Conservatives who are for tighter control of the borders? Well, Reason’s Jesse Walker doesn’t want to come right out and say it, but that doesn’t mean he is averse to noting, rather ominously, that the “parallels are striking” between today’s border control advocates (folks I might call, “people who are in support of current immigration laws, and who are upset that those laws are rarely enforced”) and those persons for whom” “nativist and racist sentiment.. surged following the first world war.”
The basis for his post is Glenn Greenwald’s latest “theory,” which Walker summarizes thus:
[…] with 9/11 receding into the past and Iraq becoming more “muddled and ambiguous,” immigration offers nationalists an “opportunity to rail against ‘appeasement’ (of Vincente Fox); to create the anti-terrorist/pro-terrorist dichotomy on which they thrive; and to demonize a clear, foreign enemy as threatening not just our economic prosperity but also our national security (the ‘Mexican invaders’
. And if the weakened, ready-to-be-tossed aside failure, George Bush, is one of the spineless appeasers this time, so be it.”
Greenwald, as is his wont, paints conversatives with his now-familiar broad brush and bold, cartoon colors. But one expects better from Reason.
The error in Greenwald’s thinking is transparent: to believe his theory, you must believe that conservative concern over illegal immigration is something new, or, as Greenwald would have it, opportunistic—a way to sate a (genetic? essentialist?) need to have a clearly-defined enemy (preferably brown) at all times, and to then demonize that enemy.
But of course, conservatives have grappled with the illegal immigration problem for years and years; that it is now being foregrounded by the media is simply proof that the concern has reached a certain pitch, –and that, in addition to being embraced by conservatives, immigration reform has been championed by populist blowhards with large audiences like Bill O’Reilly, who see in the issue an opportunity to establish some “conservative” street cred.
As I wrote in the comments on the Reason site:
For the record, I am against the National Guard on the border. But I certainly don’t fault people concerned about the openness of the borders, given that our avowed enemies want to get into the country and set up cells—and are open to trying whatever it takes to make that happen—and I find it repugnant that anyone would reduce such a complex issue to “nativism and racism,” even if it is only hinted at.
Once again, bad faith is attributed to those with whom Greenwald disagrees politically.1 And Walker takes the bait, scratching his chin and pretending that the “theory” Greenwald proffers is something more than yet another cheap rhetorical gust in a long and increasingly predictable storm of anti-conservative ill wind.
And the saddest part? I don’t believe Walker takes Greenwald’s theory seriously for a second. There are racists in both parties, undoubtedly, but it is absurd to even countenance the idea that racism is driving the desire among the vast majority of immigration-reform proponents to see existing laws enforced. But reducing one’s political foes to intolerant racists is just too easy to pass up, I guess.
(h/t Allah)
Big roundup here. See also, IP and MM.
update: Karl Maher has some choice words for certain conservatives whom he believes might just be overplaying their hand a bit. Like, for instance, Kathryn Lopez, who is perhaps best known in conservative circles for her complete election day 2004 online breakdown—one of the most pitiful performances by a right-leaning political pundit I have ever witnessed.
And that says a lot, because I’ve seen Rod Dreher in verbal hysterics.
****
1 see, for instance, his “theory” on the Bush Kultists who “defend” the President’s “clearly illegal” NSA program, which does not allow for any disagreement in interpretation of law, but rather rests on the conclusion that supporters are mere Bush fetishists.
First, I’m extremely displeased to have to wade into the H&R pool to see if there was reaction to your comment.
Second, you also write in the comment that you’re opposed to the NG at the border. I’m less than thrilled about it, but I will offer a slight defense.
I would argue that the reason illegal immigration is not a new issue, but hotly debated is precisely because of the government’s lack of will to enforce the law at all levels. Local, state and federal, gov’t has had little interest in either deporting illegal immigrants (except to Cuba a few years back) or imposing sanctions on employers. People saw what happened after the last round of “reform” and are rightly skeptical that any promised fines, citizenship tests, etc. will be as rigorously enforced as they have been since 1986, i.e., barely.
Thus, I would argue that those who support a guest worker program, or any other approach to the issues raised by the illegals already here, are best served by the confidence-building measure of doing a better job of securing the border. And until they can train and deploy more Border patrol agents or “virtual fence” measures, deployment of the NG can be a stop-gap measure in this regard.
And Walker takes the bait, scratching his chin and pretending that the “theory†Greenwald proffers is something more than yet another cheap rhetorical gust in a long and increasingly predictable storm of anti-conservative ill wind.
Shorter – Greenwald blows.
Oh, I’m kidding – someday I hope to turn out passages like that.
OH, the name of your site is Protein Wisdom, for some reason I always read it as Protean Wisdom. “Silly me”.
This “one” you speak of… that’d be you, right?
Because I don’t. Anymore.
I suppose that we’re supposed to read that the U.S. has a “catch and release” program that gives non-Mexican illegals a ticket to appear in court and freed (which most of whom ignore), and shrug our shoulders?
This leaves us in a double bind: If we don’t care, we’re apathetic. If we do, we’re racists.
Which, of course, ignores the attitude that no one is arguing against legal immigration from anywhere.
BTW, at the risk of pegging your irony meter, did you know that the penalty for illegally entering Mexico is a prison term?
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff… it’s so obvious…
Just as there was no terrorism threat or risk of third-world nuclear proliferation prior to the Bush Administration, clearly there was no illegal immigration problem prior to, say, November, 2000.
The common factor should be self-evident.
The real reason neither party wants to seal the border is something that many have overlooked.
Plus, this is virtually guaranteed to create a 3rd party candidate in 2008, as there is no clear left-right position on the issue.
