A Fig Leaf To Cover Our Shame, Please?

Jay Tea at Wizbang is pretty down on the immigration bill.

All I ask for is a few simple things from any immigration bill:

1) Some measures that at least pretend to staunch the flow of illegals across the border;

2) Some sort of promises that this might actually work, and not lead to having to deal with two to sixty times as many illegals in another 21 years.

I’m not even asking for guarantees. I know better than that, when dealing with politicians. Just give me a fig leaf, a plausible lie that I can pretend to accept.

Is that too much to ask for?

1. Here’s what I want:

   1.  A convincing plan to make border crossing much harder to do.

   2.  A way for the millions of people living and working here to attain full citizenship

   3.  Some kind of political and economic push to encourage Mexican reforms so that millions of them might enjoy a higher standard of living and not need to come here so desperately.

   Here’s what I don’t want:

   1.  More borderline-racism, portraying the poor and desperate Mexicans who come here as some kind of terrorists.

   2.  Stupid talk about deporting 12 million people.

   3.  12 million illegals living here without the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship, (aka “guest workers”)

   Who’s going to make me happy on this issue?

   Posted by scott on June 07, 2007 at 0836 hrs




2. Liberals, except for #1.

   Posted by Owen on June 07, 2007 at 0858 hrs




3. I actually worry that item 1 is the hardest, that it may not be realistic, or that it may work at cross purposes with item 3.  But I’m willing to entertain smart ideas on how it might be done.

   Posted by scott on June 07, 2007 at 0909 hrs




4. I like Scott’s points. For number 3 we can annex Mexico

   Posted by Matt on June 07, 2007 at 0921 hrs




5. I keep thinking about the fact that Mexico is not a poor country.  Something is wrong there politically that is causing a radically skewed distribution of wealth.  I don’t know exactly what it is, but an OPEC country with a GDP in the trillions ought not to have countless citizens risking their lives and living like fugitives in order to escape abject poverty.

   Posted by scott on June 07, 2007 at 0928 hrs




6. Yeah, scott—its called racism. Mestizo and Indian citizens are shunned and ignored while white or mostly white Spanish citizens enjoy a standard of living near that of the US.

   In a way I don’t have much interest in us expending effort to reform their country. They screwed it up. If they’re willing to risk their lives for a better future, why can’t they do so via violent revolution in their own country? At least then they could have some pride about themselves.

   Posted by k2aggie07 on June 07, 2007 at 0947 hrs




7. Well if the humanitarian issues don’t trouble you much (the callousness of many conservatives astounds me, but I guess I should be used to it by now), there’s always self-interest.  Long term, I believe such reforms would do more to help our illegal immigration problem than any other measure we could dream up.

   Posted by scott on June 07, 2007 at 0954 hrs




8. Scott, I have to admit I am somewhat callous.  For me it comes from knowing/believing that Americans can’t save the rest of the world.  Then it comes to this:  Which battles do you fight and how do you react to criticism on the battles you choose not to fight?  Sometimes I get sick of hearing that I am not giving or doing or thinking of doing enough, because the battles I chose were not the same as others.  At those times I get cranky and come off as even more callous than I really am.  As an idealist, you choose all battles, but I think of that as somewhat of a copout.  In fighting all battles you win none except the inner battle where you get to feel morally superior and feel you can judge others. 

   I really do not mean that as a condemnation, I respect most of your substance comments, but I do feel that a majority of liberals think of themselves as morally superior even as they advocate sex for all, abortion, etc.  (the new morality, I guess) I especially like the idea of #3, but how could Americans ever make it come about non-violently which, of course, you would oppose.  They have a class stratification problem that rarely changes peacefully and is a civil problem.  As a foreign country, the best we could do is encourage embargos on exports in the nebulous name of humanitarianism and that would, in the short term at least, create increased immigration and civil unrest.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2007 at 1112 hrs




9. As an idealist, you choose all battles,

   I really don’t know what you mean.  I think of myself as a realist: I want to expend our resources only when and where it can be effective in the pursuit of our goals: humanitarian, political, economic or otherwise.  The charge that I “choose all battles” in order to feel “morally superior” is one that I don’t even feel I need to vigorously deny.  It’s so obviously a crude caricature that nobody who thinks about it for a few minutes can take it seriously in the first place.

