GOP Punts on Immigration
It used to be that Republicans -- if nothing else-- could create the illusion that they were the Daddy Party. You might not like what they do, but at least they're adult enough to get things done [insert laugh track here].
But now after two decades of inaction by both parties, and after a year of much of their own membership running around and pulling out their hair over a manufactured crisis of illegal immigration, the Big Daddys in the GOP have decided to go out and putter in the garage instead of tackling the issue head-on.
Says today New York Times:
As they prepare for a critical pre-election legislative stretch, Congressional Republican leaders have all but abandoned a broad overhaul of immigration laws and instead will concentrate on national security issues they believe play to their political strength...A final decision on what do about immigration policy awaits a meeting this week of senior Republicans. But key lawmakers and aides who set the Congressional agenda say they now believe it would be politically risky to try to advance an immigration measure that would showcase party divisions and need to be completed in the 19 days Congress is scheduled to meet before breaking for the election.
Let me translate that into plain English for you: Republicans have decided it is more important to maintain a veneer of party unity than it is to work on a problem that keeps 12 million American workers in a permanent state of limbo.
Why am I not suprised? Of course, this will now allow Democrats to parade around pointing their finger at the Republicans for their unconscionable inaction on this issue. Fair enough, that's what politics is all about, isn't it? That the Democrats also sat on their hands on this issue for 20 years and it actually took none other than George W. Bush to re-open this debate two years ago will conveniently not be mentioned, thank you very much.
I suppose the short-to-medium-term effect of this paralysis is an extension of the status quo. The impotent Republicans will continue to jump up and down and publicly froth over the Mexican invasion of the U.S. The Democrats will have some more time to pretend they are the resolute defenders of the disenfranchised immigrants. And the immigrants themselves will continue to change the diapers, cut the lawns, wash the cars, pluck the chickens and pick the grapes for the usual sub-standard wage and with no hope of any legal recognition of their existence.
Perfect, no?
September 5th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
People will say that immigrants have made a lot of money, but that measure is based on their poor country’s standard of living; interestingly, if they were deported and given their country’s currency equivalent of what they earned here, most would not feel as oppressed when they arrived back home (assuming their was no political trouble then and none when they return).
They faced hardships I’ll never feel but honestly, they still don’t have the right to say I’ll stay on your land and because I’m hiding all state services for me will be billed to you…thanks for offloading your hardships of the move on me….no really - thanks.
Their gumption is not paying off. The reactionaries (count me in) still have too much selfishness in their blood.
But the laws against them won’t help the economy - it’ll just hurt them. So rationally, supporting ‘em when they come by is the best that can be done. The president himself hinted at a plan I’d like to see happen: Come out of the closet and pay your taxes, and you’ll be a US citizen. Of course, that’s a fine line; it has to come from ‘ol prez himself. Now that his support base for that is cowering, the president will flip-flop.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Immigration is an issue that cuts so many that it is not surprising that no one wants to touch it. The last time, Simpson-Mazzoli, was such a fiasco than everyone feels burned by it. Bush wants guest workers so his big business friend can get cheap labor for those jobs that cannot be hustled overseas. The GOP base doesn’t like “furriners” - never have. There has always been a nativist streak in the country. And the Dems want the issue since action would alienate some - as the GOP has found out.
A real solution would involve a lot more than the border or “la Migra”. It would involve relooking at NAFTA and other trade deals. It would look at US Labor Laws. And it would look at the unfunded madates that immigration has imposed on states like California and Arizona that have increasing strains on the already weak social net without any Federal aid. In short this an issue that is a lot more complex than your “Opn borders” mantra, Marc (That is what your position amounts to) and I don’t the current political climate is mature enough to confron it.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Amen…
September 5th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
I’m curious. I left a post on the last thread and a comment appeared next to my name saying “Awaiting moderation”. Now its gone. So why was my post disappeared down the memory hole? Did I offend the Gods of the Copybook Headings?
September 5th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
The illegal immigrant amnesty movement has lost steam. The lack of the enthusiasm in the Labor Day marches is noticeable when compared with those on May Day past.
