On May 1st, the nation saw a series of walkouts and demonstrations in support of the country's 12 million illegal aliens.
Although I didn't attend the rally myself, I did atend a screening of 'A Day Without a Mexican' which examines what might happen to California if all the Mexicans disappeared. It's actually not as interesting in execution as it in concept. Still, it got the point across - without Mexican immigrants (and Latin American immigrants generally), this country would basically collapse. Not enough fruit-pickers, maids, nannies, yard workers, contruction workers, waiters, janitors, etc. In their native countries they might be nuclear physicists, but here they're just cheap labor.
When I was a little kid my parents hired a Guetemalan immigrant to look after me and my brothers. Was she legal? I doubt it. But anyone who wanted to kick her out of this country and send her back had to be totally ignorant of the situation.
You see, a string of US-supported military dictatorships in virtually every Latin American made those countries oh-so-fleeable. And the nearest place that wasn't under the force of American power was America. So that's where they went.
Of course, we were always perfectly happy letting Cubans flee to our country. Cuba is communist and everyone who flees from them deserves asylum. Not so from Nicaragua, Haiti, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, or any of the other places which were just as bad.
Now, most Latin American countries are more or less democratic, though grinding poverty is still the norm thanks to forty years of the 'Washington Consensus'. So the immigrants keep coming.
What to do with them?
Well, you can't deport 12 million people - and anyway, more immigrants would just come to fill in all jobs left empty by their departure. Besides, America depends on immigration to keep it's population from falling.
A 'guest worker' program is a sure fire way to make them feel alienated and sullen. You're here to work, dammit, and work is what you'll do!
Beef up security at the border? After 9/11, everything is about 'security', though of course there are no records of any international terrorists sneaking through American via Mexico. The hijackers come from elsewhere, and drug dealers just fly first class.
Build a fence? That'll work, so long as Mexico doesn't sell shovels and we put five million border guards on patrol.
I say, give them citizenship and stop pretending like our national character is at risk or something.
There's some kind of controversy swirling around the recording of 'Nuestro Himno', a Spanish-language version of 'The Star-Spangled Banner'. I couldn't care less. It's still going to be warlike and unsingable.
11 comments:
After Reagan granted amnesty to the illegals, aliens poured across the Southern border even faster than before. Granting amnesty and/or naturalization to the 12+ million already here is sure to bring a further onslaught of illegals.
True, building a fence won't work and deportation is impractical--if not impossible. Yet a simple measure should serve to eliminate illegal immigration. If we place exorbitant fines upon companies which hire illegals, the incentive to hire them will be gone. Since most come here to work, rendering them unemployable will make a trek back across the Mexican border more alluring, provided we also cut off any welfare benefits.
A country that cannot control its borders ceases to be a country. Refusal to do anything on this issue will only hasten the death of the republic.
I'd hardly call it in 'onslaught', since they're here to work and not destroy us.
I think putting fines on businesses might have a very small effect, but the fact that U.S. business employ millions of illegal immigrants in the first place should tell you something about how much respect American busineess have for the law. Besides, there are plenty of businesses which would be out of business without illegals, and so they'd risk it anyway.
I tend to view this rather like the drug issue: yes, it might be nice if people wouldn't take drugs and there weren't 12 million people where who legallly aren't supposed to be. But one has to wonder if the effort spent enforcing these laws in vain is worth it.
I agree with you in regards to drugs, but the analogy falls apart when it comes to illegals. Here's why:
Businesses have no respect for law so long as it doesn't cost money to ignore it. The reason they employ illegals is because, business-wise, it makes sense to do. Instituting preposteroursly large fines--say a million bucks per illegal--takes away any advantage one would get from hiring illegals.
People are going to continue to do drugs if they want to do drugs. Businesses are not going to hire illegals if it costs more to do so. It's not as if CEOs are employing impoverished Hispanics out of the kindnest of their hearts, now, is it?
Businesses certainly aren't doing anything out of concern for other people, but your plan runs into the assumption that the government is going to do anything bussinesses don't want it to do.
Your reccomended fine is $1,000,000 per illegal alien employed. Currently, the fine on a meat-packing company for pushing one of their workers (often a Mexican immigrant) into the grinders and selling him as hamburger is $20,000. That should tell you something about the relationship between government and business. Nothing that cuts into their profits will even be considered.
'You see, a string of US-supported military dictatorships in virtually every Latin American made those countries oh-so-fleeable. And the nearest place that wasn't under the force of American power was America. So that's where they went.'