Maybe the answer is to create a program in which illegals that are young enough can earn US citizenship by serving 6 years in the US military. If they finish with honor, this solves several problems at once.
May I kindly ask the basis of your objection to the NG on the border?
I see such objection from others as the result of several factors
1 – objection to the militarization of the border
2 – not enough NG for the job
3 – the NG is only temporary instead of perm
4 – the NG is already engaged too much
I will say that I’m not exactly thrilled with NG because I believe our border should be monitored by the military permanently.
My grandfather, between WWI and WWII, was doing border patrol duties in Texas
As part of the 11th Calvary.
Protection of our country and the rights of our citizens from foreign powers is the mission of the military.
We already have a highly qualified military force, seasoned in watching a border against intrusion…Army troops monitoring the Korean DMZ.
When left to the voters, the intent is clear. One only needs to look at the results of California Proposition 187 and Arizona Proposition 200.
For me core problem here is not the concept of brown-skinned braceros mowing my lawn and ogling my wife and daughter. My core problem is that, for the most part, those same-said brown-skinned braceros jumped in the line AHEAD of similar such individuals who decided to play by the rules.
And, when caught, the line jumpers wail and moan and rend their clothing about how they are just put upon by The Man for just trying to make a living.
Perhaps any illegals caught should be strapped to a chair and required to spend an hour or two in a locked room with people who have been denied visas for entry because of filled quotas.
The alternative would be to give them a bunch of meth and coffee and then lock them in a room where a Carrot Top DVD is playing 24/7.
It was a concise speech and I agree with many points..
but one thing was glaringly obvious by its absense
no discussion of a wall
IMO, that MUST be included in any ‘securing’ of the border.
High fence, wide gate
From what I understand, Bush will propose the NG as an unarmed backup to the Border Patrol. This is not so bad, in my mind, as heavily armed troops on our southern border in perpetuity—where I fear that a shooting could trigger an international incident.
I’d rather see a wall; after that, I’m open to earned citizenship. As I’ve noted many times, I don’t think it plausible to begin mass deportations; not only that, I think any attempt to do so will hurt immigration reform in the long run (the media doing pieces of families torn apart, etc., would likely even have me sniffling).
Sometimes you need to compromise, especially if in the long run you are helping to put an end to the problem, which as far as I’m concerned is the continued influx of illegals and the stress it puts on state social services.
Which was only a few decades after Pancho Villa’s murderous raid from Mexico into the States.
I don’t care how long its been an issue, its not a coincidence that it’s popping up in an election year. After all it’s a known internets fact that republicans know how to win elections. The issue is real, it’s the timing that’s dubious.
National Guard on the Border, hmmmm. Somebody should post about that sometime. Maybe I shall later.
In the meantime, I will leave you with these little nuggets of Law:
Article I Section 8 (US Constitution) “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. [Congress]
Article II, Section 2 – after Congress oreders the militia “called into the actual service of the United States” then the President acts as commander in chief “of the Militia of the several States.”
[President]
Well, let’s see what the two branches have to say about this then, shall we?
Sigh, i just hope the recent follishness that passes for analysis at Hit&Run doesn’t creep farther into the magazine itself. I’m not entirely hopeful
Jeff, what do you think about the fact that it seems immigration laws are so rarely enforced against Latinos but enforced when it comes to other ethnicities, such as Arabs and South Asians?
I’ve personally known a handful of people, mostly relatives, who have had to leave the US because of the Government’s enforcement of immigration laws. I’m not saying this is wrong (I agree with the Government’s enforcement of immigration laws, however cruel or arbitrary as it may seem) but it intrigues me that people are calling “racism” when I see it as quite the opposite.
Wouldn’t this prove that the Government is racist, in a positive manner, in favor of Latinos and that advocates for enforcing immigration law want to end this positive racism to make all ethnicities equal?
jg,
When are politicians supposed to bring important issues to the forefront? It’s not dubious timing. It’s democracy.
The hipsters in those ridiculous outfits would probably draw unfriendly comments from a bar filled with NY firefighters, but Young Republicans in T-shirts showing Bush atop the rubble with his bullhorn might fare even worse.
Firefighters know that their funding was cut under Bush, that the murderer of their brothers is still alive and plotting, that Bush family confidante James A. Baker III was the lawyer who represented the Saudi government against the 9/11 Families (which includes firefighters), and that Bush has cynically used firefighters for photo ops (9/11, Katrina).
And most NY firefighters, like most of the country, are against the war in Iraq. They also voted Kerry in ‘04, union guys that they are.
Remember this item from 2002:
In an effort to appear “tough” on the deficit, Bush has killed $5 million in emergency spending related to homeland defense. Not only is the amount a pittance compared to the deficits his tax cut has wrought ($150 billion this year alone), but it targeted programs seriously needed by the nation’s security and emergency response agencies.
Bush felt the first political repercussion this morning, and it was a bombshell. the International Association of Fire Fighters voted unanimously to boycott Bush’s 9-11 tribute. The fire fighters are angry that Bush killed $340 million to fund fire departments nationwide. The Virginia fire fighter who suggested the boycott said:
“The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity. We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with us.”
The fire fighter’s union president added:
“Don’t lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe. President Bush, you are either with us or against us. You can’t have it both ways.
At its convention in Las Vegas, the union voted to ask its president to formally protest Bush’s decision. Among the options: Boycotting the annual service in memory of fallen firefighters, scheduled for Oct. 6 in Emmitsburg, Md. Bush has been invited to speak at the event.
“I did get the message loud and clear,” said Harold Schaitberger, the union’s general president. “My members are angry about this veto and they do not want to let the president use their image for his political benefit any longer. This veto is a slap in the face to every firefighter across this country.”
