Immigration Issue Explodes [Updated]
Updated material and a round-up of responses to this sizzling topic are to be found at the bottom of this post.
Saturday saw the largest political demonstration in the history of Los Angeles, and one of the biggest in recent American history.
A half-million people or more flooded two dozen blocks of downtown L.A. to give voice to some sort of rational, realistic immigration reform.
For some months now I have been warning readers of this blog that the immigration issue would break wide open this season -- and here it is in full living color. Similar demonstrations the past couple of weeks drew a hundred thousand or more in Illinois, more than that in Denver and tens of thousands in Phoenix and other cities. Similar protests are scheduled through April 10 as the U.S. Senate begins formal debate on reform this coming Tuesday.
If you have fallen behind in this story you can catch up by reading one of my overview stories here or here.
I'm struck by several aspects of this story. Primarily by the way neither party can properly get a hold of this issue. Demographics and global economics are simply racing ahead of any practical political response. The Republicans are deeply divided over the issue. Even as the half-million or so were marching in the streets Saturday, President Bush was on the radio more or less endorsing the protestors' two key demands: that a legal channel be created for the immigration already happening and that some legal acknowledgement be given to the 12 million "illegals" already living here. Viva Bush!
The Democrats are less divided and generally more inclined toward reform. But can you name even two prominent national Dmeocrats who have taken up this cause in a serious way? (One is Ted Kennedy who along with John McCain has co-authored the most sensible reform proposal currently under consideration).
As I have argued previously, what we are currently experiencing is the greatest wave of cross-border migration in recorded history -- a virtual "exodus" of millions from a failed Mexican economy and into a country where the wage level is 10-20 times higher. Politicians can only come up with after-the-fact gestures but policy itself (and walls and fences) will do little to nothing to alter the flow.
My otherwise smart guy friends, Mickey Kaus and Bill Bradley have surely gone off the deep end on this one. They both conjecture that these giant marches, full of Mexican flags and Mexicans chanting 'Mexico! Mexico!' are inviting a virulent nativist backlash. They point to increased voter turn-out in favor of the restrictive Prop 187 in California after a similar (and smaller) protest march in 1994. That was then. This is now.
The current situation is not analagous to 1994. There is no hot-button ballot prop up for a vote this season. And the nativist backlash is already here. The media suck-up to the miniscule Minuteman show of a year ago established an ugly frame for the national debate. The House has already acted in a toxic manner when last December it passed an outrageous and impossible-to-implement measure that would make all illegals (and their employers) into felons. While that bill will not become law per se, the Senate is considering some measures almost as Neanderthal.
It seems to me that when an entire population -- who, after all, cleans our offices, cuts our lawns, serves our food, makes our beds, tends to our children and pays taxes but gets no refunds-- is threatened with criminalization they have the right and necessity to politically mobilize. It's asking them a lot, don't you think, to remain silent and impassive as their arrest and deportation are actively being debated?
One other point: the white backlash of 1994 was immediately followed by a counter-backlash. An enraged and energized Latino constituency accelerated its entrance into citizenship and onto the voter rolls and within four years it steamrollered the California GOP -- a flattening from which California Republicans may never recover.
So while the grumbling Archie Bunkers might get their ya-yas all worked up by the Mexican flags flapping in Saturday's demos, you can be damn sure that the smarter among Republican strategists looked at the size of those protests with some trepidation. Many of those in the rally were legal, or have legal relatives or if illegal might soon be legal. And they just didn't look to be likely Republican voters.
Bradley is one of the smartest analysts around when it comes to California state politics (and he's a good friend) but, I have to say his reaction to these marches border on the phantasmagorical. He went out of his way to title his report "The Pro-Illegal Immigration Rally in Los Angeles" and asks if it was "really necessary" to stage such a provocative rally. It's the wrong question, of course. This wasn't a staged campaign event or some tightly orchestrated TV photo op. While the demos certainly have leaders and organizers, and while the Mexican flags were certainly politically gratuitous, it seems quite obvious that when you bring out a half-million people you've tapped into something quite organic, some self-propelling force way beyond the control or shaping of a few professional organizers. So it hardly matters if it was necessary or not because --like illegal immigration itself-- it happened anyway. It was a rather natural reaction to the shut-the-borders demagogy that's been ventilating for the past couple of years.
Another not so minor point. Bradley argues that these rallies "enable" people who have "broken the law" to continue breaking the law. Well, no, not exactly. People who have entered the U.S. improperly and who stay here have, in fact, not violated any criminal statutes but are instead in violation of civil codes-- even though they are commonly called "illegals." Any of these illegals, if arrested on immigration grounds, are not tried by a criminal court and are, in fact, denied standard due process. Bradley should spend a day in Federal Immigration Court and watch how these "illegals" are deported without as much as the right to a court-provided lawyer. As violators of civil codes, they are cast out and often their families are broken apart with no more process than the DMV revoking a driver's license.
Indeed, these protests have been sparked to a great degree by the so-called Sensenbrenner bill that would in the future make the "illegals" really illegal by making them criminal felons. It's a distinction worth five or ten years in jail that Bradley is blurring.
Bill, my friend, you've got it bass-ackwards. This was a rally in favor of legal immigration. It called precisely for a way for immigrants who are otherwise already absorbed into our economy and society to be granted the minimal status that they obviously merit. To defend illegal immigration no protest would be necessary -- you would need only defend the status quo.
My arguments against the sort of simplistic and anachronostic mode of parsing this issue which we glimpse in Bradley's post is well explained in the articles I linked to above -- so no need to rehearse them here. What some people don't get is that we have already been cracking down on the border for more than a decade and there's a reason why it has so miserably failed. It's about as futile as engaging in prayer dances to stop earthquakes or invoke rain storms.
The only argument we -- as a nation of immigrants-- can make against the current migratory wave is that our grandparents and parents came here legally so why don't Jose and Maria do the same? Well, America of 2006 is not the America that my family came to in 1915 (and when they came they also pushed aside better-paid longer-term residents and citizens). Our work force is vastly older and immensely better educated and skilled than even fifty years ago. The industrial revolution which was roaring ahead a century ago has given way, unfortunately, to a service economy. Barring Mexicans from coming across the border is not going to magically re-open shuttered car and tractor factories. On the contrary, if you could even plausibly tamp down the inflow, you would only increase the out-migration of American business.
Our national economy easily absorbs and desperately needs about a million-and-a-half immigrant workers per year to grow and compete. We let a million of them come in legally. The other half million we make run and dart across the border at cost of great peril.
Our reality has outstripped our laws -- and our way of framing the issue. In the end, it will make little difference who prevails in this year's debate as nothing will change on the ground -- backlash or not. It's a little like debating the tides. Meanwhile, someone throw my pal Bill Bradley a rope. He's waded in at high tide and has sunk in up to his neck.
UPDATE FOR MONDAY:
Welcome to the numerous readers coming in from linked blogs. There's been a lot of reaction to this story and to this posting. Here's some of it:
Bill Bradley responds. Sort of. He's been very insitent on telling us the obvious i.e. that political forces desirous of scapegoating immigrants will use the size and imagery of Saturday's rally to further scapegoat them. No doubt. I'll be interested to hear what Bill actually proposes as an immigration policy rather than simply telling immigrants it is counter-productive to protest their own proposed criminalization. When MLK convened a couple of hundred thousand "negroes" around the reflecting pool in 1962 it also energized his opposition while simultaneously marking the rising tide of a civil rights movement. That's the nature of politics: action -- reaction. It's not predetermined which side of the equation will eventually triumph. Just as an aside, you will remember that at the time American blacks were also "illegals" in many states-- barred and subject to prosecution for drinking out of the wrong fountain, trying to go to the wrong school etc. etc.
