Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Everybody Loves Amnesty
Hell of a polling result from USA Today:
While Congress and the White House remain divided over what to do with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the USA, a new poll shows the American public appears to have reached a consensus on the question. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found that 78 percent of respondents feel people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship.
I don't see the whole poll on the Gallup site, but take the least charitable view - that the wording was cooked to coax the most alien-friendly results - and it's still hard to explain away. People are clearly not as anti-illegal immigrant as we in the media figured before the 2006 elections. There's a very vocal, angry chunk* of the population that wants to build a border wall, and a smaller chunk that wants to deport illegals, but even many of the people who want illegal immigration stopped figure the immigrants are basically hard-up, hard-working people.
Read Reason's reporting on the immigration
issue, including great articles by Malia Politzer and Kerry Howley, right here.
*There's some disagreement about the use of the word "angry." You could substitute "scared" or suggest another reason why people build walls.
|4.19.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Note it says "people now in the country illegally" deserve a
chance at citizenship. It says nothing about what that those people
think that chance should be. Further, it says nothing about what
people think about further immigration. It just says that they
think the ones already here perhaps ought not to be deported and
given a chance at legal status. The poll says nothing support for
doing something to prevent further illegal immigration.
It is entirely possible if not likely that people believe that the
immigrants already here should stay but want something done to
prevent more immigrants from coming. Weigel over reads the results
of a poll that says maybe we should let the ones here stay to mean
that 78% of respondents want an open border, which is exactly what
Congress and the political elite will do. It will be 1986 all over
again; just let the ones here stay legally and we will do something
to stop further illegal immigration and then of course do nothing
to stop further illegal immigration because God forbid Bush not
have cheap ranch help or yuppies in suburban L.A. not be able to
import a slave to raise their children.
|4.19.07 @ 11:22AM|#
"...angry chunk of the population that wants to build a border
wall..."
Why angry? I like the idea of a border wall but I'm not angry. Was
one of the questions "are you angry we arn't building a border
wall?"
|4.19.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Not to mention the way our closed boarders policy has perverted immigration to begin with. Most immigrants wouldn't need citizenship if they were allowed to migrate back and forth.
|4.19.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Perhaps this poll indicates that after years and years of being
told that "illegal immigrants" are going to destroy our country,
Americans are finally beginning to realize that it's simply not
happening.
It's not that people don't think that there are problems involved
with undocumented workers, but I think the anti-immigrant side has
really overstated their case.
Not to mention that the whole issue reeks of racism.
|4.19.07 @ 11:43AM|#
I see we got all the way to post 5 before someone played the race card. Nothing moves a rational discussion along like accusing those who disagree of racism. Really opens up the lines of communication.
|4.19.07 @ 11:44AM|#
I have no hostility toward migrant workers. My consternation is toward the exploitive employers that have decided that the profit gained from using hiring cheap, disposible labor outweighs the petty slap on the wrist fines. Currently the laws punish "hard-up, hard-working" individuals FAR greater than the businesses that line their pockets through exploitation.
|4.19.07 @ 11:45AM|#
The constitution allows the federal government to repel
invasions and to establish uniform rules for naturalization. It
says nothing about the federal government having the authority to
keep anyone from coming into the country, whether for travel,
business, temporary employment, permanent residence without
citizenship, etc. These powers were ASSUMED. When those power grabs
were (very weakly) challenged, the Supreme Court and others
invested in government power "explained" that the power to control
borders and admit or eject non-citizens was an "inherent" power of
nations. But that's crap. Taxation and any number of other powers
had traditionally been "inherent" in nationhood, prior to the
establishment of the US. I suppose they were thought as "inherent"
in the soverign nationhood of each of the original States. When
those States got together, some power was explicitly ceded top the
Federal government. But those powers not explicitly ceded by the
States to the Federal government were explicitly to remain with
those who held them in the first place. The Federal govenrment
wasn't to have "inherent" powers of a nation. It was to have the
explicitly enumerated powers mentioned in the Constitution and no
more.
So, that being the case, how is the flow of peaceful, hardworking
people, back and forth across the borders, either "invasion" or
"naturalization," particularly if the foreigners involved do not
seek to become US Citizens?
|4.19.07 @ 11:58AM|#
I see we got all the way to post 5 before someone played the
race card.
