I have sympathy for people who are freaked out by desperate immigrants and ruthless smugglers trampling over their property in southern Arizona, and as I’ve said elsewhere, us pro-immigrant types too easily skate over rule-of-law objections. Federal immigration policy is a failure, and poses real public policy challenges that no amount of righteous indignation and/or handwaving makes disappear.
But anti-illegal immigration crackdowns almost always end up restricting freedom for the rest of us. And giving cops more power is almost always felt more on the receiving end by people–including people just as law-abiding as you and I–who don’t look like the norm. Remember, the stated goal of the new law is “to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” Those who think you can surgically accomplish “attrition” without inflaming and driving out legal residents, too, are kidding themselves.
This is a good argument for focusing border security at . . . the border, where it doesn’t impact ordinary citizens day-to-day. Shifting from border security to internal security is both an admission of failure at the borders, and a much more far-reaching and intrusive approach.
I would agree. It’s certainly true that some amount of internal enforcement is necessary, but internal enforcement should not be our primary emphasis. I also believe that if legal immigration were easier, there would be less incentive for otherwise law-abiding aliens to enter the country illegally. I believe border security is important, but I also believe the country should be more welcoming to those who wish to come here to work or study.
Anon says:
Amen, brother. It is time to seperate the (good) rule-of-law advocates from the (bad) I-don’t-like-Mexicans. A stronger border control policy that was limited to the border would be helpful.
May 1, 2010, 10:19 amSteve says:
Megan McArdle made the point a little more broadly than Glenn:
Indeed, it doesn’t just have to be at the border. But it doesn’t have to intrude upon daily life either.
May 1, 2010, 10:22 amwm13 says:
This sounds like the usual nonsense one hears from “Reason” types: young childless people who enjoy edgy environments, have marginal, “creative” jobs, and have been known to violate laws regarding drug consumption and sexual behavior. People of that type generally find increased law enforcement burdensome, and complain bitterly, but they are a tiny minority. Adults with regular jobs and children generally prefer higher degrees of public order, which is why there are more of them in Manhattan than there were 20 years ago.
May 1, 2010, 10:57 amFub says:
Quoting Matt Welch above:
Exactly.
Not one single law enforcement official, local, state or federal, so much as raised an eyebrow about deporting Pedro Guzman, a developmentally disabled natural born American citizen. In fact, they claimed they were properly following all laws, regs and procedures when they did — until the facts demonstrating that they didn’t do so surfaced. They then provided at best minimal assistance to Guzman’s mother in finding her son in Mexico. Some say they actually resisted and impeded her search.
May 1, 2010, 11:02 amJerb says:
It’s worth keeping in mind that probably about half of all illegal immigrants are visa overstays. It seems plausible that more border enforcement will just result in even more people finding legal ways to enter the country and then not leaving. I remain convinced that stronger legality checks at the point of employment are going to be the most cost-effective way to solve this problem.
May 1, 2010, 11:03 amsteve s says:
Jerb has it correct. The Arizona law is unlikely to catch many illegals unless they turn to random, wide scale stops, not just during normal police contacts. Also, those deported can just come back. If you really want to cut down on the number of illegals here, go after the employers. No jobs and illegal immigrants will not come.
Steve
May 1, 2010, 11:11 amShelbyC says:
Second folks that say if you want to control illegal immigration, hammer the employers. Securing the border won’t work. A fence in middle of the desert 60 miles from anywhere does absolutely nothing, crossing a fence in nothing compared to crossing the desert. All it does is prevent pronghorns and bighorn sheep from migrating. And the crap you have to do to get all that fence material into the wilderness really sucks, as well as all the grading and clearing to build the fence.
May 1, 2010, 11:47 amMGA says:
The only effective way to end illegal immigration is to allow more legal immigrants. Between 1945 and 1964, we had a bracero program that allowed Mexican migrant workers to legally enter the country, harvest the crops, and then return to Mexico. We did not have a problem with illegal immigration. That started only after LBJ, under pressure from the labor unions, ended the bracero program.
As long as the wages available in the United States are so much higher than in Mexico, Mexican workers are going to try to come here. It is absolutely amazing to me that conservatives can’t figure out that markets overwhelm governments in immigration as in every thing else.
May 1, 2010, 11:57 amT. Gracchus says:
Legalize production and consumption of, at least, marijuana. That would have a significant effect on crime connected with illegal immigration.
May 1, 2010, 12:03 pmA. Zarkov says:
How many people get deported per year? I’ll guess hundreds of thousands. How many American citizens get erroneously deported? I’ll guess less than 100. How perfect do you want the system to be? I’ll guess 100%, which means you really don’t want anyone deported expected (maybe) criminals.
BTW do you know your risks from being a patient in a hospital? On the order of several per hundred per year. Those risks include major complications and death.
May 1, 2010, 12:09 pmlibertariansoldier says:
Third for going after the employers.
May 1, 2010, 12:13 pmA. Zarkov says:
There’s a problem with this scheme. The temporary workers don’t want to go back and they run away. Mexico today is far more chaotic, corrupt and dangerous place than it was in the 1950s. Lot’s more Mexicans want to come to the U.S. to escape the horror of their homeland. Not only that, many Mexicans believe the Southwest really belongs to Mexico and they have every right to cross the border because the border shouldn’t be there. This Reconquista attitude is promoted by the Mexican government as well as many domestic organizations such as La Raza. A few years ago the president of Mexico said, “Wherever there are Mexicans there is Mexico,” in a direct challenge to U.S. sovereignty. Our government was silent because our politicians are afraid of the Latino vote.
Let’s face it, a modern-day Bracero program would simply put the coyotes out of business. If Mexicans are willing to pay thousands of dollars or ride in the engine compartment of car to get smuggled into the U.S., they would surely pick crops for a few months and then flee. If you don’t want illegals here, then you must make life difficult for them to lessen the attraction.
May 1, 2010, 12:21 pmA. Zarkov says:
Now you really can’t say that until we try the new law and see what happens.