L.A.- based Republican political consultant and respected analyst Allan Hoffenblum has posted a note in the comments section below: "Marc, you got it right. The major differences between now and 1994? The increased voting/political power of Latinos, many more Republicans today understanding the significance of this AND George W. Bush is not acting like Pete Wilson." Allan's a smart guy -- not just because he agrees with me. But because he's one of the most honest and prescient political analysts to be found. He's got an uncanny record of accurate predictions.
I also got a note from James. K Galbraith, son of the legendary John Kenneth Galbraith and a celebrated economist in his own right. "I'm with you all the way on this one," he emailed me on Sunday. "Feel free to add me to your list of allies." Jamie wrote about all this quite eloquently for Salon back in 2004. He explained just what GW Bush had in mind when he proposed a "guest worker" program back then. Fortunately, Bush's orginal idea has been reworked and its more enlightened proponents are now using the term "guest worker" as merely a marker for a program that would go way beyond the onerous bracero schemes of the 50's and 60's.
One of my other pals, Tamar Jacoby, perfectly laid out what's right and what's wrong about "guest worker" in Sunday's Washington Post. The former deputy editor of the NY Times op-ed section, Tamar is now a fellow at the center-right Manhattan Institute and has become, without parallel, America's foremost advocate of sensible immigration reform. Go, Tamar!
On a related point: another blood-brother pal, Dan Kowalski, the Austin-based immigration lawyer and editor of Lexis' Bender's Immigration Bulletin, has also posted a comment pointing out one helluva detail. Some have tried to write off the Sensenbrenner Bill -- the putative target of Saturday's protest-- as purely symbolic, something that Bush himself doesn't support. Wrong. While it is, indeed, unlikely (though hardly impossible) that the Senate would ratify a similar measure, Kowalski provides the link reminding us that Bush did in fact endorse the Sensenbrenner hare-brainer of a bill.
A day late, The New York Times finally catches up on this past week's rallies which have "astonished" all observers. One tidbit that the NYT advances is the still fully-undisclosed role that the (conservative) National Hispanic Association of Evangelicals played in supporting and organizing many of these protests. Meeting behind the scenes with the Catholic establishment forged an unusual alliance between the two groups -- at least on this issue.
This just in... While our friend Bill Bradley has decided to punt on policy recommendations he has returned to his excellent reporting on California politics. He's got a gem about how clueless Democratic guberbnatorial challenger Phil Angelides is on this issue. Sensenbrenner? Guest Worker? Huh? Let me get staff on it right away. No hurry Phil... looks like you'll have plenty of time after November.
More to come on this story as it continues to develop. I have a long piece on the border and immigration coming out in the May issue of The Atlantic. It should be online a week from today.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Great post this time, Marc — except you don’t quite say how many immigrants are here legally in as much detail as I’d think would be excellent: “We let a million of them come in legally. The other half million we make run and dart across the border at cost of great peril.”
How many are legally let in from Mexico each year?
You also avoid the English language issue, which is the biggest cultural thing — lazy Americans don’t want to go into a shop in America where they don’t speak English.
[Slovaks aren’t happy going to Southern Slovakia and going into shops where they only speak Hungarian. Especially Slovaks from the north who never go into such shops.]
The other real issues are how many, legally, and who pays for their services. I still think offering high priced tax loans is better than the bill you referred to. “Let the market decide” — where the politicians set a price, and see if that’s still too many or not enough. And then change.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:45 am
While it’s true that the protests are in fact rallying in favor of legalizing immigration that is currently illegal, if they instead involved gun nuts demonstrating in favor of legalizing currently illegal assault rifles me thinks the headline debate would get turned nicely upside-down.
Meanwhile, Tom Gray, calling (Anglo) Americans or non-Magyar Slovaks “lazy” because they don’t want to go out of their way to learn a minority language simply goes against common sense. The U.S. is playing with fire by allowing a large minority population to exist that cannot meaningfully speak the effective national language - especially a minority population from a neighboring country that used to own large parts of the US, as Hungary used to own Slovakia.
March 26th, 2006 at 4:39 am
Another subtle, but important, Bradley error. Bradley asks, “Was this rally necessary to defeat a bill that George W. Bush does not support? ” On the contrary, when H.R. 4437 passed the House, Bush immediately “applauded” the House for passing a “reform” bill, official approval that still stands on the White House website here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051216-13.html
March 26th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Great post Marc. Unfortunately, see above posts, we seem to have pulled in the Samuel Huningtion crowd. Nothing like the old culturalist arguement that language dilution in the U.S. via an increased spanish speaking population will destroy “anglo traditions” like rational thought, education, and democracy; in generally all the Enlightenment values. the act of drawing a line around these values as the essential terrian of the anglo, it seems obvious, negates the entire idea of the Enlightenment; in affect creating an anti-enlightened State. As an educator- high school teacher- I have long supported making spanish a required class from 7th to 11th grade.
If we could formalize immigration, part of the process would include mandated and free adult english education. These ideas would necessitate fairly large scale government funding so I am sure they will be regected by both the pure culture and free market crowd.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:43 am
a virtual “exodus” of millions from a failed Mexican economy
Have activists given any thought on how facilitating the exodus of Mexico’s able-bodied youth deepens the failure of the Mexican economy and further entrenches poverty? (See Jay Root’s portrait of Mexico’s villages, “the export of human labor has been devastating.”)
As far as nativist reaction, there’s the recent passage of Senate Bill 529, “Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act.” “Polls show that more than 80 percent of Georgians want the Legislature to deal with illegal immigration. ” (AJC)
When I spoke on the phone last night with my mother in Houston, she commented on the demonstration in LA (uneasy about it) and she drew my attention to the Georgia legislation. She thinks it is unrealistic to believe that we can deport even a fraction of the 12,000,000 undocumented migrants but wants the exodus stopped. She firmly believes the presence of undocument migrant labor is depressing wages especially in the construction trade. As she leaves for work in the morning, Houstonian men are now standing along well traveled roads holding up signs seeking jobs in carpentry and plumbing. She thinks it’s a lie that the migrants take jobs Americans are unwilling to tackle.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Enough Already!
Marc,you and Bill have it wrong.
See the MeCha And La Raza websites. Many illegals do not want to assimilate. The want “Mexico” to be here in America. Same Culture,Same Langauge,Same Everything. Only Difference… Free Benefits,and Much Higher wages.
I am tired of the same old Nativist aruments.
Try pulling the same stunts that the “immigration supporters” pull in Mexico.
Try doing a google search for “Reconquista”
Try reading what many people are saying in Spanish.
Then tell me I am wrong.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:03 am
“like rational thought, education, and democracy; in generally all the Enlightenment values.”
This is funny, because since when have the Nazi Rednecks who make up the Minutemen movement been in favor of any of these things. One of the things those guys hate is the Enlightenment… as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Huntington is interesting though.. he makes one very good point, which is that American Catholics have abandoned Catholicism and embraced the System (the very System that used to hate their Irish and Italian ancestors with the same ferocity as it hates Latin Americans now). It’s a very anti-Catholic book… and it is unfortunately true of many of my Catholic relatives, who are just as hate-filled toward their Mexican co-religionists as any fundamentalist.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:21 am
There’s actually dissent over illegals in the hispanic community itself where they go for refuge so it’s not as cut and dry as portrayed. This is about jockeying for space and has nothing to do with race and religion. Those as always are just wallpaper.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Marc, where would you like to go for your vacation?
March 26th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Test, I whole heartedly agree. My point was to expose ( like its not blatantly obvious) the BS that is implicit in the minutemen charade and Hintington thesis. The second you bracketed the pursuit of freedom and the U.S. declaration of Independence as essentially anglo you negate their entire meaning.