Other options include writing a letter to the White House, lobbying Congress to override Bush’s decision, or holding a protest in Washington.
Delegates to the convention also voted to return Bush’s videotaped message to the meeting.
For your future reference, I may have played a prank on Reason Magazine; details at my link.
I wrote and promulgated a satire suggesting bringing tsunami victims here as “guest” workers. A week or so later, a highly similar plan was printed by Reason.
And they were serious.
Bravo, Robert … you have managed to puke out a rambling, borderline coherent post. It is not at all clear how firefighters are even tangentially related to the topic of illegal immigration, but in the moonbat world, nearly any topic is but a few degrees removed from oozing anal fistulas of BDS.
TW : Least, as in … Robert, next time you crank up those synapses, make sure that you at LEAST give passing mention to racism, Rover, and Chimpy McHitlerBushiburton.
Not even Rep. Tancredo is advocating mass deportations. He’s noting that if you made it difficult for illegals to work, they would self-deport.
The guest worker program as proposed by Pres. Bush raises a concern for me. A temporary guest worker program is similar to what they have in several countries in Europe, and that doesn’t seem to be working too well for them. If we go down this path, I would want to make sure that people who want to assimilate have the opportunity to do so and discourage people who only want to be here for the money.
BTW, in the interest of educating jg above:
1. As he may have noticed, the GOP is not united on the issue.
2. The GOP experience on immigration as an election issue in CA (short-term gain, long-term pain) has not gone unnoticed.
3. Rep. Sensenbrenner moved on the House floor to strip the provisions of the House bill that immigrant groups find most objectionable. He was blocked by Democrats, who think the issue works for them. And this year’s protests are in fact an outgrowth of last year’s protests.
Yes, politics in an election year. How dare people debate important issues in an election year. Granted, I’d be all for banning most Congressional action in election years, to cut in half the time they have to screw things up, but that’s not going to happen.
As for Robert, I’d point out a moron wearing a t-shirt likely to offend firefighters (and perhaps their union bosses) really has nothing to do with Pres. Bush or Jeff’s comment on the shirt, but he probably wouldn’t see it as he hasn’t grasped the concept of posting in the correct thread.
With this speech, the Republicans have lost the midterm and 2008 elections.
70+ percent of Americans want the border closed…period. That has to be done first before any plan is implemented to legitimize the long-term illegals in this country. The current administration is totally blind to what the country wants, and they’re going to pay for it…as they should.
Yeah, Trainer. Because the Dems are going to shut that border down!
– 11 million. Bullshit. There are 18 million + in the LA basin alone. the result of the “worker guest program” of 20 years ago. More Bullshit.
– 6000 unarmed NG. To do what?. Run errands. Political fluff for the irate public. 2000 miles of border, much of it wide open. Thats what you’re dealing with.
– Keep putting it off, and rather than being “repulsive” (Jeffs view), it will become 40 million within a few years (Illegals, alarmed at the recent awakening to the problem, are litterily streaming across now in an effort to get here before anything is done), will become armed conflict. Then you’ll get to be more than just repulsed. Those of you that talk about this like its some sort of “excersize in political theory” just don’t get it.
– Immigration at a reasonable pace, assimilating as you go, is a worthwhile mainstay of the American ideal. Immigrant flooding, out of control, bankrupting states, threatening the well being of border state citizens is a train wreck waiting to happen. I think the influence on your thinking Jeff has been colored by being around the left for too long. Now you’re doubting your own right as an American to demand full control of our borders, something thats our soveriegn right to do as a nation, and worse when its part and parcel of the WOT. Sedition, long endured, will have its effects. How much longer before we start apologizing for being Americans?
– The borders need to be controlled effectively. then, and only then, when you get the flow under control you can start debating “guest worker programs”, effective tamper-proof worker id cards, and the terms of obtaining citizenship.
– Far as most of us in the thick of the problem are concerned Bush basically kicked the can down the road again. We’ll see. But if the GOP or the Donkeys think this will go away, they’re both baying at the moon.
I think getting rid of 10 million workers while the economy is booming is a brilliant idea.
And putting the National Guard on the border? Better there than Iraq.
The person who says the Republicans don’t understand economics and national security better than the Democrats is an idiot.
Reason and the libertarian party devolved into LA disco blo-dry neutered peace and freedom headshop owner morons years ago.
NG on the border? YES!
Bracero Program? Si!
Remember that if you scratch a Mexican you get a fascist, therefore, they will eventually vote Repug. The demos are all about the short game.
Not enough. One might think that as the former Governor of Texas, he would be more attuned to the political landscape here.
Apparently not.
Coming soon to a community near you: drop houses full of people being held hostage by human smugglers; shoot-outs between dueling coyotes on major north-south and east-west interstates; and drop-in-the-bucket, hundred-pound hauls of Mexican meth in the span of one week. In the southwest, even non-bigots are beyond worrying about federal judges running schools by fiat and the soaring costs of social services. As a Native American, I come by my “nativist sentiments” honestly. And I get pretty tired of rhetorical pyrite miners like Walker and Greenwald who don’t even notice the dead canary in the mine shaft.
Better be careful, Jeff.
Boulder, CO is setting up a “Hate Hotline” for the thin-skinned among us.
Any bets on who will be the first to report Jeff?
marcus – Looks like the ACLU is only worried about “confidentiality”, if you watch one of your friends pummel someone verbaly, and then you rat them out, but its not in secret, then its totally against the Soviet rules of rat-out. No way the ACLU will support that.
– Besides. A CO council member named “Golden” is already illiciting the X-files theme song.
TW: Absolute autonomy is central to the properly organized snitch system.
Just make our immigration laws reciprocal with the source country. Feasible? Perhaps not, but an interesting and enlightening exercise.