Yes, but we were treated to the good old slavery/exploitation
argument in the first post.
What is the distinction between my job and that of the illegal
immigrant who cleans my building which makes the former valid and
the latter exploitative?
|4.19.07 @ 12:01PM|#
That is a BS Poll if I every saw one. Of course in the poll they don't mention that the actual count would be about 60 million over 10 years (CATO study from August of 2006). With the economy going in a downturn this year all will work out great! Wow, we might as well enjoy our new lower standard of living. Also, are we ready the increased energy requirements for these extra people.
Memnon|4.19.07 @ 12:10PM|#
It´s polling fraud, goddamit! All the hudreds of millions of illegal immigruns are voting illegally in the polls - just like they do in the elections! If only we had som effective prosecuters to smoke them out!!?
|4.19.07 @ 12:11PM|#
I've said it before and it warmed my heart when I heard Milton
Friedman say the same thing in a 2005 interview on the "Charlie
Rose" show.
"Look, you can't have open borders when you have a welfare
state."
It would be nice to get rid of the welfare state, but that has
about as much chance of happening as a libertarian winning the
presidential election.
On the amnesty issue, I have a problem with rewarding
illegal behavior. It's no different than if the IRS declared, "We
are granting amnesty to all who didn't pay their taxes for the last
ten years, but to you who did pay, thanks, Suckers!"?
|4.19.07 @ 12:11PM|#
I see we got all the way to post 5 before someone played the
race card. Nothing moves a rational discussion along like accusing
those who disagree of racism. Really opens up the lines of
communication.
Well, you're basically acknowledging that race is at least part of
the issue here yet for some reason we're not supposed to discuss
it. Hence the PC term "race card", which is itself a "card" that is
played in an attempt to prevent dissenting opinions from being
considered.
And of course I didn't accuse anybody who disagrees wiht me of
racism. I'm just suggesting that perhaps the American people are
beginning to sense that if the "illegal immigrants" were WASPs
instead of Latinos this issue wouldn't have nearly as much energy
around it.
|4.19.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Well, you're basically acknowledging that race is at least
part of the issue here yet for some reason we're not supposed to
discuss it.
I hadn't noticed even a hint of racism in either the post or the
previous 4 comments before you made a pre-emptive accusation of
racism, HOI.
And don't go all "oh, poor victim me, my dissent is being
suppressed", HOI. Its not, and you know it, and you know that
playing the race card the way you did is an attempt to devalue
anyone who disagrees with you on this issue.
|4.19.07 @ 12:32PM|#
You could substitute "scared" or suggest another reason why people build walls.
Umm... Maybe we are going to build a roof? It has been raining alot
here in Texas.
GILMORE|4.19.07 @ 12:50PM|#
There is a clear consensus = people are fucking hysterical all
over the place.
Where oh where is Steve "I'm not a racist" Sailer? Say something
provacative. Make us care.
For the people who are generally on the non-consensus side of this
issue (RC Dean? John?)... what is your answer to the thousands of
US farmers who are desperately trying to explain to the Red Staters
that they really DO need migrant labor to stay competitive? Just
curious. The MORE AMERICAN THAN YOU types seem to have no
explanation about what to do about our immigrant-dependent
industries.
JG
|4.19.07 @ 12:52PM|#
"It says nothing about the federal government having the
authority to keep anyone from coming into the country, whether for
travel, business, temporary employment, permanent residence without
citizenship, etc."
I don't know what country you live in Merrit but you might try
reading the Constitution once in a while.
Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have the power to "To establish a uniform rule
of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies
throughout the United States;"
Uniform rule of naturalization. That means the Congress has the
power to control the borders and determine who is a naturalized
citizen and who is not. It couldn't be any more explicit than that.
It is not an assumed power or an implied power, it is one of the
few enumerated powers in the Constitution. Take that crap over to
the rightwing nutjobs over at Lew Rockwell where it belongs.
|4.19.07 @ 12:59PM|#
That means the Congress has the power to control the borders
and determine who is a naturalized citizen and who is
not.