May 1, 2010, 12:23 pmA. Zarkov says:
We have numerous counter examples to your assertion that “fences don’t work.” The Israeli fence has been extremely effective. Communist countries fenced in their whole population. If the Soviet Union could seal its entire border, then surely the U.S. could seal about 1,500 miles. You don’t just build a fence and walk away. You install electronic monitors, use patrols, radar, and unmanned aircraft to control border area. Fences do work if you want them to work. The problem is not the fence, but the unwillingness of the American government to control the border. They don’t want to. I personally was told that to my face by ICE officials.
May 1, 2010, 12:31 pmVinny B. says:
I agree that illegal immigration is a problem in this country. However, laws that try to do something about are not the answer. The only thing those laws accomplish are that they angry interests groups, the Mexican government, and undocumented peoples. Therefore, we should just ignore the problem and hope it goes away, or just give citizenship to everyone so we can keep people happy.
May 1, 2010, 12:32 pmMike McDougal says:
Arizona passed that law in 2007.
May 1, 2010, 12:34 pmbailey says:
How magnanimous of the folks at Reason to acknowledge that their might be a problem. Does that go over better than telling people that they are ignorant racists? Does anyone find the folks at Reason to be less than credible given the general contempt for immigration laws and enforcement that they have?
May 1, 2010, 12:39 pmHans Bader says:
There is a lot of hypocrisy in the denunciations of Arizona.
It’s curious that there is such vituperation against Arizona for acting against illegal immigrants (who are by definition here illegally), when no one seems to have a problem with liberal California officials promoting boycotts against Arizona, and seeking to discriminate against Arizona businesses in government contracts in retaliation for Arizona’s new law (which raises serious constitutional issues), as California Senate leader Steinberg (D) has advocated. (The Washington Post’s Robert McCartney, an admirer of disgraced former DC Mayor Marion Barry, has advocated “blacklisting” Arizona and Arizona businesses).
Why is it more acceptable in liberal eyes to discriminate against residents of a sister state than against those who are in the country illegally?
There are some unwise provisions in Arizona’s new law, but it is far less objectionable and less constitutionally suspect to discriminate against illegal aliens than to discriminate against residents of another state (like California municipalities such as San Francisco imposing sanctions on Arizonans).
May 1, 2010, 12:42 pmbailey says:
San Fran actually had rules in place to protect illegal criminals and people died as a result. It’s unfortunate that illegals aren’t coming into the country to compete with tenured law professors. Perhaps if they were, we could see if libertarians put their money where their mouth is.
May 1, 2010, 12:49 pmPeteP says:
Proper border control would not only limit illegal aliens, but also support the ‘war on drugs’, and Mexico’s wish to prevent US arms from going south ( regardless of what a trivial portion of their drug wars those arms are ).
So – let’s take the billions of dollars Obama wants to give Mexico to ‘fight their drug cartel war’, and some billions from our own ‘war on drugs’, and use it to PROPERLY secure our Southern border, in both directions.
BTW, before anyone complains about Arizona’s new law and calls it ‘racist’ etc, you need to look at MEXICO’S laws regarding illegal aliens THERE, including the ones that SPECIFY that ‘immigrants must not change the racial balance of the area’.
May 1, 2010, 12:58 pmSara says:
I never understood how people think an unforgiving desert won’t stop them but a fence will.
May 1, 2010, 12:59 pmJeff S. says:
Actually, to control the problem, we need to hammer the country that enables the border-crossers. Charge the Mexican Gov’t. for every one and, let them solve the problem. When their ox gets gored, then a solution will be found.
May 1, 2010, 1:26 pmChris Travers says:
My question (asked several times and unanswered) is whether this law mandates AZ officers to enforce immigration law in visa fraud cases which the Federal Government has declined to enforce. A common example is coming to the US on a tourist visa in order to get married. Usually the feds refuse to prosecute, but have other ways of discouraging this practice.
My reading is that it does. But would that interpretation be subject to pre-emption?
If I travel to AZ with my family, do I need to bring evidence of bringing my wife into the country with the right kind of visa?
May 1, 2010, 1:53 pmChris Travers says:
I dunno if that’s comparable. The Communists were trying to keep their people in more than trying to keep Westerners out, and the fence was only one element. But…. Do we REALLY want to follow the Communist example?
May 1, 2010, 2:02 pmChris Travers says:
I would add that even a high-tech fence is insufficient. A few years ago there was a tunnel discovered between a San Diego warehouse and a Tijuana warehouse, terminating in both buildings, and apparently dug from both directions. The maximum depth of the tunnel was 90 ft underground, and the length was about a mile. Nobody has sufficiently explained how the soil and rock was removed without anybody noticing. Stored in a side-tunnel was some 40 T of marijuana.
Moreover, what about our water border? How long before smugglers go from semi-submersibles to outright submarines?
May 1, 2010, 2:08 pmChris Travers says:
Following our unqualified and easily had success in Iraq, should invade Mexico for the crime of enabling the illegal immigrants, thus displacing any law enforcement agencies however ineffective and creating a steady stream of refugees across our border.
That’d be perfect. To make that work we’d go from “illegal immigrants” to (very likely) even higher quantities of “legal refugees.” I cannot imagine a better solution to this problem…….
While we’re at it, why don’t we just pass a law granting full diplomatic immunity to all illegal aliens, thus placing them and their children outside the 14th Amendment citizenship clause….
May 1, 2010, 2:14 pmsteve s says:
“Arizona passed that law in 2007.”
But they do not use it. Going after employers would mean offending voters and people who donate to elections.
” Communist countries fenced in their whole population. If the Soviet Union could seal its entire border, then surely the U.S. could seal about 1,500 miles.”
Really? Which ones? The Iron Curtain was rather porous in places, especially Poland. Who has effectively sealed 1500 miles or anything close to it. The border between South and North Korea is probably the best sealed in the world and it is only about 160 miles IIRC. What would you do about the ocean route? How about the northern border? What if they invent ladders or shovels? Who is going to pay for all of this? How much will it cost? Do you support the widespread use of eminent domain to clear the needed land? Much better to just eliminate the reason for illegals wanting to come here.