I’ve got no problem at all militarizing and sealing the border, save for what’s needed to let goods and legit immigration flow. Mexico wants to start shooting over it? Fine.
President Fox, if you want us to solve your poverty problems, start sponsoring Baja California Norte (hell, better throw in Sur as part of the deal, too), Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas for statehood.
TW: Good luck with that.
Our border policy to our south should be the same as the Mexican policy to its southern border. Our illegals policy should be the same as the Mexican policy for illegals.
What no one is considering is the economic price of amnesty and guest worker and naturalization.
It is astronomic and catastrophic.
Ten million illegals is forty million parents who are going to need to be supported, and won’t ever have contributed a cent.
It’s the cousins. It’s the in-laws. It’s the best friends. It’s the neighbors.
Hasta la vista, baby.
I’ve lived in Southern Cal all of my life… every time they show the border fence/wall there is someone going over under around through… I was watching Fox news tonight and in San Ysidro where they have a double wall/fence with no mans land in between they said they often find and confiscate up to fifteen ladders in an eight hour shift.
This wasn’t news to me… if people will swim the New River (Tijuana’s sewers provide the flow) they’ll do anything. In the old days guys used to surf Tijuana Sloughs… I get a rash just thinking about it.
I’ve seen all manner of totally low tech ideas defeat high tech. Mexicans are resourceful people… they have to be.
A wall is a great political idea, but everyone who pays attention here in Southern Cal knows we already have a wall and the illegals get in anyway.
A wall *may* slow them down but I think a wall will serve to increase the amount the coyotes charge and maybe up the degree of difficulty to enter… but they’ll get through.
You could build an exact replica of China’s great wall for 1000 miles and the Mexican people would still find a way in.
PS:
Everyone who gets their panties in a wad over the Mexican military patrolling their side doesn’t understand the difference between their degrees of law enforcement professionalism and ours. In some border areas the local police are useless and the Mexican Army is the only law enforcement tool available. Any travellers to Central and South America know that the Army usually acts as police. From bank guards to SWAT.
Our Army is for going off to foreign lands…. theirs is going nowhere so their mission is homeland security 24/7. They are undertrained, ill-equipped and poorly paid. Mayberry PD could kick their ass.
Big Bang Hunter  18 million? Just what do you think the total population of the LA Basin is these days?
and in those days the “Militia” was
“every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years “
To upgrade it to the 21st Century
“every free able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years “
Think that would get Fox’s attention??
I agree. I don’t want to see American troops patrolling that border, either.
I want to see English teachers there —and people planting condom trees.
So, what happened with Lopez on election day ‘04?
For me the truth is that unless we STOP
Illegal Immigrant employment
Any effort on the border is futile or are we also going to put troops on our Western and Gulf Seacoasts?
Caveat, I by no means mean that we should NOT build a border fence, beef up the forces on the border just don’t expect that to stem the inflow if we do not shut down the magnet.
Jeff!
We don’t have to do either. We need one, simple rule change, and that is to remove the limits on the number of work visas we issue. Don’t get me wrong, we should also eliminate all of the ridiculous travel requirements many work visas currently carry, and eliminate the tying of visas to particular industries or employers, but it’s the absurdly low quotas that are convincing most illegals to jump the border.
We can then impose some control by simply charging a price of admission. If too many are still jumping the border, we can lower the price. Once the borders are no longer overwhelmed by thousands and thousands of daily illegal crossings, it will be securable without having to resort to walls or militarization.
We can issue visa holders ID cards containing biometric information to keep tabs on them, screen them for TB and run background checks on everyone who comes through. In other words, we could actually control the border and the people who cross it.
yours/
peter.
PS: and YES, I DO expect better from Reason.
That seems reasonable, Peter.
In fact, think of my support for a wall as a metaphor for the need to stop the flow of illegals first in order to step back and figure out how then to fix the problem.
Then the “wall” (in whatever form it takes, be it concrete or troops in camouflage) can come down.
I like idea of America as a land that is welcoming, with open borders. But in return, we should demand other countries respect our sovereignty. However we go about doing that is fine by me, so long as it works.
But first, remove the bone of contention; stop the flow, then negotiate from there.
Like France?
There are differences between the US and France
there are jobs here, but I have noticed a trend
to guarantee access to welfare status to even Illegal Aliens.
Your open border policy coupled with that trend would in a short time result in duplicating France’s mistake.
I am not certain we can allow EVERYONE who wishes to enter to do so.
Here is how many temporary visitors the US had in 2005
41,148,537
that’s the LEGAL ones.
Massive enclaves of Welfare Aliens without jobs.
Hmmm.
Says it all really.
Hmmm.
Whoops! Forgot to change my name back.
sigh. I’m going to bed. Frankly this speech was a stinker.
Peter:We don’t have to do either. We need one, simple rule change, and that is to remove the limits on the number of work visas we issue.
I completely disagree, Peter. The number of people that want to go to the US from around the world is vast. The Mexican border is a problem now because it can be crossed on land, but once any international airport became a legitimate port of legal, unrestricted (but for a small fee) entry? We’d be flooded.
By people with compelling stories and excellent work ethics, mind you. But I don’t think we could begin to handle the number of people that would come.
And that number would be with the current visitor’s visas restrictions we have in place. You know, even to visit the US from some countries (I’ll use the Philippines for an example), you need proof of employment outside the US, bank statements, proof that there is something tying you to your home country (such as land owned or strong family ties). I know dozens of people that have been turned down.
Even the number of temporary visitors to the US in not unrestricted.
I don’t know how you make immigration virtually unrestricted.
