One Thousand Five-Hundred or So Uninformed Words on U.S. Immigration Policy
Mar 31, 2011
Russell E. Saltzman
Let me say right from the beginning I do not know what I am talking about. Oh, sure, I did some research but everything goes ten different ways on this topic and at the end of it I knew less than I did at the start—which was nothing. Should anyone in the comments section below challenge me to a battle of wits, fair warning, I am unarmed. 
Now, that said, my immigration policy is simple. Let ‘em all in. That, I cheerfully admit, likely makes for poor public policy. Nonetheless, it is my instinct, based on my collection of immigrant stories. I’m pretty forward when I hear an accent. I want to know about it so I ask. The stories come easily. Almost everyone is eager to tell me how they got to America, and why. The why is simple: freedom, opportunity, a dream they wanted fulfilled. How they got here is always different. Stories do not make for good public policy either, but they are nice to hear.
• I met an English woman who spent eight years becoming a citizen of the United States. She possibly could have done things somewhat faster had her father technically not been a U.S. citizen. He was born in the United States to an English couple who returned to Great Britain while he was yet an infant. Years later she filled out her permanent U.S. visa application and listed her father’s place of birth as Chicago. Well, what with this, that, something else, and yet another thing she finally was required to produce her father in person with his birth certificate to the U.S. embassy in London and, for further verification, had to have an American cousin show up at the same time to identify her English cousin as the kid born in Chicago. This required rousting her father from his retirement home and flying the cousin to Heathrow. It took all that and a mound of paper to get her permanent visa. After the usual residency period on a green card, she took her oath of citizenship three years ago.
• And there was the English guy from Enterprise who delivered me to my rental car. He and an American girl had just married the year before. They met some while after he arrived. He had just gotten his green card, but he had to lie to get it. Had he come to the U.S. with the intention of marrying her and put that on his original visa application, he would have been okay. But his stated reason for a visa wasn’t marriage; it was work. When he applied for a permanent residence card the immigration agent noted the problem and blandly asked him, slowly, “Your original intention was in fact a visa application related to marriage, yes, and someone checked the wrong box?”
• I know an Indian Sikh woman who honors Christmas every year with a tree, a real tree, not an artificial one. She is clear about that. It is part of what makes her feel like an American, but it was ten years getting to the United States before she could put a tree up. When I met her she was midway in her five-year residency period. Her application for U.S. entry was rebuffed. She could not gain direct entry to the United States from India—wrong skills, wrong something, I forget—but she could get to Canada, which was pretty close. She lived in Toronto for those ten years. Canada, a member of the Commonwealth with India, placed fewer barriers in her way and from there, once all her Canadian credentials finally were in place, she moved to the Kansas City south side.
• My Vietnamese son Düñg became Karl (his choice) at his adoption in 1983. The State of Nebraska vital statistics bureau issued him a birth certificate, one which names me at age sixteen as his natural father. (There’s something to talk about.) It is the only birth certificate he has ever had. Following university graduation he presented it to immigration officials seeking citizenship. They said it did not count; he still needed a green card, residency period, citizenship test, and an oath.
• A New York taxi driver was telling me how he left his teaching job in Pakistan for the opportunity to come to America. He liked driving a taxi better than teaching, and it let him meet people. “You left your homeland so you could come here and fight New York traffic?” I thought I was joking with him, a little. He looked at me very seriously from the rear view mirror. “Yes, God is good.”
• At an Alexandria, Virginia gas station I asked the guy behind the counter where he was from. “Mars,” he said. Sensing my reservation he added, “No, really. I’ll show you.” He pulled out his residency card, covered part of it up with his thumb so the only word I could read was “Alien.” “It doesn’t,” I noted, “say Mars.” “If immigration says I’m an alien, I get to pick the planet.” I thought that over. “Good enough and welcome to Earth.”
• I asked the young clerk at the library where she was from. She wanted to know why I thought she was from anywhere but around here. “Is it my scarf?” No. There’s a mosque nearby; women in scarves aren’t unusual. It was her accent. “Accent!” Her hands fluttered in surprise. “I have an accent?” Up to that moment I thought so. All of a sudden I wasn’t so sure. I have trouble hearing consonants, I said, so I might be mistaken. No, she admitted, resigned, she did have an accent. “I was eleven when our family moved here from the U.A.E. and,” she added carefully enunciating every single word, “you have a dollar and a half in fines.”
• The first lawyer I call when I need one is a Vietnamese woman who graduated law school in 2003. She is thirty-four today but when she was nine she and her family along with others became part of the “boat people” exodus out of Vietnam during the late 1970’s through the early 1980’s. In her boat, several died at sea on the journey. She doesn’t speak of it much.
What I find moving in these stories is the persistence, the sheer stubborn doggedness, and the sometimes willing embrace of danger by these folks in getting to America. It is an amazing calculus: Getting into the United States is worth a ten-year wait in Canada?
Oops, I forgot; one more story.
• There are numerous Hispanic students in my wife’s fifth grade class at her Title I elementary school, most with Mexican backgrounds. There is no way to know who comes from a family with proper documents and who does not. Very few of the kids can read or write Spanish. Every morning in class, legal or not, they stand with hand over heart and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
This is in decided contrast to the allegations made by a middle school substitute teacher in Phoenix. The teacher, Tony Hill, said in a letter to a Republican state senator that a majority of Hispanic eighth-graders he had recently taught at a Glendale school refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or stand while it was being recited, and some declared that Americans had stolen their land. A district spokesman, Jim Cummings, said all the students questioned in a following inquiry reported that everyone stood for the pledge and that none said their land had been stolen. “What we are finding here—and what we believe—is that the statements that [Hill] made weren't accurate," said Cummings.
Hill’s letter was read in the Arizona state senate as legislators debated a bill requiring proof of citizenship for all K-12 students. I know a couple guys—nice guys otherwise—who believe kids like those in my wife’s class room should be rounded up and deported, period, no appeal. Cripes. When did we become so cold?
Ten years in Canada to get here legally, or living here in the legal shadows without documents: It is all something of the same, isn’t it, to the people so desperate to be here?
I cannot help but believe it would be good for our country if we could figure out how to create a path to citizenship for undocumented families already here and do it in a way that honors all the legal immigrants who followed the rules, stood in line, and in many cases underwent long years of waiting before they were admitted. The undocumented families live and work here, pay taxes (property and sales and withholding and FICA, and if they work using a forged Social Security card they receive no credit for their working quarters). Forced to it I would do the same for my family, my children, leave a troubled homeland with limited prospects and few opportunities and attempt to forge something a little better. These exactly are the sort of people we need.
What about the border? Sure, clamp it down. Illegal is illegal. But we are speaking of perhaps several millions-with kids-here, now. Perhaps we can credit them a little sweat equity.
It disturbs me that all potential solutions have become so impossibly politicized that no one may yield even a little. Republicans should tell their hard right to simmer down, and Democrats should tell their goo-goo wing to get a spine. We are talking about walking and chewing gum, right?
Now what—remember, I don’t know what I’m talking about—is so hard about that?
Russell E. Saltzman is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Tony Hill
New York Times, “One Hundred Years of Multitude.”
Comments:
3.30.2011 | 11:27pm
In Joculus Veritas says:
Agreed, and if we charge a very reasonable $10,000 each ($100/mo for ten years), that be 12M x 10K $120B. As it is we have the 12M, anyway, but $0.
3.31.2011 | 5:08am
ferd says:
Its hard to imagine how letting a bunch of younger, industrious people with Judeo-Christian values...could hurt an aging America that is bankrupting itself with secular ideals.
Could the typically religious, Mexican-American mom be the stealth "saviour" of the USA...and, in turn, a world changer?
Could the typically religious, Mexican-American mom be the stealth "saviour" of the USA...and, in turn, a world changer?