I would also agree with those who advocate for more legal immigration.
May 1, 2010, 2:18 pmgray says:
“Actually, to control the problem, we need to hammer the country that enables the border-crossers.”
Change “country” to “employers” and then you will have a solution. No jobs, no reason to stay, excepting maybe the refugees from drug war violence these days.
Of course if you “hammer” the employers they will have to pay more for labour and that won’t be very popular will it ?
May 1, 2010, 2:26 pmMac says:
Why do so many people continue to state that we must go after “the employer”? We have that law and it hasn’t worked. The same people who don’t like this new law and don’t want a fence because they “know” these remedies won’t work are absolutely sure that a tough employer sanction law will work even though we have that and it does not work. I am confused.
Also, where in the Constitution does it say that employers are charged with immigration duty? It seems we can’t let our Az. law enforcement ask about immigration but anyone who has a business, creates jobs and pays taxes, like they don’t have enough to do, must now be an arm of ICE and are required to ask about immigration status. That preemption is of Federal responsibility is OK?
May 1, 2010, 2:54 pmRandy says:
wm13: “This sounds like the usual nonsense one hears from “Reason” types: young childless people who enjoy edgy environments, have marginal, “creative” jobs, and have been known to violate laws regarding drug consumption and sexual behavior.”
Yes, those libertines love to violate all those sex laws we have. Sounds like you want a law to deport these “reason” types too.
May 1, 2010, 2:55 pmAngus says:
I deleted the nonsense about the Reconquista, since it is in fact nonsense on the order of the Illuminati or Masonic world domination conspiracy theories. Since I know many immigrants, including some illegals, I can tell you the #1 reason they overstay their visas: they believe they will never get another one. The process is so difficult and restrictive that once someone lucks into a visa, they assume it will be their one and only chance to enter America. I’m currently helping a friend who became an American citizen in 2007. She’s been trying for three years to get a visa for her brother to visit her and her new family in the U.S. Despite her invitations, her brother has been denied constantly for three years. That kind of exclusionary policy encourages illegal immigration.
Legal immigration quotas should be set to at least 3-4 times what they are currently. If that happened, the illegal immigration problem would begin to resolve itself. No coyotes, workers could return to their home countries since they have a good chance of getting another visa in the future, etc.
May 1, 2010, 2:56 pmAngus says:
I think that’s kinda the point of such proposals: we must support a totalitarian government in order to protect us from brown people.
May 1, 2010, 3:00 pmMac says:
Read more: Immigration law cutting into Hispanic hires – Phoenix Business Journal: ” new immigration law — combined with the existing employer sanctions law — is prompting more employers to eschew hiring Hispanic workers for fear of running into trouble.
The result could propel more discrimination claims for Hispanic workers who feel unfairly treated on the job.
Local labor and employment attorneys say they are increasingly seeing the trend of businesses opting to not to hire Latinos or laying Hispanic workers off, even if they are U.S. citizens or have legal status.
“We have heard of employers who have questioned whether Hispanic workers should be resubmitted through the current e-verify system in response to this legislation. This is exactly the type of response that is ill-advised and could land employers in hot water,” said Shayna Balch, a labor attorney… ”
So, employers are going to be fined and possibly put out of business if they hire illegals and sued if they take steps to not hire illegals.
Also, the same people who want to put the immigration verification burden on the business person, are also suing the business person and are still proceeding to drag this employer sanctions law through the courts. I believe it will go to the Supreme Court soon, no?
Why would anyone want to run a business?
May 1, 2010, 3:14 pmChris Travers says:
I don’t think employer sanctions will work either. The real solution is to look at the underlying dynamics and ask what we need to change to correct the matter. I say we need a guest worker program so we can control who comes into this country for this sort of work and we need to restrict it’s use to certain types of employers (agriculture being a good example) and work.
Drug legalization is another thing that will greatly help.
On top of that, we can also look at how we have to structure things so that the problems are contained and minimized.
May 1, 2010, 3:14 pmMac says:
Chris wrote: “I don’t think employer sanctions will work either. The real solution is to look at the underlying dynamics and ask what we need to change to correct the matter. I say we need a guest worker program so we can control who comes into this country for this sort of work and we need to restrict it’s use to certain types of employers (agriculture being a good example) and work.”
Chris, I don’t disagree with your statement, but we need to enforce our laws and law enforcement needs to be the ones doing it, not business people. They already are unpaid tax collectors for the States and Feds and are now supposed to be INS or ICE agents as well. You cannot ignore enforcement.
Do we just build bars around teller’s at banks and ignore bank robbers and expect there will be no more robberies?
Also, the underlying dynamic is that Mexico, for one, is a completely dysfunctional country. (And, is mighty hostile to illegal immigration into Mexico, I might add and to any non-citizen employment) We can’t solve all of Mexico’s problems. They have been corrupt for centuries which is one of the reasons AZ is not a part of Mexico, if you look at the history.
Also, it is not just illegals from Mexico that are coming in. Chinese were being smuggled in that international human smuggling ring that was just busted. I am sure there are people from many other non-Hispanic countries as well. I think that the US, just like every other country in the world, has a right to control who comes in and who stays here. That is one of the primary functions of the Federal Gov. and they are failing at it.
May 1, 2010, 3:31 pmBrett Bellmore says:
It’s simple: We don’t plan on putting a fence in the middle of the desert, and walking away from it. We plan on putting a fence in the middle of the desert, and patrolling it.
A 10 foot wide strip of concrete would suffice, given sensors to pick up anybody walking across it, (Or burrowing under it.) and troops stationed at close enough intervals to reach the illegals before they’ve had a chance to hide.
May 1, 2010, 3:43 pmq says:
Sanctioning the employer is probably the worst solution I’ve ever heard and really emphasizes the xenophobic nature of those against immigration. Sanctioning the employer only affects the one kind of illegal immigrant we should not mind: economic immigrants. I’m somewhat sympathetic to arguments about crime and drugs, but a massive deportation regime of all illegal immigrants is an extremely heavy-handed solution. Same with a 2000 mile fence. Still, at least those plausibly target the “bad” immigrants, even if it does burden the millions of “good” immigrants. Employer sanctions doesn’t prevent the bad types at all.