The minutmen types I know are always the first to wipe the constitution out of their backpocket. All of these law and order types love to quote the texts; showing that memorization and comprehsion are two seperate mental functions.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:54 am
For me,what this issue boils down to is whether or not we take an economic hit inthe near term by cracking down on illegal immigration or risk sovereignity issues in parts of the West and Southwest in a generation’s time. The McCain- Kennedy and Bush proposals if enacted into law will make this latter outcome, in all likelihood, inevitable because they are de facto open border policies.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:30 am
[…] … One agreeing with me that there just might be a backlash from this. And one old friend saying, rather emotionally, that there is no problem. […]
March 26th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Marc, your point about our economy metamorphosizing from an industrial economy into a service economy is actually an argument for tighter immigration laws, particularly from the perspective of lower-middle and lower-income U.S. workers. As the higher-paying industrial jobs disappear, as more industries erase benefits and drop wages in competing with China and other increasingly industrial (but still cheap-labored) countries, there will be greater competition for non-exportable service jobs. So the upshot is that U.S. workers lose twice: cheap labor in other countries pressures wages to fall in globalized industries, and cheap domestic labor pressures wages to fall in domestic service industries. Plus, the kicker: Latin Americans with dual residency (if made ‘legal’ here) and homes in their native countries are able to maintain a higher standard of living by returning to a drastically more affordable economy whenever they wish. Lower-waged U.S.-born workers do not have that option.
In sum, I think you’re unfairly simplifying the issue, and if I were cynical I might say that as a wealthy Woodland Hills professional it’s very easy for you to be so cavalier about allowing our labor pool swell–after all, your USC gig is unlikely to be usurped by a poor Mexican anytime soon. My uncle, however, who is an unskilled, low-IQ middle-aged man working in janitor jobs all his life, doesn’t have such a luxury.
NB: As I’ve said before in these discussions, I’ve seen all sides of the immigration issue, worked for a Latino social service organization for several years, lived in Guatemala for two years, and have fought for economic justice both here and outside the U.S. So, “anti-immigrant” I am not.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Excellent and nuanced post, marc.
About: “But can you name even two prominent national Dmeocrats who have taken up this cause in a serious way?”
As you mention, Ted Kennedy is one.
Barney Frank is the other one. I suppose one can argue that he’s not a big enough name. But he has put his Congressional ass on the line repeatedly with his attempts to pass versions of the Family Reunification Act, which would have softened the worst elements of the 1996 immigration law. Had 9/11 not occurred when it did he likely would have succeeded.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:07 am
No easy answers for this quiz, obviously, but what stands out to me is the total lack of faith the immigrant community (and their supporters, including the Catholic Church) has in the Bush administration. Bush and Rove want to reach out to immigrants for electoral reasons and are making noises that sound reasonable in headlines, but despite the fact that Bush did win over a decent percentage of the Hispanic vote in Texas, it’s obvious that he’s feared and hated in California today among immigrants. If this is true nationwide, he’s in even bigger trouble than it looks…and it’s not looking good.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
http://tinyurl.com/gsos4
What rich said. As more and more manufacturing jobs decline to offshore workers, the more we have living here for multiple generations from all races who will have to take them. We’re all in service industries. The lifeboat simply can’t absorb all who want to come. It’s a biological reality, that due to the great scientific ignorance on the whole, wiped out in part by sociology (more open to agendas) few care to address: overpopulation, destruction of land and so on. It is what it is irrespective of what one perceives.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:26 am
>> since when have the Nazi Rednecks who make up the Minutemen movement been in favor of any of these things
How ignorant. Nice appeal to emotion.
How about being resolute in saying: illegal immigration is illegal?
How about being resolute in saying: employing illegal immigrants is illegal?
We could provide amnesty for those already here, if only for logistical reasons… but we need to secure our border, if it is in our power to do so.
Mexicans and Latinos do not deserve a free immigration pass. Nobody does.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Marc on this issue I agree with Bill Bradley 100%. Those Mexican flags will feature promenently in GOP ads this fall as the Republicans will use “Border Security - Illegal Immigration” as the issue to save them from Iraq, Dubai. Abramoff, etc. Kevin Phillips, who knows a thing or two about politics, thinks that the great wave of recent immigration, legal or otherwise, need to slow so that we can take a breather to assimilate this new crowd just as we did earlier.
Look, all this nonsense about the illegal immigrant doing essential work that Americans won’t is Chamber of Commerce/Farm Bureau balony. And Globalony at that. Just like NAFTA and WTO have benefited the consumer Marc! There is no job Americans won’t do if you pay them enough. And why should taxpayers have to subsidize employers with all kind of services that would be unnecessary if a living wage were payed workers. And the workers are ALWAYS going to be exploited since their status is dubious. A perfect “Reserve Army of the Unemployed” to use to depress wages in jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. So we bring the Third World Here.
Of course the Sensenbrenner bill is atrocious. But it is there to win back GOP votes. The Bush bill is just as bad. “Guest Workers”? Can you say Bracero? Democrats shoukd call the Republican’s bluff. Lets increase enforcement of the laws prohibiting employers from hiring people with no documentation. It is a crime after all. And increase the penalties - fines, jail and confiscation of businesses ala the drug laws or the tax code. Get rid of the magnet and we don’t have to deport 11 million. And I am willing to consider those 11 million for residency with the type of conditions that Kennedy and McCain are talking about. Finally, and I’ve mentioned this before, a new deal with Mexico and Central America, to create the kind of development zones there that the EU used to raise the poorer parts of Europe. With real goals for Mexico - no excuses for the Mexican political class. Illegal Immigration has been a safety valve too long for them.
Do I expect any of this? Nope. But Marc you have got to stop seeing this as a rerun of “Salt of the Earth”. Or stop ridiculing those who like Hugo Chavez or support Censure. Frankly they are on sturdier ground.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
rlc: Excellent points. Have missed your commenting around here–hope to see more of it.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Hey, RLC….as rich said, very nice to see you around. Your point of view is always a welcome one.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Definitely rlc. That’s the money post. Nicely done.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
McCain and Kennedy are the best, practicable and realistic proposals!!!!
March 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
I certainly hope that we won’t see the following if these illegal aliens don’t get what they want:
immigration-issue-explodes-2
immigration-issue-explodes-3
immigration-issue-explodes-4
Has anyone given any thought to what might happen if we don’t give these illegal aliens what they want?
Will they riot?
If we absolutely needed to deport even a million or two of our illegal aliens, what would happen?
Isn’t this an extremely dangerous situation that reveals the absolute corruption of those who support illegal immigration?
And, speaking of Georgia, the march there was organized by a former Mexican General Consul.
Will Marc Cooper look into any other connections between the organizers of the other marches and the governments of Mexico, Ireland, and other countries?
Will the Democratic Party support or oppose foreign government meddling in our internal politics and agitating their citizens in our country?
March 26th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Marc — you are absolutely wrong on this one.
1. LA Rally was 20,000, not half a million. LA Times is as usual, wrong. CNN reports only 20K. I’ve seen the pictures, far less than people in the Rose Bowl for the National Championship.
2. Identity politics is Identity Politics. “Viva Mexico” and Mexican Flags means illegal immigrants are asking for special group rights over every other group. If you are not Mexican you lose, and since nationally and in California Mexicans are sill a minority, the identity politics drive the Sensenbrenner Bill towards passage. If the demonstrations prove nothing else, it’s that working class Latinos (many of whom are not Mexican), African Americans, Asians, and Anglos are on the outside and will be shoved back in line. Mayor Tony’s attendance was a big red flag that Non-Mexicans get second-class treatment in his Admin.