I have to take issue with the title “Paging President Buchanan” (assume you mean Pat, not James). Despite his pretentions to the contrary, Buchanan has no interest whatsoever in enforcing laws against illegal immigration. He proved that long ago when he spent years defending the “rights” of a Nazi war criminal who gained entry to the US illegally.
Similarly, Buchanan’s identification as a “conservative” or “right-winger” is entirely fraudulent. When he ran for President in 1992, he took economic positions to the left of Jesse Jackson in order to pimp his campaign.
There is only one political goal which Buchanan has unswervingly boosted during his career as a polemicist, rhetoritician, and political groupie – the bloody murder of innocent Jews.
We can issue visa holders ID cards containing biometric information to keep tabs on them
Nonsense, Peter. Illegal immigrants use forged documents indicating they are American citizens all the time. They use fake driver’s licenses and social security cards. Simply preventing documents pertinent to guest workers from being falsified isn’t going to solve the problems relating to forgery of these other documents. This is a red herring. It is a ruse just like everything else Bush proposed tonight.
I hope everyone will look at the education stats involving 4th generation Mexican-Americans and tell me how you expect the United States to maintain a First Class economy with a 40% high school dropout rate and a less than 10% rate of attaining a post-high school education:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002109.html
Two other articles worth a read:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003346.html#003346
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003304.html#003304
If America continues on the path it is going, it is well on its way towards becoming a Third World nation.
That’s the UN Plan
Pinko De Mayo
“Remind you of the UN cute little plan to create something they call the Universal Right to Immigration?”
“The United Nations sees the matter differently. Its bureaucrats envision a “borderless†world where immigration is treated as an international human rights issue and used as a global development tool to encourage free movement of the developing countries’ poor to developed nations.”
I get a little steamed every time someone trots out BIG BUSINESS as being opposed to immigration reform. If you mean by BIG BUSINESS the fortune 500, then BULLSHIT…if they do hire illegals it is probably by accident…look at all the grief Wal-Mart (or was it Tyson) got.
Nope. Its mostly farmers (which admittedly could include ADM) and other small business people who need cheap labor.
Nope. Its mostly farmers (which admittedly could include ADM) and other small business people who need cheap labor.
Not to mention, such small-timers as meat-packing companies, agribusinesses, and Wal-Mart. But, of course, what does that matter….
But do farmers even really need them? The American produce consumer apparently doesn’t:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003406.html#003406
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003163.html#003163
So, if you want your country’s borders secured, and you want immigration to proceed in an orderly, legal way, so that the national government can know who is coming and going, you are now a racist?
Interesting leap to a conclusion not justified by any facts.
BTW, Jeff, I’m not saying that’s your view, just that of Mr. Greenwald and Co., if I understand him correctly.
Ad hominnen attacks are the last defence of the intelectually bankrupt.
We are supposed to surrender in abject shame at the very mention of that charge.
It seems to me border security is largely attacking symptoms rather than the root problems. We obviously need to stop pandering to non-workers, but we also need to discuss why we have such a huge black market for labor and address this issue.
What we ought to do is seal the borders, carefully limit immigration and do nothing with the illegals.
Then we ought to make it unbearably painful to hire them.
As in $25,000 fine per incident. We’d make a fortune off Pelosi alone.
A good start and their qualifications for welfare support?
There is a two fold problem here. One is “border security” as it relates to terrorism and the other is illegal aliens as it relates to the economic concerns.
The only way I see to attack the first is to support the “wall” concept, with adequate personnel be it border guards or NG.
The second problem, IMHO is easy to address by cutting off the source of employment. If we make it economic suicide for employers to hire illegal aliens, they won’t hire them. There is then no incentive to enter the country. Make it a fine of $10,000 per illegal plus double the wages paid to that person and add jail time to 2nd and subsequent offenses. Earmark the $10,000 for border security and the “wages” fine to the state where apprehended.
We do not have to deport. The illegals will self deport when they can no longer find work.
B Moe
Excellent point. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on this.
I can tell you from my personal experience why it is attractive to hire illegals. First of all there is the “off the books” compensation that the employer benefits from. If the going rate for the type of employment is $17.00 per hr and the employer has to pay the matching SS and Medicare, workmen’s comp, SUTA & FUTA that pushes the “compensation package” to roughly $21.00 per hr.
Hiring someone “off the books” at $11 or $12 per hour, there is no additional payments, so an employer gets almost two employees for the price of one.
Plus if you factor in the overtime equation it is even more attractive to hire illegals. Most are eager to work as many hours as you will let them, at their standard rate.(No time and a half) This is especially attractive to employers in the trades (construction) as they are often under deadline to complete a job.
I expect (in this area) that if INS “raided” the drywall and roofing trades, a majority of the employees would be illegal.
I forgot to mention also that the “work ethic” of the illegals is far superior. They come to work on time, every day, ready and willing to work. AND they work hard.
Our problem is not really illegal immigration; that is just a symptom of the problem. The real issue is that we have an unrealistic immigration policy coupled with a failure to assimilate immigrants [regardless of their legal status], and with a foolish determination to give the rights, privileges and protections of US citizenship to resident aliens.
The solutions are not easy, but they are obvious. First: stop giving free education, medical care, and other ‘welfare’ benefits to non-citizens. Second: Establish realistic immigration quotas from neighboring countries, especially Mexico. Third: End the PC garbage of multi-culturalism and return to the idea of actually assimilating immigrants. So long as we enable immigrants to risist assimilation, they will do so; as it is the course of least resistance.
Conduct all official business in English. Teach all classes [except foreign language classes] in English. Make no allowances for inability to speak English.
Voila! Two generations hence you have Americans of Mexican descent, NOT Mexican Americans.
Jeff: I think I see how you could infer from my post that I believe many immigration hawks are racists.