3.31.2011 | 6:02am
paul wildes says:
I wish it were so easy. There is something about being responsible that is missing from your analysis. I think you may have alluded to it when you mentioned your view does not make good public policy. I sense you do not like Republicans, but I think they get a lot of traction with voters because of trying to be responsible, as in being "adult." Our schools, hospitals, cities, states are all going broke, if not already. How do we pay for the services "illegal" immigrants require? Raise the taxes on legal working people (the rich have lawyers/accountants and the poor don't pay)? Unfortunately, most illegals are not educated professional and or trades people. Illegals are almost by definition paid for their unskilled work off the record so they are NOT paying taxes. It's easy to say bring them all in when you don't want to consider what and how we will provide for them.
3.31.2011 | 6:33am
Craig Payne says:
All of your examples have in common: Legality. What is so difficult to understand about that?
As Sonny Bono famously said (I paraphrase somewhat), "I don't have to have an illegal immigration policy. It's illegal."
As Sonny Bono famously said (I paraphrase somewhat), "I don't have to have an illegal immigration policy. It's illegal."
3.31.2011 | 6:40am
Bibbit says:
I am inclined to agree with this article, but I wonder. What would the pastor say if these folks were coming in and taking his job? If these folks who are here illegally were either putting him out of work or forcing his wages way down, making it hard for him to keep up with his family's bills, what would he say then? That's been the situation with my brother for some time now. It is also, in some ways, my situation, but the folks who take my work are here legally. They come here for three years, do my work for less money, and then go home with plenty of American dollars. I've been out of work a number of times in the last ten years, and green cards have had a lot to do with it. Right now I am training Indian workers to do my work, and the work of the folks in my group. We are being told it does not mean doom for us, that there will be new work for us, but it's a very uneasy feeling. It's no fun training folks with accents so heavy they're hard to understand, to do your work, especially when you know they have no intention of staying here, they are just taking the money and going back home in three years, and that your job may go with them.
3.31.2011 | 7:19am
Chuck says:
I'm not a pastor, I'm a lawyer. But what I can't quite get is that in our supposedly Christian ranks, we cannot seem to distinguish between "wrong" and "illegal." Abortion is legal, though it is very wrong- ditto for gay marriage. And we know that can be the case with the speed limit (at least, those of us who recall a 55mph speed limit driving through Nebraska). Isn't it obvious that things may be illegal and yet not wrong? If so, why isn't it obvious that this applies to many of the undocumented population, both those who entered lawfully and overstayed their visas and those who entered by crossing a river that humans have crossed for eons?
Our before 1920 allowed basically open immigration (except for Asians and prostitutes). From 1920-1996, our laws usually had a safety valve for people who had entered unlawfully ("technical illegality" was the 1920s era rule) but who were a net benefit to our society. But now we treat illegality as a substitute for that analysis. You entered illegally, we can't let you stay even if to send you home would be to cost the government money, send your family to the poorhouse, hinder the futures of your (U.S. citizen) children, etc. It's just so stupid and so harmful, in the way only governmental policy can be.
The article is well-written, and I get the point. But our debate seems to only be capable of rising to the level of competing narratives. Point: immigrants are often nice. Counterpoint: illegal immigrants must be deported. Argh! Must our national debate be so dumbed down? I guess it's no dumber than any other public policy debate, but it is just such a sad commentary on the state of the body politic.
Our before 1920 allowed basically open immigration (except for Asians and prostitutes). From 1920-1996, our laws usually had a safety valve for people who had entered unlawfully ("technical illegality" was the 1920s era rule) but who were a net benefit to our society. But now we treat illegality as a substitute for that analysis. You entered illegally, we can't let you stay even if to send you home would be to cost the government money, send your family to the poorhouse, hinder the futures of your (U.S. citizen) children, etc. It's just so stupid and so harmful, in the way only governmental policy can be.
The article is well-written, and I get the point. But our debate seems to only be capable of rising to the level of competing narratives. Point: immigrants are often nice. Counterpoint: illegal immigrants must be deported. Argh! Must our national debate be so dumbed down? I guess it's no dumber than any other public policy debate, but it is just such a sad commentary on the state of the body politic.
3.31.2011 | 7:41am
Vincent says:
Let 'em all in! I'm a white male who has built up a nice nest-egg and I got that way through hard work, not whining about immigrants "taking my job."
3.31.2011 | 7:53am
Mike says:
Illegal immigration? Could someone point out where in the constitution we gave the central government authority to regulate immigration?
3.31.2011 | 8:19am
jm fay says:
What you also seem to be missing is there are 6.5 billion people in this world. Do you expect this country to let them all in? and if we did; what happens to the quality of life here? and the legal residents and or citizens of this country?
Forgettting as well the millions of people out of work or needing more hours here already. We dont need any more people here for any work except for ag work. We need to be taking all the current visas holders away too. No more family members of current residents or citizens but we can allow in some refugees. Due this for 5 to 10 years and allow this country and its legal residents to get back on its feet.
Forgettting as well the millions of people out of work or needing more hours here already. We dont need any more people here for any work except for ag work. We need to be taking all the current visas holders away too. No more family members of current residents or citizens but we can allow in some refugees. Due this for 5 to 10 years and allow this country and its legal residents to get back on its feet.
3.31.2011 | 8:30am
Polybius says:
Great stories, Pastor. And you are correct that the discussion has been politicized.
But you did not address the most difficult question about immigration. It is true that many legal immigrants and illegal immigrants have inspiring stories, and our country benefits from their energy and desire to succeed.
But how do you have open borders in a welfare society? We can't afford our present levels of entitlement spending, both on persons and on businesses, ranging from the farm entitlement of ethanol supports to the massive green energy subsidies going to GE. So where does the money come from to pay for this vision? One must presume that you understand how massively over the line of fiscal responsibility the US government has gone, and it won't be the rich who pay the price.
Also, what do you think would happen if you gave these entitlements to anyone who wanted to cross the border? Do you think the persons who work so hard at the dirty jobs many Americans don't want would change their behavior if they had the benefits of citizenship?
Milton Friedman is often quoted for the proposition that you can't have both open borders and a welfare state. In fact, he said something more subtle,
which you can find at http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-milton-friedman-really-said.html. But this is a very important message. It is great to want to support these inspiring people: just figure out who pays for it.
But you did not address the most difficult question about immigration. It is true that many legal immigrants and illegal immigrants have inspiring stories, and our country benefits from their energy and desire to succeed.
But how do you have open borders in a welfare society? We can't afford our present levels of entitlement spending, both on persons and on businesses, ranging from the farm entitlement of ethanol supports to the massive green energy subsidies going to GE. So where does the money come from to pay for this vision? One must presume that you understand how massively over the line of fiscal responsibility the US government has gone, and it won't be the rich who pay the price.
Also, what do you think would happen if you gave these entitlements to anyone who wanted to cross the border? Do you think the persons who work so hard at the dirty jobs many Americans don't want would change their behavior if they had the benefits of citizenship?
Milton Friedman is often quoted for the proposition that you can't have both open borders and a welfare state. In fact, he said something more subtle,
which you can find at http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-milton-friedman-really-said.html. But this is a very important message. It is great to want to support these inspiring people: just figure out who pays for it.
3.31.2011 | 8:31am
Stuart Koehl says:
Mr. Saltzman forgets that even in the days of Ellis Island, immigration was not fully open or unrestricted. Everyone who came in had to pass a physical examination, had to provide proof of a trade or craft, had to provide evidence that he had a place to stay i the States, and also free of criminal convictions. A lot of people did not make the cut.
Mr. Saltzman also ignores two factors that make today's immigration different from that of the 19th and early 20th century.