3. Illegal immigration creates winners and losers. Winners include employers with cheaper labor, and ethnic group leaders such as Mayor Tony. Losers include those who’s wages drop because of the influx of constantly exploited cheap labor, the pool growing constantly larger, until wages are equalized at Mexican standards of something like $1 per hour. [This is what you are arguing for Marc]
4. Illegal immigration equals loss of sovereignty. Eventually the US will simply intervene in Mexico openly, if we are obliged to employ every Mexican (which is the demands of the demonstrators). That will lead inevitably to annexation of Mexico by force and running the former country as a dependent territory for a generation or five prior to statehood. Good Fences make Good Neigbors.
5. Bradley and Kaus are right and you are wrong because you are drawing the wrong lessons from Prop 187. That measure passed by 67% of voters. Pete Wilson got elected on it. What killed the Republican Party was not “energizing Latino Voters” since Latino Voters did not increase much post 187 (about 4% increase IIRC). Instead what happened was the massive EXODUS post 1993 Clinton Defense cuts of all the Aerospace workers who were overwhelmingly white and Republican. To places like AZ, TX, NV, ID, UT, etc. Nationally the outcome of this is that Republicans stand up for the non-Mexican illegal immigrant throughout the Nation and Dems are pushing special privileges for Mexican illegal immigrants (who are not votes btw). Electoral wedge issue ala Pete Wilson.
6. The felony provision of the Sensebrenner bill was stripped (sadly). I will note that Mexico treats it’s illegal immigrants from the South VERY harshly.
7. Illegal immigration is a security hole for drug smuggling and terrorists.
8. Twelve million illegals already depress wages; forty million (40% of Mexico’s 100 million people want to work in the US) promises exponentially lower wages. Unless action is taken NOW to restrict illegal immigration wages promise to plummet across the board.
9. Pro-Illegal immigration is “conspicuous consumption” politics. “I’m so elite I’m not affected by it, that’s for stupid working men and women.” It’s about as fruitful as burning the Flag or Screenwriter Steven Gaghan pontificating about “Communism is the wave of the future” from his Malibu mansion.
EVERY working class citizen and legal resident has a paycheck interest in keeping economic competition down and thus will support the Sensebrenner bill.
Americans are very sympathetic to individuals arguing for a fair shake and equal treatment under the law. They largely reject the Volk Marxist argument of caste and special group rights for favored identity groups. Which these rallies are asking for.
I personally believe Mexico (and the Philippines too) corrupt oligarchy and poverty are exacerbated and sustained by the remittance regimes. Cut it off and the people will demand an end to the corruption and violence and autocracy that keeps them in poverty. Good fences DO make good neighbors.
Huntington: he himself argues that rather than “Latinization” what will happen is Anglicization in nations like Mexico in particular which is already happening. That furthermore Latin American and Anglophone civilizations are not that different, and Latin American civilization because of autocracy is weaker culturally and will be absorbed sooner or later by the Anglophone civilization (how many second generation kids here speak Spanish?) However you can’t have special privileges for one group (Mexican illegal immigrants) and maintain a legal system that is based on individual not group rights. Inevitably Asians, Anglos, and other groups will also press “identity politics” and press for their group rights and you have disaster.
I agree completely with RLC (except the very last Para and his characterization of the Sensenbrenner bill). I’ll add that Robert J. Samuelson describes the effect of the tomato canners when the Bracero program ended: they paid marginally more money in wages to US workers and automated. These are good things.
March 26th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
“Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.” — Theodore Roosevelt
This country besides many other things is quite diverse. This actually brings an additional challenge to the government and to the people to keep the country united and stable.
So I think it’s important that the people who come here assimilate and become Americans. Otherwise, the American society will crumble and fall apart.
(Think of riots in Paris.)
As a person who was born overseas, I should say that the people of this country are quite tolerant to each others’ differences and try to live together. You might not realize this, because you grew up in this society and take this for granted, but this tolerance is very very valuable.
However, believe that the government and the people can still be more proactive in integrating newcomers into the society. Because otherwise (and this is what i observe) immigrants stick to themselves, americans stick to themselves, and we have a mosaic rather than a melting pot.
For example, you can invite a foreign/immigrant friend to a Thanksgiving dinner. It might seem like a small thing to you, but it makes a big difference to the person.
I hope it all makes sense.
March 26th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
“People who have entered the U.S. improperly and who stay here have, in fact, not violated any criminal statutes but are instead in violation of civil codes– even though they are commonly called ‘illegals.’”
Immigration and Nationality Act is a federal law. Every alien who crossed the border uninspected (i.e. without going through the customs) are unadmissible and I think deportable.
Illegal aliens are breaking the federal law. Does it make them criminals? I don’t know.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Mr. Rockford rightly makes the connection between the effects of economic policy/corruption in Mexico with the influx of Mexican workers. What he fails to recall is that the economy of our southern neighbor is the stepchild of NAFTA. The wide-open playing field sought by corporations has not created better conditions for workers in Mexico; in many cases it has actually worsened them. (No surprise there) Right now, the fat cats are two-timing both countries and getting away with it. Cheap immigrant labor keeps agribusiness happy here, while the lack of labor laws ensured by NAFTA (that’s POLICY, my friend, not corruption–unless you are arguing that the policy is in effect corrupt, in which case you’re largely correct) in Mexico keep stateside stockholders “lovin’ it”, as well. A nuevo Bracero program would only enshrine and legalize the status quo that US agribusiness enjoys now. They’re lovin’ that, too. What we need to realize is how OUR policies have helped create an economic context in Mexico that pushes ever more workers to seek, whether legally or illegally, money for their families on our side of the border. In fact, it’s less fences than it is enlightened economic policy which makes good neighbors. We ignore this at our peril.
PS to Mr. Alexis, above: There are nut jobs of all political stripes on the net. Anybody can make a nifty website these days. The rantings of the “reconquista” fringe are just that. You could just as well argue that the Idaho militia boys and their adherents are going to take us over.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
What the immigration issue does illustrates, is that the “war on terror” is nothing more than a bunch of “dog poop.”
If there are as many as 12 million illegal immigrants, one in every 20 workers, and if 850,000 illegal immigrants arrive every year to the U.S., then one needs to ask what; the F___K is ”VIVA BUSH” doing about national security, besides giving non-bid war contracts to his friends?
March 26th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Illegal Immigration Rally: Two Veteran Columnist/Bloggers Weigh In …
March 26th, 2006
… One (Slate and New Republic veteran Mickey Kaus) agreeing with me that there just might be a backlash from this. And one old friend (Nation and LA Weekly veteran Marc Cooper) saying, rather emotionally, that there is no problem at all.
What we have here is an enormous rally, the largest of many around the country, seeking to justify and in essence legalize what has been a massive wave of illegal immigration into this country. If there was someone joining the ralliers in downtown Los Angeles yesterday who does not support that massive wave of illegal immigration, that person was quite lost. But support for the illegal immigration was the minimum requirement for participation. There were also some who favor an open border, which would make what we have seen so far, controversial enough, seem small.
I am no expert on immigration policy, nor on Latin America. But I have been participating in and analyzing California politics and Presidential politics for a few decades. Illegal immigration has been a significant factor in those politics for a long time. I first began writing about the potential impacts of illegal immigration on California politics in 1991. However one might wish it otherwise and rationalize it away, it is difficult to be a serious political analyst and not acknowledge the potentially significant impacts on, among other things, the California governor’s race, of such events. We saw it here in dramatic fashion in 1994, after all. Even the late Miguel Contreras, L.A.’s famous left-liberal labor chieftain, saw the danger and tried to persuade his protege Fabian Nunez not to participate.
We’re not in the middle of a recession now but we are in the midst of a period of significant economic anxiety. Illegal immigration has rated consistently high on a list of concerns in public opinion polling, but it has not been a hot button issue. Events like yesterday’s can change that.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Anyone has a natural right to seek the highest bidder for their labor.
For a global free market to function effectively, it is essential that they be allowed to do so.