I don’t know how you managed to infer that I believe, or wanted to suggest, that they all are.
You’re free to impute a secret agenda to me if you want, but you might not want to do it in the same post that takes Glenn Greenwald to task for his alleged attributions of bad faith.
(Speaking of which: Could you point me to the post that contains “his ‘theory’ on the Bush Kultists who ‘defend’ the President’s ‘clearly illegal’ NSA program, which does not allow for any disagreement in interpretation of law, but rather rests on the conclusion that supporters are mere Bush fetishists”?)
My thoughts on it are extremely flammable and political suicide. I think government mandates have pushed the legal minimum wage up far beyond what the actual minimum wage should be. An hours work is worth what it is worth, when government tries to legislate value, bad things happen.
Here is the post you’re looking for, Jesse. No sensible person could blame you for declining to take Jeff’s word about it, in light of Greenwald’s remarkable lack of embarrassment in the face of the spectacular disconfirming evidence before us at the moment.
TW: to err is human; to pretend you haven’t, Greenwaldian.
Free trade for thee but not for me.
IGNORE ACTHOLE
Absolutely! English-only in schools and government offices.
I just got my ballot for the June 6 California election: printed in English, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Thai and for all I know, freaking Hmong.
I’ve always considered it a mark of courtesy to learn at least a few simple phrases when I visit a foreign country (y’know: “Oi, I’ll have a pasty and a pint, wonneye?” “Schlaffen-zie mit die soldaten, fraulein?” “¿Donde es la mujer con el burro?”) so it only seems reasonable to expect them to reciprocate if they want to live here.
Thanks, Paul. I’ve actually seen that one before, but I didn’t realize it was the post Jeff had in mind: I had assumed he was referring to the more recent NSA revelations. But now that I’ve reread what Jeff wrote, I see that he didn’t specify which NSA program he meant.
I agree that Greenwald’s post painted his critics in overly broad strokes. I also think it raised some very valid points about the Red half of the Red Team/Blue Team mentality. If he had honed in on the people who deserved criticism and not spoken so sweepingly, I wouldn’t have had any problems with his essay.
Oh, there’s a bit more wrong than just overbreadth. Even if Greenwald hadn’t mentioned anyone but Malkin in the “cultist” post, it still would have been rubbish.
What if its your own country?
well in that case they should know how to say those things,
Ho, hum . . . another day, another Jeff Goldstein post purporting to summarize what I think without providing even so much as a single link to anything I actually wrote. The only thing worth commenting on (and just barely, at that), is this:
This can be described only as wholesale fiction. I don’t think that most people who are opposed to illegal immigration are racists, and I don’t equate a desire for border enforcement measures with racist views. I think there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the stream of illegal immigrants into the country which have nothing whatsoever to do with race.
Some people fueling the anti-immigration train are motivated by racist sentiments; but most aren’t. To suggest that I believe otherwise – as Jeff did – requires a willingness to make things up and attribute them to people due to an inability to understand and refute what they actually argue. That’s why one can find that cheap and lazy tactic right here on an almost daily basis.
The “theory” in my post about why immigration has suddenly taken center stage for many on the Right had nothing whatsoever to do with claims about racism. That the majority of Jeff’s “response” focused on attacking non-existent claims of racism provides a pretty fair reflection both of Jeff’s intellectual honesty as well as his ability to comprehend other people’s arguments.
First of all I agree with the linked article that see republicans as self immolating over illegal immigration.
The hatred shown the President over his views on it are astounding.
Illegal immigration started the first day we closed the border. Families were split up, small towns divided and people did what they always do when confronted with such things… they ignored the imaginary line. Why trek 20 miles to the border checkpoint when grandma lives 200 yards away across the border? So they hassle you about crossing back and forth… move grandma to this side… done.
Prohibition started the smuggling tradition with the tequileros filling the demand.
Then we had the bracero programs that started to fill farm jobs left vacant be men going of to fight WWII.
I’ve seen lots of studies that claim illegals contribute minimally to our economy… some of them were linked in earlier comments.
Agriculture is a very price sensitive industry. A few cents per unit or less is the difference between letting it rot vs. profit. Double the labor price to pick and process and the farmer lose money per unit. If this continues, farming is no longer viable and agriculture moves south to Mexico, Chile and overseas.
One of the studies linked shows a 7.8% drop in net. Doesn’t seem like much unless net margins are 5%… and if it is your money. Losing 2.8% is the fast road to bankruptcy.
I will do a simple inaccurate exercise as an illustration (I’m late for work in the construction industry here in Southern Cal… I’ll be happily speaking spanish soon)
They say there are 12 million illegals.
That whole charade about “most work for cash, pay no taxes… blah blah blah” is nonsense. Most pay $50 for fake documents and most employers accept those. No INS fines, no workers comp lawsuits. Win win.
But even if only 6 million are on the books and with the increased wage and benefits package you’d need to attract one of the 4.7% unemployed in this country (and some of those 4.7% are totally unemployable and will always be.. right? So productivity would be down)
So to hire a new previously umemployed person figure it’d add $5 an hour to every job for wages, taxes, Workers comp, liability insurance. (I’m adding $5 because these American under or unemployed didn’t show up earlier and I want a wage incentive to make sure they come)
That is an increase of $30M an hour or $240M a day or almost a billion a week in the concentrated industries that rely on illegal labor.
Doesn’t seem like much unless it is *your* industry. Most businesses would be willing to absorb an increase if they recieved an increase in productivity. They won’t. Remember unemployment is 4.7% and many of those are unemployed for good reasons.
So labor costs go up, productivity down. Net cost increase to buyer is way out of proportion.
Buyer decides not to buy after all.