First, the problem of time and distance. In the 19th century, most immigrants had to cross the Atlantic, a slow and costly process, even sailing steerage. Usually, it meant the immigrants had to liquidate all or most of their wealth to pay passage, and that in turn more or less committed immigrants to the long haul here in the U.S.: there was no going back. Even those immigrants who planned on coming for a short while, making a fortune and then returning home tended not to do so, because (a) making a fortune was a little more involved than they thought; and (b) the advantages of living in America soon outweighed the attractions of the homeland. Today's immigrants tend to live in countries contiguous to the U.S., and advances in transportation mean they can go from their home to the U.S. in a matter of hours, not weeks or months as in the past. And the cost is quite affordable, so they can return home whenever they like, and then come back to the U.S. when they please. There is no long-term commitment to being American. And that brings us to:
Second, the triumph of multiculturalism over assimilation. The great strength of the United States is it is founded on common adherence to a set of beliefs and ideals, and not on blood or ethnicity (ironically, this is seen as a great weakness in many other parts of the world). One is an American because one upholds the American system, not because one's ancestors came over on the Mayflower. In the past, immigrants were encouraged to assimilate as quickly as possible, a process advanced by the lack of a social welfare safety net. Sink or swim, everybody was equal. Most immigrants banded together into ethnic communities where they formed mutual aid societies to help them get on their feet and fit in. Everybody learned English (even the Irish!). I well remember growing up in Brooklyin in the early 1960s, when many of my friends had parents or grandparents who spoke Italian as their native tongue. But woebetide the kid who made the mistake of speaking Italian, not only in public, but at home as well. "Wassamatta fo you? You want people tink you stupido? Spika da English!"--followed by a headslap.
Today the paradigm is multiculturalism, a belief that all cultures are equally valid, and equally valuable. To avoid the appearance of cultural hegemony, immigrants are not encouraged to assimilate, but rather to form their own little balkanized islands within American society. As the example of Europe shows, however, this approach is neither fair to immigrants nor healthy to society as a whole--which is why European governments, including France, Germany, Britain and Sweden, have all declared multiculturalism to be a failure, and why new policies will more resemble the American melting pot approach.
If you want open immigration to the United States, steps must be taken to go back to the 19th century immigration paradigm. At a bare minimum, I suggest the following:
1. Close the borders and enforce the existing immigration laws. Why bother with legal immigration, when illegal immigration is faster and easier? Contempt for the laws breeds contempt for the law. In the interest of fairness, I suggest that the U.S. should immediately adopt Mexican laws pertaining to illegal immigration.
2. End the system of dual nationalities. You want to be an American citizen? Give up your citizenship in your old country. In many cases, this means a person can no longer travel freely back and forth, but must get a visa, with all that entails. In for a penny, in for a pound.
3. Ensure that those applying immigration have both education and skills. We don't have to go so far as New Zealand, but there is no reason why we should become a dumping ground for those who have no viable means of support.
4. To put some teeth into this, no welfare benefits for any immigrant who has attained citizenship, save in case of severe medical emergency and/or natural disaster. When being on welfare in America makes you better off than working back home, there really is no incentive to work. And, of course, absolutely no welfare benefits for illegal immigrants.
5. Severe criminal penalties for all employers who knowingly employ immigrants who are not eligible to work.
6. Permanent expulsion for illegal immigrants and those who violate their visa restrictions, and permanent disbarment from applying for citizenship.
7. Create a pathway to citizenship for those who are willing to fight and die for this country. In return for successfully completing an eight year tour of duty in the United States military, a person will automatically receive citizenship for himself and for his wife and children. If this was good enough for the Romans, it's good enough for us.
Mr. Saltzman also ignores two factors that make today's immigration different from that of the 19th and early 20th century.
First, the problem of time and distance. In the 19th century, most immigrants had to cross the Atlantic, a slow and costly process, even sailing steerage. Usually, it meant the immigrants had to liquidate all or most of their wealth to pay passage, and that in turn more or less committed immigrants to the long haul here in the U.S.: there was no going back. Even those immigrants who planned on coming for a short while, making a fortune and then returning home tended not to do so, because (a) making a fortune was a little more involved than they thought; and (b) the advantages of living in America soon outweighed the attractions of the homeland. Today's immigrants tend to live in countries contiguous to the U.S., and advances in transportation mean they can go from their home to the U.S. in a matter of hours, not weeks or months as in the past. And the cost is quite affordable, so they can return home whenever they like, and then come back to the U.S. when they please. There is no long-term commitment to being American. And that brings us to:
Second, the triumph of multiculturalism over assimilation. The great strength of the United States is it is founded on common adherence to a set of beliefs and ideals, and not on blood or ethnicity (ironically, this is seen as a great weakness in many other parts of the world). One is an American because one upholds the American system, not because one's ancestors came over on the Mayflower. In the past, immigrants were encouraged to assimilate as quickly as possible, a process advanced by the lack of a social welfare safety net. Sink or swim, everybody was equal. Most immigrants banded together into ethnic communities where they formed mutual aid societies to help them get on their feet and fit in. Everybody learned English (even the Irish!). I well remember growing up in Brooklyin in the early 1960s, when many of my friends had parents or grandparents who spoke Italian as their native tongue. But woebetide the kid who made the mistake of speaking Italian, not only in public, but at home as well. "Wassamatta fo you? You want people tink you stupido? Spika da English!"--followed by a headslap.
Today the paradigm is multiculturalism, a belief that all cultures are equally valid, and equally valuable. To avoid the appearance of cultural hegemony, immigrants are not encouraged to assimilate, but rather to form their own little balkanized islands within American society. As the example of Europe shows, however, this approach is neither fair to immigrants nor healthy to society as a whole--which is why European governments, including France, Germany, Britain and Sweden, have all declared multiculturalism to be a failure, and why new policies will more resemble the American melting pot approach.
If you want open immigration to the United States, steps must be taken to go back to the 19th century immigration paradigm. At a bare minimum, I suggest the following:
1. Close the borders and enforce the existing immigration laws. Why bother with legal immigration, when illegal immigration is faster and easier? Contempt for the laws breeds contempt for the law. In the interest of fairness, I suggest that the U.S. should immediately adopt Mexican laws pertaining to illegal immigration.
2. End the system of dual nationalities. You want to be an American citizen? Give up your citizenship in your old country. In many cases, this means a person can no longer travel freely back and forth, but must get a visa, with all that entails. In for a penny, in for a pound.
3. Ensure that those applying immigration have both education and skills. We don't have to go so far as New Zealand, but there is no reason why we should become a dumping ground for those who have no viable means of support.
4. To put some teeth into this, no welfare benefits for any immigrant who has attained citizenship, save in case of severe medical emergency and/or natural disaster. When being on welfare in America makes you better off than working back home, there really is no incentive to work. And, of course, absolutely no welfare benefits for illegal immigrants.
5. Severe criminal penalties for all employers who knowingly employ immigrants who are not eligible to work.
6. Permanent expulsion for illegal immigrants and those who violate their visa restrictions, and permanent disbarment from applying for citizenship.
7. Create a pathway to citizenship for those who are willing to fight and die for this country. In return for successfully completing an eight year tour of duty in the United States military, a person will automatically receive citizenship for himself and for his wife and children. If this was good enough for the Romans, it's good enough for us.
3.31.2011 | 8:56am
C.R. Coughlin says:
It is a clever ploy to declare abject humility and follow it with a handful of emotional anecdotes that point to an implied assertion. One could summarize this column as “I don’t want to entertain your responses because I am more empathetic than you.”
The current debate is about "illegal" immigration. Since Reverend Salzmann agrees that our border laws should be respected what function does his essay have other than to throw distracting flack into an important discussion.
We have upended our economy by allowing excessive immigration and promoting “free” trade. There are 26 people on earth for every one US citizen. Should we replace everyone of us with one of the 26 that is a better deal for the rest of us? Perhaps it is only a faint residue of patriotism that inhibits our employers from enacting complete replacement.
We are eating the goose that daily lays the golden eggs of American solvency. This harms everyone; citizens, immigrants, and illegal immigrants. We should care that it especially harms our minority communities to whom we have a familial obligation.
To this observer who worked for years in the Miami’s Criminal Justice system this viewpoint seem to me to be insensitive to the harm to our citizens of continuing the present practices. I could relate l hundreds of contrary and far more sentimental anecdotes showing innocent lives damaged or destroyed by illegal or excessive immigration.
Illegal immigrants themselves are frequently abused. Few commentators seem to realize that being illegal means you can be threatened, mistreated, required to give sexual favors, and cheated out of payment while fearing to approach authorities to seek legal recourse.
The current debate is about "illegal" immigration. Since Reverend Salzmann agrees that our border laws should be respected what function does his essay have other than to throw distracting flack into an important discussion.