So let me ask you guys, exactly why do you have a problem with economic immigrants?
May 1, 2010, 3:45 pmMac says:
With 10% unemployment we should not mind “economic” immigrants”? Guess you don’t work in construction among other jobs.
That is just loverly that you are “somewhat sympathetic” to arguments about crime and drugs”. Now, that makes me feel really good. I will remind you that it was Napolitano who sent a one Billion dollar bill to the Feds to reimburse Az for incarceration of Illegals convicted of felonies. We never got one red cent and now that she is one of “them” i.e. the Feds, she no longer cares about AZ and won’t even respond to our Governor.
The Billion is what our state is out just for incarceration. Add to that “English as a second language”, health care, social services, and that doesn’t even count the out of pocket expenses for those of us creamed by illegal, er undocumented workers, who drive without insurance, which is to say almost all of them. All of them is about 500,000 in AZ. so you can see your odds get to be pretty high.
I am beginning to wonder why anyone bothers to obey any law. It really doesn’t seem to be very important.
May 1, 2010, 3:54 pmA. Zarkov says:
Reconquista is not a conspiracy theory, but an attitude. Many Mexicans refer to the Southwest as “El Norte.” In other words, a northern province of Mexico. As I said this attitude, (not conspiracy) is promoted by the Mexican government and many U.S. Hispanic organizations. This attitude serves to justify illegal entry in the minds of the people coming across. I never said that’s the only reason they come across, but it does provide a psychological catalyst.
May 1, 2010, 3:57 pmBrett Bellmore says:
I don’t. A fair number of my co-workers are economic immigrants. LEGAL economic immigrants. So let me ask you: Why aren’t you willing to distinguish between economic immigrants who come here legally, and economic immigrants who come here in violation of our laws?
Because it’s the ‘in violation of our laws’ part that makes ‘em illegal immigrants, not their reason for coming here.
However, I will go so far as to say this: The US government, theoretically anyway, exists for the benefit of US citizens, not random people around the globe. Given that, the point of US immigration policy has to be, not the benefits to the people who immigrate here, but the potential benefits the people who immigrate here might provide for the people who are already citizens.
It’s quite reasonable to suppose that an immigration policy which concentrates on bringing unskilled laborers into a country with an unemployment rate over 10%, and an unemployment rate among unskilled laborers much higher than that, is not in the best interest of American citizens.
I like immigration, lots of it. I just think we’re bringing in the wrong people, if the aim is to benefit American citizens. But, of course, that’s not the aim of our immigration policy, which is why American citizens are so pissed off.
May 1, 2010, 4:02 pmWaste93 says:
I have to disagree. I don’t think that if legal immigration was easier there would be less incentive. The people aren’t coming here, for the most part, to be citizen of the US. They are coming here for economic reasons related to issues in their native countries. The come, work, and send massive amounts of money to their families. What incentive do those countries have to keep their citizens within their own countries when they can export them and let another country provide their care. While the native country reaps the benefits of the money sent back into their economy.
In 2006 remittances to Mexico were estimated at $23.1 billion.
May 1, 2010, 4:06 pmAllan Walstad says:
I favor lots of legal immigration, but if there is going to be a limit, then it has to be enforced–if for no other reason, then at least out of fairness to those who obey the law and wait their turn. Employers should not be drafted into the ranks of cops. If an employer has been conspiring to import and shelter illegals, ok, they should be punished. But the onus should be upon those who are entering and staying illegally. Someone who “overstayed” his visa years ago, and stayed on illegally ever since, should have to pay sufficient price that it will discourage others. How about a couple years of hard labor? And it’s time to end the automatic citizenship birthright, at least for those born to illegals. No public services for illegals, including public schooling. No drivers licenses. Those who don’t use public services and do stay out of trouble (and off the roads) are at least not causing extra problems or expenses for the rest of us.
Let plenty of people in legally. Punish those who disobey the law, sufficiently to serve as a deterrent. And yes, patrol the border more seriously for those who sneak across.
May 1, 2010, 4:07 pmA. Zarkov says:
The Communists wanted to keep people out, as well as in. I crossed the border from Finland to the USSR in the early 1970s and I saw the fence and the guards up close and personal. The fence was extremely tall, electrified and stretched to out as far as the eye could see.
For some funny reason Americans, particularly the ones who have gone to college and had their brains damaged don’t believe a country can be sealed up. They just think you keep walking to you find a place to cross. Guess again. Most defectors from Communist did not get out by crossing the border illegally. For example the physicist George Gamow made two unsuccessful attempts before giving up and getting out with permission to attend a conference. His story is far from unique. If so many intelligent and resourceful people couldn’t do it it must not have been easy.
I’m not advocating a communist-style border, just one more difficult to cross than the one we have now. Again the limitations are not physical, they are political.
May 1, 2010, 4:10 pmAlexia says:
But then you’re putting the burdens and responsibilities (not to mention the costs) on everybody except the guilty.
May 1, 2010, 4:12 pmFrank Drackman says:
So where was LaRaza when Elian Gonzalez got deported???
May 1, 2010, 4:15 pmFub says:
According to this recent AZ news article, less than 100 is a good guesstimate for US citizens deported. If it’s only one, it’s still one too many.
100% when it comes to deportation of citizens. There is no legal basis for deporting a natural born US citizen. None.
Should government business as usual include allowing agents with high school educations and nasty attitudes to just make up the law as they go along?
No doubt some see this as a way to rid the country of “undesirables”.
In nonemergency situations you usually have some choice of hospital. You have no choice whatever if you are picked up by law enforcement and railroaded out of the country. In Guzman’s case, the local LEOs had records indicating he stated he was born in the USA. But that didn’t count. Once his mother produced a birth certificate, ICE categorically refused her any and all assistance in searching for him.