I’ve read that if the state of California was a country it’d rank in the top fifteen of world economies. California has an enormous agribusiness component to its economy. My small county does about $1B in ag and we aren’t even into it. Illegals are over 80% of the ag workforce here. Ditto most labor intensive construction trades.
The ripple effect of combining higher labor costs and lower productivity would cripple these two industries and would greatly effect California’s ability to drive it’s large part of the nations economy.
George Bush isn’t dumb. His economic advisors get it. Emotions aside, the illegals hold integral roles in the stability of certain key segments of the economy.
By the way… Tyson, Cargill, ADM, the construction industry, other ag business…. they hire people with false documents more for the productivity than the low entry level wage.
If you offer a hispanic immigrant a job at $9 an hour with a pick and shovel he’ll bust ass for 8 hours (if he’s lazy the others won’t cover for him either… they’ll ostracize him and then congratulate you for firing him.) If he is smart and good he will insinuate himself into operation of machinery or into carrying the drywall and then into installing, Then into supervision. Construction has a lot of illegals in good paying jobs…. that earned their way up from the bottom nthe old fashioned way. If you remove these illegals you lose all the training and experience as well. Like taking all the non commissioned officers out of the Marines. You can’t just plug in a Sgt.
You can argue they shouldn’t be there in the first place, but fact is they are here. They used fake documents to get the job and by work ethic and skills they excelled. Penalizing the unknowing owner of a company by depriving he or she of their best employees also would have a huge impact.
Picking strawberries seems a no brainer… but do it wrong and you cost the farmer $$. If you have wholesale turnover of employees, the farmer has to go out and personally train one hundred new pickers. Before, the other experienced pickers did that… productivity will disappear for that picking cycle at least. Since ag is always on a credit thread, you’d see farm failure.
Go ahead and laugh it off… but Bush’s economic advisors know the ripple effect it would have on California, Florida. so they won’t let it happen. And the Republican rank and file are too deafened by all the racist noise from the fringe.
They do. But not in english. its not like we have a statute declaring what people must speak.
*They do. But not in english. its not like we have a statute declaring what people must speak.*
But we should. Sadly, we need one. Assimilation involves learning a language and a culture. The “protests” were evidence that the illegals have no desire to assimilate- they just want our money.
Look no further than France to see the dangers of attempting to accomodate rather than assimilate.
Thank you, Steve G. That adds an interesting perspective.
That’s just the sort of thing one would expect, coming from a Bush authoritarian-cultist.
That would seem to be a pretty basic violation of the first amendment. Restricting what words you can or cannot use?
And one day we’ll learn all about San Juan. But untill everyone learns spanish enough to see all of america, passing laws to make us learn spanish aren’t isn’t going to work.
Passing laws to make English the official language just might make actus understandable, though. Probably not, but there’s a chance.
GG is upset Jeff didn’t link to him:
So let’s link to him. And blockquote from it:
Yeah, I can’t imagine how Jeff got that so wrong. When GG addressed “many on the Right” who thrive on Hating and demonizing Mexicans, he was actually suggesting that most people fueling the anti-immigration train are not motivated by racist sentiments. I don’t know how Jeff blew that one so badly.
Interestingly, its France that passes laws on official language and official words.
When GG addressed “many on the Right†who thrive on Hating and demonizing Mexicans, he was actually suggesting that most people fueling the anti-immigration train are not motivated by racist sentiments.
No, no. What Glenn is actually referring to is the Many On The Right that ARE motivated by…well, we won’t give it a name, will we? In other words, Glenn is engaging in tautology: I’m referring to only the people I’m referring to. You know, those folks who do that thing they do? I’m not going to tell you who they are, or what they’re doing, but they are Many, I assure you, and it’s bad.
Next thing you know, those Many will be “transmitting” these ideas to the entire Right Blogosphere, after suitably denuding them of any overtly racist tone.
And Malkin is so bored with the War that she managed to blog on it four times in the last four days.
Greenwald continues to try to sidestep what he (and Walker, too, evidently) clearly believe: that those on the “right” who are vocally anti-immigration are mostly unreconstructed haters of the type who need a constant enemy.
Greenwald fails to note that it was Walker who saw the parallels in Greenwald’s piece between the “many” Glenn described and nativist and racist sentiments after WWI. Which is why I quoted Walker’s summary of Greenwald’s argument.
But one must wonder how exactly Jesse got the idea? Perhaps he can’t read or understand his opponents arguments either, eh Glenn?
And Jesse? I’m aware that you left your language ambiguous enough to give yourself an out. And I never said accused you of believing “all” vocal immigration reform proponents were racist (I believe I wrote “vast majority”). And I chose “vast majority” because I believe your post is designed to leave the impression that there is something quite compelling about this Greenwaldian argument that the immigration reform movement is being helmed overwhelming by haters—whom you then tether to ideas about nativism and racism.
If you don’t want to seem so willing to believe the worst about people, you should take more care to separate out who it is you’re talkng about.
That goes for Greenwald, too, but as I noted in the post, I expect more out of Reason than out of guy whose blogospheric reputation is built on sweeping (and often competing) generalizations about his political opponents.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the absolutely most stupidest six words ever typed at protein wisdom.
One of the studies linked shows a 7.8% drop in net. Doesn’t seem like much unless net margins are 5%… and if it is your money. Losing 2.8% is the fast road to bankruptcy.