At the moment, capital flows across borders more freely every day, while labor, the only asset of 90 percent of the world’s population, is highly restricted. This causes severe pricing distortions in the labor market, resulting in the perpetuation of pockets of poverty on both sides of the border.
To anyone who understands why free market capitalism maximizes human freedom, dignity and wealth, it should be obvious that labor freedom must match capital freedom both as a human right and as a functional principle.
As long as capital is free to cross the border, so should people be.
Obviously, there is a need to transition to this kind of free market in labor, given the sweeping changes it brings to economies on both sides of the border. It can’t happen overnight.
But the discussion should originate from a recognition that humans have an inherent right to bid their labor freely, regardless of nationality and policy should be aimed at guaranteeing that freedom to the extent that it is feasible.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Marc:
Maybe there oughta be some sort of supera-Western Hemishere-common-citizenship thingy from Canada to Chile. I mean, heck, we passed NAFTA to streamline the promotion of trade & capital. Isn’t it a matter of time that the dog-gone humans and the labor part of free trade started getting international.
Just a crazy little thought.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Heres the rest of the story, by Jay Root, Knight Ridder Newspapers.
“Heavy migration has all but emptied much of the Mexican countryside.”
“Money sent back to Mexico from those working in the United States reached a record high last year, 20 BILLION, making remittances from migrants Mexico’s second largest source of income, surpassed only by oil exports.”
“In five states, including Zacatecas, remittances from abroad now equal 100 per cent or more of the salaries generated locally.. In the state of Michoacan, money sent home from the United States is 182 percent of in-state incomes.”
“The population drain is no secret in tiny Joaquin Amaro…there are nine times more people from this town living in Cicero, Ill. than in Jaoquin Amaro itself.”
“The number of illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S. has grown by nearly 50 percent in the last six years, to 12 million, according to a report released this month by the Pew Hispanic Center.”
“Narce Cardona Lopez, 28, said she was shocked when she went to the Zacatecas immigrant assistnace office recently for advice on how to take her 2 year old daughter who was born in the US, back to Oakland CA for treatment of a hip condition. She said the agency director told her to do like others before her have done: Hire a “coyote” or smuggler, sign up her US born kids for welfare in CA and have somebody send the money back here.”
“The Foreign Affairs Ministry published a 32 page booklet, modeled after a popular comic book, titled “Guide for the Mexican Immigrant”, while counseling against an illegal crossing, gives advice on when to cross the desert, how to dress for a swim across the river and what to do when lost.”
Immigrating into this country, is against the laws of this country, for a reason. That express reason, would be national security. People who immigrate illegally are law breakers and should suffer the consequences of their choice to break the law, just like drug dealers, tax evaders, and drunk drivers. They “have families” too. We do not fail to prosecute them simply because they have families that might be destroyed by their decision to break the law. They should have taken that into consideration, before they decided to break the law. So should illegals.
This is not a question of compassion or human rights, it is a matter of law. We are free here, because we generally abide by the laws, that allow us to live and be free, and get along.
As far as the comment “They are picking on the weakest link in society, which has built this country”, since when is Mexico the author and finisher of a government of the people for the people and by the people?
“Everybody deserves the right to a better life” Then go back to your own country, and make it better. Hold rallies and demonstrations there, build up the piles of rubble you call towns, overthrow your government, established a constitution based on human rights, and THEN you WILL have the RIGHT to a better life.
I have lived in New Mexico for eight years. We have a huge dairy industry here, supported almost exclusively by illegal aliens. They work 12 hour shifts, around the clock, for 50 to 60 dollars a day, depending on the dairy.
I also work in construction. Every construction crew is primarily supported by illegals. They make $6 an hour on average.
They are clean, hard working, polite, respectable people, the ones whom I have run into, but they are illegal. No one knows who they are, where they are, how many there are, or why they are here. It is a huge national security problem, in a time of war, a war of infiltration, no less. None of their labor supports our economy. It supports Mexicos economy.
It is also illegal to aid harbor or abet illegal aliens. I support the laws of this great nation, which laws have given, and do give us the freedoms we enjoy.
The attitude that we can be a free nation by becoming a lawless nation, and ignoring or changing the laws for any cause, is deeply disturbing to me.
A criminal is a criminal. The message we are sending is that laws are meaningless, you don’t have to abide by them, they’re just suggestions. And much crime is committed by illegals. It takes a criminal to enter this country illegally, and then we are surprised at the criminal mentality they bring with them, and the crime that follows them.
They have no business here. They are lawbreakers, who cannot respect the rule of a law abiding society. If they are concerned about their families being broken up, they are welcome to take their families back to Mexico with them, to help them rebuild the rubbles, hold rallies and demonstrations, and help in the building of The New Republic of Mexico.
Other than that, my best suggestion is that we ANNEX Mexico, and make it part of the US, subject to all US laws. We could have a land run, just like they did in Oklahoma. There’s an idea.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Rob Grocholsk and to all:
There is a book “The Global Class War” by Jeff Faux, where he discusses the effects of NAFTA and globalization on the living standards in the USA.
It explains many many things.
March 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Tonjia: what about the natural right of Mexicans to offer their labor to the highest bidder?
March 26th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
“For a global free market to function effectively, it is essential that they be allowed to do so”
Bunkerbuster,
The only thing free about free trade is “free labor”—globalization is intended to benefit the global elite not the workers.
Globalization increases income and social disparities within and among nations.
Globalization has exploited many, but it always protects those who own capital —it does not benefit wage earners who do not invest in this exploitation.
Can there be economic justice, if the 200 richest people in the world, have a greater combined income than all of the other two billion people that occupy our planet; one might safely say, that there is a slight economic injustice.
The American working-class resent the myth perpetuated by Bush, when he states that American workers won’t take the jobs that are taken by illegal immigrants.
That is not true, Americans won’t allow themselves to be exploited, but they would take these same jobs, if they were compensated fairly.
Another point of contention, is that the American working-class, feels that they are subsidizing corporate labor costs with their own tax dollars, when they see certain social benefits given to illegal immigrant families, such as: welfare, free education, free medical, housing assistance, etc. – benefits that corporations won’t provide.
So the resentment is only natural, if you have a population who are forced to support those who will eagerly take their jobs at a devalued wage.
Now if you’re an affluent LA housewife, who needs a housekeeper, laundress, cook and nanny to maintain your 6000 square foot abode “on the cheap”—you might have a slightly different take on this issue.
March 26th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Doc–I read Faux’s book from cover to cover it was excellent!
March 26th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
“As long as capital is free to cross the border, so should people be.”
False anaolgy. They can offer it to the highest bidder in any country where they are legal to work. Trouble is it is the lowest that they are competing for and the US worker by proxy.
March 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Good points Eleanore. The Faux book looks good. I saw his talk on C-Span.
March 26th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Marc Cooper » Immigration Issue Explodes. Good Read…
“Saturday saw the largest political demonstration in the history of Los Angeles, and one of the biggest in recent American history.immigration1.jpg
A half-million people or more flooded two dozen blocks of downtown L.A. to give voice to some sort…
March 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Bunkbuster,
I am no economics expert but this is what I see.
Within my own country, which happens to be a capitalist country, as opposed to socialist or communist, I have the right to offer my labor to the highest bidder. One, because I am a citizen and legal resident, who can, by law, offer such services, legally. Two, it is a capitalist society, in which such action is acceptable, and encouraged, by laws that result in freedom, security, and prosperity.
There is no such “natural” right, as you assume, except under law, and under government, in a capitalist society, within ones own economic system.
It is these same laws, in THIS country, that have kept US free, kept US wealthy, and the greatest nation on earth, by NOT allowing such rights and such freedoms without citizenship in this country. Without a vested interest in the future of this land, as the land of the FREE.