We have upended our economy by allowing excessive immigration and promoting “free” trade. There are 26 people on earth for every one US citizen. Should we replace everyone of us with one of the 26 that is a better deal for the rest of us? Perhaps it is only a faint residue of patriotism that inhibits our employers from enacting complete replacement.
We are eating the goose that daily lays the golden eggs of American solvency. This harms everyone; citizens, immigrants, and illegal immigrants. We should care that it especially harms our minority communities to whom we have a familial obligation.
To this observer who worked for years in the Miami’s Criminal Justice system this viewpoint seem to me to be insensitive to the harm to our citizens of continuing the present practices. I could relate l hundreds of contrary and far more sentimental anecdotes showing innocent lives damaged or destroyed by illegal or excessive immigration.
Illegal immigrants themselves are frequently abused. Few commentators seem to realize that being illegal means you can be threatened, mistreated, required to give sexual favors, and cheated out of payment while fearing to approach authorities to seek legal recourse.
3.31.2011 | 9:37am
Soodonim says:
It's a bit disturbing to see how quickly Christians put down the Christ and take up the Republican when dealing with issues of immigration. Arguments become about your own welfare and about the quality of life in your own area. Arguments become about the inability of the immigrant people themselves, or about abstract conceptualizations like multiculturalism. It's about anything other than the people. It's disgusting.
One word about Christian charity should silence all opposition to open borders. If you wanted more sense than compassion you should have chosen a different religion. You should have chosen a savior that didn't say give until it hurts then keep giving. You should have chosen a savior that didn't command you to take up his cross and follow him. I've never seen as much wanton secular materialism, and a unmitigated desire for private wealth as I see in "christian" debates on immigration.
Saltzman raised the only point that matters. There are human beings, walking images of God, in desperate need of a better life. We should take them in until we can't anymore, and then we should keep taking them in.
One word about Christian charity should silence all opposition to open borders. If you wanted more sense than compassion you should have chosen a different religion. You should have chosen a savior that didn't say give until it hurts then keep giving. You should have chosen a savior that didn't command you to take up his cross and follow him. I've never seen as much wanton secular materialism, and a unmitigated desire for private wealth as I see in "christian" debates on immigration.
Saltzman raised the only point that matters. There are human beings, walking images of God, in desperate need of a better life. We should take them in until we can't anymore, and then we should keep taking them in.
3.31.2011 | 9:37am
Mike says:
The problem with most discussions on immigration policy - particularly within the Church - is that it misses the forest for the trees.
Instead of focusing on how to accommodate the influx of immigrants, if the true desire is for social justice, we need to be focused on why there's a mass exodus from their country of origin in the first place - that a people's situation has become so dire in their own country that they are compelled to enter our own country by any means.
Does the American government have a greater moral obligation to care for Mexicans than the Mexican government? The failure of the Mexican government to address the needs of their own people is a greater moral failure and injustice than America's hesitancy to accept them all without question. If the issue is truly one of "social justice," we should work on correcting the disorder within a government whose responsibility is the Mexican people first and foremost. That's why governments exist in the first place.
Furthermore, why isn't Mexico's own immigration policy towards their own neighbors to the south - which is far stricter than ours - challenged by the Bishops?
There seem to be other factors contributing to the discussion other than justice or morality, otherwise there wouldn't be such an extreme double-standard.
Instead of focusing on how to accommodate the influx of immigrants, if the true desire is for social justice, we need to be focused on why there's a mass exodus from their country of origin in the first place - that a people's situation has become so dire in their own country that they are compelled to enter our own country by any means.
Does the American government have a greater moral obligation to care for Mexicans than the Mexican government? The failure of the Mexican government to address the needs of their own people is a greater moral failure and injustice than America's hesitancy to accept them all without question. If the issue is truly one of "social justice," we should work on correcting the disorder within a government whose responsibility is the Mexican people first and foremost. That's why governments exist in the first place.
Furthermore, why isn't Mexico's own immigration policy towards their own neighbors to the south - which is far stricter than ours - challenged by the Bishops?
There seem to be other factors contributing to the discussion other than justice or morality, otherwise there wouldn't be such an extreme double-standard.
3.31.2011 | 1:41pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
CR Coughlin accurately points out that that Salzmann's structure for his essay is a dodge, and frankly, a contemptible one, Russell. If you can't see that this is exactly what you have done, I suggest you reread until you get it. The faux humility dodge allows you to make any unsupported claim you like, but not have to answer objections. You can just shrug that you were merely asking why all those other people were being so selfish and immoral, you didn't mean anything by it.
Similarly, Soodonim mindreads the motives of his opponents, accusing them of making arguments they are not making. Arguments are so much easier when you can write your opponents' scripts for them, gentlemen.
Every illegal takes the place of a legal immigrant. Absorb that thought before going any further Soodonim. An illegal Dominican, or Mexican, of Asian, takes the spot of a patient Bosnian, or Filipina, or Sudanese who is waiting in line.
As the parent of Romanians, I take that rather personally, thanks. People jumping the line starve the poorer behind them. I think we should have lots of immigration. I love it. I am rather tired of being accused of the opposite, just because some Christians get off on self-righteousness.
BTW, Soodonim, you should have chosen a savior who didn't command you not to judge your brothers and sisters, but to love them, no matter how much it hurts. Gee, that felt different when it flew in the other direction, didn't it?
Similarly, Soodonim mindreads the motives of his opponents, accusing them of making arguments they are not making. Arguments are so much easier when you can write your opponents' scripts for them, gentlemen.
Every illegal takes the place of a legal immigrant. Absorb that thought before going any further Soodonim. An illegal Dominican, or Mexican, of Asian, takes the spot of a patient Bosnian, or Filipina, or Sudanese who is waiting in line.
As the parent of Romanians, I take that rather personally, thanks. People jumping the line starve the poorer behind them. I think we should have lots of immigration. I love it. I am rather tired of being accused of the opposite, just because some Christians get off on self-righteousness.
BTW, Soodonim, you should have chosen a savior who didn't command you not to judge your brothers and sisters, but to love them, no matter how much it hurts. Gee, that felt different when it flew in the other direction, didn't it?
3.31.2011 | 1:46pm
Athanasios Paul Thompson says:
The Lutheran Pastor has got it right and toward the center too. It was a story told in my family ... you know the one about the sneaky Irishman who never got papers. Not everyone who passed through the portals of legal registration a few generations ago. Yes, we need to beef up restrictions and protections at our borders while easing the pain for those "undocumented illegals"who already live and work inside them. If we could develop some real patriotic statesmen and minimize the political socker playing, maybe, just perhaps an inspired solution could surface.
3.31.2011 | 4:23pm
Fabio Lomelino says:
The pastor reminds us of the central misunderstanding in the immigration debate: "illegals" are people. Not statistics, not a class, not a political football, nor are they a homogeneous class of invading unskilled laborers all looking to "take our jobs" . They are individual people with complicated narratives that involve both pull and push factors. They are fleeing nightmares and chasing dreams.
These uninformed words remind us that in all our macro-level policy discussions we can never forget the essential humanity of each and every migrant.
Once we see in them that humanity that binds us all we will understant that they are the figurative reincarnation of our ancestors, and our fears are the return of old ghosts that never seem to find rest in our national narrative. And they are not the last wave of immigrants that will turn to this land for solace and freedom.
But there is a difference between the uninformed and the misinformed. Several studies have shown that immigrants pay more taxes into the system than they are able to retrieve in services. There is no demonstrable link between immigration waves and native unemployment, in fact, it has been demonstrated in several large immigration raids that when immigrants pull out of a community the local economy collapses because of decreased consumption and the tax revenue that goes along with that. It is also incorrect to claim that illegal immigrants take the place of legal immigrants. In fact one of the reasons we have so many illegal immigrants is because the legal path is broken and cannot support those who would like to enter legally.
And to those concerned about the fiscal state of the country: do the math on how much it costs to deport over 11 million people. ICE deported almost 393,000 people from the U.S. in 2010. At $12,500 per person the cost to remove them was almost $5 billion.
Once we accept that those who are here are going nowhere, we can then have an adult (responsible) conversation about how to fix this system that is breaking apart real families, forcing real people to live in the shadows, and bringing out the xenophobic ghosts of our past.