The latest economic studies from the Center for Immigration Studies and the Congressional Budget office have shown that the American taxpayer will suffer severe economic repercussions should amnesty be granted through the Senate bill. See Immigration’s Impact On American Workers,Testimony Prepared for the House Judiciary Committee, August 29, 2006,Steven A. Camarota
Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/sactestimony082906.html and Testimony on the Budgetary Impact of Current and Proposed Border Security and Immigration Policies, August 30, 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7501/s2611spass.pdf.
Lou Dobbs campaign has proven very effective in getting the word out about the disastrous affects of amnesty on the American people. With every day that passes, the truth about the horrendous Senate sell-out to special interest illegal immigrant groups gets out to more and more of the citizenry.
The Republican congress, while unscrupulous by nature, knows which way the winds of popular opinion blow. If they do nothing else this year, passing a tough anti-illegal immigration bill will rank among the most important pieces of legislation passed during Bush’s presidency, albeit without that clown’s approval.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Awaiting moderation means that the blog server thinks its too long or some such - its happened to me a few times.
While I am probably more pro-open borders than even Marc, I agree with RLC that the wave of immigration coming north has to do with profound inequalities and stunted development as a result of American style capitalism and trade agreements.
This is a reason to wish AMLO well. Another Mexico is possible.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
We can debate the immigration issue, but let’s do it honestly. The post by George Williams is dishonest. The Center for Immigration Studies is an anti immigration advocacy group, and the budget report deals mostly with the cost of implementing new legislation and not the cost to taxpayers of the immigrants themselves.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
btw the CIS testimony linked to by Williams does not at all deal with the effects that pending legislation would have on taxpayers. It would appear that some commenters here simply use links to make it appear that they have some support for their arguments, again a very dishonest tactic no matter what the merits of their arguments. Links should either be to reliable and authoritative factual support for arguments made or they should be clearly labeled as advocacy positions, and they should be characterized accurately. I think this is the least we can expect if debates are to be honest.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
While I am at this, I would also mention that a reading of the CBO document Williams links to would seem to indicate that the increased spending caused by the Senate bill would be offset by increased revenues over the estimated period. I do not claim expertise here, but some advocacy groups have pointed this out, see eg this link and you can find many more such analyses by Googling. Note that I indicate clearly that I am linking to an advocacy group. However, there may be a prima facie case that those who maintain that the Senate bill would have severe consequences for taxpapers are painting a distorted picture.
http://tinyurl.com/g25gk
September 5th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
*Sigh* … as with energy policy, the situation will drift along until a crisis forces the issue. Crises do that. After all, energy policy as such hardly even existed in the U.S. until … until ….
Eureka!
Here’s an idea: What if Latin America, and other regions that supply us with so much cheap labor, were to form … the Organization of Peon Exuding Nations (OPEN)? Their claim on our coffers: most illegal immigrants are, in effect, tax cheats. They make money in the U.S., repatriate much of it to their family members, largely bypassing the national treasuries on both sides. So we’re sheltering tax cheats! That’s a crime! An *international* crime!
The Organization of Peon Exuding Nations could perform periodic surveys determining approximately how much money their “exported” labor was making away from home, what the tax receipts should be in their home countries, and then bill the U.S. government (or for that matter, any government that economically relies on undocumented foreign workers) for the balance due. If no payment is forthcoming, they raise trade barriers, and take the difference out in tariffs.
Hah! I knew there had to be a solution.
I also knew it probably wouldn’t emerge from American voters or their representatives.
Debate immigration reform all you want, but I think only powerful external forces massed against our government can break the stalemate. Democracies just can’t do certain things very well. And one of them is, representing the interests of people who can’t vote.
I wonder what Kofi Annan is planning to do after stepping down from his present position of Secretary General of the U.N.? I hereby nominate him as chairman of the Organization of Peon Exuding Nations. We gotta get this thing started off on the right foot. It’s an idea who time has come. Why mess around with execution risk? Employ proven leadership.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:48 am
Better inaction than another amnesty fiasco.
