Get Out! No, Wait--Come Back!
David Weigel | September 26, 2007, 8:51am
The
New York Times checks in with some of the towns and cities that passed draconian anti-immigrant measures. The results were so shocking, so unpredictable, that... well, actually, they were pretty predictable.
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town’s already tight budget. Suddenly, many people — including some who originally favored the law — started having second thoughts.
So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.
“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. “A lot of people did not look three years out.”
When prefab populists like Laura Ingraham badmouth immigration reforms because "the elitists" don't understand "what Americans want," this is why she's off base. Municipal "kick 'em out!" laws pass because local leaders pander to the lower sentiments of their voters, and their voters are wrong.
Kerry Howley on immigrant restrictions in lily-white areas right here.
whit | September 26, 2007, 12:17pm | #
"Declaring immigrants "illegal" IS shunning them."
im not declaring them that.
the US Code declares them that. our country, like every country in the world (are there any exceptions) prohibits people from crossing their borders and living in their country without permission
try studying up a little before you prattle
"You only want to shun "illegal" immigrants? Gee, that's great. Fred Phelps only wants to shun "illegal" homosexuals. That's because he wants homosexuals to be denied legal sanction!"
lol. yup. that's a perfect analogy. gawd, how typical. you sound like some ninny on democraticunderground.
there is no such thing as "illegal homosexuals" because our country (correctly) recognizes that who you schtup is your business (unless you do it to a 12 yr old, or your sister or brother, but i digress)
our country, like ALL OTHER COUNTRIES recognizes that illegally crossing the border is... a crime. sorry, if that's tautological you get the point.
if you are going to be so moronic as to compare illegal border crossing to sexual preference, then you'd be better off hanging with idiots. doors to the left.
and again, IM NOT DECLARING THEM ILLEGAL
the US Code does that. if you want it changed, and you believe (absurdly) that there should be no laws respecting our borders and sovereignty, then go lobby for that.
VikingMoose | September 26, 2007, 12:52pm | #
It was really cool, that old neighborhood.
Lincoln and Western Avenues, Chicago. "Lincoln Square" neighborhood.
It was once a primarily German enclave. A little to the northeast was Andersonville, a Swedish neighborhood.
In both neighborhoods, there are shops with food, etc. from each, respective nation.
You can still hear German - albeit from older residents - in Lincoln Square.
Moving a little north, you see different enclaves of upwardly-mobile people from all over. Sure, there are vestiges of their cultures - signs in different languages, different foods, different types of people walking around. Amazing.
It's a gateway. After a generation or two, you can't tell if they're "American", because they are. Just like us, 100 years ago.
And they're just newer versions of Lincoln Square and Andersonville.
This bullshit about "hurting" our culture really angers me, because to me, it says that you don't have belief in the strength and beauty of US culture. You feel it's a house of cards. It's not. No matter how much you wish it were, so you can hide in your ignorance.
The US culture is powerful, robust, and enduring.
When do you celebrate Christmas? 24th at night or 25th? Oh. You're Jewish, so you don't celebrate. Cool. You're Muslim - yeah, I'd love to come over and celebrate breaking the Ramadam fast.
It must be really sad for you to be so frightened and so weak. You see, if you actually learned a little about your own culture, your own heritage, and how that culture's presence in the interwoven fabric of the US contributes to how amazing this cultural experiment is - A SUCCESS!
So, I'm gonna stop teasing you. I think I pity you (well, besides having a heapin, honkin' pile of contempt for your deliberate ignorance).
You live in the greatest country ever, and the amazing diversity contributes greatly to that fact.
Tis a pity. Tis a shame. Tis contemptible that you're so frightened about the world and insecure about yourself that you can't comprehend that.
saludos afectuosos,
Viking Moose
whit | September 26, 2007, 12:53pm | #
"Quoting US Code as if it is some sort of God-given revealed truth won't go too far here. If you haven't noticed most here think the US Code is full of shit."
so what? it's still fact. if i declare a person an illegal alien, it's because they committed a crime. i happen to believe that law is just. you may not. but it's stupid to say what the OP said, which is that i was just declaring them "illegal".
IM NOT
the law does.
disagree or agree. i happen to agree. but don't try to pretend this is a matter of people making this stuff up
"Uhhh... that's kinda the idea (to one degree or another). Of course, there are idiots that call that sort of lobbying "treason". The people who think this way are welcome to their opinion, but I hope they won't be upset if most of us think they are either passively ignorant or actively evil."
yes. they Are idiots who misuse words. much like the OP did.
facts are fact. before you decide how to solve a problem, you have to recognize the problem
the problem is not that laura ingraham (and I ) are "declaring" who is and isn't an illegal alien
because the law already does that.
i guess every nation in the world is passively ignorant and evil in that they ALL (like i said, im not aware of exceptions but there may be one) criminalize illegal border crossings AND living in a country w/o permissio
every nation on earth
so, this is a global problem, apparently?
all these nations with borders just need to dissolve them, and we can all live in one amorphous feelgood blob of humanity
kumbayah!
joe | September 26, 2007, 1:09pm | #
I get the point pefectly, whit.