I’ve heard that we get the government we deserve. But I don’t think anybody deserves government that can arbitrarily deport its citizens. I always thought that was only a feature of totalitarian governments.
May 1, 2010, 4:26 pmepluribus says:
Yep, I remember back then all the Finns trying to escape from Finland and get into the Soviet Union. They were fed up with freedom and prosperity and wanted to enjoy the benefits of totalitarianism and poverty. Same was true in Berlin. Reagan talked about the Berlin Wall as if it was a bad thing. What did he know?
May 1, 2010, 4:26 pmq says:
The “10% unemployment” argument is somewhat disingenuous, because it’s not like the call for more immigration enforcement is any less during times of full employment. Still, yes, we should not mind it. More immigrants is a positive “real” shock on aggregate demand, which would be highly useful at the moment. They also help with making wages less sticky, which is also a problem with nominal shocks. Moreover, you fail to include the welfare of the immigrants, which can only be explained by xenophobia.
I’m only “somewhat sympathetic” because it’s not at all clear immigrants are more likely to commit crime. However, I fully agree we should keep the criminals out. But not at the cost of billions to build a wall on our border, or at the cost of liberty by giving local police too much discretion, or even on the backs of economic immigrants by uprooting their lives and deporting them back to a life of squalor.
Advocating mass deportation is as unjust and hurtful as advocating that all African-Americans should be deported to Africa on the basis of their high crime-rates and levels of poverty. I know there is a difference in the legality of their presence here, but the effect is one and the same.
May 1, 2010, 4:28 pmepluribus says:
Brett Bellmore:
Great idea. Just like Berlin. Put up the wall and have snipers stationed very thirty yards or so to shoot down anybody trying to climb over. It’ll make up feel proud to be Americans again.
May 1, 2010, 4:29 pmq says:
Why should I favor a tiny subset of immigrants who won the immigration lottery over those who didn’t? There is no rational reason to do this, they are all human beings regardless. Those who are here illegally are mostly victims of our draconian and non-sensical immigration laws.
May 1, 2010, 4:30 pmepluribus says:
There seems to be a notion among some here that Mexicans are criminals but “real” Americans (i.e., Anglos) aren’t. Why does the US have more people in prison than any other country in the world? Why is the per capita imprisonment rate higher in the US than anywhere else? Higher even than in China, a Communist totalitarian state with a much higher population? The truth is that Anglos commit crimes too–and a lot of them. And if it was possible in advance to predict who is going to commit a crime and who isn’t, we could just deport everybody who is likely to do that before they commit the crimes, regardless of national origin. I live in Arizona. There was a bad incident in the desert today. Mexicans smuggling marijuana into the country shot a police officer. I understand the smugglers have been apprehended. If the demand for marijuana weren’t so high in the US (a demand that is, by the way, illegal), those Mexicans wouldn’t be bringing it here, and the incident wouldn’t have happened. Finger pointing makes a lot of people feel good, but it rarely helps to find a solution to real problems.
May 1, 2010, 4:43 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Works for me.
If you’re in my home, and I shoot you to keep you from leaving, I’m a kidnapper and a murderer. I’m you’re outside my home, and I shoot you when you enter it despite being told you’re not welcome, and will be shot if you break in again, I’m just a home owner defending himself. Takes a certain deliberate obliviousness to refuse to distinguish between the two.
The Berlin wall was put up to keep people in. That makes all the difference.
May 1, 2010, 4:53 pmMark Field says:
Where are all the conservatives now demanding that illegal immigrants be permitted to stay with their families?
May 1, 2010, 4:53 pmq says:
What difference does it make, besides the fact that keeping people in hurts the people inside and keeping people out hurts the people outside, and the people outside just happen to be brown?
Should we build a wall on the Canadian border as well? You do realize many illegal immigrants cross that border, too?
May 1, 2010, 4:58 pmBrett Bellmore says:
They’re all human beings, and they’ll continue being human beings if they’re somewhere else. And do you seriously maintain that the only difference between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants is the roll of a die? We impose considerable conditions on people who want to immigrate here legally, criminal record checks, proof somebody will support them if they become indigent, and so forth.
Even if we had a legal immigration quota from Mexico equal in size to the current influx of illegal immigrants, the people who ended up coming in would, almost certainly, be different people.
May 1, 2010, 5:03 pmBrett Bellmore says:
I’ve already explained that: Our government doesn’t exist for the purpose of benefiting the citizens of other countries.
And I refuse to credit the notion that you can’t distinguish between a gated community and a prison. I bet you’d notice the difference pretty darned fast, if you were given a choice between the two.
May 1, 2010, 5:06 pmq says:
Yes, a human being much worse off. Deporting millions of illegal immigrants by uprooting them from their lives is inhumane, as inhumane as it would be for us to deport all African-Americans. To say one is ok and one is not is to dehumanize the illegal immigrant; one would have to completely ignore the huge burden on the immigrant.
Many if not most illegal immigrants would pass such checks if CIS had the resources to conduct them in a timely manner. Those who do have basically won the lottery.
I am essentially saying that many, many illegal immigrants contribute to society as much as other legal immigrants in the same position. To advocate highly unjust policies on such a fine distinction can only be explained by xenophobia.
This is xenophobia, plain and simple.
This is a poor analogy, because those wanting to enter the gated community can generally go somewhere else at very little cost. Is there any difference between putting people in a prison and putting those people in a large field but gating off their access to all surrounded areas? Because the latter is essentially what you advocate by building a wall on the border.
May 1, 2010, 5:17 pmepluribus says:
Brett Bellmore:
It’s interesting that you should use your home as a metaphor. Do you shoot everybody who enters your home? What about your next door neighbors? Do they ever come over to your home? Or have you made it clear that if they cross the property line onto your property they will be shot? I wouldn’t bring up your home (I don’t know what kind of a neighborhood you live in), but you chose to make it a metaphor of the US and Mexico. (By the way, you do you realize, don’t you, that the US and Mexico are neighbors? About a close neighbors as two nations can get?)