The Dems are stuck in multi-culti fantasyland (and will pander for minority votes they can’t get among majority family people). The WSJ types want cheap labor and to hell with the rules.
Bush, for all his vaunted “national security” emphasis, can’t, or better, won’t get control of the border or enforce employer sanctions.
Once we get control of the border, perhaps we can afford to be generous with those who are here, who (mostly) came to earn an honest living, which they couldn’t do at home. If we are generous without border control, we are inviting 4 billion Third World poor to come mow our lawns, watch our kids, pick our fruit and cut up our barbecue.
Once again, bipartisan fecklessness and a refusal to ask hard questions.
September 6th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Gee Balter,
I guess it’s difficult for you to infer from the CBO report that there will be an impact to taxpayers due to the increase in federal spending of between 54 to 66 billion dollars after implementation of the Comprehensive Immigration Act. Maybe we’ll it will be offset by taxes from illegal immigrants who typically live below the povery level and pay no income taxes at all.
September 6th, 2006 at 5:47 am
And Balter,
The CIS study presented under oath as testimony to Congress. Can the same be said of advocacy group reports? Before you are so dismissive of their reports maybe you’d like to point out any fallicies for us. I’d trust the CIS before I would the self-serving advocacy groups who are more interested in their own narrow constituencies than the general good of this nation.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:02 am
George, you’re not referring to this
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/72xx/doc7208/s2611.pdf
by any chance?
The increase in federal spending of around $60b was not annual, but over about a decade. So do a little math: it works out to about $20 per American per year. Or about 8 cents per person working day. Staggering, eh? God, how will we survive this parasitic onslaught?
As badly gouged as the taxpayers might be, there’s a silver lining: by the CBO’s estimate, added tax receipts will more than cover expenses:
“In total, over the 2007-2016 period, JCT estimates that receipts from income
and payroll taxes would increase by $62.1 billion, of which $14.3 billion would be offbudget
revenues from Social Security taxes.”
The effect of GDP growth was projected by the CBO to be about 0.3% positive. And what is GDP of the U.S.? It’s …
Oh hell, why am *I* always the one who has to look facts up? Look it up yourself!
If you’re trying to prove that passage of this bill would be a disaster, you cited the wrong source.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:04 am
Gee Williams, maybe you had better read the CBO report you linked to before mouthing off here, because it says right in it that there will be an offset from the increased revenues created by immigration if a small drafting mistake is corrected–which it now has been.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:10 am
In fact, by linking to this report and then drawing entirely the wrong conclusions to it, you only reinforce the impression that much of the overheated rhetoric about the effects of immigration is based on lies. And the CIS report you link to hardly supports your position either, as in fact, despite the fact that CIS is an anti-immigration advocacy group as I described it, the essence of that testimony is a much more subtle and nuanced analysis of the effect on American workers than you make it out to be. In concluding that immigration only effects the wages of the most unskilled workers, while raising that of all others, the report opens the possibility that if the illegals were made legal their wages would necessarily rise too, as they would be harder to exploit–their illegal status being the main hold that employers have over them.
As I say, debate immigration all you want, but stop lying about it.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I just can’t see the net benefit to our country by adding millions to a Social Security system that’s heading towards bankruptsy. It’s a well known fact that people on the lowest end of the wage scale get more out than they put in. By that measure, additional beneficiaries can only worsen the problem. Furthermore, I can’t see how millions of additional poor living below the povery level can avoid collecting Earned Income Tax Credits or food stamps or ever contribute to the treasury in support of government infrastructure and services. Almost all would receive their income tax deductions back as refunds. The working poor with families will always tend to be subsidized by the middile class.
With the current competition between our citizen poor for ever scarce resources, it is beyond my understanding why we would even consider adopting a huge number of foreign nationals that would squeeze them even further.
It is senseless to adopt millions that will contribute little to our national goal to increase our literacy rate and become a more technically savvy country in an ever more competitive world.