When called on the fact that you are arguing in favor of keepind somethig illegal, the only argument you can muster is "But it's illegal."
You bring up "crossing their borders without permission." I am arguing for given them permission, and you are arguing against giving them permission.
I realize they need legal sanction to come here legally - that's why I'm arguing for given them legal sanction, so that they'll be legal.
You don't ever need to worry that I haven't followed your fourth-grade-level reasoning.
"Illegal is illegal and it's illegal because it's against the law" isn't something somebody can misunderstand. Thanks. But you can stop preening and patting yourself on the back for your supposedly unique comprehension of that idiotic tautology. One doesn't need to "study up" on that, twit.
there is no such thing as "illegal homosexuals" because our country (correctly) recognizes that who you schtup is your business (unless you do it to a 12 yr old, or your sister or brother, but i digress)
Now here is where I get to tell you to study up before you prattle, twit. "Who you shtupp" was a matter of criminal law in every state in the nation up until a few decades ago, twit. Just as you want immigration to be illegal, so does Fred Phelps want us to return to that system.
if you want it changed, and you believe (absurdly) that there should be no laws respecting our borders and sovereignty, then go lobby for that.
See if you can follow this next part, twit: I want those laws to be changed, AND YET I do believe there should be laws respecting our borders and sovereignty. I want it to be a crime to cross our borders without permission.
How do I reconcile these statements? Very easily, twit; by wanting permission to be routinely granted for people to cross our borders. By allowing just about everyone to be given the permission that separates legal from illegal immigration.
A country whose border guards check peole's documents and stamp them before saying "Come on in" has just as much sovereignty and control of its borders as a country whose border guards point rifles at people who come to the gates, twit.
If you weren't a twit, you'd realize that THAT is the difference between our positions. But, of course, you obviously are.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 26, 2007, 1:25pm | #
I have to agree with Episarch here on the twit thing. In fact, whit has struggled hard to find a middle ground between me and the joe's, if joe is going to call anyone a twit it should be me!
I've often been distressed at how quick these threads fall into polarization, and I'm very guilty of it. Can it be defused?
Let me say this about immigration.
Immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, etc. are human beings, with the same moral worth as "Americans." To deny them a chance to live the decent life I live is indeed terrible.
Those who are opposed to immigration, like myself, are not all xenophobic racists. If you knew me you would know that I make an effort to read the great works of other cultures (Koran, the Vegas, the Analects). I think they contribute mightily to world culture. I would like nothing more than to see the citizens of, say, Mexico get a better shake. I followed the Mexican election closely, and I rooted for the guy who got beat because I thought he would better represent the common man in Mexico.
I honestly believe that there is something like an asthetic value in cultures, that they are worth preserving, and so I believe in making all people's freedom more expansive but in preserving the various cultures in the world. If that makes me a nativist or racist in your eyes, I don't know what to say. I truly believe that too much immigration threatens this value, though believe me I see the other side of the argument.
I wonder if we can come to a point where we see that we differ, but everyone is championing a noble value?
whit | September 26, 2007, 1:30pm | #
"While it is true that all change has both upsides and downsides, the idea that this particular wave of immigration will degrade our culture is unsupportable. "
one does not have to believe that ignoring illegal immigration will degrade our culture (setting aside the issue that it's always difficult to talk about *a* culture, in a land as thankfully diverse as ours), in order to be against it.
the underlying premise is that those born here (automatic citizenship) don't need to "prove themselves" to become citizens.
otoh, those that want to come and live here do.
iow, it's a higher standard, a burden, on the applicant. the burden is not on us to say why person(s) X should not be allowed to come here. the burden is on the immigrant to demonstrate why he would be a benefit to our nation.
i think that's the fundamental disconnect.
citizenship, heck even presence within the united states, is not a privilege for those born here. however, it is a privilege for those wanting to move here.
that's the same fundamental understanding in every nation i am aware of. the burden is on the applicant to say why he should be granted the awesome privilege of becoming a citizen
this strengthens our nation, and not just because of the old saw that one wouldn't want to be a member of a group that doesn't place any effort in choosing who does and doesn't get to belong.
clearly, we offer immense opportunities. that's why people want to come here. we don't suck, or at least we suck less than those places that people come from.
so again (for the more dense types like joe), it's a burden of proof issue. the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why he would IMPROVE our nation, not on us to exclude those who we perceive might not
whit | September 26, 2007, 2:00pm | #
"Immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, etc. are human beings, with the same moral worth as "Americans." To deny them a chance to live the decent life I live is indeed terrible."
i totally agree.