No. It says absolutely nothing about the borders or
immigration. It says that Congress has the power to define who can
become a citizen.
James is precisely right that controlling the borders against
general migration is not a power granted to the federal government.
Nonetheless, while this says a lot about the attitudes of the
Founders, it is rather meaningless in arguing present-day
government powers. Certainly if the US behaved properly under the
Constitution, the Constitution would have been amended in the 1880s
or 1920s or, indeed, today to give it the power to restrict
immigration.
|4.19.07 @ 1:06PM|#
"James is precisely right that controlling the borders against
general migration is not a power granted to the federal government.
Nonetheless, while this says a lot about the attitudes of the
Founders, it is rather meaningless in arguing present-day
government powers. Certainly if the US behaved properly under the
Constitution, the Constitution would have been amended in the 1880s
or 1920s or, indeed, today to give it the power to restrict
immigration."
That is pedantic bullshit. Congress has the power to control
naturalization, recognize foreign embassies and charge excise taxes
on imports and exports, powers that are specifically taken away
from the states, but have no control of the border and who can
enter the United States? That is ludicrous. There is nothing in the
drafting history, the practice at the time that would indicate they
founders meant that. The Congress has always had the power to
control the borders. Indeed, control of own border is inherent to
any sovereign and probably the most universally accepted tenant of
international law. No court or competent authority at the time of
the drafting or anytime in U.S. history has denied Congress that
power. To say that Congress doesn't have the power is to completely
disregard the history and the context of the document to such a
degree that the document becomes meaningless.
|4.19.07 @ 1:07PM|#
So the argument is that the federal government has the power
only to declare who can be a citizen, but has no power to exclude
anyone who isn't a citizen?
Interesting. I'll have to chew on that one.
Of course, anyone who wants to read the Constitution that tight
should have no problem throwing out 80% of the current federal code
as being beyond the scope of the enumerated powers, including the
commerce clause.
|4.19.07 @ 1:16PM|#
There is nothing in the drafting history, the practice at
the time that would indicate they founders meant that.
It would be surprising if, 11 years after the Founders wrote
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
they would grant to the federal government the power over migration
into their several sovereign states.
Note, too, the distinction Jefferson draws between migration and
naturalization.
|4.19.07 @ 1:21PM|#
I have a cunning plan. Dipping into a practice common in early America, let's offer each illegal immigrant amnesty after a seven-year period of indentured servitude. That way, they get training and citizenship, and we still get our cheap labor. Both sides win!
|4.19.07 @ 1:36PM|#
John,
I'm talking temporary servitude, not indefinite. And I don't think
picking lettuce is a trade that needs an extended
apprenticeship.
I'm also kidding, I think.
|4.19.07 @ 1:58PM|#
So the argument is that the federal government has the power
only to declare who can be a citizen, but has no power to exclude
anyone who isn't a citizen?
While you're chewing on that, you might want to see how this
follows from the perspective of individual rights and government
powers in general.
As noted in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere,
individual rights are primary and preexist government powers. So
governments really do not have any legitimate power to abridge the
rights of travel, residence, or labor of any individual --
regardless of his place of birth, nationality, or citizenship.
Exceptions to this rule revolve around threats to the public from
invasion, insurrection, or contagion.
However, governments do have the power to control their
own citizenship -- to define the privileges and responsibilities of
a citizen and who can become a citizen. There is no right to be a
citizen, and citizenship does not grant any rights since it is not
in the power of government to grant rights, only to secure
preexisting rights held by all individuals.
Thus, governments have no legitimate power to control general
migration, but they do have a legitimate power to control
citizenship.
|4.19.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Of course, anyone who wants to read the Constitution that
tight should have no problem throwing out 80% of the current
federal code as being beyond the scope of the enumerated powers,
including the commerce clause.
Only 80%?
|4.19.07 @ 2:00PM|#
And don't go all "oh, poor victim me, my dissent is being
suppressed", HOI. Its not, and you know it, and you know that
playing the race card the way you did is an attempt to devalue
anyone who disagrees with you on this issue.
I simply pointed out that the issue reeks of racism. Because it
does.
Sorry if that observation makes you uncomfortable but race either
is or isn't a part of this issue regardless of what you think my
motives are for mentioning it.