Mexico is a failed state. Why we would continue to enable that failed status by serving as a relief valve for their unhappy population is beyond my ken. It is up to the Mexican people to change that, but in all the history of revolutions, none ever took place when the potential revolutionaries fled the field. Imagine how different history would be if our forefathers moved to Mexico rather than confront their English oppressor.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
George Williams “writes”:
“I just can’t see the net benefit to our country by adding millions to a Social Security system that’s heading towards bankruptsy.”
It isn’t.
http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html
“The working poor with families will always tend to be subsidized by the middile class.”
The middle class also subsidizes the middle class. What do you think the public education system is?
It’s not just about what goes in–it’s about what comes out too. If I pay less at a store because the “working poor” are somewhat subsidized, and can thus get by on lower wages, that leaves me more money left over to spend on other things.
“Subsidy” isn’t synonymous with “rathole”. For example, you’re currently paying a subsidized price for gasoline–the price at the pump doesn’t include the cost of militarily securing foreign reserves, which you pay in taxes.
“… it is beyond my understanding …”
A lot of things seem to be beyond your understanding. Hence, you selectively cite a CBO report that actually undermines the very point you were trying to make, because … it’s beyond your understanding. Or you think is, anyway. Or maybe you’re just too lazy to read it thoroughly.
“It is senseless to adopt millions that will contribute little to our national goal to increase our literacy rate and become a more technically savvy country in an ever more competitive world.”
Or–it’s senseless to evict illegals to make lots of low-wage, low-skill jobs available to citizens who might otherwise look more carefully about how they could become more technically savvy and help the U.S. compete in our ever more competitive world.
There are several ways to look at it, but you can’t see many of them until you take off the ideological blinkers. You might be too lazy to do that.
“Mexico is a failed state.”
If you think so, you’re a failed intellect. Or–maybe you’re just too lazy. Too lazy to go look at Mexico’s GDP growth figures, its rising literacy rate, its plummeting infant mortality rate.
I go with “too lazy”. It’s synonymous with “failed intellect” anyway.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Excellent work, Michael, and I am afraid that to all that I have to add racist. Williams thinks that immigrants from Mexico are always doomed to be inferior even if they are legalized and have the same opportunities as everyone else to advance themselves. Reading over what he just wrote is a classic walk through the logic of a racist.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:13 am
Turner, Balter,
The middle class also subsidizes the middle class. What do you think the public education system is?
It’s not just about what goes in–it’s about what comes out too. If I pay less at a store because the “working poor” are somewhat subsidized, and can thus get by on lower wages, that leaves me more money left over to spend on other things.
Actually, when the middle class subsidizes the middle class it’s called paying one’s way, something that illegal immigrants cannot hope to do unless some miracle comes their way.
You’re paying less at the stores because unscrupulous employers are exploiting illegal immigrants by paying them less wages than a U.S. citizen. I suppose that you condone that?
Mexicans may not be doomed to stay poor forever, but it will take generations because it’s difficult to find time to improve one’s lot in life while working at a subsistence level wage. You people are unreal with you expectations. Many of our poor spend generations in poverty, yet you somewhow think that the poor Mexican farm worker will be different.
Speaking of poor, you never addressed the issue of adding new competitors for scarce resources available to low income familie, the poor. The pie will likely stay the same but you would cavalierly add to the number consuming it by putting the welfare of Mexican nationals before that of citizens.
Your reference to inferior is somethiing that’s been in the back of your base mind Balter, not mine. Character assassination is the resort of those who would surpress frank discussion. Despite your cynical assumptions, this is not about race but about economics and putting the welfare of Americans before that of foreign nationals.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:36 am
“Character assassination is the resort of those who would surpress frank discussion.”
I’m not suppressing frank discussion, we are having a frank discusion. And frankly, I think your views are largely based on racism. If your character is questionable, that is your fault not mine.
September 7th, 2006 at 7:14 am
“….and I am afraid that to all that I have to add racist.”
No you’re not Michael. I’m surprised it took so long this time. Was George making too good an argument against your open borders for the USA, or I think it’s no border internationalist sillyness in you’re case.