These uninformed words remind us that in all our macro-level policy discussions we can never forget the essential humanity of each and every migrant.
Once we see in them that humanity that binds us all we will understant that they are the figurative reincarnation of our ancestors, and our fears are the return of old ghosts that never seem to find rest in our national narrative. And they are not the last wave of immigrants that will turn to this land for solace and freedom.
But there is a difference between the uninformed and the misinformed. Several studies have shown that immigrants pay more taxes into the system than they are able to retrieve in services. There is no demonstrable link between immigration waves and native unemployment, in fact, it has been demonstrated in several large immigration raids that when immigrants pull out of a community the local economy collapses because of decreased consumption and the tax revenue that goes along with that. It is also incorrect to claim that illegal immigrants take the place of legal immigrants. In fact one of the reasons we have so many illegal immigrants is because the legal path is broken and cannot support those who would like to enter legally.
And to those concerned about the fiscal state of the country: do the math on how much it costs to deport over 11 million people. ICE deported almost 393,000 people from the U.S. in 2010. At $12,500 per person the cost to remove them was almost $5 billion.
Once we accept that those who are here are going nowhere, we can then have an adult (responsible) conversation about how to fix this system that is breaking apart real families, forcing real people to live in the shadows, and bringing out the xenophobic ghosts of our past.
3.31.2011 | 5:56pm
Jocon307 says:
I quite agree with two complaints that have been made about this piece.
One, all the actual people mentioned seem to be here legally. Second, yes it is quite a dodge to say "I know nothing about this, I can't really form a cohesive opinion, I don't know what to do" and then, in conclusion, castigate others for not solving the problem. I'm surpirsed more writers don't take this angle!
At least Mr. Koehl has made some concrete suggestions, more that our author could even be bothered to think about.
My third complaint is this, not all immigrants (legal and illegal) are the nice, fine, upstanding people discussed here. Too many are remorseless and violent criminals who have been deported multiple times, but re-enter our country at will. What would our gentle author suggest we do about them?
But Mr. Saltzman doesn't seem at all bothered by non-violent crime as he seems to find working with a forged or stolen social security number amusing. Or perhaps he finds it heroic, as the worker won't get any credit for his "contributions". What it is, of course, is document fraud, another of the many, many, many laws which are broken every day due to our completely broken immigration system.
I'm not sure what all steps need to be taken to fix it, but I am 100% sure of what the first step MUST be - SECURE THE BORDER. And by that I also mean the borders at the airports. Shorten visa times, follow up on overstayers and visa strayers, ensure the public that criminals who are deported CANNOT and DO NOT return.
Remember, this was what we were promised in 1986 and the promise was not kept, and in fact it was not a promise, it was a lie; there was never any intention of ending illegal immigration. This is why the public has NO faith that any promises made today will be worth even the breath with which they are uttered, because we KNOW they will be lies too.
My second step would be ending bilingual education, but that is just me.
Close the border, deport the criminals, and ask me again in 10 years.
One, all the actual people mentioned seem to be here legally. Second, yes it is quite a dodge to say "I know nothing about this, I can't really form a cohesive opinion, I don't know what to do" and then, in conclusion, castigate others for not solving the problem. I'm surpirsed more writers don't take this angle!
At least Mr. Koehl has made some concrete suggestions, more that our author could even be bothered to think about.
My third complaint is this, not all immigrants (legal and illegal) are the nice, fine, upstanding people discussed here. Too many are remorseless and violent criminals who have been deported multiple times, but re-enter our country at will. What would our gentle author suggest we do about them?
But Mr. Saltzman doesn't seem at all bothered by non-violent crime as he seems to find working with a forged or stolen social security number amusing. Or perhaps he finds it heroic, as the worker won't get any credit for his "contributions". What it is, of course, is document fraud, another of the many, many, many laws which are broken every day due to our completely broken immigration system.
I'm not sure what all steps need to be taken to fix it, but I am 100% sure of what the first step MUST be - SECURE THE BORDER. And by that I also mean the borders at the airports. Shorten visa times, follow up on overstayers and visa strayers, ensure the public that criminals who are deported CANNOT and DO NOT return.
Remember, this was what we were promised in 1986 and the promise was not kept, and in fact it was not a promise, it was a lie; there was never any intention of ending illegal immigration. This is why the public has NO faith that any promises made today will be worth even the breath with which they are uttered, because we KNOW they will be lies too.
My second step would be ending bilingual education, but that is just me.
Close the border, deport the criminals, and ask me again in 10 years.
3.31.2011 | 9:00pm
Nathan says:
I agree that there are a couple of issues with this article.
That being said, I agree with the core of the article. First, Saltzman isn't advocating opening the borders to everybody. He's just saying we should open more avenues for those who are already here to stay.
It just makes sense to do so. The alternative is too costly/intrusive. First, "illegal" immigrants do pay taxes assuming they buy things (sales tax) and pay rent or mortgage (property taxes). Plus, as Saltzman points out, many do have income withheld and usually don't see any of the benefits.
Second, think about how much it would cost to round up an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. That's assuming there's only 12 million. Many workjing in the immigrant communities indicate that number's low. Once you arrest everyone, you have to go through due process. If you don't think illegal immigrants should be entitled to due process, that's fine; you can have your opinion. Even so, federal courts have held that again and again that they are entitled to due process.
Which brings me to my third point. How much will it cost to guarantee 12 million arrested immigrants with due process? We're already paying millions to detain the small percentage of immigrants we are detaining and our immigration courts are overwhelmed. While an immigrant's case is supposed to be disposed of within 6 months, many courts are backlogged beyond two years, and that doesn't even include an appeal. To accomodate 12 million, you'd have to open more immigration courts, hire more immigration judges and staff, and hire more ICE attorneys. It starts to add up.
Finally, rounding up illegals would be unbelievably intrusive. How would you identify an illegal before making the arrest? No one admits it would be through racial profiling, but how else would you do it? Millions of U.S. citizens are Hispanics. We already have problems in areas with high numbers of Hispanics with ICE agents and their local police affiliates arresting, harrassing, etc. U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents. In some cases, U.S. citizens have eveb been deported. What's going to happen when we go after all of the estimated 12 million people.
In summary, your talking about billions upon billions of dollars and allowing the U.S. government a level of intrusion into your personal lives that most conservatives would be appalled at in any other circumstance. In our economy, we just can't affor to do that. Rounding up 12 million illegal aliens just isn't practical.
That being said, I agree with the core of the article. First, Saltzman isn't advocating opening the borders to everybody. He's just saying we should open more avenues for those who are already here to stay.
It just makes sense to do so. The alternative is too costly/intrusive. First, "illegal" immigrants do pay taxes assuming they buy things (sales tax) and pay rent or mortgage (property taxes). Plus, as Saltzman points out, many do have income withheld and usually don't see any of the benefits.
Second, think about how much it would cost to round up an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. That's assuming there's only 12 million. Many workjing in the immigrant communities indicate that number's low. Once you arrest everyone, you have to go through due process. If you don't think illegal immigrants should be entitled to due process, that's fine; you can have your opinion. Even so, federal courts have held that again and again that they are entitled to due process.
Which brings me to my third point. How much will it cost to guarantee 12 million arrested immigrants with due process? We're already paying millions to detain the small percentage of immigrants we are detaining and our immigration courts are overwhelmed. While an immigrant's case is supposed to be disposed of within 6 months, many courts are backlogged beyond two years, and that doesn't even include an appeal. To accomodate 12 million, you'd have to open more immigration courts, hire more immigration judges and staff, and hire more ICE attorneys. It starts to add up.
Finally, rounding up illegals would be unbelievably intrusive. How would you identify an illegal before making the arrest? No one admits it would be through racial profiling, but how else would you do it? Millions of U.S. citizens are Hispanics. We already have problems in areas with high numbers of Hispanics with ICE agents and their local police affiliates arresting, harrassing, etc. U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents. In some cases, U.S. citizens have eveb been deported. What's going to happen when we go after all of the estimated 12 million people.