VM|4.19.07 @ 2:01PM|#
ProL:
then easy on the sauce this Saturday! It's a blast!
Besides your team winning the big game, and that time Becky's shirt
fell open in class senior year, it'll easily be one of the best
days of your entire life!
|4.19.07 @ 2:07PM|#
VM,
It's a daytime wedding, so the amount of booze will be minimal. At
least for me and Mrs. Libertate. There's a champagne toast, and
that's it. Weeellll, other than the bottles of bourbon and run that
I'm giving to two groomsmen to distribute to those who simply must
have a drink during the reception :)
Incidentally, the correct response to someone saying, "I drink to
forget" is "Why?"
TLB|4.19.07 @ 2:22PM|#
As for "angry" or "scared", I prefer "not corrupt", "not paid
off", "not a hack", "informed about the issue", and other
terms.
Maybe Weigel could update the post.
The poll is certainly interesting, but one wonders why even those
who have been paid off have been treading lightly on this issue.
One will frequently hear them saying they need to proceed
cautiously and well before the elections.
Obviously, they know something Weigel doesn't. They realize they're
playing with fire.
Virtually all polls are as simple-minded as Weigel, in that they
ask broad or biased questions, but don't ask follow-ups.
For instance, they could have asked those who answered yes to
whatever the question they asked whether they still support
legalization knowing that it will inevitably lead to even more
IllegalImmigration, MassiveChainMigration, more PoliticalPower for
the MexicanGovernment inside the U.S., and so on.
If you want to find out what's really going on with this issue,
scan through the thousands of posts in my archives. You'll learn
all the things Weigel doesn't.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.19.07 @ 2:37PM|#
I am highly skeptical of that poll. I don't know anyone outside
of Casa de las Rocas Grandes (where I live) that believes anything
except all illegals should be deported. Sheesh, I even know guys
who think we should put the NG on the border with live ammo and
shoot anyone who crosses. Bullets are cheaper than concrete they
say.
Well, I exaggerate, there is Mo and his neighbors and I think maybe
El Geronimo de Crow is on the fence. Pun intended. Never sure with
him though.
|4.19.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Honestly, must I solve all of America's problems? Indentured servitude--learn a trade! Heck, we should extend this to kids wanting to get engineering degrees in the U.S.
|4.19.07 @ 2:57PM|#
For instance, they could have asked those who answered yes
to whatever the question they asked whether they still support
legalization knowing that it will inevitably lead to even more
IllegalImmigration, MassiveChainMigration, more PoliticalPower for
the MexicanGovernment inside the U.S., and so on.
There's a reason that question isn't asked in legitimate poll -
it's a loaded one.
Then again, that probably doesn't bother you given your opinion
that those not opposed to "illegal immigration" must be "paid
off".
Rick H.|4.19.07 @ 2:57PM|#
TLB:
WhatsWith the ConstantPattern of WeirdSpacing and
InappropriateCaps?
|4.19.07 @ 3:14PM|#
One possibility is that it hearkens back to the ancient roots of English in the Germanic languages. By capitalizing everything in sight and forming long compound words, it is hoped that the totems thus conjured can ward off the threat from those who speak more fluid and less capitalized Romance languages.
Something Weigel can look into|4.19.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Then again, that probably doesn't bother you given your
opinion that those not opposed to "illegal immigration" must be
"paid off".
I didn't say that, only that I very strongly suspect some
politicians of being paid off. For just one example, Rep.
ChrisCannon got >$20k in donations from ImmigrationLawyers who
were from the same group that helped him write legislation. Odd,
that.
And, there are many politicians who "pay themselves off", so to
speak. They're willing to support MassiveIllegalActivity in the
hopes of getting future votes and prolonging their careers.
On a somewhat related note, if Weigel or someone else from Reason
wants to do some real reporting, they can look into the questions
for BillRichardson at the link.
|4.19.07 @ 6:24PM|#
I didn't say that, only that I very strongly suspect some
politicians of being paid off.
Anyone want to argue with that?
|4.19.07 @ 6:42PM|#
I didn't say that, only that I very strongly suspect some politicians of being paid off.
Anyone want to argue with that?
