Digging Immigration [Updated]
** Update: Looks like as soon as today, Thursday, it quite literally might be now or never when it comes to immigration reform. The Senate Judiciary Committee, we learn, has chalked up a grand total of about 10 hours this month in its feeble attempt to fashion a meaningful immigration compromise. Most of the Republicans are obstructionist. The Democrats are mostly AWOL. It's rather staggering to assimilate the dawning reality that "the fix" is already in -- that our erstwhile legislators are knowingly going to duck out on this issue and close their eyes to the reality of 12 million people already living here. They've done so for twenty years. I suppose what's another five or ten?
My thumbsucker piece on this month's historic immigration debate is now posted at Bob Scheer's Truthdig.com. Here's how it starts off:
Police in Southern California’s Orange County recently raided a day labor center and hauled off a number of immigrant workers in order to have their legal status checked. In Texas, sheriffs are banding together to guard the U.S.-Mexico border, doing an end run around the Border Patrol. In Arizona, the Democratic governor is dispatching more National Guard units to the state’s southern border to offer “support†to the Border Patrol. In Washington, D.C., the Republican-controlled House has passed a draconian measure calling for the construction of a 700-mile, triple-wall fence at the border. Meanwhile, in Chicago, a hastily organized pro-immigrant rally burgeoned into a street demonstration of 100,000 or more. Indeed, elbowing aside more high-profile issues such as the war in Iraq, the NSA spying scandal and the Abramoff corruption swamp, illegal immigration and proposed comprehensive immigration reform have finally floated to the top of the national legislative agenda. Without much public notice, for the first time in 20 years the U.S. Senate this month is finally debating legislation that could radically change the ways our country deals with immigrants and enforces the laws on the border for decades to come. It’s a moment that reform advocates—from big business to big labor, from church groups to civil liberties organizations—have long been been fighting for. The Senate leadership has given the Judiciary Committee until March 27 to present a bill to be voted on by the whole body. Once approved, that measure would be reconciled with the House measure passed last December and move to the president’s desk for his signature. But just as the Senate finally begins its historic considerations, there’s a sense of foreboding creeping in among reform advocates. As the debate heats ups it seems permeated and distorted by a number of prevailing myths that threaten to derail any forward and much-need movement. Read on...
March 15th, 2006 at 12:38 am
This is a really clear and comprehensive discussion of the issues, Marc. And I hear your calls to both right and left to get over their illusions on this issue. One reason I raised the rhetoric of “open borders” in an earlier post is due to my feeling that the nativism you refer to fuels a lot of the more backwards thinking on the subject, and that it needs to be countered with an understanding that borders are really arbitrary creations and that nationalism (or national chauvinism, which is the way it is usually expressed) is fundamentally reactionary. It also helps to justify the terrible treatment and discrimination that immigrants receive once they do get here, whether legally or illegally. We have the example of the Butcher of the Balkans to see the real heart of nationalism, which is not simply pride in one’s country but a deep rooted feeling that one’s own tribe or clan is superior. Demagogues appeal routinely to this nativism, even though in the US it is a real joke given that we are a nation of immigrants.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:27 am
My comment there:
Biggest truth: “On the other side, Democrats may be unwilling to support Bush if he does decide to come out swinging on border reform.”
Dems are so full of Bush-hate they wouldn’t support anything by him. If Bush really wanted to kill the Dem proposals, he would just mildly support them — and the Dems would denounce him, the Reps would object.
You have the right basis ” Immigrant workers should certainly be legalized, but in return there must be strict work site enforcement. Accepting and supporting a verification system at the point of employment must accompany supporting a channel for legal immigration. ”
But those already here should be fined — like $40 000, payable in small monthly payments (for the rest of their US lives?).
—
But Marc, you fail to mention the language resentment — immigrants and guest workers should be learning English. My suggestion: they pay for lessons, whether they use them or not.
