you and I both know, these "young mothers" deliberately exploited our system by coming to the U.S. well on in pregnancy in order to bear their babies here so that they would be anchor babies. Then everybody howls about deporting the mothers. To me, this is a kind of trick, and simply to give in to the manipulation and get angry at the thought of deporting the mothers is to make a pretense of not knowing that we are being manipulated. Not, actually, that I am necessarily saying we should deport the mothers. We should certainly deport all the other relatives who want to hang on to the anchor, though. And we might try amending the Constitution so that this particular type of manipulation is ineffective. It's a way of using us that the authors of the 14th amendment just didn't foresee, and I think it's pretty angering.

"Insularity"? We have too little of it, in my view, not too much.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.