BTW, I don’t have any doubt that a ten-foot-wide strip of concrete with snipers posted along it would “work” just fine for you. Of course, we would have to have something like a “Check Point Charley” here and there, wouldn’t we? And there would have to be some place for all those trucks laden with Mexican produce to cross into the US, wouldn’t there. And maybe someplace where they could bring in all those cars made in Mexico. And some of their oil, too, we burn a lot of that, don’t we? Mexico is, you know, one of the major oil producing countries in the world, and we are the number one oil consuming country. So we wouldn’t want to interrupt the oil flow, would we?
May 1, 2010, 5:22 pmAaron says:
So, what happened to the agents involved with deporting Pedro Guzman? I know there was a civil suit, but was it against the agents, or only the agencies? What was the result? Also, this was actually a case of kidnapping under color of law, right? And why wasn’t there a criminal prosecution?
May 1, 2010, 5:24 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Nope, it’s a simple observation of who the government is supposed to be working for. Citizens of other countries have their own governments.
I live in an apartment in a gated community, a pretty good analogy to a country. I’d be seriously pissed off if the management forgot who was paying the rent.
May 1, 2010, 5:24 pmChris Travers says:
The extent they wanted to keep people out was to reduce contact with the outside world. The goal of the fence was to prevent Soviet Communism from falling because folks saw how effective their government REALLY was at meeting their needs. Keeping folks out meant avoiding smuggling of television sets and the like.
The iron curtain was primarily about ensuring propaganda continued to be effective. But again, do we REALLY want to follow in their footsteps?
As I say there are two fundamental problems: technical and political.
The technical problem is that the border between San Diego and Tijuana is fundamentally porous and we CANNOT close it without ditching the 4th and 5th Amendments. Other neighboring border cities are likely to have similar border problems. Given the ability to create a 90-foot-deep, mile long tunnel dug from both ends, the utility of a fence is somewhat limited. Additionally even with a high tech fence and above-ground immigration, you still have the fact that the sensors have to be able to tell the difference between a human and a wild animal or else the agents are going to spend a lot of time chasing the wrong sort of coyotes.
Quite frankly the comparisons to a fence around Gaza are not apt for two reasons: First, it’s a MUCH smaller distance around a primarily urban environment, and secondly, there aren’t a lot of Israels making money smuggling Gazans…. In contrast we are talking about a huge, mostly rural border, and where folks on BOTH sides of the border are working on smuggling aliens across.
Additionally, we are dealing with smuggling rings which are MUCH better equipped and armed than Hamas is.
I will grant that most of the real problems are political but I hardly think that means that most of the problems are directly due to a lack of will by the government. I personally believe that the biggest obstacle to securing the border is simply that we live in a free country. I don’t understand how one can secure the border without giving that up.
May 1, 2010, 5:27 pmBrett Bellmore says:
No, just people who’d enter my home after being told they weren’t welcome, and were going to be shot if they broke down the door.
Illegal immigrants are not guests.
Think I’m going to drop this, you’re doing more to expose your irrationality on the subject than anything I could possibly do.
May 1, 2010, 5:29 pmChris Travers says:
Agreed. But what would the impact REALLY be on our agricultural sector if all illegal aliens were deported. How would that affect the average citizen? Even granting your point, I think we need to ensure we have proper policies in place. This means, among other things, a real guest worker program so we can actually control who comes into our country looking for work (right now we can’t).
May 1, 2010, 5:31 pmq says:
This “simple observation” is xenophobia. You’re the one advocating that the government mistreat those who are not U.S. citizens for no good reason, how can that be anything but xenophobia? In fact, I’m almost ready to call you a racist given your complete disdain of Mexican immigrants and your constant implications that they are criminals per se.
It’s a terrible analogy. Apartment complexes are gated off because uninvited guests generally have no reason to be there except for criminal purposes. Also, it is very easy to get past the gate if one is invited by a resident, which can hardly be said is the case today for the U.S. In fact, many legal residents do invite Mexican immigrants into this country, but they have no authority to and people like you rail against them, but disingenuously try to use this “apartment” analogy.
So do you really advocate turning this country into a gated community? Because immigration would increase by leaps and bounds.
May 1, 2010, 5:33 pmA. Zarkov says:
We would replace them with farm machinery. Right now immigrant labor is so cheap it doesn’t pay to do the R/D for the machinery. With the supply of ultra cheap labor gone, the situation would change. It would also be cheaper for the rest of us because we have to provide them with services. Adios!
May 1, 2010, 5:41 pmepluribus says:
Brett Bellmore:
Now, that’s an effective argument. Call somebody who disagrees with you irrational. Hard to refute that kind of logic. I’m just real glad I’m not one of your next-door neighbors. Here where I live (in Arizona), we don’t shoot our neighbors–we don’t even threaten to shoot them–and we get along pretty good.
May 1, 2010, 5:58 pmleo marvin says:
It’s interesting that so many self-described libertarians opt to ally themselves with this sort of right wing hostility to personal liberty over what they perceive as left wing hostility to economic liberty.
May 1, 2010, 5:58 pmepluribus says:
Reading through some of the immigration commentaries on these threads, I’m beginning to revise my initial thought that Cardinal Mahony’s criticism was too harsh.
May 1, 2010, 6:03 pmChris Travers says:
So, this boils down to:
“If we deport them, I promise that at some point in the future the problem will be resolved!”
Cold comfort….
May 1, 2010, 6:10 pmA. Zarkov says:
This subject came up on UCLA business law professor Bainbridge’s blog about 4 years ago. He took your position and got so badly put down by the commentators he shut down the argument.
That tunnel was mostly for smuggling drugs which is extremely profitable. As a route for migrants to come through the situation is very different. For one thing, you can’t keep it secret any more because all the human traffic makes for leaks. All ICE has to do is offer a reward to rat out the location of the tunnel and a line will form. There are many other problems as well. If the illegals had to rely on tunnels their numbers would shrink to a trickle.
May 1, 2010, 6:23 pmMac says:
Ah, yes.. When you can’t win an argument via facts and reason, call the one who disagrees with you a racist.