In summary, your talking about billions upon billions of dollars and allowing the U.S. government a level of intrusion into your personal lives that most conservatives would be appalled at in any other circumstance. In our economy, we just can't affor to do that. Rounding up 12 million illegal aliens just isn't practical.
4.1.2011 | 4:58am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Finally, rounding up illegals would be unbelievably intrusive. How would you identify an illegal before making the arrest? "
That's pretty straightforward. Every employer must be required to verify the citizenship of current and prospective workers. Failure to do so, or to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant, should be a felony combining jail time and steep fines. When it hits the bottom line, employers will check.
Second, when employment dries up, those here illegally will go home. We saw that during the recession of 1991, and again during the current recession. Rather than continue the Obama Administration's economic policies (which have the unintended consequence of discouraging illegal immigration), the requirement to check employee immigration status will have much the same effect.
We should also uniformly require local and state law enforcement authorities to check the immigration status of all people arrested, whether for felony or misdemeanor offenses. You can't say it's racial or ethnic profiling, because we would do it to everybody. Those found here illegally would be detained and turned over to ICE for deportation.
Those who consider restricting illegal immigration to be immoral should consider the consequences of their misplaced compassion. The United States presently acts as a safety valve and enabler for the corrupt Mexican government. As long as Mexico can ship its discontented and underemployed to el Norte, it will never have any incentive to reform.
In my earlier modest proposal, I half-facetiously suggested the U.S. adopt verbatim Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigrants--which are, to say the least, draconian in comparison with our own. Most of the time, these are employed against illegals entering Mexico from Central America (though occasionally against gringos, too); apparently Mexico feels it cannot absorb additional hungry mouths to feed, no matter how willing to work. One must ask why the United States ought to extend to illegal immigrants from Mexico rights and privileges that Mexico will not extend to illegal immigrants from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc. And it shows just how cynical the Mexican government is, that President Calderon castigates American immigration policy while failing to note how liberal it is in comparison to his own. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Motes in thy neighbor's eye, and all that.
Short end of the story: it is possible to reduce significantly the number of illegal immigrants in the United States through a combination of border enforcement, attrition due to universal immigration status checks for all employees as well as persons arrested for non-immigration offenses, and denial of welfare benefits without proof of legal residency. We can go beyond that to penalize "sanctuary states" and "sanctuary cities" that flagrantly violate U.S. law, by denying them access to Federal aid money. We'll see how principled the city mothers and fathers of Portland and San Francisco are, when it hits them in the pocket book.
Once illegal immigration is under control, we can talk seriously about reforming legal immigration.
That's pretty straightforward. Every employer must be required to verify the citizenship of current and prospective workers. Failure to do so, or to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant, should be a felony combining jail time and steep fines. When it hits the bottom line, employers will check.
Second, when employment dries up, those here illegally will go home. We saw that during the recession of 1991, and again during the current recession. Rather than continue the Obama Administration's economic policies (which have the unintended consequence of discouraging illegal immigration), the requirement to check employee immigration status will have much the same effect.
We should also uniformly require local and state law enforcement authorities to check the immigration status of all people arrested, whether for felony or misdemeanor offenses. You can't say it's racial or ethnic profiling, because we would do it to everybody. Those found here illegally would be detained and turned over to ICE for deportation.
Those who consider restricting illegal immigration to be immoral should consider the consequences of their misplaced compassion. The United States presently acts as a safety valve and enabler for the corrupt Mexican government. As long as Mexico can ship its discontented and underemployed to el Norte, it will never have any incentive to reform.
In my earlier modest proposal, I half-facetiously suggested the U.S. adopt verbatim Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigrants--which are, to say the least, draconian in comparison with our own. Most of the time, these are employed against illegals entering Mexico from Central America (though occasionally against gringos, too); apparently Mexico feels it cannot absorb additional hungry mouths to feed, no matter how willing to work. One must ask why the United States ought to extend to illegal immigrants from Mexico rights and privileges that Mexico will not extend to illegal immigrants from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc. And it shows just how cynical the Mexican government is, that President Calderon castigates American immigration policy while failing to note how liberal it is in comparison to his own. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Motes in thy neighbor's eye, and all that.
Short end of the story: it is possible to reduce significantly the number of illegal immigrants in the United States through a combination of border enforcement, attrition due to universal immigration status checks for all employees as well as persons arrested for non-immigration offenses, and denial of welfare benefits without proof of legal residency. We can go beyond that to penalize "sanctuary states" and "sanctuary cities" that flagrantly violate U.S. law, by denying them access to Federal aid money. We'll see how principled the city mothers and fathers of Portland and San Francisco are, when it hits them in the pocket book.
Once illegal immigration is under control, we can talk seriously about reforming legal immigration.
4.1.2011 | 7:30am
Nathan says:
It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be when it comes to verifying an employee's right to work. E-verify, the system in place now is plagued with questions about it's accuracy. You also have to take into account that many of the industries that employee immigrant labor are highly averse to regulation and aren't likely to just go along with you suggested approach.
Then if you were even able to identify all of the illegal immigrants through monitoring employers, you still have the enormous costs associated with doing something about it.
All that Saltzman and others commenting here are trying to say is that this is an exceptionally complicated problem that requires a comprehensive solution. It's not as simple as closing the border, clamping down on business and then rounding everyone up and throwing them out.
All of your solutions require time, money and governmental intrusion. Most people I know aren't normally in favor of just throwing those things around so loosely.
Then if you were even able to identify all of the illegal immigrants through monitoring employers, you still have the enormous costs associated with doing something about it.
All that Saltzman and others commenting here are trying to say is that this is an exceptionally complicated problem that requires a comprehensive solution. It's not as simple as closing the border, clamping down on business and then rounding everyone up and throwing them out.
All of your solutions require time, money and governmental intrusion. Most people I know aren't normally in favor of just throwing those things around so loosely.
4.1.2011 | 7:30am
Nathan says:
It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be when it comes to verifying an employee's right to work. E-verify, the system in place now is plagued with questions about it's accuracy. You also have to take into account that many of the industries that employee immigrant labor are highly averse to regulation and aren't likely to just go along with you suggested approach.
Then if you were even able to identify all of the illegal immigrants through monitoring employers, you still have the enormous costs associated with doing something about it.
All that Saltzman and others commenting here are trying to say is that this is an exceptionally complicated problem that requires a comprehensive solution. It's not as simple as closing the border, clamping down on business and then rounding everyone up and throwing them out.
All of your solutions require time, money and governmental intrusion. Most people I know aren't normally in favor of just throwing those things around so loosely.
Then if you were even able to identify all of the illegal immigrants through monitoring employers, you still have the enormous costs associated with doing something about it.
All that Saltzman and others commenting here are trying to say is that this is an exceptionally complicated problem that requires a comprehensive solution. It's not as simple as closing the border, clamping down on business and then rounding everyone up and throwing them out.
All of your solutions require time, money and governmental intrusion. Most people I know aren't normally in favor of just throwing those things around so loosely.
4.1.2011 | 9:30am
Bill Tammeus says:
Russ: When they all come in maybe a few can stay with my wife and me and I can tell them how my maternal grandparents got here from Sweden and my paternal great-grandparents got here from Germany. Then I'd listen to their stories.
4.1.2011 | 9:32am
Jocon307 says:
To Nathan, and others, I would say that nobody (or almost nobody) is suggesting a wholesale roundup of illegal immigrants. That is the canard that is always thrown out and it is typical of today's discourse on this and many subjects.
Any suggestion short of "let them all in!" is met with "you want to round up everyone and throw them out!"
The United States is a nation, it is not a charitable enterprise and it needs to be run for the benefit of its citizens. We were sold a bill of goods in 1986 and we are not going to buy it again.
For things to change the "let them all in crowd" needs to stop accusing the rest of us of wanting to "throw them all out".
Any suggestion short of "let them all in!" is met with "you want to round up everyone and throw them out!"
The United States is a nation, it is not a charitable enterprise and it needs to be run for the benefit of its citizens. We were sold a bill of goods in 1986 and we are not going to buy it again.
For things to change the "let them all in crowd" needs to stop accusing the rest of us of wanting to "throw them all out".