Any nation on earth is free to seek what we have acheived by modeling their nation after ours. By forming a nation and an economy based on the principals that have worked here and kept us free and prosperous. Why don’t they?
Because it is not freedom that they love, it is the wealth that freedom produces. They desire the wealth, which is produced by freedom, at no cost to themselves, or their dictatorships, or human rights violations. They wish to practice oppression, subjegation, communism, socialism, etc., and at the same time benefit from the wealth produced by nations that are free. And they do this by coming into this country, and carrying that wealth home to their dictatorships, where they violate human rights and start hate america campaigns. Wealth without freedom, wealth without responsibility, wealth without creating, or producing anything. Wealth at the expense of the free, while they retain all that is counterproductive to wealth within their own societies.
We are not helping the cause of human rights. We are enabling the continuance of regimes that violate human rights, by allowing them to share in the wealth of the free. It is not the natural order of things.
The natural order of things, is that freedom brings wealth. We have proven it.
If other peoples want what we have, LET FREEDOM RING in those nations, and they will have what we have.
We gave blood for ours, what are they willing to give for theirs? Nothing. They are not interested in freedom, only in the wealth that it has produced, which can be used to propagate their own corrupt, totalitarian ways of thinking.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
You said that the rally was not staged. I’m sorry
but it was on the spanish speaking radio stations
all week. They were calling the people to come to
the protest
Debra
March 26th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Well, of course, rallies don’t simply happen. They are organized. They cost money to stage. People don’t know when and where to come through a process of osmosis. Let’s not be naive.
I’m all for people demonstrating for whatever cause they support. What I question is not their right — even if a great many are not citizens of this country — to do so, but their wisdom in doing so.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I’ll pass that along to the half-million who came out. Who knew so many could be so wrong? LOL!
March 26th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
You might be surprised to learn that Hispanics who did things the legal and right way are not so happy with the free pass so many liberals want to give to the new “immigrants” The fact that the US is not the same country as it was 50 or more years ago is meaningless. When we cease to be a nation of laws, and when we fail to enforce the laws we have, we begin to destroy one of the things that has made this country what it is. A beacon for law abiding, freedom loving people everywhere.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
What is a citizenship? Who defines it?
I say, those anti-immigrant racist can go back to Europe if they are not comfortable with non-white native people of Americas. White European came to this country illegally, this country was founded illegally against the will of its native citizens. And they called themselves “Pilgrims”. Yah pilgrims, rather butcher. Now they are not happy that others are coming here too. What a shitty attitude is that???
March 26th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Marc, as you know, the number of people who are politically unwise on any given issue far exceeds that number on a daily basis. LOL
I am simply telling you, based on decades of combined experience at a senior level in presidential and gubernatorial campaigns and in analyzing such campaigns that yesterday’s rally tempts political fate.
It is clearly not politically correct to point out this inconvenient fact, it is clearly not romantic to point out this inconvenient fact, it simply is.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
The day before yesterday MSNBC had an article about the outbreak and worry of drug-resistent TB, largely carried by immigrants into this country. They may well be hard working, nice people who want to raise their families. But we don’t know who they are. We don’t know how many of them are sick or criminals. Legal immigrants have background and medical checks. Are all American’s supposed to risk their families to the diseases of the Third World? Further, there are a lot of Americans living in Mexico, they do not have the right to own property there, but illegals here are demanding that right? Frankly, we treat illegals better than they are treated by their own government.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Bill.. I will be sure to mention your presidential credentials when I pass this info along.
If you’re pointing out — with an excess of words– the simple fact that people who fear immigrants are now going to fear them more and that some politicians might capitalize on pics of Mexican flags etc.. I would say, duh.
Of course. This is obvious. For every action there is a reaction. This march and the many others however are also in themselves a reaction to the nativist provocations of the last year — acts which have now worked themselves up the ladder and have been codified in a House bill.
Does one agree that it would be more strategic to have not unfurled Mexican flags? I’d say so. It would also be more strategic if the Mexian immigrants spoke English, looked more Irish and instead whipped out green beer and Irish flags.
But the world doesnt work that way.
What’s missing so far from your inflated commentary on this subject is any hint of what policy changes you would actually support. So far your observations tell us nothing we didnt aleady know.
The world is awaiting you senior presidential level advice. Andale!
March 26th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Tonjia writes: “There is no such “natural” right, as you assume, except under law, and under government, in a capitalist society, within ones own economic system.”
The right is natural, the birthright of all humans. Laws are there to guarantee it. Few notions are more inimical to American values than the one that says the government originates human rights. They are inalienable and endowed by the creator. What part of that don’t you understand?
March 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Marc, sorry, nice try.
You denied this obvious reality that you now seem to accept in your midnight post. You still don’t acknowledge the other half of it, that events like this can frighten the undecided.
I’m a political analyst. I deal with the real world of electoral politics. It is not my job to advocate a solution to the illegal immigration crisis. A solution that will actually work in the real political world. I don’t have it. I don’t know that anyone does.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Kathy,
As an native Indian, this is all I am going to say:
The Founding Fathers/Mothers of the United States came here Illegally. If the children of those who came here illegally are to be punished, everyone, except us, is to be punished. If not, non-White, non-European has the equal right to come here.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Marc, you got it right. The major differences between now and 1994? The increased voting/political power of Latinos, many more Republicans today understanding the significance of this AND George W. Bush is not acting like Pete Wilson.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Bill,
in your original post at your blog, you said you were waiting for an informed discussion. Marc has authored several thoughtful articles on the subject. What do you think? That’s a legitimate question to ask you beyond your political read on the rally. Is he offering an informed discussion of the issue?
March 26th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
We’ll see when he calms down, Adam.
Allan Hoffenblum, see my report tomorrow morning for what is really happening.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Rick Miller:
“When we cease to be a nation of laws, and when we fail to enforce the laws we have, we begin to destroy one of the things that has made this country what it is. A beacon for law abiding, freedom loving people everywhere.”
Exactly! this is another great thing about this country — people obey the law and they respect the law. And this is the reason #1 why I want to stay here.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Justice: The founding fathers did not come here illegally (since there really wasn’t a bordor then) and even native americans came here (thousands of years earlier). But 300 or so years back everyone was carrying disease. But now most first world nations have medical care. Mexico, while it has medical care for its affluent, is very lacking for its poor and then they come here which makes it our problem. It’s not really their fault but it’s not the fault of American citizens either. Still this is about security not punishment. By the way, I was born here too.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Ruben Navarette - who is a big time foe of unregulated immigration (and properly so) wrote a column about this issue today and basically endorsed the Spector approach plus some additional measures. I also think Allen Hoffenblum has it about right in terms of the politics.
The Navarette approach is a path to citizenship for long timers with ties and additional conditions – but not blanket amnesty. It is politically sellable. In the Sacramento Valley the visible immigrant-foreign born communities are not Latinos - its Asians and Ukrainians so it’s not as Latino as elsewhere in California. It’s different up here because Hispanics are just part of the equation.
The cultural solution to this issue will flow from two events: (i) economic developments in Latin America and declining Hispanic birth rates - both noted by Matthew Dowd and (ii) a greater degree of intermarriage along cultural lines.
On the politics - the issue is can Bush get it done? In that regard he is relying to paraphrase Tennessee Williams the “good will of enemies”: (i) Arlen Spector - a son of Jewish immigrants - born in Kansas, (ii) John McCain who the GOP Establishment has demonized, and (iii) and most importantly the Great-Great grandson of Irish Immigrants and a member of the first family of the Democratic Party - I am of course referring to the Senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Teddy Kennedy.
If I were a Republican who was thinking of a CA statewide run in 2008 or 2010, I would be paranoid about 500,000 persons in the street because most have kids or relatives who are citizens. On the other hand, the interim period is very uncertain. Of those 500,000 I can assure you that represents 2 million votes by the next remap - if not before.