I have to ask, who cares? The taxpayers have to subsidize this system. It isn’t the farmers covering the health care or education costs of these immigrants. We could subsidize any number of businesses to guarantee a profit to their owners but who would want to? When “Operation Wetback” (I know, the name is not PC today, but that is what it was called) was launched a few decades ago, it didn’t spell doom for the farming industry even though farmers at the time argued it would. Instead, it lead to greater mechanization in the farming industry. It has been shown time and again that farmers resist increased mechanization because of reliance on cheap labor from illegal immigrants. These immigrants have costs and consequences for our society running far beyond their immediate economic value to farmers. Nobody on the opposite side of the debate ever wants to address these issues. They just keep reiterating the same old arguments that rely on seeing the issue in the the same narrow economic scope.
No, no. What Glenn is actually referring to is the Many On The Right that ARE motivated by…well, we won’t give it a name, will we?
This is interesting. I would like to hear some examples of the racism Glenn keeps referring to. I am tired of the label ‘racist’ being applied to anybody and everybody who points out the negative consequences of immigration. Lets hear it, Glenn.
Verc,
You gotta quit giving him “atta boys”.
You said “vast majority” later in the post, Jeff, but earlier you summarized me like so:
the “parallels are striking†between today’s border control advocates (folks I might call, “people who are in support of current immigration laws, and who are upset that those laws are rarely enforced”) and those persons for whom†“nativist and racist sentiment.. surged following the first world war.â€Â
That’s a bit more sweeping, no? But obviously I wasn’t suggesting that just anyone who wants more immigration enforcement is equivalent to the 1920s Klan.
(And no, I don’t think the “vast majority” are, either.)
rls, I intended to stop when actus would hit rock-bottom. But then I see firedoglake and Hamscher’s vagina, GG and Mona storm in, dig channels in the shale, form a bucket brigade to lay 200 tons of high explosives, detonate the damn thing, and then dig some more.
Truly, one’s cup runneth over.
But come on, rls. That was priceless. Admit it.
There’s nothing wrong with Mexicans; its the stupid Americans that live in America and speaky American who are too stupid to make America like Mexico that are the problem. He even butchers the English language in making his point. It’s beyond parody.
Certainly not. its the puerto ricans the mess everything up. What with their native spanish american citizenships
Well….you have to realize that English is a second language for it. I know haw hard it is not to piss on it when it unzips your fly and holds your cock for you over its head….and BEGS you to urinate. You just have to be stronger, Verc.
Jesse, Jesse, Jesse, being imprecise leaves you open to all sorts of interpretations.
But, rls, I so ronery…
Karl writes:
Every word Greenwald wrote that you quoted is true. He is not, however, arguing that all people concerned about immigration are racists; he himself last fall wrote a post about the need to do something about the borders and undocumented immigrants. Indeed, I somewhat disagree with him, and am far more Nick Gillespie-esque in my views on immigration.
But something is driving this sudden, raging fury of so many bloggeres at right-wing sites; the phenomenon calls for an explanation. And Greenwald has it correct: they are angry at Bush, and are directing that anger at his failure to deal with the enemy du jour, namely, Mexican immigrants. Their actual anger is over Bush’s manifest failures in every other context, but placing the long-standing problem of immigration at the top of the political issues list –- all of a sudden and for no apparent reason that it should be elevated to a crisis now— allows them to rant about him over an issue where they need not address how much he has failed vis-à-vis policies they supported, and thereby join the vast majority of Americans who are sour on Bush, and who have sent his approval ratings into the basement.
Further, some are racist and hate-driven; not all, but some. Please see my link to one of LaShawn Barber’s authorities that I posted in Jesse’s Reason thread. It is breathtakingly, scandalously racist. She also links approvingly to freakin’ V-dare. (And yeah, I know LaShawn’s ethnic status.)
Last week, John Gibson on Fox went on a long rant about how whites need to start having more babies, or the European strain in America will be overwhelmed; he observed that Hispanics were breeding far more robustly.
All over the right blogosphere you can see rage directed at Mexicans, references to Bush as, e.g., El Presidente, or Jorge, and various other Spanish-ized, snarky references to Bush and his policies. You can also find right bloggeres, like the Anchoress, lamenting some of the hatred and bigotry she detects.
See just this at The Anchoress, the stuff about racist email she is receiving , warnings that all Hispancis are going to get turned off, and also how those who disagree with her call to reason are even lobbing anti-Catholic remarks at her:
http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/05/15/the-immigration-speech/
Her more recent entry includes a link to Glenn Reynolds lament that some on the right are starting to sound like Kossacks— for Instapunidt the ultimate insult, of course.
Nothing Greenwald wrote is wrong that is salient to the main points here—I do not buy his “Bush cult” meme and never have, but that isn’t relevant. In this “time of war,†suddenly, right-wing bloggers are ridiculing and even calling for the impeachment of their presiden( and some of them reveal long-simmering racism). Why do you suppose that is, this sudden, fierce right-wing attack on Bush, if Greenwald’s thesis is not accurate?
all of a sudden and for no apparent reason that it should be elevated to a crisis now
Part of it has been a momentum that has been gradually building since 9/11. Another part has been the fact that the immigration appeasers themselves have brought the issue up. Bush tried to force an amnesty/guest worker program on us before 9/11. Afterwards, he backed down for a while. Now he is back. It is Bush and Co. who have put the issue back on the radar screen. Not the “rapid xenophobic right.” Everyone seems to conveniently forget that.
Now that 9/11 has passed and we have people like Hagel and Martinez that would like our country to accomodate 100 million plus legal immigrants over only twenty years – it certainly is a crisis.
I meant ‘rabid’ not ‘rapid.’
Sure, just as some left-wingers prance naked in the streets in protest.
Not all, mind you, but some.
[…] homophobes [like who, for instance? Fred Phelps?], the woman-haters, the anti-Muslim bigots, and the immigration bigots. You’re part of the same political party as the bigots, you all think of yourselves as part of […]
good work, will back soon, great site congratulation!!