I realize that all must be somehow blamed on America, but that was then and this is now. Nothing but a corrupt Mexican government, American companies willing to break the law and cheat American taxpayers, and American unwillingness to secure its border has caused this.
I do find it ironic to see many on the left in support of large companies breaking the law to cheat American taxpayers. It kind of undermines the whole currupt oil company complaints that so many trumpet today.
I agree with you that the plan isn't going to be implemented, but it would be a good plan were Congress to suddenly collectively grow a pair.
I'm not assuming the government is going to do anything about this. I merely note that if the fed really cared about illegal immigration, it wouldn't be hard to enact a plan to all but eliminate it.
Oversimplication seems to be your thing today, loyal.
The Blame America First strategy hasn't helped lefties in the past...it won't help them now or in the future. Suit yourselves.
America's policies in Central and South America need to be seen in the context of the Cold War and the necessity of maintaining our spheres of influence. It is not relevant to the current debate on illegal immigration, since the vast majority come for economic, not political reasons. The opposite is true for Cuban refugees, who deserve our compassion and solidarity as victims of a Communist dictatorship.
What to do with them? Again, the answer is not simple - certainly not as simple as "give 'em all citizenship". America's economy depends on their labor, so uniform deportation isn't the answer either. Amnesty should be decided on an individual or familial basis.
The guest worker program seems pretty good to me. They ARE here to work. They work in exchange for money for their families. They will not be "sullen and alienated" if they are classified as "workers". And if they do take offense to that, that's their damn problem. It is NOT America's job to take into consideration the "feelings" of those taking part in a consentual economic transaction - labor for money. And if they feel their purpose in America should be more than an economic one - Wonderful! They should embark on that rewarding process known as legal immigration and naturalization.
The U.S. National Anthem sung in Spanish is fine - as long as it is done by those of Spanish-speaking heritage who are citizens or intend to become citizens through the LEGAL process. There have apparently been French, German, Yiddish, etc. versions of the "Star Spangled Banner" - of course there should be a Spanish one.
Finally, I don't want to imply that there's nothing wrong with our current legal immigration policies. Reforms should be undertaken using the courts and the legislature, but the law should never be subverted.
The guest worker program seems pretty good to me. They ARE here to work.
The problem comes when its time for them to go home. What's that, you don't want to leave? Oh. In which case, they become illegals, unless you really think they'll go back willing from whence they came, which seems a bit naive to me.
Pardon me for not being able to capture all the complexities of the issue in a single blogpost, Smiling Neocon. You know I try.
It was my understanding that many of the refugees from Cuba came here for economic reasons as well as fears of political persecution. We don't grant asylum to Haitians, even though Haiti is as bad a dictatorship as Cuba, and economically much worse off. The difference is, so far as I can tell - and forgive me for 'blaming America', if there's a better explanation in this case I'd like to know it - is because the dictators in Haiti who were installed by a U.S.-backed coup have U.S. businesses in their country and Cuba doesn't, though Cuba probably would like to. The Cold War is over, why are we pretending like the embargo does any good? More importantly, why are we pretending like the past has no connection to the present?
Of course we shouldn't ignore the corruption and bad economic policies of Latin American countries, especially Mexico. But we don't have sovreignty over those - although, thanks to NAFTA and possibly FTAA, to a large extent we do. My point is we should focus most exactingly on our own actions since those are what we have control over and responsibility for. Soomething we can all agree on, surely?
I shudder at the beauracratic nightmare of deciding 12 million individual cases of amnesty. I also doubt we could decide these cases and deport or not deport the individuals at a faster rate than they are currently immigrating.
A 'guest worker' program is basically what they have in most European countries. Are those immigrants being successfully intergrated? Doesn't look like it to me. Obviously both the immigrants and the society to which they immigrate have to be willing to compromise, but in that case it looks as if neither will budge.
All this does make me wonder: why is there no 'Ellis Island' on the US-Mexico border? Given the chance, I'm sure most of our current illegals would like to TRY to become legal.
Blame America First is the pathetic strawman of those with little historical knowledge.Deflect someones argument by impugning their loyalty or patriotism!
the immigrants are workers, I am a worker and our struggle is a shared one.The only border between us is a racist one set up by capitalists to keep us divided and weaker as an opposition force.
Troutsky--your blissful ignorance is both amusing and saddening.
To malign others as having "no historical knowledge" while espousing an ideology that left 100 million dead and kept half of Europe enslaved -- that is either sarcasm beyond my humble grasp or hypocrisy beyong my comprehension.
Oh, yeah, and long live the great proletarian struggle, comrade.
Post a Comment