And what to hell would a white upper-class man-without-a-country know or care about borders, the poor, the colored, and the laborer. You’ve never had any first hand contact with any of them and exibite all the characteristic of upper-class white guilt.
September 7th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Why always the assumption the immigrant is earning pay below the market level? I live in rural north Georgia and I pay a high-school kid $9 an hour to work in my yard. Most of the poultry plants start people at rates above $8 an hour. While this isn’t great money it certainly isn’t taking advantage of the workers. Throw in a little overtime and mom and dad bring home $40,000 a year and this in an area where nice starter homes can be bought for a $100,000 +/- .
September 7th, 2006 at 8:25 am
You boys from LA, LA Land might try your hand at countering this argument against illegal immigration from the Ethics Scoreboard.
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list.html
The Ethics of Illegal Immigration
(12/4/2005)
There are certain issues that breed rationalizations, as citizens of good heart and sound mind nonetheless twist their ethical judgement into grotesque shapes to avoid confronting unpleasant certitudes of right and wrong. One of these is the matter of illegal immigration. The ethical verdict could not be more clear-cut or unambiguous. Illegal immigration is illegal. It is unfair. It is dangerous. It is bad social policy. It is, in short, wrong. And yet editorial pages and talking heads and interest group advocates will defend illegal immigration, or more accurately, argue against any meaningful measures to control it without appearing to notice that their arguments are ethically absurd.
Take the venerable Washington Post. In a recent editorial attacking local chapters of the Minutemen, the citizens group that has set out to patrol U.S. borders, the Post alleged that “undocumented workers” (a shamelessly misleading cover-word for “illegal immigrants,” the term that focuses attention on the real issue rather than away from it) are necessary to do essential low-paying jobs that citizens in the Washington, D.C. area will not do. Though hardly original, a more intellectually dishonest argument would be difficult to imagine. If companies can’t get citizens to do “essential” jobs at the wages they pay, then the solution is to pay enough so the jobs become attractive, not to exploit illegal immigrants to keep the costs artificially low. What a fine bargain the Post is endorsing: we let you break our laws, and you let us pay you at an unfair level that our own people won’t tolerate. Ethical? Two wrongs may not make a right, but they sure can keep the economy humming, right guys?
Then there’s this classic policy rationalization, which the Ethics Scoreboard hereupon dubs “The Policy Shrug”: “If you can’t stop something, you might as well decide that’s it’s right.” From premarital sex, childbirth out of wedlock, recreational drugs, gambling, prostitution and abortion, to using foul language in public, driving ten miles an hour over the speed limit on the Interstate and dressing like a slob in the office, any arguably wrong or destructive or socially undesirable behavior that is difficult to control will generate defenders who argue that since it’s going to happen anyway, we might as well give our ethical instincts a quick realignment and decide it’s a good thing. Good comes from futility: what a concept! And what a crock. A culture cannot abandon its values to mob ethics, and the culture that does is on a fast track to oblivion.
The application of the “Policy Shrug” to illegal immigration was eloquently demonstrated in an op-ed piece by one of the nation’s experts on immigration, Princeton sociology professor Douglas Massey. Massey chides the U.S. for beefing up its Border Patrol at the most popular and easiest points of entry for illegal immigrants, because it forced the flow of “migrants” (his word: heaven forbid that people who break U.S. laws should have a pejorative description attached to them) to more remote and dangerous areas, resulting in more deaths and more illegal immigration. Moreover, Massey says, where once many “seasonal workers” (translation: illegal immigrants ) would return to Mexico, now they tend to stay in the U.S. because repeat trips are too risky. Concludes Massey: “Instead of attempting to stop the cross border movement of workers through unilateral police actions, we should bring these flows of people above board, legalize them and manage them in ways that minimize the costs and maximize the benefits for all concerned.” In other words, it’s too difficult to stop the crime of entering our country illegally, so we should make it legal. The fact that a scholar like Massey can’t do any better than this is telling. He actually argues that the U.S. is at fault for the deaths of illegal immigrants attempting risky entry because the Border Patrol has made it more difficult to break the law at safe, convenient illegal entry points! He absolves Mexico from all responsibility for the illegal acts of its citizens, much to the detriment of its northern ally, when in fact that government has encouraged outlaw migrants rather than address its own social and economic problems. And his policy “solution,” essentially an open border between the U.S. and Mexico, is no solution at all.