May 1, 2010, 6:51 pmMichael B says:
McArdle is, alors!, “horrified,” she’s offended, it’s “un-American”. And yet, in all her disquisitions on the subject, has she ever called for the feds, prior to this point in time, to do as suggested above. Has she ever been “horrifed” or offended in the past, at the (“un-American”?) failure of this or other administrations to do as indicated above?
At The Atlantic, I couldn’t find a solitary instance, but perhaps it’s there and I couldn’t readily google it. Or, does “exparte McArdle” sneer and run when challenged with any more probative depth on the subject?
Here, at a nearby thread – and here for the primary article then linked to.
“Exparte” McArdle, chin-puller extraordinaire.
May 1, 2010, 6:52 pmPerseus says:
And the higher poverty rate of African Americans is due in part to their having to compete with illegal immigrant labor.
May 1, 2010, 7:01 pmPerseus says:
Xenophobia is defined as a government which does not exist for benefiting the citizens of other countries. Only if everyone were citizens of the world would that apply, and it would mean the effectual end of citizenship.
May 1, 2010, 7:16 pmMac says:
Here is an article about the devastating environmental impact on the desert.
Trashing Arizona
Illegal immigrants dump tons of waste in the wilderness every day—and it’s devastating the environment
LEO W. BANKS
This trash-filled wash is below Diablito Mountain, about 5 miles west of Interstate 19, southwest of Arivaca Junction. It is 21 miles north of the border at Nogales. The illegal aliens who dump their trash here have just emerged from the Tumacacori Highlands, which are also trashed out. The article goes on, with pictures, if you want to read it.
I left the following in for those who are wanting to do something, like help clean up the estimated 8 lbs. of trash per illegal, instead of just calling Arizonans racist. Be advised, it is not a safe job.
Those willing to volunteer to help pick up trash should call the BLM’s Tucson field office at 258-7200. Those interested in helping ADEQ can call Frank Zadroga, ADEQ’s waste program manager in Tucson, at 628-6951. ADEQ will be conducting cleanups in the Douglas areas throughout 2009. Reach the Tucson headquarters of the Coronado National Forest at 388-8300.
I imagine that if being pro illegal immigration makes you feel good, it won’t matter that the very fragile desert environment is being destroyed. I am sure you are all for the environment. Maybe, you want Arizonans to pay for buses to bring all comers across the border?
May 1, 2010, 7:44 pmA. Zarkov says:
Do you believe in the law of supply and demand? If we increase the rate of deportations, then the price of farm labor will increase. There is always someone to work at most anything if the wage is high enough. Suppose strawberry pickers got $10 per hour? I suspect you could get lots of people to pick the berries at that wage. Farmers would then demand machinery to cut their costs and industry would give it to them. We are not going to deport all illegal aliens at once. This is a strawman argument people use.
What exactly are you uncomfortable about? Do you think we will suffer food shortages if we increase deportations?
May 1, 2010, 8:36 pmFrank Drackman says:
Can I be Frank?
May 1, 2010, 9:22 pmif it wasn’t for illegal or at least shady Korean/Vietnamese/Mexican/Bosnian/Russian women I wouldn’t meet any women at all. I mean, what did men do 50,75 years ago, when they wanted wild, uninhibited, Jungle Sex with no cosequences?,
Oh yeah, Strom Thurmond…
A. Zarkov says:
Prostitutes.
May 2, 2010, 1:21 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
“Go after the employers” is just a silly diversion by liberals who want to sound like they’re not ignoring the problem and don’t like business anyway, but want to feel better about themselves for not punishing poor illegal immigrants. But of course that’s not a real solution; there’s no way to “go after the employers.”
First, many illegals have fake documents. In order to prevent discrimination and such, employers aren’t allowed to look past those documents provided by the illegals when hired; as long as employers are given the appropriate ID for the I-9 form, they must accept it. So you can’t punish an employer for hiring someone with a fake ID.
Second, the illegals who don’t bother with that work under the table, generally in small low-profile businesses, often on a transient basis; what are you going to do, shut down every restaurant in NY that delivers? Sheesh, all they’d have to do, even if someone caught them, is claim the people are independent contractors rather than employees. (Oh, I’m not saying you can’t catch and punish some businesses that way, but that’s like stopping drug use by catching some street-level drug dealers.) (Of course, when you do raid the businesses, the same people saying “punish the employers instead” throw a fit because they round up the illegal employees at the same time and punish/deport them.) In any case, all this will do is lead to more illegals using fake ID. Boon for the counterfeiters, but won’t do anything to stop the employment itself.
Now, the solution to the first problem that many politicians propose is a national database determining who can work in the U.S. Great. That will be as accurate as those terrorist watch lists that stop six-year olds from flying — except that being kept from employment is more serious than being kept from flying. And is pretty totalitarian: an American needs permission from the government before he can get a job. No, I don’t see any potential for abuse there.
May 2, 2010, 6:45 amOhReginaldIDisagree says:
The arguments against this law are synthesized as such (aside from the legal preemption one which seems emotional grasping at a needle in a haystack):
a) The police are racist and commit civil rights violations all the time. They have no concern over civil rights lawsuits.
b) The DoJ is not going to be watching the situation to see if there are any civil rights violations.
c) No one is going to bring a valid case in front of the courts on a civil rights violation.
I can’t remember the last time a democratically elected legislative body passed a law (that, to my untrained eye looks constitutional) got so much attention. Furthermore, I can’t remember a time when so many have shown so little faith in our legal system. All because it cracks down on people who everyone admits are breaking the law? How do the police ever do any of their other tasks without committing civil rights violations because they are racist pigs?
May 2, 2010, 9:09 amOhReginaldIDisagree says:
But without this law, if one believed in a, b, and c above; one would already be vigilant, and simply overturning this one law won’t change the fact.
I’m sorry, but this is madness.
May 2, 2010, 9:16 amJeff S. says:
Sure.
May 2, 2010, 12:21 pmDuracomm says:
q said,
Why do you favor the immigrants from mexico who won the geographic lottery over those immigrants who did not?