"I fail to see how one can hold this view yet deny these individuals the simple allowance of legal residence."
that... is why you fail.
"People worried about damage to American culture are concerned about a questionable second-order effect. Americans who are denied the ability to hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with foreigners are suffering a first-order effect. But prospective immigrants who are forbidden the right to live in the US are suffering a zeroth-order effect."
that may be true FOR THOSE who are worried about 'damage to american culture'. i'm not
that's pretty much tangential to the issue, for me.
"A moral view of immigration would of course lead one to find that the place one was born should be as irrelevant to the right to reside in the US as the color one was born."
wow. talk about begging the question.
yet again, borrowing from the bigoted liberal playbook. no libertarian should do this. so, your view is the "moral view"? how touching. that's a sophomoric debating tactic. it means anybody who disagrees with you is immoral. recognize the logical fallacy?
" But even anti-immigrant types should realize that the first-order right of their neighbors to associate with immigrants should trump their second-order worries about culture in any moral calculus."
since when do libertarians employ a "moral calculus" in matters of policy, govt. authority etc. what is moral from a humanistic feel-good standpoint is not necessarily optimal policy, nor is it necessarily just
many (leftist) would argue that capitalism is immoral, and a host of other "problems" that can be "fixed" by a progressive social justice agenda. gag me
the issue you are ignoring (among many) is TO WHOM does the govt. (which in the US is OF THE PEOPLE) owe allegiance to? the answer (imo) is to its citizens. while it certainly would be a great good TO everybody who wanted to come here, to let them in, that doesn't mean it would be good policy
it would also be good for all the poor starving people in the world, for the govt. to take 1/2 of everybody in the US's income and give it to the rest of the 3rd world.
it does not necessarily follow that this would be good policy, or "just" and "moral" , although by your "logic" it would seem to be.
the first purpose of ANY govt. is to represent the interest of its citizens NOT to do the best and most moral stuff for citizens of other nations. not because we don't want to, but because that's bad policy.
whit | September 26, 2007, 5:43pm | #
"might want to check that homes. a lot of people like my ancestors showed up in the depression, got hooked into work programs, bread lines, etc., and then joined the armed forces and got 'free' college educations on the GI bill... and their children (cough) ended up as Americano as Hot Dogs and Cheetoos. Next question?"
you might want to study history first. immigration WAS regulated and limited during the depression. i was referring to the 1700's, not the 1900's
so, your premise (and conclusion) are thus bogus. in the early days of our country we did not have rampant social welfare programs. but we did have basically wide open immigration
however, during the depression, there was significant regulation on immigration
here's a hint. do the research, THEN form an opinion, k?
simply incredible ignorance.
"The outbreak of World War I reduced immigration from Europe, but mass immigration resumed upon the war's conclusion, and Congress responded with a new immigration policy: the national-origins quota system, passed in 1921 and revised in 1924. Immigration was limited by assigning each nationality a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. Also in 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol within the Immigration Service.
There was very little immigration over the next 20 years, with net immigration actually dropping below zero for several years during the Depression. Immigration remained relatively low during the 20 years following World War II, because the 1920s national-origins system remained in place after Congress re-codified and combined all previous immigration and naturalization law into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. American agriculture continued to import seasonal labor from Mexico, as they had during the war, under a 1951 formal agreement between the United States and Mexico that made the Bracero Program permanent."
whit | September 26, 2007, 7:34pm | #
me:i am 100% for immigration. i am against ILLEGAL immigration.
you: How can you get this far down the thread and still pull out that tired line? Come on, it is pointless and begging the question. Yes, yes, we are all for legal immigration. The point in question is exactly what should be legal.
i will keep pulling that line as long as people keep conflating immigration, with illegal immigration as has been continuously done in this thread.
that is intellectually dishonest.
me: im not against modifying quotas and policies in regards to how many immigrants we let in based on perceived needs of labor pool, etc.
you: Whose "perceived needs"? Do you have to worry about anyone's perceived needs of the labor pool before you are allowed to look for work here?
anybody is allowed to look for work here. you need to apply for work visa. people are not (and should not) allowed to work here merely because they broke our laws by crossing the border illegally.
that's what sovereignty is. it means we have the right to LIMIT who comes here, who stays here, and who works here.