It is a sad but undeniable fact that if you need to defend yourself
against bad legislation, you need to get involved in the political
process. Whether or not you change legislators' minds by giving
them or their campaigns money, it is pretty much the way you get a
hold of their time for lobbying.
It is also true that illegal immigrants are pretty much the poorest
and least represented class of people in the country. That a
coalition of immigration lawyers who understand their clients and
what is at stake for them might donate some money to a legislator
who might take a stand against truly awful legislation is
understandable.
$20,000. Wow. Does anyone have the rundown of just how much
Tancredo has been "paid off" and by whom since he started his
anti-immigration tirade?
|4.19.07 @ 6:51PM|#
And, there are many politicians who "pay themselves off", so
to speak. They're willing to support MassiveIllegalActivity in the
hopes of getting future votes and prolonging their
careers.
Are these politicians in any way related to the politicians who are
willing to take demagogic stands and rile up nationalist and
protectionist fervor whenever possible in the hopes of getting
present and future votes and prolonging their careers?
|4.19.07 @ 6:54PM|#
"Open borders" = "Giving crack to children" - anti-black overtones + anti-Hispanic overtones
|4.19.07 @ 6:55PM|#
I bring this up because the "crypto-open-borders-advocacy" card was played four comments earlier than the race card.
|4.19.07 @ 7:45PM|#
Incidentally, I myself do not have a particular concern whether
racism is among the motivations of the immigration debate. I simply
find no fundamental moral difference between racism and
protectionism, nationalism, culturalism, or any of the legion of
other excuses for denying individuals their freedoms on the basis
of where they happen to have been born.
Practically, racism is worse mainly because it should be difficult
to grow to adulthood in today's America with racist attitudes. But
I look forward to the day a couple generations hence when people
will look at people who argue for substantially closed borders the
same way they look at people who still harbor the attitudes of a
white southerner from the 1950's.
Egon|4.19.07 @ 9:12PM|#
Frankly, I'm confused. On the one hand, we're building (OK, threatening to build) a border fence. On the other, the establishment of the North American Trade Zone continues apace. It's quite a dichotomy.
|4.20.07 @ 3:09AM|#
and I think maybe El Geronimo de Crow is on the
fence.
Then, de Crow is the first one who gets shot. [easy target and all,
you see]
I for one don't like crows. Call me a racist. I won't even mind,
I'm just a barbarian anyway.
Egon, if you're confused it's only because everybody else is too.
Do we need countries and borders and all, or can we do away with
them? [where's Ruthless when you need him? I haven't seen him post
in a long time]
I theenk senior D.W. is taking his poll just a leeetle bit tooo
farr. But remember, I don't like crows either. You can't trust
me.
In fact, that's going to be my battle cry from now on: remember, I
don't like crows.
|4.20.07 @ 3:12AM|#
I do like the idea of temporary indentured servitude. I'd never
have to mow a lawn again!
Not that we have very many lawns to mow here in Arizona. But just
in case we ever do (Al Gore says I should be really worried), we've
got lots of people running around here that I could snag and turn
into indentured servants.
Weigel say duh|4.20.07 @ 2:57PM|#
I found the poll itself, and, as you might expect, there are
quite a few things that neither USA Today nor Weigel were telling
you.
Details at the link.
Reminder: you can't trust Reason on this issue.
|4.20.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Wow. Lonewacko has a point.
It looks like the 78% is formed from adding the percentages who
selected the following two answer
choices:
42% -- require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time
36% -- allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time
If the 42% think those certain requirements include getting in the
(effectively infinite length) legal immigration line, that is
hardly a supportive attitude toward immigrants who are in the US
illegally.
Ted|4.21.07 @ 3:18PM|#
http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/228-2239477.smil
How about the Irish illegals?
Here is a Real Media link to an interview that Bill O'Reilly did on
Irish Television. In it, the interviewer mentions how the families
of illegal Irish Immigrants are upset that these illegals can't
visit home because if they do, they won't be let back in.
http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/228-2239477.smil
I wish O'Reilly had stated the obvious to that interviewer. Why
should illegal Irish immigrants expect to be able to travel back
and forth between Ireland and the United States when by definition
they aren't supposed to be in the United States to begin with?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245