You are already hearing about the Republicans saying internally that they are likely to lose Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada in 2008 because of this if they are not careful.
Therefore, I am waiting for Bush and Rove to come down like a ton of bricks on Frist and Sensenbrenner. The real issue is what happens when the Senate starts the debate tomorrow and Frist tries to bypass Judiciary. I see a Trent Lott play in the wings to do pay back.
Bush has to hope that Teddy, Spector and McCain will work a deal. In sum, while there are massive short term Demo risks here, what is at stake is the long term future of the Republican Party and its fate lies in Teddy Kennedy’s hands.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Tonjia,
there are many laws that regulate employment of aliens. I can sent you the references, if you’d like. And these laws were passed to protect american workers, actually.
Typically, an employer cannot hire a foreign national unless the employer has done the labor certification for the prospective employee. Two major points of labor certification:
1. The employer will pay the same wage for the emloyee as she (employer) would pay a US citizen.
2. Employer has to prove that there are no US citizen qualified and able to perfom this job.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Kathy,
That’s exactly the point. There was no border. But now your forefathers fenced oround yourself and called it border only to prevent others like your own forefathers from coming here. It’s not only issue of US. It’s the case of many other places on this planet such as South Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc, where White European forcefully stole the land of natives and claimed as their own. Who knows, if the new immigrants are allowed, they will build different types of America. Certainly, when the first Europeans came here, they too came with diseases, hungry, criminal background etc. In fact, first people who came to US or Australia were criminals kicked out of Europe as a death penalty to be lost and dead in the pacific and atlantic.
The lesson to learn is to realize that human being are necessarily a mobile being and like any other living being, human move from less resourceful place to more resourceful place. Trying to stop such movement is anti-progress and racist.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Doc, is that the way we think things happen in the fields?
The United Farm Workers have been decimated by illegal immigration.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
“In fact, first people who came to US or Australia were criminals kicked out of Europe as a death penalty to be lost and dead in the pacific and atlantic.”"
Ah not exactly. See the Winthrop Fleet and the great migration of 1630-40. My family were not criminals. They wanted more room, and became share croppers at first. The statement is an overgeneralization fallacy.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Oh, my God, I didn’t see that gem, Mark. My forebears didn’t come to America as criminals, either. Though they did come some time after that. Quite some time. Don’t they teach American history in school anymore?
Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, etc. You know what, I am for the illegal immigrants. I think they should have drivers licenses. But I am very concerned that they are bungling the politics of this. And I do think it is perfectly obvious that there is a tipping point at which illegal immigration triggers a very counterproductive reaction. Not to mention the carrying capacity issue.
It would be nice if everyone in the world could come to America if they wanted to. They can’t.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
“I’ll pass that along to the half-million who came out. Who knew so many could be so wrong? LOL!”
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/logic.htm#numerum
That many people can indeed be both wrong and self-interested.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Bill Bradley,
no, of course not. but this is the way it is done in IT. and there are still people who find ways around the law.
all this happens because someone benefits from it. there are many laws, but there is always a catch, as we all know …
March 26th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
IT? You mean Information Technology?
Not exactly one of the fields most prone to illegal immigration, is it?
March 26th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
… I’m not referring to the fabrication end of it.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Well, “first people who came to US or Australia were criminals kicked out of Europe as a death penalty to be lost and dead in the pacific and atlantic” was a response to Kathy’s quote: “The day before yesterday MSNBC had an article about the outbreak and worry of drug-resistent TB, largely carried by immigrants into this country. They may well be hard working, nice people who want to raise their families. But we don’t know who they are. We don’t know how many of them are sick or criminals”.
Not everyone who come here have disease. In fact if you go to any hospitals, the best doctors are immigrants, the best computer scientists including Einstine, are immigrants, the media moguls such as Murdoch “FoxTV owner” or many genius are immigrants. The real issue here seems to be color of the people, not the immigrant. Obviously, the anti-immigrants have no problem with immigrants of White Color, it seems.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Exactly Bill. I heartily agree with everything you’ve said here. I conside your work a damn fine example of real objectivity. Well done and a stellar journalistic role model.
My people came in 1635 and had jack squat. Later, Alexander Hamilton saw to it they had less after five generations, prefering to pay foreign contributors to the revolutionary cause over local Americans at the time.
http://www.genealogy.com/genealogy/users/y/o/r/Mark-a-York/index.html
March 26th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Justice the real issue for YOU is color. To me it’s just an adaptive response to a local environment. The sun: Sol.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Bill Bradley,
Yes, Information Technology. No, it’s not prone to illegal immigration. I gave it just as an example how things work with the employment of aliens.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Well, it is a good example of how things are supposed to work. My friend has a sister who was interested in legally emigrating to America. Her sister is an engineer. But even for her it looks to be a difficult prospect.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
First of all, Bill, you lost me at hello when you chose to low-ball the number of marchers as being “between 100,000 and 500,000-plus participants, the latter estimate contained in a pro-rally article filed this afternoon in the Los Angeles Times…..”
Um, no. Actually, the 500K plus estimate was made by that notoriously pro-illegal immigrant outfit, the LAPD. (You listening, Rockford? Fact checking is your friend. And, CNN didn’t report 20,000 marchers. )
And while we’re on the subject, if the Times article is “pro-rally” what would a neutral article look like.
Oh, right. I get it. Yours.
Bill, you must feel so alone today in your clear-eyed perspective since, it seems that pro-illegals fever is running rife through the clueless media. My God, man, it’s even infected the normally conservative OC Register. (Which can only mean one thing: Crafty immigrants are slipping something in the water, the bastards! D’you think there’s such a thing as a Liberal roofie?)
To wit, here’s what an obviously deluded OC Register reporter, wrote on the rally:
“People waved the flags of the United States, Mexico, El Salvador. They chanted in Spanish, “Sí se puede,” meaning “Yes, we can,” and carried signs in English that ran the gamut from “We are not the enemy, we are part of the solution” to “‘Remember how wet your back was on the Mayflower.’
“For many it was a family affair. Fathers held children in their arms, mothers inched strollers along. One little girl held a handmade sign that read, ‘I refuse to turn my grandparents in….’”
The horror! The unwise-ness! The backlash!
Look, I appreciate some of the issues you raise, and was intrigued by your [California Assembly Speaker] Fabian Nunez quote: “You know when we had the big march in L.A. against [the anti-illegal immigrant] Proposition 187 in ’94, Miguel [Contreras] tried to talk me out of it. ‘Are you guys crazy?’ he said. But I wanted to march.”
But, here’s where we differ again: I didn’t draw at all the same meaning you did from Nunez’ statement.
I took it to mean that back in ‘94—and yesterday—the masses of people, Fabio Nunez included, who marched against Prop 187 a dozen years ago, and yesterday against the Sensenbrenner bill, did so for reasons that were perhaps not immediately evident to a “political analyst” who deals “… with the real world of electoral politics…”
In the end, after all the political pluses and minuses were catalogued and counted, they marched because they believed it was the right thing to do. And, y’know Bill? Sometimes that trumps everything.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
There are many ways to estimate a crowd. I know this as an old advance man. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know how big the crowd is. In LA, there is plenty of politics around the police. It’s one of the most highly politicized PDs in the country, as you may have heard. The Mayor was one of the principal speakers at the rally.
The rest is your assertion based on your ideology.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Ooops. About that “alone” thing I mentioned to Bill… My bad. Lots of company here today.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Mark, the real issue related to Immigration is color or race. That’s the fact. By saying that, I am not labeling everyone that are colorless in the same group. I am not also advocating for the open border policy. The fact that person of color gets picked on even if he/she is native American really sucks. If that is not an indication of anti-immigrant attitude based on color, I don’t know what else.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Has Marc Cooper made the argument that the regulation of borders must fail? Elsewhere, that is. He’ll forgive me if I’m suspicious of those claiming historic inevitability — from Marxists to neocons, the track record sucks.
