The New York Times has many flaws. Most of its readers are aware of its agendas and interpret it accordingly. I think we all get frustrated with it from time to time. But, every so often, the Times publishes an incredible analysis that reminds me why it is our "newspaper of record." I believe that few other news sources provide this caliber of analysis.
Such is the case with today's editorial on immigration. If you haven't read it, it would be well worth your time to do so (here it is). I have been disgusted with the Republican dialog about this issue. Mitt Romney has been especially ridiculous and polemic about it. His accusations against McCain were dishonest and hypocritical. While McCain's plan had flaws, and he knows it, with slight modification it would certainly be the best thing we can get in this country right now. Romney and Huckabee have the audacity to call McCain's plan "amnesty" while failing to articulate a plan of their own (other than "first we have to secure the borders" which we've all heard them say a million times). What do you plan to do with the 12 million people who are here, Mr. Romney? "First we have to secure the borders." That doesn't answer the question.
The truth is, letting most of the people stay is the most pragmatic (and the only possible) thing to do, and Mitt knows it (perhaps Huck doesn't, he's pretty clueless). That's why he is afraid to articulate his own plan (and that's why his tirades against McCain are dishonest). Will you round up 12 million people and drop them off south of the border? How are you going to find them all? How are you going to transport them? Remember the Trail of Tears? Do you know how logistically impossible that would be? Do you know how economically devastating that would be? Do you know how the American public will react when they see footage of families being torn apart on CNN? How will our already tarnished reputation abroad be affected when they see that this is how we treat people? Mitt knows this, but as always for Mitt, votes are more important than integrity, so he takes the hypocritical path as he so often does.
If you disagree with me, read the article. If you still disagree, let's have a discussion.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Immigration and GOP Hypocrisy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I understand your reasoning, but many people believe that, despite the high costs, finding a way to send illegal immigrants back to their country is the right thing to do. Your allusion to the "trail of tears" seems a little misplaced--the natives had done nothing illegal. All of the illegal immigrants in this country have committed crimes (hence the illegal part of the label).
It is inappropriate to say that because the government can't logically transport them all back, we must find another solution. However, the answer is not to make the government ship them back home, but to make them send themselves home. We must enforce the laws that already exist and create punishments for employers that hire illegal immigrants. With more frequent checks by the government and stiffer fines (say $10,000 per day per illegal immigrant hired, which exists in some states), no illegal immigrant could find work. Then, when they have decided that they need to immigrate legally to work, they can go to a local government establishment and get a government-paid voucher for a free bus ride home. As a student of economics, you must see how this makes sense.
In other words, when something is right, we must search for an effective, plausible solution, and not dismiss addressing the problem because it may be difficult.
Well met. The Trail of Tears allusion was extreme indeed. What I wanted to convey was how the public would react to some sort of mass exodus of poor, well-intentioned (albeit illegal) immigrants at the hands of the GOP. But, that was probably the wrong way to illustrate that.
I recognize the argument you make as a valid argument. It is true - they have broken the law. But, I stick to my position. Here's why:
1. If the circumstances were switched, we would do the same thing. Mexico is not a nice place to live, especially compared to the United States. In fact, I would listen carefully to any candidate who proposed ways we can help Mexico so that people might be more likely to stay there. Of course the rule of law is important, but I think America is better than this. I don't think we need to do the damage we would do to families.
2. I see we are agreed that it is logistically impossible for the government to transport everyone back. You advocate making them "send themselves back home." This is a good argument, and this needs to be done to an extent. But, I will quote from the article I referenced: "Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick." I think this is not a price we want to pay. To avoid allegations of 'racial profiling,' all people would have to prove their legal status from time to time. Further, Giuliani is right when he says that we need illegals to not be afraid to report crimes, etc.
'As a student of economics,' I believe that we won't be able to really make people want to go home. Things are still better here than in Mexico. Believing that 'no illegal immigrant could find work' requires that we forget all the lessons we have learned from totalitarian states: the free market is always at work, even if it's black. Of course we have to enforce laws and get employers; but in the aggregate, it will cost citizens of the US a lot of money and freedom to get these people home.
3. The expansion of government that would be needed to oversee all of this would be enormous. Further, the increased regulation of businesses would result in higher prices for food, tourism, and many other things. I realize that this is a minor thing, but it should be considered when we weigh the pros and cons.
I don't advocate instant citizenship. McCain didn't either. I believe that the most pragmatic, practical, and cost-effective thing to do is let them stay. It's pragmatic because anything more extreme would never make it through congress. It's practical because it allows us to keep our reputation of kindness and empathy intact (I think extreme measures would damage our image), and because it can actually be done. It's cost-effective because it means we avoid the dramatic expansion of government and government intervention, and because it avoids the economic costs of losing a lot of cheap labor in a short amount of time.
Invite them to come out of the woodwork. Identify them. Make them pay a fine, perhaps. Put them on a path to citizenship that is the same as everyone else's. Make them learn English. Make them pay taxes. Meanwhile, of course, 'secure the border,' to the extent that that is possible.
Decker, I know that I wasn't invited initially, but I think that what I have to say is valid in this case.
You and I are many times agreed in our political and social outlooks (although yours are usually more detailed and technical than mine could ever be), but in this instance I think that you may be the one who is missing the point of all of this "Immigration Reform" business. Yes, it is indeed important that we find a way to deal with the obvious problem of having an economy that is far too reliant on the labor of people who are blatantly breaking our laws, but I believe that we may be wasting time with all of this politicking while the real threat looms over us. I'm sure it's already crossed your mind, but the simple fact is, if an average, possibly uneducated Mexican laborer can compromise our border, then how much easier is it for a highly-funded and partially military trained terrorist to do the same? I don't say this as an excuse for the candidates claims that, "We must first secure the border," but I do say that it is a valid point when we think about the immediate danger that comes from not securing the border.
Don't get me wrong, though. I want to hear their plans before they start throwing stones, but we all need to keep in mind the real reason to secure our borders.
My second point is in regard to your answer to Woolston's comment. In it, you claimed that we should "Invite them to come out of the woodwork. Identify them. Make them pay a fine, perhaps. Put them on a path to citizenship that is the same as everyone else's." This, also, works well in theory, but I get the feeling that you included the part about paying a fine to calm others objections. You and I know both know that no attends an event where they know they'll be fined, and many of these workers DON'T WANT American citizenship (Taxing, travel restriction, etc). We could offer them an incentive to obtain it, like quicker processing, or lower cost, but in doing so we would offend everyone else (including some fellow employees at my place of business)who have been attempting to get into the country properly, and have had difficulty in doing so already!
I'm sure I am mistaken on a thing or two, but I am participating in this dialog to hear the possible validity of your counter-argument.
Well met Nick. I think in my annoyance at the GOP candidates' failures to explain plans I also neglected to underscore the importance of (and my support for) securing the border. This is a substantial issue, and I think Bush has failed us on this. The GOP candidates are right on this - it's what comes after that bugs me.
The 'coming out of the woodwork' idea is complicated indeed. The fine is mostly a necessary inclusion in any plan that allows people to stay to, as you said, calm others' objections. I don't know how this should be handled exactly; but, assuming that we do let people stay, I think we must do something to keep track of who is here. I don't know. Your thoughts?
Post a Comment