" Why should we accord you such a privilege? Perhaps it isn't a privilege at all, but a fundamental right"
if it is a fundamental right to come to america and be american, then you live in a strange world. every other nation recognizes that it is within the authority of a nation to determine who has the PRIVILEGE of immigrating into the country.
" that you just conveniently want to take advantage of while denying the same to others?"
im not exactly sure what your point is. are you saying that anybody has the right to enter america, work here, stay here, and that we should have no say in that?
whit | September 26, 2007, 7:45pm | #
me: what i am against (and should be clear) is the idea that merely because somebody is (presumably) not a threat, that they should automatically get in
you: And what qualifications do you have for being allowed to stay here?
i get really tired of emotion laden arguments and people who try to turn discussion of policy into personal attacks. it's not about ME or you. it's about policy. can you discuss policy without bringing me or you specificanly into the equation? that's the adult way to do it.
" Please tell me it isn't something so pathetically trivial as the fact that you had the good fortune to be born here and some other poor schmuck didn't."
actually, that is how it works. sorry.
that's also how it works in every other nation i am aware of. because it makes sense. people who are born here are granted citizenship. others, who are not, have to APPLY for it.
"Such an accident of birth cannot carry any more moral weight"
it has nothing to do with "moral weight" because this is not an emotional argument, despite your wanting it to devolve into that. it would suck to be born in bangladesh and poor vs. the US and rich. but just because other people were born into bad circumstances doesn't mean OUR nation should be saddled with an obligation to grant somebody citizenship.
that is a profoundly unlibertarian viewpoint.
it would suck to be born poor and in a third wolrd country. given those circ's i would expect many people to want to come to america. it does not follow that these people thus have a right to demand and be granted citizenship.
" in deciding who I can associate with than an equally arbitrary accident of birth such as skin color, can it?"
you can associate with whomever you want. that's completely tangential to who is and isn't a US citizen.
if you don't accept that a sovereign nation should have the authority to grant (or deny) citizenship to people who were born outside its borders, then there is really not much to discuss. another libertarian concept you may not understand. life is not cosmically fair. some people are born unlucky. others are born lucky.
it doesn't give those who are born unlucky the right to demand "stuff" from others, such as citizenship of a better nation.
either we accept EVERYBODY or we accept that we have to have criteria for admission to this country.
that is profoundly unfair, in the cosmic justice sense.
however, as a matter of policy, no govt. can be concerned with that sort of cosmic justice. you are free as an individual to give to charity, to adopt, etc. govt. is not obliged to help every single person in the world who knocks on our nation's door. that would not be practically possible, nor would it be good policy. that SUX for those unlucky enough to be born into bad circumstances.
Brian Courts | September 26, 2007, 8:15pm | #
i will keep pulling that line as long as people keep conflating immigration, with illegal immigration as has been continuously done in this thread.
that is intellectually dishonest.
No, it is irrelevant to the discussion, not dishonest. As I said, the question at hand is exactly
what should and should not be legal. You're saying essentially that whatever we decide should be legal ought to be legal.
people are not (and should not) allowed to work here merely because they broke our laws by crossing the border illegally.
They shouldn't have to break any laws to cross the border.
if it is a fundamental right to come to america and be american,
Yes. More generally, the fundamental rights are freedom of movement and association.
then you live in a strange world.
Indeed.
every other nation recognizes that it is within the authority of a nation to determine who has the PRIVILEGE of immigrating into the country.
True, but rather irrelevant to determining whether something is right or wrong. Every other country doubtless does many things that are wrong and has done so throughout human history. "Hey everybody else is doing it" is hardly a moral compass I would want to navigate by.
are you saying that anybody has the right to enter america, work here, stay here[?]
Yes. I'm saying what I said above, everybody has a right to travel freely and associate with whomever they wish. That so many impediments are put up by this and other countries doesn't change that right.
and that we should have no say in that?
First, who is this "we" that you speak of? You have a say over who enters your property and you ought to be able to exclude anyone you wish for any reason you wish. But you don't have the right to determine who I may invite onto my property.
Further, if you think you do have that right then what makes you so special as to be above being kicked out of here yourself? Why do you get to stay? Not from a legal point of view - of course we all know the laws and Constitution. I'm talking from a moral point of view. Assume there was no Constitution - could say, a group of your neighbors get together and simply vote to kick you out of the neighborhood, the city, state or country? How many would it require to be considered "we" and before "we" would be able to dictate to you how long, and under what conditions "we" would grant you the privilege of staying and working around us? Not on our property, mind you, but simply a group of people deciding when we'd had enough and it was time for you to move somewhere else.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