4.1.2011 | 11:10am
RobertE says:
I want to say "let them all in" as most will get jobs, raise families, help the society. But some people want to kill us and destroy our society. How do we screen these people out if we "let them all in"? Maybe we have to intercept terrorist emails and do profiling.
4.1.2011 | 1:42pm
INTJ says:
"Let them all in" defies reality in several respects. First, there is a practical limit to the population growth which can be managed effectively by the governments, the culture, or the economy. Too many people too fast results in significant chaos, displacement, resource shortages and inflation. That's a fact. For example, right now the real unemployment rate is around 16-20%, depending on where you get the information. There are only so many people who could enter the U.S. looking for employment before the job shortage issue became critical. And try to imagine a school system frantically trying to find seats for students (many of whom don't know the language yet) for whom they could not possibly have planned. We've seen what it looks like in high-growth corridors; do we really want to make this de rigueur?
Second, as has been mentioned, some people who enter our country do so in order to do us harm. For example, the 9/11 terrorists all entered the country legally, then overstayed their visas. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to apply extra scrutiny and control over who immigrates from Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Yemen, or any other place which has it in for America. Not only do you risk letting in (or letting remain) violent terrorists, but you open us up to political takeover, since even the most radical, violent terrorists could enter the country at will, and become naturalized citizens within as little as 5 months. Then that group could vote, and decide national policy!
You may fairly disagree with the limits or quotas that are placed on immigration, but it is unreasonable to believe it fair, or safe, to have a system with no limits whatsoever.
Second, as has been mentioned, some people who enter our country do so in order to do us harm. For example, the 9/11 terrorists all entered the country legally, then overstayed their visas. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to apply extra scrutiny and control over who immigrates from Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Yemen, or any other place which has it in for America. Not only do you risk letting in (or letting remain) violent terrorists, but you open us up to political takeover, since even the most radical, violent terrorists could enter the country at will, and become naturalized citizens within as little as 5 months. Then that group could vote, and decide national policy!
You may fairly disagree with the limits or quotas that are placed on immigration, but it is unreasonable to believe it fair, or safe, to have a system with no limits whatsoever.
4.1.2011 | 1:42pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be when it comes to verifying an employee's right to work. E-verify, the system in place now is plagued with questions about it's accuracy. "
Only those who oppose any attempts to verify immigration status at all. By all objective standards, it is accurate enough, as most states and employers have found.
"You also have to take into account that many of the industries that employee immigrant labor are highly averse to regulation and aren't likely to just go along with you suggested approach."
Then they can suffer the legal consequences.
"All that Saltzman and others commenting here are trying to say is that this is an exceptionally complicated problem that requires a comprehensive solution. It's not as simple as closing the border, clamping down on business and then rounding everyone up and throwing them out."
All situations are complicated to those who don't really want them resolved. But that aside, you seem determined to erect and knock over a straw man. No serious person has said go door to door and round up illegals like Reinhardt Heydrich rounding up Jews. Rather, what almost every person opposing you has said is secure the border, and make staying in the U.S. undesirable for illegal aliens by cutting off their access to gainful employment and equally gainful welfare benefits. We may end up deporting a small percentage, but most will return home of their own volition once life becomes onerous.
Only those who oppose any attempts to verify immigration status at all. By all objective standards, it is accurate enough, as most states and employers have found.
"You also have to take into account that many of the industries that employee immigrant labor are highly averse to regulation and aren't likely to just go along with you suggested approach."
Then they can suffer the legal consequences.
"All that Saltzman and others commenting here are trying to say is that this is an exceptionally complicated problem that requires a comprehensive solution. It's not as simple as closing the border, clamping down on business and then rounding everyone up and throwing them out."
All situations are complicated to those who don't really want them resolved. But that aside, you seem determined to erect and knock over a straw man. No serious person has said go door to door and round up illegals like Reinhardt Heydrich rounding up Jews. Rather, what almost every person opposing you has said is secure the border, and make staying in the U.S. undesirable for illegal aliens by cutting off their access to gainful employment and equally gainful welfare benefits. We may end up deporting a small percentage, but most will return home of their own volition once life becomes onerous.
4.1.2011 | 2:54pm
Nathan says:
I never said I have a problem with securing the border. If you're going to accuse me of making blanket assumptions, then don't make them yourselves.
All I have been saying is that many on here are oversimplifying the issue. For example, in response to my statement that industries will resist regulation, you said, "Then they can suffer the legal consequences." Easier said than done. Go read "Smoking & Politics." It's an excellent book for understanding lobbying, agencies, politicians and lawmaking. Once you've read it, I'd like you to tell me how you think the federal government is going to stand up against the entire U.S. agricultural industry when it could barely stand up to only the tobacco industry in the 1960s. If you think our very pro-business government is ever going to pull out a big stick against big companies in the U.S., I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I also have to take issue with the idea that immigrants will just leave if we make conditions miserable for them. This issue does not exist in a vacuum. We have to take the conditions of the countries from which they are coming into account. You'd be surprised how much people are willing to suffer to stay here rather than go back to their country of origin, and I think that was one of the overall points this article was trying to make.
And no, I have not erected a strawman. There are a significant percentage of people who would like to round up every illegal and throw them out. In addition, there are a significant amount of wackos on the other side who would like to just open the border and let everyone come in. I'm not one of those.
All I have been saying is that many on here are oversimplifying the issue. For example, in response to my statement that industries will resist regulation, you said, "Then they can suffer the legal consequences." Easier said than done. Go read "Smoking & Politics." It's an excellent book for understanding lobbying, agencies, politicians and lawmaking. Once you've read it, I'd like you to tell me how you think the federal government is going to stand up against the entire U.S. agricultural industry when it could barely stand up to only the tobacco industry in the 1960s. If you think our very pro-business government is ever going to pull out a big stick against big companies in the U.S., I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I also have to take issue with the idea that immigrants will just leave if we make conditions miserable for them. This issue does not exist in a vacuum. We have to take the conditions of the countries from which they are coming into account. You'd be surprised how much people are willing to suffer to stay here rather than go back to their country of origin, and I think that was one of the overall points this article was trying to make.
And no, I have not erected a strawman. There are a significant percentage of people who would like to round up every illegal and throw them out. In addition, there are a significant amount of wackos on the other side who would like to just open the border and let everyone come in. I'm not one of those.
4.1.2011 | 3:10pm
GeorgiaLatino says:
"For things to change the "let them all in crowd" needs to stop accusing the rest of us of wanting to "throw them all out". "
Actually, I read blogs and comments from both sides several times per week, and, just anecdotally, the overwhelming majority advocate the illegal is illegal, it's a sad story but they shoulda never come her, now let's round 'em up and throw them all out philosophy. From CA to GA it's the same theme.
Further, when someone like myself post, admitting to being latino, although a third generation US Citizen, then the catcalls of "anchor-baby" start coming out.
So tell me, what are we supposed to think about the views of those on the right?
Actually, I read blogs and comments from both sides several times per week, and, just anecdotally, the overwhelming majority advocate the illegal is illegal, it's a sad story but they shoulda never come her, now let's round 'em up and throw them all out philosophy. From CA to GA it's the same theme.
Further, when someone like myself post, admitting to being latino, although a third generation US Citizen, then the catcalls of "anchor-baby" start coming out.
So tell me, what are we supposed to think about the views of those on the right?
4.2.2011 | 4:38am
Mark VA says:
"Let them all in" should be applied to our unborn, exclusively.
These two issues are related - one is the compensation for the other.
These two issues are related - one is the compensation for the other.
4.2.2011 | 8:03am
Ali says:
"Forced" to leave their homelands for a "better life" here? How does that square with the fact that Mexico is among the richest countries in the world in terms of GDP and home to the world's richest man? It's also a democracy, albeit a troubled one. A Pew Hispanic Center report found that most Mexican illegal aliens in these country had left jobs in Mexico, so we're hardly talking about the poorest of that country's poor. Fact is, Mexicans should stay or be returned to Mexico to deal with that country's problems.
As for illegal aliens from other countries, there are 5 BILLION people who live in countries poorer than Mexico. Just how many of those are we supposed to take and under what criteria? That you're willing to make your first act here breaking this country's laws?