The Ethics Scoreboard is not a policy website. It is not the Scoreboard’s function to weigh in on immigration policy, except to say this: any policy must begin by being clear about right and wrong. The United States has a right and an obligation to control its borders and decide the conditions under which people entering the country can stay here. Those entering the country illegally are breaking the law. That is wrong. Such individuals, no matter how one rationalizes their motives or how much one sympathizes with their plight, are taking U.S. resources from its public, jumping in line in front of legal immigrants, artificially keeping U.S. wages low, and creating social problems. The U.S. should not be hesitant to enforce the laws of the land, mete out serious punishment, including imprisonment of its officers and employees, to businesses that hire illegals, insist on cooperation from Mexico, and change inconsistent policies that have the effect of rewarding law-breakers. These could include changing the law so that children born of parents here illegally are NOT automatically citizens; making illegal immigrants ineligible for citizenship; counting realistic estimates of illegal immigrants from a foreign country against its allotment of legal entrants; denying social welfare, school and other public services to illegal immigrants; and empowering local law enforcement to devise reasonable procedures for detecting and apprehending them. None of those measures would be wrong. What would be wrong is to do nothing about citizens of other countries who willfully break American laws, while punishing Americans who break laws that are far less vital to the nation’s welfare.
Finally, a word about the last refuge of a failed advocate, the charge of racism. Incredibly, advocates for illegal immigrants continue to hurl the accusation of racism, based on the specious reasoning that because the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, those who want to enforce the U.S. laws against their crime are prejudiced against “people of color,” as if a similar flood of illegal Germans or Swedes would be welcomed with open arms. A related argument is much in vogue among some civil rights advocates, who purport to believe that imprisoning a disproportionate number of black males because a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by black males (this stat courtesy of Bill Bennett…just kidding!) is racist. Neither argument deserves the respect or publicity they have received.
Nobody should pretend that solving the illegal immigration problem will be easy or painless, which means that a solution will require a resource in short supply these days, political courage. But a wrong that is difficult to address does not become right. Illegal immigration is wrong. Stopping it cannot be; neither is calling it what it is.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:03 am
“Incredibly, advocates for illegal immigrants continue to hurl the accusation of racism, based on the specious reasoning that because the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, those who want to enforce the U.S. laws against their crime are prejudiced against “people of color,” as if a similar flood of illegal Germans or Swedes would be welcomed with open arms.”
Wrong, I make the charge of racism because your characterizations of the immigrants are racist, your statements above are Exhibit A.
To Jim R, who says “Was George making too good an argument against your open borders for the USA”, my answer is that Williams provided us with two links which he had either not read or deliberately misrepresented, as I and Michael Turner pointed out. As for what my personal experiences with poor people have been, you would have no way to know that, would you, other than simply blowing such a statement out your ass and seeing how it smells.
I’m sorry, not all, but a lot, of the anti-immigration sentiment is based on racism, and when I think that’s what I am seeing I will say so, now in the future. Racism does exist, Williams is proof of it as is Woody and others here.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:08 am
“The ethical verdict could not be more clear-cut or unambiguous. Illegal immigration is illegal. It is unfair. It is dangerous. It is bad social policy. It is, in short, wrong.”
These conclusions are not wrong, but none of them are “ethical verdicts” either.
For example, “illegal” is not automatically unethical. It’s illegal to smoke marijuana in many states. Is it unethical? Not if nobody else is harmed.
And “legal” is not automatically “ethical.” If you’re within the legal limits for driving after alcohol consumption, but can’t drive very well even at those levels because your tolerance is low, you might not be looking at a DUI, but you are behaving unethically.