May 2, 2010, 12:39 pmMatt Welch says:
Not that it matters any, but I’m not young (41), not childless, have never violated a sex law (despite all my best efforts as a teenager), and have almost certainly violated drug laws less often than the president of the United States.
May 2, 2010, 1:10 pmBlumenthal says:
***, but I also believe the country should be more welcoming to those who wish to come here to work or study.***
The country should be far more discerning about who they allow in. The most reliable estimate of the fiscal impacts of immigration was done by the prestigious National Research Council, NAC (the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, NAS).
Low skilled immigrants earn less than the average, pay less in taxes and receive more in public services such as health care, public housing, income aid etc. The NAC estimate is that the total net cost of each low-skilled immigrant for the US. State is $120,000 in 2009 dollars. (High skilled immigrants in contrast are a net fiscal benefit for the U.S).
For two reasons these figures may underestimate the costs. Since this study was made the costs of welfare services to lower income people has further expanded, especially Medicaid and S-CHIP. Also the study assumes full integration to American level within three generations, which is empirically not true.
As Jason Richwine notes, subsequent generations do not do as well academically so are not assimilating as previous migrants have.
“But that claim isn’t true. Though about three-quarters of Hispanics living in the U.S. today are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, a significant number have roots here going back many generations. We have several ways to measure their intergenerational progress, and the results leave little room for optimism about their prospects for assimilation…
The consequences of a large ethno-cultural group’s lagging behind the majority in education and income are significant. In strictly economic terms, perpetually poor immigrants and their descendants will be a major strain on social spending and infrastructure. Health care, public education, welfare payments, the criminal justice system, and programs for affordable housing will all require more tax dollars. When pro-immigration conservatives declare that these government programs should be scaled back or eliminated entirely, I am sympathetic. But a large public sector is a reality that cannot be wished away — we will not be abolishing Medicaid or public schools anytime soon. Immigration policy needs to take that reality into account…
Persistent ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status add to a sense of “otherness” felt by minorities outside the economic mainstream. Though it is encouraging that Hispanics often profess a belief in the American creed, an undercurrent of this “otherness” is still apparent. For example, a Pew Hispanic Center Survey in 2002 asked American-born Hispanics “which terms they would use first to describe themselves.” Less than half (46 percent) said “American,” while the majority said they primarily identified either with their ancestral country or as simply Hispanic or Latino. This feeling of otherness probably helps spur explicit ethnic organizing and lobbying. Already there is a long list of Hispanic interest groups — the National Council of La Raza, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Hispanic Lobbyists Association, to name just a handful. If Hispanics fail to assimilate, these groups will remain powerful, and they will continue to encourage Hispanics and other Americans to view our society in terms of inter-ethnic competition. It is difficult to see how a unifying national culture can be preserved and extended in that environment.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=
May 2, 2010, 10:13 pmBlumenthal says:
***q says:
The Berlin wall was put up to keep people in. That makes all the difference.
What difference does it make, besides the fact that keeping people in hurts the people inside and keeping people out hurts the people outside, ***
So in other words, no country has a right to exist? Is Israel allowed to build a wall? What about Mexico – have you looked at their border security measures? They are far more strict on illegals.
May 2, 2010, 10:15 pmKen Arromdee says:
All measures taken against criminals have some chance of hurting the falsely accused. By your reasoning we should never put people in jail because there is certainly more than one innocent person put in jail for a substantial length of time. It’s impossible to keep absolutely 100% of innocent people out of jail, but this is not a reason to get rid of jails. Why should it be different for deportations?
May 2, 2010, 11:27 pmOctavian says:
I guess I am an anomaly. My maternal grandmother was sent to the mines of northern Bolivia at age 4 to sell bread from the crack of dawn until the afternoon, at which time she was forced to bake bread until midnight. I never knew my other grandparents because they died long before I was born. My grandmother’s education never went beyond the equivalent of the third grade; she learned to read and write thanks to the Bible (she was a very religious woman).
My mother was born in the Andes Mountains in a small adobe home with a dirt floor that was no larger than 100 square feet with a “sheep pen” attached to the house for the Alpaca. On more than one occasion before she died, my mother reminded me of how she was so hungry as a little girl that she would take a blanket and try to trap birds on the ground so she could have something to eat.
When my parents immigrated to Chicago (legally, I might add) to flee the revolutions sweeping Latin America brought by Che Guevara, they happily took housekeeping jobs at Wesley Memorial Hospital that paid about 40 cents per hour. My parents never obtained an education greater than an Associates degree from a local community college (for nursing). My father died weeks in a fatal car crash (along with one of my brothers) after obtaining his degree, so my mother was a widow for pretty much my entire life.
From the time I was a young boy until I was well into my teens, I watched my mother cook a huge pot of soup every Sunday. She reheated that soup throughout the week until it ran out, usually by the end of the week when she was ready to cook a new pot. Aside from school lunches, soup was all I ate during those years. I grew to hate soup after a few years. However, since my mother died a couple months before I was sworn into the Bar, I sometimes think I would trade an entire year’s income away for just one bowl of her soup. I digress.
Despite all the foregoing odds, my brother is a successful neurologist, my sister is a director of nursing at a major hospital, and yours truly is an attorney. We all attended some of the top schools in this country and now earn incomes well into the six figures annually.
Ironically, my greatest fear for the next generation in our family is not whether they will have anything better than soup to eat. Instead, my greatest fear is that they will never appreciate the obstacles that prior generations of their family had to overcome so that they could enjoy a life of relative luxury.
I could go on about the military service my brother and other members of my family gave to America during the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold Wars, but I have written a long enough post. I would just caution anyone against automatically assuming that all low skilled immigrants, like my parents, are a bad bet for America. I daresay my siblings and I are a living testament against such sentiment. I also daresay that my siblings and I have paid in taxes, thanks to our relatively high incomes, more than enough to offset whatever cost my frugal parents may have unwittingly imposed on America. Just thought I would provide an additional perspective. Have a good night everyone.
May 2, 2010, 11:29 pm