In your discussion of the McCain bill, you mentioned a fine, but not how big. The way to improve the acceptance by the right is to have a BIG fine, like I suggest above. NOT an “amnesty.”
You should know, I *have* a hobby — coming here and ranting a bit. Maybe you’re suggesting I change hobbies.
Also see Neo-neocon’s discussion of another recent post.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:21 am
Marc, for a day or three, I’ll link your post here:
http://bibdaily.com
March 15th, 2006 at 9:04 am
“Demagogues appeal routinely to this nativism, even though in the US it is a real joke given that we are a nation of immigrants.”
Yes since the time of the land bridge when the Mongolians migrated here. The land was a cornucopia of open niches then. It’s a bit different now. There are costs, many of which are ecological. Yet many of the source countries are ravaged by poverty and overpopulation. The land can no longer support them so they do what nomads always have: move on. Ecologists call this the lifeboat effect.
Already housing is out of reach for most Americans. Explain to me how more and more immigrants with large families willing to take a lower standard of living helps quality of life in the country? Borders are legal constructs. It’s ironic though most foreign countries are extremely nativist. Humans have always been territorial, like other species. It’s an evolutionary strategy that’s worked.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:06 am
“Humans have always been territorial, like other species. It’s an evolutionary strategy that’s worked.”
Careful when you cite evolutionary theory around me, Mark, I am a science writer who specializes in the subject! (for samples see the Articles page of my Web site.) Yes, territoriality may have some deep roots, but so does the social cognition that leads to cooperation on an ever global scale, including the internet and the UN. We are a contradictory species, to be sure, but stressing only one side of the contradiction does no credit to the full scope of our evolutionary heritage.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Since no more comments since last time I looked, let me use Europe as an example. An imperfect process, sure, but amazing the way that now 25 countries have arrived at agreements that eventually will make it possible for everyone to work in every country without restrictions. That is already true in the original 12 countries, and nearly true in the first 15. An amazing example of human cooperation when you think of it–again, the accomplishment outweighs the imperfections. And lest someone comment that it only helps the rich or the corporations, definitely not true. Many many ordinary Europeans are taking full advantage of the situation, and the introduction of the Euro has been a real blessing for economic growth and personal freedom as well.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Michael so am I. And also a working biologist for the US Government. If that’s appropriate to include. Social cognition? There is a evolutionary legacy of limited altruism, but the standard bearer is the further away from one’s kinship, the less evolutionary advantage there is. “For the good of the group” may have purchase in sociology, but not in animal behavior and biology. In North America I find the open border solution inadequate as well as disastrous.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
By the way excellent articles. I’ll read them all. So far I’m with Stiner (food utilization over social networks, and Tattersall (humans aren’t evolving e.g. the null hypothesis). It’s excellent journalistic work.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
“Evolution is not directed towards a goal,” says Tyler-Smith. “It always takes the short-term view, operating just on what allows us to survive and reproduce better in this generation.” For now, predicting humanity’s evolutionary future may be little more than crystal ball gazing–better suited to science fiction than scientific research.”
Yes sir.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Well, Mark, I am sure that Marc Cooper and the rest of the bloggers are thrilled to see us discussing evolutionary theory in the middle of this thread about immigration policy, although we both have made it clear why it is relevant! Yet they assent by their silence. What I am getting at, and I assume you would agree, is that a strict reading off of human behavior from narrow evolutionary goals (just what allows us to survive and reproduce better) is not always a good explanation. Richard Dawkins himself, in The Selfish Gene and pretty much all his subsequent books, argued that we were not slaves to our genes and that is what makes humans special. In referring to social cognition, what I mean is that we have evolved a generalized ability to make decisions that go beyond short term goals whether they be genetic or economic, to plan for the future, to make sacrifices and to do things that are not immediately beneficial to ourselves personally–in other words to act globally. Thus humans have taken to the Internet like ducks to water and have become incredibly international in their behaviors rather than simply stick to what is best for their local kin. Despite wars and other behavior that may be more in keeping with selfish genes, we keep expanding into these more cooperative realms at the same time. As I said before, we are a contradictory species and not one that can be simply pegged according to our narrow evolutionary interests. Otherwise we would be out making babies and not having these discussions between people who for the most part have not met (I know Marc of course) and may never do so–an entirely unprecedented development in human behavior that the Internet Age has brought us.