As for illegal aliens from other countries, there are 5 BILLION people who live in countries poorer than Mexico. Just how many of those are we supposed to take and under what criteria? That you're willing to make your first act here breaking this country's laws?
4.3.2011 | 4:18pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I also have to take issue with the idea that immigrants will just leave if we make conditions miserable for them."
Really? That's what seems to be happening now: illegal immigration is way down, while out-migration--the return of illegals to their home countries--is increasing, largely because (a) economic conditions make finding employment difficult; and (b) scattered but consistent enforcement of immigration laws on the local level and restriction of benefits to those proving legal residency make life unpleasant.
Two things you learn early on, if you are paying attention in class: 1. You get more of what you subsidize; and 2. You get less of what you tax. In this case, lack of jobs, restrictions on benefits and enforcement of immigration laws all represent a tax on illegal immigration. On the other hand, policies like "sanctuary cities" and "amnesty" represent subsidies of illegal immigration.
I'm also curious as to why nobody has commented on my suggestion that we adopt Mexico's policy regarding illegal immigration. If our immigration policy is heartless, then what, precisely, is theirs, and why do they get the right to criticize us for our human treatment of illegal Mexican residents of the U.S., while we must remain silent regarding Mexico's treatment of illegal immigrants from south of their border?
Really? That's what seems to be happening now: illegal immigration is way down, while out-migration--the return of illegals to their home countries--is increasing, largely because (a) economic conditions make finding employment difficult; and (b) scattered but consistent enforcement of immigration laws on the local level and restriction of benefits to those proving legal residency make life unpleasant.
Two things you learn early on, if you are paying attention in class: 1. You get more of what you subsidize; and 2. You get less of what you tax. In this case, lack of jobs, restrictions on benefits and enforcement of immigration laws all represent a tax on illegal immigration. On the other hand, policies like "sanctuary cities" and "amnesty" represent subsidies of illegal immigration.
I'm also curious as to why nobody has commented on my suggestion that we adopt Mexico's policy regarding illegal immigration. If our immigration policy is heartless, then what, precisely, is theirs, and why do they get the right to criticize us for our human treatment of illegal Mexican residents of the U.S., while we must remain silent regarding Mexico's treatment of illegal immigrants from south of their border?
4.4.2011 | 3:21pm
Don Roberto says:
All winter I fed the stray white-and-grey, sad-eyed cat that came to my porch. The poor thing is terrified and leaps away when touched, though he was very friendly to my cat. I can't afford a 2nd one, and California can't afford much in the way of humane services these days, but I found a lady who indicated she'd take him. Unfortunately, when I tried to lure him with tempting morsels into my pet carrier, he always kept his legs outside. Too smart—no doubt he's been trapped before (perhaps when he was relocated to my neighborhood).
Yesterday my elderly neighbor complained: he's been sleeping and relieving himself in her garage and messing up her garden. I promised to stop feeding him.
He looked at me and meowed pathetically as I left for work this morning. But I promised. Well, he made it through the cold months. And it seems to me his eyes aren't as sad.
†
Yesterday my elderly neighbor complained: he's been sleeping and relieving himself in her garage and messing up her garden. I promised to stop feeding him.
He looked at me and meowed pathetically as I left for work this morning. But I promised. Well, he made it through the cold months. And it seems to me his eyes aren't as sad.
†
4.5.2011 | 11:34am
Nathan says:
"I also have to take issue with the idea that immigrants will just leave if we make conditions miserable for them.
Really? That's what seems to be happening now: illegal immigration is way down, while out-migration--the return of illegals to their home countries--is increasing, largely because (a) economic conditions make finding employment difficult; and (b) scattered but consistent enforcement of immigration laws on the local level and restriction of benefits to those proving legal residency make life unpleasant."
Actually, we don't really know what's hapening now. There have been reports from both sides, but it is really too early to tell. For one, there are indicators that a lot of immigrants are just relocating within the U.S. to areas that were not hit as hard by the recession such as Eastern Kansas, North Carolina and Arkansas.
Also, while there were reports that many were returning to their home countries due to the recession, it's a very difficult thing to measure just how significant a number that is. We don't even know with certainty how many were here to begin with. How are we going to know what percentage have left.
I would be surprised to learn that the numbers are as high as you seem to be insinuating.
I don't think you're 100% wrong, I just don't think your solution is entirely foolproof.
That's why they call it comprehensive immigration reform. (1) create some path for those who are already here, (2) regulate the border more efficiently and effectively, (3) create reasonable options for those wishing to come here legally that recognizes the needs of the U.S. and the foreign workforce we are trying to recruit, (4) make things more difficult for employers wanting to hire illegal immigrants, and (5) reduce the incentives for illegal immigrants to remain illegal.
I just don't think it's as simple as yo make it out to be.
As for Mexico's immigration laws, since you want comments, I'll offer some. First, I've never looked to Mexico as an example for how we should proceed on immigration nor am I from Mexico. I don't know why you find it significant that they have harsher immigration laws then we do. If you solely wish to point out that President Calderon is a hypocrite when he accuses the U.S. of human rights abuses on immigration, then okay. That being said, it has nothing to do with how the U.S. should act on the issue.
Second, Mexico's policies are a good example of the point I am making of moving when discussing an "enforcement only" approach. Even with the archaic, overly harsh laws Mexico has in place, Mexico is still overrun by illegal immigration from Central and South America. That's even taking into consideration that Mexico has a much smaller Southern border to defend than we do.
Really? That's what seems to be happening now: illegal immigration is way down, while out-migration--the return of illegals to their home countries--is increasing, largely because (a) economic conditions make finding employment difficult; and (b) scattered but consistent enforcement of immigration laws on the local level and restriction of benefits to those proving legal residency make life unpleasant."
Actually, we don't really know what's hapening now. There have been reports from both sides, but it is really too early to tell. For one, there are indicators that a lot of immigrants are just relocating within the U.S. to areas that were not hit as hard by the recession such as Eastern Kansas, North Carolina and Arkansas.
Also, while there were reports that many were returning to their home countries due to the recession, it's a very difficult thing to measure just how significant a number that is. We don't even know with certainty how many were here to begin with. How are we going to know what percentage have left.
I would be surprised to learn that the numbers are as high as you seem to be insinuating.
I don't think you're 100% wrong, I just don't think your solution is entirely foolproof.
That's why they call it comprehensive immigration reform. (1) create some path for those who are already here, (2) regulate the border more efficiently and effectively, (3) create reasonable options for those wishing to come here legally that recognizes the needs of the U.S. and the foreign workforce we are trying to recruit, (4) make things more difficult for employers wanting to hire illegal immigrants, and (5) reduce the incentives for illegal immigrants to remain illegal.
I just don't think it's as simple as yo make it out to be.
As for Mexico's immigration laws, since you want comments, I'll offer some. First, I've never looked to Mexico as an example for how we should proceed on immigration nor am I from Mexico. I don't know why you find it significant that they have harsher immigration laws then we do. If you solely wish to point out that President Calderon is a hypocrite when he accuses the U.S. of human rights abuses on immigration, then okay. That being said, it has nothing to do with how the U.S. should act on the issue.
Second, Mexico's policies are a good example of the point I am making of moving when discussing an "enforcement only" approach. Even with the archaic, overly harsh laws Mexico has in place, Mexico is still overrun by illegal immigration from Central and South America. That's even taking into consideration that Mexico has a much smaller Southern border to defend than we do.
7.26.2011 | 1:36pm
Houck John says:
The United States is a nation, it is not a charitable enterprise and it needs to be run for the benefit of its citizens. We were sold a bill of goods in 1986 and we are not going to buy it again. Our before 1920 allowed basically open immigration (except for Asians and prostitutes). From 1920-1996, our laws usually had a safety valve for people who had entered unlawfully ("technical illegality" was the 1920s era rule) but who were a net benefit to our society. But now we treat illegality as a substitute for that analysis. You entered illegally, we can't let you stay even if to send you home would be to cost the government money, send your family to the poorhouse, hinder the futures of your (U.S. citizen) children, etc. It's just so stupid and so harmful, in the way only governmental policy can be.