It’s illegal to hire illegal immigrants. So is it automatically “wrong” to do so? Let’s say that I, as an employer, decide that I’m going to stay on the right side of the law. I won’t hire illegals. But … all of my scofflaw competitors are doing it, and price competition is fierce enough in my market that, if I keep it up, I’ll eventually go out of business. That hurts not only me, but my legal-citizen employees. Is that ethical of me? To ride my business into the ground when I could instead be providing more jobs?
Is “unfair” unethical? But life is unfair, therefore life itself is unethical by this reasoning.
Is “dangerous” unethical? Only if you’re endangering other people against their will.
Is “bad social policy” unethical? Not per se. The megascale Great Society housing projects were bad social policy, and dangerous, and (it turned out) unfair. But they weren’t unethical. They were just a bad idea. Besides, what we are grappling with here isn’t a policy, but the lack of policy.
It’s a lofty notion: basing all political opinions on “good versus bad”. The problem is, what do you do when the choice is one between bad and worse? Perhaps all of the really hard political problems are of this nature.
We need a better immigration policy. That’s going to hurt somebody, somewhere, while not making very many friends. As with our addiction to oil imported from despotic petrostates, it’s a problem that would have been easier to solve if we’d gotten around to it sooner.
But let’s also attack issues where ethics truly are a guide. You want “unethical”? I say it’s unethical to call a car a “sport-utility vehicle” in order to exempt it from fuel economy requirements (imposed for arguably very ethical reasons indeed) when you know that the target market is characterized by a lot of sport but vanishingly little utility. Unethical, AND illegal (or should be), AND dangerous, AND unfair, AND bad social policy. If we’re going to get our house in order and attack the backlog of issues where “right and wrong are clear-cut,” let’s start there. THEN move on to thornier issues like illegal immigration, where the starting point for debate should be that you are capable of reasoning better than your average high school dropout.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Just one more thought from me, and that’s it because the active thread is several levels up from here: I note that we don’t see people like George Williams, who is so concerned about the effect of immigrants on taxpapers, complaining about the $5 billion per MONTH the Iraq war is costing American pocketbooks.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:54 am
More evidence Mexican immigrant workers are the cause of this nation’s moral decline:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/parishilton/index.html
September 7th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Balter,
How do you derive your conclusion from what’s been said previously? On the contrary, I’m appalled by the cost of the war, but I also appalled by your dismissal of the average citizen’s economic concerns for the cost of illegal immigration. Your apparent lack of ethics concerning law enforcement is also very disturbing. Have you ever take a civics course?
September 7th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
“Your apparent lack of ethics concerning law enforcement is also very disturbing. Have you ever take a civics course?”
Okay, I snuck a peek and what do I find? You’ve confused me with Michael Turner. Like I said, you don’t really read things, even what you post yourself. But something tells me that Michael Turner knows much more about civics and civilization than you do.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Oops, did I leave him off my address, sorry.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:56 am
MB has a point George. The difference between his comments and MT’s should have been obvious. One uses logic and reason, the other uses emotion and….well, you know……first hand.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Balter, you’re wrong about immigration and racism. At the very least, most people are extremely indignant about the violation of their national sovereignty and the outright lack of respect that illegal immigrants show for the sensibilities of the millions of Americans who the’ve offended by violating their laws, demanding citizenship, all the while denying the legitimacy of our naturalization process and marching in our streets and waving foreign flags. Americans are a very proud and nationalistic, and their reaction to the current immigration situation is no different than has occurred in other countries. People like you would like nothing better than beat that pride into the ground and deny any special feeling of national identity.
International law acknowledges that a nation has boundaries and has the right to govern who crosses its borders. Illegal immigrants have openly challenged that international law, and in effect have challenged this nation’s national identity. Does a country called the United States of America still exist, and do the citizens still have the right to maintain the sanctity of their country’s borders? Millions of Americans like me are hopeful that people like you don’t have your way.