That is not too eloquently put but thanks for the kind words about my articles, where I probably do a better job of it.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
“what I mean is that we have evolved a generalized ability to make decisions that go beyond short term goals whether they be genetic or economic, to plan for the future, to make sacrifices and to do things that are not immediately beneficial to ourselves personally–in other words to act globally.”
I’m struggling to envision this ability. It strikes me the problems we face are because we haven’t. Your articles are very well done and hopefully for a decent paycheck that level of writing should command. They aren’t your original scientific theories though. As you know journalism about science is not actual science. It’s still a he said she said dicotmomy albeit at a much higher level of individual cognition. The social aspect leaves me perplexed.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:12 am
The Great Immigration Debate…
He is half right. No doubt half hearted out of sight out of mind enforcement only measures will not work. However a serious enforcement effort, building an impassable fence along the entire border with proper border guards stationed across its length …
March 16th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Great post Marc!
I have just a few minor disagreements. In the end we are not very far apart at all.
Don’t you think The “Berlin Wall†example you cited is 50 years of proof that a well guarded well built fence will effectively stop illegal immigration and save Mexican lives?
We can not change the root cause of immigration. Only Mexico can. We can help but in the end it is up to Mexicans to change their country.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:33 am
[...] Marc Cooper has a great and long piece posted at Truth Dig today on Illegal Immigration. He has been writing extensively on illegal immigration for some time. Although we may disagree on some points we do agree as most Americans do about one fundamental truth, the border is out of control and needs to be fixed.  [...]
March 16th, 2006 at 8:50 am
“It’s rather staggering to assimilate the dawning reality that ‘the fix’ is already in — that our erstwhile legislators are knowingly going to duck out on this issue and close their eyes to the reality of 12 million people already living here.”
Why should we care what our former legislators are going to do?
Oh, wait. Maybe you didn’t really mean “erstwhile.” This is a mistake lots of people seem to make, using that word as if it meant “estimable.”
March 16th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Dear reader: If you aren’t familiar with immigration matters, you might think Cooper’s article is credible.
However, note that he says that “enforcement-only” hasn’t worked. And, note that while he spends time discussing all the money spent on border security, he doesn’t discuss workplace enforcement.
We do almost no workplace enforcement.
If all we do is border enforcement, and we do almost no workplace enforcement, then it’s not accurate to say that “enforcement-only” hasn’t worked.
In other words, Cooper is misleading you.
March 20th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Michael & Mark, I like reading your little agreements and disagreements on society.
“It always takes the short-term view, operating just on what allows us to survive and reproduce better in this generation.†For now, predicting humanity’s evolutionary future may be little more than crystal ball gazing–better suited to science fiction than scientific research.â€
The Feminism and pro-abortion “meme,” that Dawkins might discuss, suggests a pro-choice culture for women. In France I’ve heard that some 30% of the people under age 20 are not “French” — they’re French citizens of immigrant parents, mostly Muslims.
In the US, the “Roe” effect means some 44 mil. babies were NOT born to mostly pro-choice mothers.
Well, the illegals are partially making up the difference. I’d be mildly in favor of an amnesty, and even open borders (“Give me your tired, your poor, yearning to breathe free…”) But then the US welfare system would break. Of course, I’d be willing to give up the welfare system, too.
I’d prefer those who want to “help the poor” to be more involved in offering them jobs.
The unasked, and thus unanswered question about any possible immigration solution: how many does that mean?
July 20th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte poker zeigen ?nqw
July 24th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
July 5th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Lu…
…