For example, has he dealt with the question of what would occur if illegal immigration is made a felony?
March 26th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I think when one decides the other low-balled the size of a crowd the argument is lost, unless of course they low ball it as out of whack as Rockford’s. It looked like big crowd of people to me. And every damn one with a cross to bear of sort sort. Unless someone documents what I used to do in the movies here, [use 100 extras in the stands , move them around for the money shots and fill in the rest digitally or with cardboard cutouts: in any case I got paid!] this is a straw man.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
The biggest issue in immigration in my view is the downward pressure it puts on wages at the low end of the scale. You only have to compare custodial job wages in the Northeast and the Southwest to see the effect.
Otherwise, if you want to look at it that way, it’s a fairly painless way for a rich country to share its wealth with a poor one.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Justice, no one is getting picked on because of race.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Yes, actually, now that I think of it, I accurately reported that crowd estimates ranged from 100,000 to 500,000-plus.
I really dislike it when people attempt to distort what I am saying. And I am not running for president of PC nation, a minority within a minority.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Bill Bradley,
Of course it is difficult. The immigration system is broken, and it is broken ON PURPOSE, as there are many many people who benefit from it: lawyers, so-called consulting firms (they hold your H1-B visa as a middle man), etc …
And everbody has a share!
Immigration to Canada and Australia is more streamlined, they use point system. You get your points for your qualifications, once you get score high enough, you qualify for legal permanent residence.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
How would that point system work for day labor at gardening, lawn care and custodial work? Keeping in mind there is a union for the latter.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Mark,
As it is now say in Canada, it would not. Canada is interested in bringing highly skilled labor.
In Australia you get extra points if your profession is in high demand. And they update list of such professions periodically.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Bill, reread what you wrote. I quoted you exactly and in context.
And, I believe I read your intimation quite correctly…..as evidenced by your response when I mentioned the LAPD provenance of the half million figure.
“In LA, there is plenty of politics around the police. It’s one of the most highly politicized PDs in the country, as you may have heard.”
Oh, please.
And, yes, of course, the rest of my post was based on my opinion. (Hmmmm. That might have been why I wrote much of it in the first person.) I’m commenting on a friend’s blog, for heaven’s sake, not reporting . But opinionated though I may be on this issue, it doesn’t cause me to tilt facts.
Bill, I usually enjoy your political analysis even if I don’t always agree with it. This is one of those times I don’t agree. I’m with Marc: I think you got it wrong. But who’s to say for sure? We’ll only know once this whole, extremely complex issue plays out in the next weeks and years.
Here’s the deal: I harped on the numbers for a reason, not because they’re important in and of themselves (Mark), but because your presentation of them suggested your own ideology from the get go.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Why are there so many immigrants from Mexico and so few from Malawi and Niger, countries that have recently experienced famine? Why is a common border a moral imperative?
March 26th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Let me get it right. The voters of this country should fear what people who are here illegally say? I think not. They can not vote and if the politicians in D.C. decide on catering to them then they will be the ones out on the street. We need to just close off the border and then decide on what course is best for those citizens of other nations that want to stay here. Some may choose to return home, some may want to stay with conditions that the voters place on them. Some may go even deeper into the underground economy but they may eventually be caught and returned to their home country. We in this country should not fear doing what is right and what is required everwhere else. When Marc casually says we can’t close down the borders that is just an untried claim. If we decide that is what we want then it can be done.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
I actually just realized something. Australia is a continental country, surrounded by water. Canada borders US. Neither of them faces the problem of aliens crossing the border…
March 26th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
As I said, I don’t know how many people were there and neither do you. I don’t have an “ideology” about the numbers. I do have doubt about a report from a politicized PD regarding numbers addressed by their Mayor. LOL
But let’s say there really were 500,000. That makes it even more of a red flag for many people, doesn’t it?
Why, yes, it does.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Incidentally, Mickey Kaus was there. He has been around many political events over the past few decades. He thought there were really more like 200,000 people there …
March 26th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
March 27, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
North of the Border
By PAUL KRUGMAN
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I’m proud of America’s immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.
In other words, I’m instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren’t for Mexican immigration.
That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.” The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they’re here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country’s experience with immigration, “We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.” Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.
Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.
We shouldn’t exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a “modest role” in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.
But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?
Realistically, we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests — legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush’s plan for a “guest worker” program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who’d love to have a low-wage work force that couldn’t vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.
What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I’d still be careful. Whatever the bill’s intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice — that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.
We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I’d rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
(sigh.) I didn’t say you had an ideological viewpoint of the numbers. I said your presentation of the numbers suggested an ideological stance on the demonstration, it’s meaning and it’s ultimate effect on the political landscape. (Or words to that effect.)
“I really dislike it when people attempt to distort what I am saying.”
Ditto.
“I do have doubt about a report from a politicized PD regarding numbers addressed by their Mayor….”
How is that hilarious? Let me count the ways.
Well, at least we have Mikey Kaus.
Okay, I’ve certainly pummeled this dead horse well past equine jerky.
Reg….thanks for posting the Krugman column. It’s a good one.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Nice parsing, Rosedog. You know what I said and what I meant.
Now on to something serious. Mickey Kaus over at Slate has just noticed that the LA Times amended its original story on the rally — which mentioned marchers with American flags at the top and marchers with Mexican flags late in the piece — in an interesting way.
Now the story doesn’t mention Mexican flags at all.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138371/
March 26th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
All I can say is no human being is “illegal.” All politicians who want to insult the rights of these people will go the way of Pete Wilson when he ran for President in 1996. Latinos Unidos
March 26th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Tune in tomorrow night for a skit featuring the two Bills — Bratton and Bradley — debating Saturday’s crowd estimate. Winner gets a ride on George Putnam’s horsey.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Unlike certain people, I say straight out what I don’t know. I don’t know how many people were there because I wasn’t there. You don’t know, either. That’s why you make a joke that you don’t quite understand. As an old advance man, I know there are many ways to play the crowd count game. Especially with one of the country’s most politicized PDs dealing with a rally featuring the Mayor. You do know there are negotiations in store.
And, Virgil, it is not illegal to be a human being. It is, however, illegal to come to this country in violation of its immigration laws.
March 27th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Odd no mention here of the 100,000 plus criminals/year that enter from Mexico.
Nor the fact that illegals are filling our prisons here in widely disproportionate numbers.
No mention of the serious “Latino” Gang problems either.
See no evil, but that doesn’t make it so.
March 27th, 2006 at 1:35 am
Oh, for crying out loud, Bill, I report on the LAPD. You don’t. So stop lecturing me on this aspect of your numbers meme.
Doug: “….Nor the fact that illegals are filling our prisons here in widely disproportionate numbers….” Yadda, yadda, yadda.
All this has been discussed in great detail on another thread. Go to the Department of Justice website, read the actual figures on what percentage of those incarcerated in US prisons and jails are non-citizens. And please don’t spout any more of this nonsense until you’ve checked your facts in places other than on right-wing websites.
FYI: Most “Latino” gang members, as you put it, are American citizens. As it happens, we imported our gang problem south of the border, most specifically to Central America, not the reverse.
March 27th, 2006 at 1:40 am
PS: The Jon Stewart thing wasn’t me.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:35 am
I think it’s fair to say that treating “American” humans better, worse, or differently than treating “non-American” humans is essentially “racist” — though “American” is a citizenship, not exactly a race.
The pure Libertarian would treat all humans equally — all with 0, zero, gov’t paid-for welfare benefits. In such a soc