October 6th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Michael turner delivered some fitfully thoughtful if ethically incorrect commentary on my essay about the ethics of illegal immigration, which I was happy to see reprinted here. “Allow me to retort:”
MT: “For example, “illegal” is not automatically unethical. It’s illegal to smoke marijuana in many states. Is it unethical? Not if nobody else is harmed.”
Violating the law IS unethical, unless there is a countervailing and surpassing good that results from it. Getting high does not qualify. The social contract involves an agreement to obey the laws of your society, and unilaterally disobeying whatever laws you like undermines that contract; if enough people do it, chaos results. If you drive drunk but manage not to kill anyone, does that make it OK? Besides, purchasing and using illegal goods indeed do harm: there are social and govenmental costs of law enforcement that would be unnecessary if everyone played by the democratically agreed upon rules.
In short, that’s a lame argument, though a popular one.
MT: “And “legal” is not automatically ‘ethical.’”
Correct. I didn’t say it was. Lots of bad things can be done legally. That’s irrelevant to the article.
MT: It’s illegal to hire illegal immigrants. So is it automatically “wrong” to do so? Let’s say that I, as an employer, decide that I’m going to stay on the right side of the law. I won’t hire illegals. But … all of my scofflaw competitors are doing it, and price competition is fierce enough in my market that, if I keep it up, I’ll eventually go out of business. That hurts not only me, but my legal-citizen employees. Is that ethical of me? To ride my business into the ground when I could instead be providing more jobs?
Oh, brother. Michael hereby endorses “Everybody’s doing it,” the Golden rationalization and first refuge of the unethical. Everyone’s cheat, so cheating is unethical? Talk about a recipe for chaos and corruption! The ethical thing is to put pressure on the govrenment to enforce the law, not to break it yourself. “Easy” and “ethical” are not synonyms. Often being ethical requires some effort and scarifice. Sorry!
MT: “Is “unfair” unethical? But life is unfair, therefore life itself is unethical by this reasoning.”
Pure sophistry. “Life” is not a person, and thus is not capable of ethical reasoning or unethical conduct. When a person contributes to unfair treatment, yes, he is being unethical. Fairness is an ethical value: look it up. If you don’t understand that, then ethical reasoning is lost on you.
MT: “Is “dangerous” unethical? Only if you’re endangering other people against their will.”
And permitting illegal immigration endangers the country against its will. Your point is what, exactly?
MT: “Is “bad social policy” unethical? Not per se. The megascale Great Society housing projects were bad social policy, and dangerous, and (it turned out) unfair. But they weren’t unethical. They were just a bad idea. Besides, what we are grappling with here isn’t a policy, but the lack of policy.”
Fine: stupid isn’t unethical; but incompetence in positions of power is. Willful bad policy is unethical. Let’s say the Right’s approach is unethical, and the Left’s approach is just stupid. Fell better now?
MT: “It’s a lofty notion: basing all political opinions on “good versus bad”. The problem is, what do you do when the choice is one between bad and worse? Perhaps all of the really hard political problems are of this nature.”
Not all, many. I didn’t say that the option was good versus bad…if you read the article, it endorsed bad (letting criminal illegal immigrants stay, but enforcing the laws vigorously now) over worse (what’s happening now.) Don’t put words into my mouth…its unethical.
MT: “We need a better immigration policy. That’s going to hurt somebody, somewhere, while not making very many friends. As with our addiction to oil imported from despotic petrostates, it’s a problem that would have been easier to solve if we’d gotten around to it sooner.”
Duh.
MT: “If we’re going to get our house in order and attack the backlog of issues where “right and wrong are clear-cut,” let’s start there. THEN move on to thornier issues like illegal immigration, where the starting point for debate should be that you are capable of reasoning better than your average high school dropout.”
Harsh words for someone whose comprehension of ethics is about on par with a junior college drop-out, if you ask me. By the way, flinging personal insults rather than well-reasoned arguments is also unethical: a violation of respect and civility. I apologize for stooping to it.
Your turn!
June 4th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
washington dui laws…
Seattle Washington WA DUI lawyer for clients in Western Washington, including the cities and counties of Seat……
July 31st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
hi…
wonderful post…