   I especially like the idea of #3, but how could Americans ever make it come about non-violently which, of course, you would oppose.

   That’s ridiculous.  We have enormous influence on Mexico.  Suddenly we need to invade them in for meaningful political reforms to take place there?  What color is the sky in your world?  Here it’s blue!

   I see a lot of absolutist, black and white thinking in your remarks.  Liberals can’t make priorities, Mexico can’t reform without violence.  This kind of thinking is dangerous and often wrong.

   Posted by scott on June 07, 2007 at 1125 hrs




10. Ah that is the problem.  Here the sky is ochre.  I do tend to think in too black and white terms.  A fault, I agree.

    I don’t think Mexico can only reform with violence, but I think our ability to influence them is more limited than you.  Our influence extends to the privileged minority.  Self interest is seen most strongly at the top.  Leaning on them economically could bring about slightly better living/working conditions for the poor, but peaceful negotiations will NEVER get Mexican business interests to hire Mestizo or Indian executives.  It will not get those people the education to enter higher level jobs, such as doctors and lawyers.  Mexico ain’t the US, and the freedom to just start your own business from nothing and build it to become ‘rich’ enough to change social strata is not available in most other countries. 

    I do think many liberals have problems prioritizing when it comes to reform.  You may have a favorite or two, but you advocate Government taking money to fix every social problem that is discussed on this blog.

    My caricature was no doubt crude and likely overstated.  There is no doubt, however, that I feel like you are talking down to me most times in these comments.  As I have a satisfactory self-esteem, that means it is likely true for whatever reason.  (But I have been known to be paranoid of how I think others feel in the past so you could be right there too.  I thought I grew out of it)  Take away “in order to feel morally superior” and I still think you choose all social battles and the solution usually is for the Government to spend money on it.  IF you had absolute power to change all that you have espoused since I have been reading this blog, I think no one would have a paycheck left.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2007 at 1158 hrs




11. SCOTT!

    What happened to you? You are eminently reasonable on this one! In fact, what you have there sounds almost verbatim my stand as well.

    However, I do believe there is some justification on the basis of terrorism and our lax borders. MS13 and other criminal gangs will not give one whit about assisting AQ and others across our borders (unlike the Mafia of old who kept the dock workers working through WWII).

    I agree in our political environment it is lunacy to think we have any chance at deporting even one million people let alone 12 or whatever the actual number is.

    You are correct in trying to spur Mexico (after all there is a reason we don’t have millions coming into our nation from Soviet Canuckistan) to reform its economy but do not think it easy or short term. Mexico is widely held to be deeply corrupt and the President of the MSA may be all honest and pledge to weed out corruption but without the cooperation of the society forget it. Also land reform is probably needed ala Hernando DeSoto, but that is also a more revolutionary thing.

    The Philippines are in a similar straight. Their economy is lackluster despite the enterprising nature of the people, the corruption and uncertainty about the political state (and China’s unquenchable hunger for capital & capital goods) are keeping a tight lid on that economy.

    Sometime ago I chatted with a Mexican bartender. He had a wife & children at home around Mexico City, it was apparent the situation even for him was less than ideal.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 08, 2007 at 1040 hrs




12. You are eminently reasonable on this one!

    I call ‘em as I see ‘em without much regard as to who’s going to agree with me.  But at least I know that what I’m saying isn’t inciting a partisan argument.  Good to know.

    in our political environment it is lunacy to think we have any chance at deporting even one million people let alone 12

    I don’t view our inability to deport millions as a cynical “just not possible because of politics” problem; it just doesn’t make sense as a practical, economic or political matter.  The effort required to do this would be unbelievable.  The economic impact would be very damaging.  The politics of it would be divisive.  It’s international impact would also be large and I’m betting not good.

    Posted by scott on June 08, 2007 at 1056 hrs




13. Scott,

    If we wanted to and had the will we COULD deport a major percentage of the 12 million. However, to do it would require a resoluteness we do not have.

    In 1992 there were riots in the city I was residing in at the time. The police & the nation’s armed forces went in, shut down the rioting part of the city, and then rounded up everyone and put them into camp. They then went through everyone’s papers and those with papers were released those without were shipped home (in this case some 10,000 or so went back home to Pakistan).

    Pakistan complained and the UAE said too bad.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 08, 2007 at 1230 hrs